Gender is socially constructed and because of this gender roles and perception of gender are different in every society and can even change in a society over time. Like how we see certain things, like colors (in America), as gender specific when in reality they're gender neutral. Pink is feminine and blue is masculine in modern America, though that was not always the case and even now that view is changing again.

Gender is based off of our perception of biological sex in regards to femininity/masculinity and what it means to be fem/masc (the roles, behavior, etc.) in the society in which one lives in. Gender expression is the outward manifestation of one's self and can align with the societal norm and expectations of sex and gender (cisgender individuals) or it doesn't align (transgender, agender, gender fluid individuals, etc.).

I left out some details but that's the gist of it. Whatever gender someone identifies as and how they express it should be respected.

It's another word for biological sex.

I'm sorry if this offends some people here, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Science exists for a reason and you need to respect biology. I'm sorry but chromosomes are real. The biological sex of a human is real. Otherwise it's just theory, science denial, and made up bs.

Women = xx chromosomes, men = xy chromisomes. Period. 

And this is absolutely no disrespect for trans people. I love trans people and don't discredit them at all, I know there's a legitimate psychological trait that makes them trans, and I also realize they go through a lot of shit and I totally respect that.

But straight up men or women who simply identify as the other gender with zero surgery, hormones, etc.. Why are we giving credence to this? If I identify as an alien, am I an alien? What's so wrong about simply stating you're a man with feminine qualities, or a woman with masculine qualities? At what point does this all break down and just become shit we made up? And if we're going to start splitting hairs this much, why have categories at all? Why not just say every single person is a unique gender? To me it's pretty much either all or nothing. And you have to have a foundational basis in these categories otherwise everything just breaks down, blends into eachother, and you have nothing.

I truly apologize if I offended anyone but I swear it comes from a good place and that these are my sincere, honest thoughts on the matter.

So the guys for example that are born with ovaries (in addition to the normal parts), what are they?

Some are saying birth defects, but if we go by science XX and XY,  where do these kinds of people fit in? Are they simple an XX or XY with a defect, or is there some sort of mutation with the chromosomes?

Now this is a thread. I wanted to make one like this for quite a while.

As you have pointed out already there isn't a single thing attributed to each gender that is unique to a certain sex. It's a meaningless categorization and it has long outlived its welcome. I reject the notion of transgender because you cannot transition between something that doesn't exist. People build their stupidly rigidly defined categorizations and then whine about not fitting in them. Well, here's the truth, not fitting in is normal and it's the responsibility of the person to deal with it. I don't care if you want to change your sexuality or your appearance, but don't force me to put any importance on your own conceived arbitrary categorization.

Gender has become something that's akin to a religion, where we have to respect whatever crazy thing people who have subscribed to said religion believe. I treat any person with respect if that respect is reciprocal. I don't care about your appearance or your preferences but when you start forcing me to behave in some way that's uncalled for I'm gonna get pissed and I'm already pretty pissed about this new religion. You're not a woman or a man or gender fluid. You're a genderless blob to me. You're defined by what you do.

The world needs to become genderless and the sooner that happens the better. But looking at the "progress" we made with other religions I'm not holding my breath.

Caitlyn Jenner is not a hero. Jesus is not a hero. They're both humans.

I believe Dr John Money helped coin the term 'Gender Identity' as something different from bioligical sex back in the 1960s. He was so convinced of his theory that he transitioned a little boy (after convincing the parents it was a good idea) from a boy to a girl (David Reimer) because his penis was destroyed by a controversial circumcision technique. The boy refused to conform to his dictated gender identity and attempted to transition back to a man as a teenager. Him and his brother Brian both committed suicide since.

I consider Dr John Money an evil man and the term 'Gender Identity' is part of his legacy. Until that time, gender was used to describe 'feminine' or 'masculine' objects in various European languages.

In short: it's a made up term invented in the last few decades and has (in my estimation) led to more harm than good.  

Guys with ovaries? Is that really a thing? Excuse my naivety but I've legitimately never heard of such a case.. 

