- Joined
- Nov 12, 2009
- Messages
- 1,255
- Reaction score
- 343
- Location
- Jordan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I'm sorry you're confused. I seem to be incapable of alleviating your confusion. I don't think I can make it any simpler than I have.
Yea sure :roll:
To summarize, you claim that gender is binary but also that a "gender spectrum" which means , by definition, that there are more than two genders, You claimed that if you have the opposite gender characteristics then you are the opposite gender (trans) and then claimed that gender characteristics are not related/do not determine your gender. You maintain that your view is based on science and biology but when your criteria is clearly shown to give rise to a third option, you ignore and actively avoid explaining this contradiction. Not only does your own criteria prove the existence of people who are not male or female, you also fail to explain the logic behind the claim that two sexes can only giver rise to two genders, you fail to explain why if one sex can give rise to a person with the 'biological gender characteristics' of the opposite correlated gender, that it cannot give rise to somebody who is not completely the opposite gender rather somewhere in the middle.
In short your entire view is not scientific, it is not logical, it is entirely political, stereotypically regressive and right wing. I know that because I know scientific proof simply does not exist; it is too early to tell. Whereas we now have many studies that prove a neurological basis for binary transgenderism, there is limited literature on non binary transgenderism. Your view cannot be based on science.
I also think that you are intentionally vague, and that your contradictory changing positions throughout the thread are evidence to you not having a clear understanding of your own positions. It seems you are making it up as you go.