diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

This!

To clarify his misrepresentations, "misgendering" and "deadnaming" are not the "bar for love". Being kind, not being arrogant, not acting disgracefully, not provoking, etc are the "bar for love". As I said earlier, if someone doesn't want to use my pronouns, they can find alternatives. Dialogue can continue if so. For example, if you don't want to say "she said this...", you can say "Pacifist said this...". But to purposely misgender reveals a lot, one of which is a lack of love. It is unkind. It is intentionally trying to provoke.

I think most of us here are college educated. I think most of us here are familiar enough with the English language that they can find a workaround that doesn't violate their conscience and is also respectful to the other person. Unfortunately, some of us have no real desire for respectful dialogue. They want to argue. They want to insult. They want to provoke. It's his M.O. with me.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

How does one self-impose such a thing? How does one self-impose the idea that you should call a circle a circle? And if one calls all circles circles instead of one a triangle the idea that it would be unloving is nonsensical.

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

PacifistAg said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

This!

To clarify his misrepresentations, "misgendering" and "deadnaming" are not the "bar for love". Being kind, not being arrogant, not acting disgracefully, not provoking, etc are the "bar for love". As I said earlier, if someone doesn't want to use my pronouns, they can find alternatives. Dialogue can continue if so. For example, if you don't want to say "she said this...", you can say "Pacifist said this...". But to purposely misgender reveals a lot, one of which is a lack of love. It is unkind. It is intentionally trying to provoke.

I think most of us here are college educated. I think most of us here are familiar enough with the English language that they can find a workaround that doesn't violate their conscience and is also respectful to the other person. Unfortunately, some of us have no real desire for respectful dialogue. They want to argue. They want to insult. They want to provoke. It's his M.O. with me.

---

Talking about a person who is present in the third person is passive aggressive and not loving. Just like always assuming the worst of them. How many times did Jesus command to forgive? How many miles should you go? Should you the other cheek? Why are those verses forgotten when you engage with people but they must always remember what love is and they are always the ones asking who their neighbor is?

Quote:

---

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

---

Found the problem. I overestimated certain poster's grasp of the English language and what constitutes a pronoun.

But good to see this tired and ignorant "argument" trotted out.

AGC said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

This!

To clarify his misrepresentations, "misgendering" and "deadnaming" are not the "bar for love". Being kind, not being arrogant, not acting disgracefully, not provoking, etc are the "bar for love". As I said earlier, if someone doesn't want to use my pronouns, they can find alternatives. Dialogue can continue if so. For example, if you don't want to say "she said this...", you can say "Pacifist said this...". But to purposely misgender reveals a lot, one of which is a lack of love. It is unkind. It is intentionally trying to provoke.

I think most of us here are college educated. I think most of us here are familiar enough with the English language that they can find a workaround that doesn't violate their conscience and is also respectful to the other person. Unfortunately, some of us have no real desire for respectful dialogue. They want to argue. They want to insult. They want to provoke. It's his M.O. with me.

---

Talking about a person who is present in the third person is passive aggressive and not loving. Just like always assuming the worst of them. How many times did Jesus command to forgive? How many miles should you go? Should you the other cheek? Why are those verses forgotten when you engage with people but they must always remember what love is and they are always the ones asking who their neighbor is?

---

Talk about weaponizing Scripture. I've given you an acceptable alternative. Or you can just continue to be an ass. Your call. Either way, we'll go our own ways. Forgiveness doesn't require I put up with your toxicity.

PacifistAg said:

---

Quote:

---

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

---

Found the problem. I overestimated certain poster's grasp of the English language and what constitutes a pronoun.

But good to see this tired and ignorant "argument" trotted out.

---

Please use my pronoun.

"I overestimated smartest person on the forum's grasp of the English language..."

PacifistAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

This!

To clarify his misrepresentations, "misgendering" and "deadnaming" are not the "bar for love". Being kind, not being arrogant, not acting disgracefully, not provoking, etc are the "bar for love". As I said earlier, if someone doesn't want to use my pronouns, they can find alternatives. Dialogue can continue if so. For example, if you don't want to say "she said this...", you can say "Pacifist said this...". But to purposely misgender reveals a lot, one of which is a lack of love. It is unkind. It is intentionally trying to provoke.

