Do you believe there's only TWO genders?

[yourbabygirl921]

I know this topics is controversial specially these days they said there's 40+ genders 🥴

Yes!

No

[TwinTonyz]

There's a certain degree of rational nuance on this topic which is often missing. I'd like to present my position on this in a way which appeals to both sides, and I don't think it's a stretch for either one to agree with what I'm saying.
That said it seems to be so easy to consider this position common sense and simply founded that this conflict shouldn't exist. On those grounds I think most people on either end of the spectrum just want to keep a fight going for the sake of creating a conflict. If you fall into one of those camps you can just stop reading here.
There are two degrees of identity relevant to this conversation. One is gender, and one is sex. From most people, including the government, sex is the identifier which is important as it has physical trades tide to its definition that accurately defined the person. This is relevant for genitals and bio mass. Accordingly, for the sake of funding based on these physical traits, the relevance of sex starts and ends here.
Gender at the subjective level is completely made-up amd is wholly self-identifying. Anybody may select whatever gender they so well choose. It's such a fickle means of identifying the individual, it really loses all value. Some prominent individuals say there are unlimited genders. Unless you’re comparing people on a slide rule your created role is worthless. One camp likes to entrench this as being the exact same thing as sex, which is not necessarily true as evidenced by their own beliefs. The other side likes to say that sex is inherently gender which is also not necessarily true because one has hooks in biology and the other has hooks in sexual preference which is much more fluid than hard science.
There are exceptions to both halves.
This topic tends to get muddy given that each side is trying to impose a mutually exclusive will onto the other. Some of these cases implicate people’s freedoms, which is inherently wrong. There is a certain danger to the current climate for one side or the other in that there is one definitive victor when looking at social cues and support from politicians. That victor is going way too far in their plans for policy and social change as they continue to crank the pendulum ever higher. It will swing back one day, and who knows what kind of collateral that correction will cause.

[HiveBee]

I dont care. I believe in freedom, liberty. I know these days that's crazy talk.

Let people be what they want to be.

The problem is, that government has to inject itself into everything.

Now, because some people believe in different genders, we have to make government reforms of this or that kind. It could just be extra boxes to tick on the gender section of a form.

Or it could be compelled speech by law.

My problem is that we need to use government to force all people to accept a certain belief, and if they dont, they should suffer some kind of consequence.

That's not liberty in my mind. That is tyranny. People should, in my opinion have the ideals of freedom in their minds.

On one hand, those who hate on trans and non binary gendered people, are being hypocritical. By believing in freedom, one understands and accepts that differing groups with different cultures will appear.

On the other hand, we have those who wish to force people by law to use proper gender pronouns as decided the person.

Again, in a society that values freedom and diversity as I do, such a thing would rarely be a problem.

But that's not the society we live in. Instead, conservatives reject all this non binary stuff because to admit it means their own views are flawed.

Well they are. You have forgotten about freedom of the individual.

Well, whatever. I know I'm the crazy person here.

[JuliaStyles]

The question is why don't you believe it? God made only two genders - Male and Female - Men made more. So you can go with God or go with men. Like going with men has made people less likely to kill each other. Right!

[jspl90]

crusades cough cough lets not say religion is this bountifull source of just good many people do shitty things in the name of religion for some people religion is good but like all things intake with moderation

[Exterminatore]

You know nothing about the Crusades. If I had a dime for every text book and documentary that distorted the real history of the subject.

I’m not Catholic and I know the crusades were fully justified. Go study the matter for yourself and you will find the Byzantine Emperor Alexis Komenos requested help from the Pope, Urban II because the Seljuk Turks were invading and stealing his land... NOT the way left wing liars like to portray the Crusades as barbarian Europeans sweeping down to the Middle East to steal Muslim land. Leftist lie and love to alter history to match their political rhetoric. This subject has been one of the favorites to pervert and they have been teaching their diluted events and reasons behind the Crusades for at least 40 years.

[Exterminatore]

So... it was really the Muslims stealing land from the Christians, and in fact threatening all of Europe with invasion of the Byzantine Empire fell... not the Christians waging a war of aggression to steal the Muslims lands.

[Exterminatore]

Not to beat a horse to death but in fact you can look on YouTube and find a channel called Real Crusades History. The historian had to use the word REAL because the subject is so notably distorted and falsified from the actual history which can be proven from many original source documents from both the Christian and Muslim world.

[blondfrog]

you could have done without the whole religion things. You don't need religion to tell you there are only two genders. Actually as a matter of fact science does a better job of that.

[weysally]

for me there are only two genders, male and female,

[TurboKid]

I don't see this as a matter of belief but a language issue. From my standpoint, the way people sneakily tried to change the definition of "gender" to be independent of "sex" in recent decades while introducing all sorts of new gender identities and pronouns makes the language incredibly ambiguous.

A statement like, "men can get pregnant too," would have been considered absurdly incorrect when I was young even though people would insist that it is a correct statement today, which means we have greatly lost language precision and clarity. Instead of extending the language like, "Transmen can pregnant too," which I consider perfectly fine and accurate, they diluted the practical definition of existing terms like "man" and "woman".

I don't like turning the language upside-down in this sense. I'm fine with extending it but I prefer to reserve terms like "man" for someone with male reproductive organs and "woman" for someone with female reproductive organs.

