Most Teens aren't heterosexual and don't believe in gender study shows.

And yet as many as 1.7% of people are intersex (around the same as the incidence of red hair)....how many have you spotted? how many do you know? how many would you be unable to recognise based on external appearance without a chromosome or DNA test?

If sex is defined by appearance of genitalia then that means surgery and hormones can change sex.
If sex is defined by chromosomes then you don't know you sex for certain without testing and a lot of people will not fit into the binary.

And yet as many as 1.7% of people are intersex (around the same as the incidence of red hair)....how many have you spotted? how many do you know? how many would you be unable to recognise based on external appearance without a chromosome or DNA test?

If sex is defined by appearance of genitalia then that means surgery and hormones can change sex.
If sex is defined by chromosomes then you don't know you sex for certain without testing and a lot of people will not fit into the binary.

So you have just said thst gender exists...

Young people are stupid.

Less then 2% of the population is not enough to merit a disregarding of what is as simple, (98% of the time) factual and objective as appearance.

Disregarding intersex people when talking about sex binaries is like someone arguing that 98% of people have brown, blonde or black hair so anyone with red hair should be described as blonde.

Read previous post about my use of the word 'exists.'

You remind me of a bitter, old grandpa that doesn't like the fact that society is moving forward with youngsters as a increasingly important backbone. No offence.
(Actually, no, take offence, someone that disregards a whole generation within a single sentence needs to get their head out of their own butt and hear the music.)

No.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You think I'm going to take offence to that?

Also it is face the music.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I never said that intersex people have to be pushed into either sex category: male or female. That is not my point. Also how the heck did you come to that conclusion? That analogy is completely irrelevant, borderline nonsensical. We are debating a science that is based upon statistics and facts, not half assed assumptions and extrapolations.

You are arguing that we cannot base sex on what are called SEX CHROMOSOMES (…sex chromosomes…) and their effects on appearance. You are also arguing that for the >2% of people, a common relationship and established argument must be entirely disregarded.
In relation to that (what I feel is a stupid) analogy, 'because 2% of people are blonde, we cannot have the categories brown, blonde and black.'
'Because one percent of people are green, blue people and yellow people cannot be categorised just because of their colour'

The point I believe the original person you responded to was making (and that I'm trying to explain) is that there is a growing body of evidence that sex is not a binary but is in fact far more complex. Same as gender and same as sexual orientation. That doesn't mean the categories male and female don't exist - just that they're not the entirety of the categories available.

You can base sex on sex chromosomes - but that still ignores intersex people (so still not a binary) and is built on the assumption that chromosomes reflect appearance (which is a false assumption for both intersex and trans people).

If you base sex on the appearance of genitals then that still doesn't fit into a binary model.

And the real point is that stating that "sex" is not constructed is complete nonsense....we're having a discussion about how you define sex because there is no standard definition that is agreed on by everyone. If society/biologists are defining a categorisation then it's constructed.

Your choice mate, also your choice to be an insular git - seems you've already made that decision though.
You get the gist, semantics, semantics…

Lol you don't get it do you? I'm not even anti-gay, but countries like China and India will close the gap eventually, and when they do traditional virtues of masculinity will be necessary to defend this country.

I 100% agree with you when you say gender and sexual orientation are complex. But for sex, I think the categories are pretty clear cut for the majority of people. You can define sex, and it has been agreed on by scientists (who also take into account variation). But that doesn't mean sex is constructed. Isn't it that we are constructing a category for sex, and not the other way around?

Omg you are so insane

Do you not think that science and scientists are influenced by their cultures?

I don't think biologists agree on a single definition of sex (for example http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/17/5617766/scientists-discover-insect-with-female-penis is worth a read - "Contrary to popular belief, the presence or absence of certain sex organs isn't the determining factor when deciding which animal of a species is female and which is male. In fact, biologists don't use sex chromosomes either. They actually rely on the size of an animal's gametes — sperm in males and oocytes in females." - biologists generally are very specific - if they're talking about chromosomal sex they'll specify that and don't use the term sex without further definition). And even where they do agree those definitions don't match the definitions used by society to assign sex or the definitions used by medical staff/doctors.

Variation probably occurs due to cultural influence, yes, but that is why findings are published in global journals - to negate anything found to be cultural.
I tried looking for journal reports on the matter but all I could find were sex ed websites, not really credible, but most sources I found directly linked sex to the sex chromosomes - XY, XX, hormones and gonads.