I think most of us here are college educated. I think most of us here are familiar enough with the English language that they can find a workaround that doesn't violate their conscience and is also respectful to the other person. Unfortunately, some of us have no real desire for respectful dialogue. They want to argue. They want to insult. They want to provoke. It's his M.O. with me.

---

Talking about a person who is present in the third person is passive aggressive and not loving. Just like always assuming the worst of them. How many times did Jesus command to forgive? How many miles should you go? Should you the other cheek? Why are those verses forgotten when you engage with people but they must always remember what love is and they are always the ones asking who their neighbor is?

---

Talk about weaponizing Scripture. I've given you an acceptable alternative. Or you can just continue to be an ass. Your call. Either way, we'll go our own ways. Forgiveness doesn't require I put up with your toxicity.

---

How so? You like to quote it to beat people into submission but you forget the rest when you don't get the response you want. Jesus went to the cross to forgive; he didn't bounce because of toxicity.

AGC said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

How does one self-impose such a thing? How does one self-impose the idea that you should call a circle a circle? And if one calls all circles circles instead of one a triangle the idea that it would be unloving is nonsensical.

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

---

If we worked together and your name was Bob, and you preferred to be called Sir and I decided to call you "Allison" or "Ma'am" every time I interacted with you (because I thought you looked more like one of those options), even though you repeatedly asked me to call you Bob, would I be in the wrong?

---

Male and female are reality as are their associated pronouns; they're not social constructions or names. The only way to deadname pacifist on here is to say RetiredAg.

---

Not according to my beliefs.

Would I be wrong?

Christians, if I took a male zygote and replaced the Y chromosome with an X after conception, would the resulting person be male or female in your opinion?

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

How does one self-impose such a thing? How does one self-impose the idea that you should call a circle a circle? And if one calls all circles circles instead of one a triangle the idea that it would be unloving is nonsensical.

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

---

If we worked together and your name was Bob, and you preferred to be called Sir and I decided to call you "Allison" or "Ma'am" every time I interacted with you (because I thought you looked more like one of those options), even though you repeatedly asked me to call you Bob, would I be in the wrong?

---

Male and female are reality as are their associated pronouns; they're not social constructions or names. The only way to deadname pacifist on here is to say RetiredAg.

---

Not according to my beliefs.

Would I be wrong?

---

Your belief doesn't change your biology. You can believe gravity doesn't exist if you want. Do so at your own peril.

AGC said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

How does one self-impose such a thing? How does one self-impose the idea that you should call a circle a circle? And if one calls all circles circles instead of one a triangle the idea that it would be unloving is nonsensical.

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

---

If we worked together and your name was Bob, and you preferred to be called Sir and I decided to call you "Allison" or "Ma'am" every time I interacted with you (because I thought you looked more like one of those options), even though you repeatedly asked me to call you Bob, would I be in the wrong?

---

Male and female are reality as are their associated pronouns; they're not social constructions or names. The only way to deadname pacifist on here is to say RetiredAg.

---

Not according to my beliefs.

Would I be wrong?

---

Your belief doesn't change your biology. You can believe gravity doesn't exist if you want. Do so at your own peril.

---

So your answer is no, I wouldn't be wrong? Also, is your stance that my "beliefs" are wrong? Additionally, it sounds like you are getting "gender" and "sex"confused. You do know they are different, right?

I have no idea. Does the answer to that question change how we should deal with people who are absolutely XX or XY?

The gender/sex distinction reminds me of the accidents/essence distinction in that they both seem contrived to make a particular thing seem more plausible.

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

Gaius Rufus said:

---

AGC said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

You say you agree with the objection but I'm not sure (honestly, no malice). Using misgendering and deadnaming as the bar for love (which I've quoted to preserve) is demanding that people don't call you out on BS (in your illustration it's your wife who determines what is and isn't BS). I mean the bar here is denying pacifists' belief (which pacifist doesn't even identify as belief but reality).