I mean you said it yourself. It's a guy. A guy that has ovaries. But ultimately, can said guy give birth? Then I suppose you'd call said guy a woman. Not a guy...

I suppose you'd call them mutations. And I don't mean that in any negative sense. But a mutation is a mutation. 

I don't see how this is a legitimate argument to claim that somehow the man = man and woman = woman argument is invalid.

There IS such a thing as biological sex and I'm legitimately scratching my head as to why some seem to think this basic biological/scientific truth should be invalidated.

Or am I missing something? Am I the crazy one? I guess I just don't get what we're trying to do here. 

I'm certainly not down with tearing people down if they want to identify as a woman or whatever. The problem is when you start to deny science, you start to regress as a society, NOT progress. And you ultimately hurt people and society as a whole rather than help them. An example is that you now have trans and men identifying as women and destroying women in female sports. So women are now basically screwed at winning at their own sports because men can now identify as women. Should that be fair to biological women? 

If we're talking about changing the definition of the word GENDER specifically and separating it from biological sex than I'm open to discussion about that I suppose, but that's a different topic. 

I'm not trying to sound like a smart ass but I'm legitimately confused as to what some are trying to argue here. You have men, and you have women. And you have trans men. And you have trans women. End of story. Or am I missing something..?

If you are going to adhere to the principles of science, then you need to recognize that some women have xy chromosomes, some men have xx chromosomes... And some people can have variants of even those with xxy chromsomes (Klinefelter Syndrome.) or xyy chromsomes.

Which means your binary stance starts to break down at a scientific level.

But you are entirely right, at the end of the day we need to adhere to science, that goes for those who support and go against the idea of more than 2 genders.

Yes. Some men are born with ovaries.
No, that doesn't mean they can give birth.

Some also have a penises in conjunction with the ovaries.

It's an extremely complex topic at any rate... Generally those individuals are called "Intersex" or "Chimera".

If I may ask, am I someone whom this is being directed at? Have I said something here that potentially breaks the forum rules? I mean I've certainly not tried to make this subject any more personal than it is by definition. What am I doing wrong?

PM sent ~ CGI

Okay YOU I feel like I relate to, although I do think I can maybe help a bit with the particular confusion you're having around what "non-binary" identities are about. I've observed that those tend to be temporary identities that some people embrace as functionally a kind of stepping stone until they are ready to fully dissociate from their bodies and identify themselves completely with the opposite sex. Think of the stages this way:

Male --> Non-Binary --> Trans Woman

OR

Female --> Non-Binary --> Trans Man

People don't usually stick with quirky "non-binary" identities for very long, in my observation.

But I relate to feeling a bit distant from the LGBTQIARESTOFTHEALPHABET2++ community that I'm supposed to belong to as a lesbian, which I prefer to shorthand as "the queer community" for aesthetic reasons because it's an accepted term by that community which captures I think the real essence of it also, as well as the reason why I struggle to find a place therein: membership in the scene today is much more defined by whether subscribes ideologically to queer theory than it is by sexual orientation or any other factor. Those who may not agree with all the aspects of queer theory can be excommunicated.

I find it's sometimes neat to talk to older gay, bi, and lesbian people who precede the popularization of queer theory in the 1990s, as they'll sometimes relay views of how sexual orientation works that bear little resemblance to the typical contentions that you hear in the scene now. One such older belief is that everyone is bisexual in reality and that embracing either strict heterosexuality, lesbianism, or strict male homosexuality is a response to pressure or to lived experiences. When I look at studies like this one wherein 60% of women who call themselves "heterosexual" also say that they're attracted to other women, I get the feeling that maybe this older view is more accurate...at least closer to the truth...than the view that says only the 7% who actually say that they're bi or lesbian in fact are. Similarly, people over 60 who identify as trans often have a different view of how that works too.

I'm highlighting the bolded item because I think that represents a unique view that no one else here has articulated yet. I mean you and are in agreement on the rest.

But that (the bolded part) is interesting! So basically you're a subscriber to the Judith Butler type of view that says both gender AND BIOLOGICAL SEX are social constructs if I'm gathering your position correctly?