1) I still don't believe that "gender" (not biological sex) is a logical dividing line for the usage of words such as male/female or man/woman, and for most distinctions we draw in society. As I pointed out earlier, this usage of "gender" really means nothing more than "gender
roles"
, which are fluid between societies, and which change over time. Moreover, there are a lot of people who argue that gender roles should not exist at all, and work for the day when it is just as "male" to wear a skirt and makeup as it is "female". And others argue that there are far more than just two genders anyway, which means using the binary terms male/female to describe "gender" simply doesn't work.
2) Those arguing for greater transgender rights are often inconsistent/contrary in terms of how the terms male/female and man/woman are used. The most common definition pushed by transgender activists is that self-identification
alone by a person is sufficient to determine "gender" to the outside world.
But even most such advocates acknowledge that re-definition doesn't work for questions such as athletic competitions, where everyone admits that self-identification alone cannot be the rule. Very few people will seriously argue that a biological man who self-identifies as a "woman" can compete as a "woman" in sporting events. We all seem to agree on that even here.
So if we say "women's tennis", what exactly does "women" mean in that context? Does it include someone who is a woman simply because they self-identify as one? Because that's the definition some transgender activists say we all should use in ordinary language. Or does it really mean "biological woman?" Or at
least "born male but through chemicals and other stuff is as biologically female as possible."
The point is, the meaning of words should be consistent, and not have completely contradictory meanings based on different situations. That's simply confusing as hell. And it was the point I was making to
@David in the other thread about dating a "woman" with a dick, balls, and a five o'clock shadow. If someone is interested in finding a boyfriend/girlfriend/mate/spouse, how that prospective mate
self-identifies is pretty close to irrelevant compared to how they appear, and their biological appendages.
tl;dr Biological realities are sufficiently important across a very wide range of human interactions that they should be the primary means by which we identify who is male, versus who is female.