How does one object to such things and address the underlying issue of disordered desires? To not use affirming language means no more engagement, while suicide is threatened as the only alternative to pacifist not living this way (that's the response pacifist has used here several times, that we'd rather see a dead body than a live one). There's not a line to walk. And I think that's intentional and not accidental. There's no space to debate here by design.

---

i'd say that you have participated in creating no space to debate as well because you've connected deadnaming to "demanding that people don't call you out on your BS". You are self-imposing a requirement that you must use the biological pronouns and other names. I don't see this connection. I think we can absolutely disagree with someone's choice and yet honor their humanity (and their desire for love) by using a name/pronoun they choose.

For the record, I don't agree with the suicide comment either.

---

How does one self-impose such a thing? How does one self-impose the idea that you should call a circle a circle? And if one calls all circles circles instead of one a triangle the idea that it would be unloving is nonsensical.

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

---

If we worked together and your name was Bob, and you preferred to be called Sir and I decided to call you "Allison" or "Ma'am" every time I interacted with you (because I thought you looked more like one of those options), even though you repeatedly asked me to call you Bob, would I be in the wrong?

---

Male and female are reality as are their associated pronouns; they're not social constructions or names. The only way to deadname pacifist on here is to say RetiredAg.

---

Not according to my beliefs.

Would I be wrong?

---

Your belief doesn't change your biology. You can believe gravity doesn't exist if you want. Do so at your own peril.

---

So your answer is no, I wouldn't be wrong? Also, is your stance that my "beliefs" are wrong? Additionally, it sounds like you are getting "gender" and "sex"confused. You do know they are different, right?

---

So gender is biology now?

We've had this discussion on here before. It's something that I have a lot of confusion about, because people frequently conflate the two.

If they're not the same thing, why would a transgender person need physical reassignment surgery?

It's just an interesting hypothetical. I'm wondering if you think the soul has a sex. I assume you think souls are injected at conception, so this seems like a good hypothetical.

Where did I say anything about biology? Names and titles are social constructs related to gender. If I believed you better filled the role of a female, rather than a male, am I wrong to refer to you as such even though you believe you fill the gender role of a male?

Dilettante said:

---

The gender/sex distinction reminds me of the accidents/essence distinction in that they both seem contrived to make a particular thing seem more plausible.

---

I had the same thought today.

Male and female aren't genders, they are sexes.

Zobel said:

---

We've had this discussion on here before. It's something that I have a lot of confusion about, because people frequently conflate the two.

If they're not the same thing, why would a transgender person need physical reassignment surgery?

---

To realign their physical appearance to what is socially acceptable for the gender they believe to be.

We all choose to identify with the gender we believe we are through the clothes we were, how we act in society, and the we interact with others.

Zobel said:

---

Male and female aren't genders, they are sexes.

---

Actually, they can be both. Unless you are saying their aren't specific gender roles aligned with males and females.

Is that what you are saying?

Edit- For example, assuming you are a male, do you wear dresses, make-up, and heels when you go out? If not, why not?

I don't think you can split soul from body like that. Human beings are both. Human beings have a soul, and they also have physical properties like sex.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Dilettante said:

---

The gender/sex distinction reminds me of the accidents/essence distinction in that they both seem contrived to make a particular thing seem more plausible.

---

I had the same thought today.

---

Catholics should be trans advocates, since they're already used to changing wine's pronouns.

Quote:

---

How does one self-impose such a thing? How does one self-impose the idea that you should call a circle a circle? And if one calls all circles circles instead of one a triangle the idea that it would be unloving is nonsensical.

---

It's not always necessary to call a circle a circle. If there's 1 shape on the board, someone can talk about "the shape on the board". it's not critical to reference it as a circle. if there are 20 red shapes of differing types and 1 blue circle, you can reference the blue shape. Again, it's not important that you call it the circle. You are making it a requirement to name it a circle at all times.

My point is simply that, absent any critical need, its a nice thing to call people what they want to be called and many would consider that loving. I know someone wants to scream about the time of critical need...say hospital situation. I'm sure Pacifist would have no problem telling them "I'm MtF" like asking about blood type.

