So I can have a gender identity that is innate in my person and not of my choosing? Even if I deny being non binary, if I don't believe or "experience" it, how does it follow that my not a masculine or feminine essence will compel me to want short hair and to dress androgynously? My sex has to be female for my innate non binariness to make me want to model masculine stereotypes. I wouldn't be validly expressing my innate non binary by modelling even more feminine stereotypical presentation.
I don't have a mythic essence, I have an actual body I'm not denying the reality of. You can only be gender non conforming within your own sex category of male or female. Choosing to model the opposite sex is gender denial, not non conformity.
You are WRONG, behavioral patterns are not "bred in the bone", but adopted by individuals who exist in cultures. They observe and select what they want to model from what is available. Being "trans" is a subjective faith belief that has no history, no central organisation and no basis in science or reality. If you don't accept that the animal Homo Sapiens can change sex then no amount of arguing theories will change that.
Modern political states will fail if they continue on the trajectory of forcing the transsexual belief system on the majority of citizens. Reality and truth are maintained by majority consensus and that is why postmodernist deconstructivism will either fail, or be demolished by other societies who will take over the cultures and territories of the peoples who adopted delusionary concepts that made them go crazy. Sacrificing humans to the gods they believed in didn't make the Aztec civillisation more powerful. If you believe stupid things it will only make you more stupid. What made western civilisation strong and ascendent in modernity was choosing to believe in and act on reality and truth most of the time.
I feel sorry for Helen Dale (a fellow Australian who once used the last name Demidenko, so I am long aware of who she is since 1994) that she got caught up in your trolling.
You might actually try reading and thinking about what I've posted, particularly the quotes of Eva Kurilova, and the links to sexual dimorphism.
There are probably hundreds of behavioral and physiological differences between men and women, and that are not at all unique to either sex -- gynecomastia for example:
That a male has boobs -- as above -- doesn't make him less a male because, by the standard biological definitions, the ONLY thing necessary to qualify as a male is to have functional testicles. If he has his nuts removed then, by those definitions, he's no longer a male but he still has his boobs.
SAME thing with gender and gender identity -- that someone might have some masculine traits and some feminine ones does not mean they can't be male or female or even, by those biological definitions, sexless.
Try thinking that the psychological traits that come in under the heading of "gender" are not at all joined at the hip with the traits that define the sex categories.
As for Dale, hardly a case of "trolling". She makes some good points which I'm happy to quote her on. But she is also a scientific and philosophical illiterate, and too pigheaded to even consider a correction or two.
So I can have a gender identity that is innate in my person and not of my choosing? Even if I deny being non binary, if I don't believe or "experience" it, how does it follow that my not a masculine or feminine essence will compel me to want short hair and to dress androgynously? My sex has to be female for my innate non binariness to make me want to model masculine stereotypes. I wouldn't be validly expressing my innate non binary by modelling even more feminine stereotypical presentation.
I don't have a mythic essence, I have an actual body I'm not denying the reality of. You can only be gender non conforming within your own sex category of male or female. Choosing to model the opposite sex is gender denial, not non conformity.
You are WRONG, behavioral patterns are not "bred in the bone", but adopted by individuals who exist in cultures. They observe and select what they want to model from what is available. Being "trans" is a subjective faith belief that has no history, no central organisation and no basis in science or reality. If you don't accept that the animal Homo Sapiens can change sex then no amount of arguing theories will change that.
Modern political states will fail if they continue on the trajectory of forcing the transsexual belief system on the majority of citizens. Reality and truth are maintained by majority consensus and that is why postmodernist deconstructivism will either fail, or be demolished by other societies who will take over the cultures and territories of the peoples who adopted delusionary concepts that made them go crazy. Sacrificing humans to the gods they believed in didn't make the Aztec civillisation more powerful. If you believe stupid things it will only make you more stupid. What made western civilisation strong and ascendent in modernity was choosing to believe in and act on reality and truth most of the time.
I feel sorry for Helen Dale (a fellow Australian who once used the last name Demidenko, so I am long aware of who she is since 1994) that she got caught up in your trolling.
You might actually try reading and thinking about what I've posted, particularly the quotes of Eva Kurilova, and the links to sexual dimorphism.
There are probably hundreds of behavioral and physiological differences between men and women, and that are not at all unique to either sex -- gynecomastia for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia
That a male has boobs -- as above -- doesn't make him less a male because, by the standard biological definitions, the ONLY thing necessary to qualify as a male is to have functional testicles. If he has his nuts removed then, by those definitions, he's no longer a male but he still has his boobs.
SAME thing with gender and gender identity -- that someone might have some masculine traits and some feminine ones does not mean they can't be male or female or even, by those biological definitions, sexless.
Try thinking that the psychological traits that come in under the heading of "gender" are not at all joined at the hip with the traits that define the sex categories.
As for Dale, hardly a case of "trolling". She makes some good points which I'm happy to quote her on. But she is also a scientific and philosophical illiterate, and too pigheaded to even consider a correction or two.