The crazy part is that you've probably run into several trans people and called them by their transitioned pronouns because you didn't know they were trans... This is all most want.

Quote:

---

If I said my pronoun was 'smartest person on the forum' would you really simply call me that all the time? If so that's how I now identify.

---

I don't know why you feel the need to lump the fringe in with the rank and file. Most just want to be "he" or "she". The "xims and xers" of the world know it will be more difficult for even well meaning people to remember and adhere to.

Quote:

---

To realign their physical appearance to what is socially acceptable for the gender they believe to be.

We all choose to identify with the gender we believe we are through the clothes we were, how we act in society, and the we interact with others.

Actually, they can be both. Unless you are saying their aren't specific gender roles aligned with males and females.

Is that what you are saying?

---

How does the above relate to the below?

Quote:

---

So your answer is no, I wouldn't be wrong? Also, is your stance that my "beliefs" are wrong? Additionally, it sounds like you are getting "gender" and "sex"confused. You do know they are different, right?

---

They're the same but they're different, except when society says they're the same?


Why do you need to have a ***** to wear socially masculine clothes, act in a masculine fashion, and interact with others in a masculine way? Unless you also wish to have sex in a masculine way. Then you are not talking about gender any more, because male to female sex is physiological, not a social construct.

In the example I gave, the individual identifies as a male and uses a male name. I have decided that I believe he fills a female role in society and should be addressed as such. This, I call her Allison.

This is no different than telling a trans person they must be called what you believe best suits them based on your beliefs.

Names are a social construct. That's why many females today have names that used to be masculine, or used to be unsexed last names, or how we have gender ambiguous names.

This doesn't explain why a transgender person needs sex reassignment surgery. That's not about gender any more.

Quote:

---

Why do you need to have a ***** to wear socially masculine clothes, act in a masculine fashion, and interact with others in a masculine way? Unless you also wish to have sex in a masculine way. Then you are not talking about gender any more, because male to female sex is physiological, not a social construct.

---

You don't have to have a specific sexual organ to do any of the things you stated. Society has associated the male gender with wearing masculine clothes, etc.

Some men wear dresses, do you believe that makes them "less masculine/less male"?

Zobel said:

---

Names are a social construct. That's why many females today have names that used to be masculine, or used to be unsexed last names, or how we have gender ambiguous names.

This doesn't explain why a transgender person needs sex reassignment surgery. That's not about gender any more.

---

Again, gender is a social construct. Trans people want to align their sex with the gender they believe they are.

I'm really confused. The point I made is that the sex - gender distinction is one that is poorly maintained by people when discussing people who have gender dysphoria. You seem to agree with me that by your definition of gender (clothing, acting, interacting) there is no need to involve sex organs. So sex reassignment surgery shouldn't be required by a change in gender, because gender is a social construct. Sex is not.

Clothing is a social construct, so wearing a dress is a feature of gender. Having a ***** is not a social construct.

Quote:

---

Again, gender is a social construct. Trans people want to align their sex with the gender they believe they are.

---

That doesn't make any sense. They can be whatever gender they like, without changing their sex.

Beer Baron said:

---

Quote:

---

In the example I gave, the individual identifies as a male and uses a male name. I have decided that I believe he fills a female role in society and should be addressed as such. This, I call her Allison.

---

Are you Dr. Cox from Scrubs?

---

Sadly no. His wit outshines mine by a country mile. Solid reference though.

Zobel said:

---

I'm really confused. The point I made is that the sex - gender distinction is one that is poorly maintained by people when discussing people who have gender dysphoria. You seem to agree with me that by your definition of gender (clothing, acting, interacting) there is no need to involve sex organs. So sex reassignment surgery shouldn't be required by a change in gender, because gender is a social construct. Sex is not.

Clothing is a social construct, so wearing a dress is a feature of gender. Having a ***** is not a social construct.

Quote:

---

Again, gender is a social construct. Trans people want to align their sex with the gender they believe they are.

---

That doesn't make any sense. They can be whatever gender they like, without changing their sex.

---

I don't understand why you are confused. Some individuals want their sex to match the gender they believe they are.