[TheorionMage]

FUNCTIONALLY 'yes'
Reproduction which IS Nature's "end game"
REQUIRES a viable womb, eggs and the transfer of species DNA Spermazoa.

BUT... there IS so MUCH ancillary psychologically 'warping' societal behaviors involved
that 'trans' has almost become a 'cause celeb' for those who MOSTLY perceive
their 'feminine potential' (and social advantage 'opportunities')
that female impersonators and Asian 'Lady Boys' 'mine'
external fantasy gay dress-up cosplay.
"I'll play with your's... if you play with mine"

[The_Maphio]

THe biological genders are two. The remainder are sexual perversions that, for some reason, have become important outside of one's sexual preferences sphere.
If a stupid fucker likes to dress up as a woman when it's funtime or some other dimwit took the very crossdressing vice a step onward and gets a pair of plastic boobs implanted and wants me to address him like a woman, he's sorrily mistaken. If anything, I'm going to treat him like a mental case who's better not stray close to the women's restrooms.

[ChrisMaster69]

I am happy if people want to identify with what makes them comfortable. I’ve got friends that tick the majority of boxes.

couple caveats,

it does not harm others
they accept that they may be addressed as male or female pronouns, I’m not a mind reader a ‘girl’ with blonde hair and boobs is ma’am or similar, using the word ‘You’ is just impolite.
that they accept people get pissed off when they change their minds.
not to be fanatical as it’s the best way to actually lose supporters..

[Leavesbound]

Just from the standpoint of biology, there are more than just XY and XX combinations. XXX, XXXX, XXY, XXXY, XYY, XYYY are just a few and then there are people who have deformed X and Y chromosomes and a whole slew of various hormonal imbalances. Then there are a whole bunch of psychological manifestations of gender in between the two basic common genders. Also consider that most of what we see as gender is a social construct more than a biological fact. We see the wearing of garments or length of hair or use of cosmetics as defining gender yet none of those things has any affect on whether two people can reproduce together.

[007kingifrit]

there is only xx and xy. everything else is a super rare mutation not worth our consideration in normal conversation

[Leavesbound]

@007kingifrit I don't know your definition off super rare as about one in 25,000 have one of those rare mutations and that comes to about 840 in my state or about 5 in my city so that to me is worth consideration in this particular conversation and it is highly likely you've met such a person and didn't know it.

[007kingifrit]

that's super rare. and if i met them and didn't know it that means our current understanding of 2 sexes is enough to not need any new understanding of them

[Leavesbound]

@007kingifrit Your statement is not founded upon logic. Have you taken any college level biology courses?

[007kingifrit]

saying "my statement is not founded on logic" is not a counter argument... try again

[Leavesbound]

@007kingifrit I didn't make a counter argument because your response didn't constitute a valid argument in the first place.

[007kingifrit]

yes it did. it made perfect sense and was articulte and succinct. very easy to understand. your mental block is the problem

[Anonymous]

"They" also said that the Earth is flat. Don't believe everything "they" say. The vast majority of people either have XX or XY for their 23rd pair. There are a VERY FEW who have XYX, XXX, or some other weird mutation, but that does not account for all the freaks who think they are a girl when they've clearly got balls and a dick.

[Anonymous]

Yes, there are only two. Even the people and organizations that claim there are many will describe the 'other' genders as "somewhere on the spectrum between male and female". When we talk about colors, we don't describe red in relation to black and white because we dont have to. Its red.

The real problem is people are trying to define themselves by their sexuality, which is kinda nonsensical. If you don't want to be judged by your sexuality, don't define yourself by it.

I won't judge you for it, but I will judge you for defining yourself by it because I'll assume there's nothing else about your personality worth knowing.

[Kaneki05]

I know Scientifically there is more than 2 genders so. There is only 2 sex's but only thing i have to say to that is you can be born with both male and female privates so... scientifically it's not as simple as look at what you have down there like some idiots say.
But hey if people want to believe in stuff rather than follow facts let them be idiots.

[Sargentcaptain]

The left changed the definition of 'gender' to mean little more than a fashion sense and personality. It's become a meaningless term that's purposefully dragged into the political debate because of victimhood celebration that the left is always participating in.

[Exterminatore]

Yes, because there are only 2 and that is objectively probable by science. The same science people refer to when they say they don’t believe in God because science can’t prove his existence, but reject when it stands in the way of making people except there’s over 40+ genders. What a bunch of diluted hypocrites.

[_no_one_]

Well lmfao

[Exterminatore]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[SlightlyEccentric]

Alphabet fools have zero comprehension of irony

[Exterminatore]

Fully agree!

[Elliegirl]

I think there’s two. Regardless of how someone identifies, at the end of the day, they’re one or the other.

[Daniela1982]

The Bible says man and woman and that is what nature made and what I believe.

[genericname85]

I know there's only two biological sexes. And there's only two social constructs of gender and every one falls somewhere on the spectrum between those 2 genders. Not every arbitrary point of that spectrum is a new gender. The alphabet sexuality community is just plain wrong about that.

[SureFabe]

biological sex is a spectrum, people can be born with characteristics of both. Some people are born with neither a penis or vagina. Some cultures have more than 2 genders like japan which has a third gender.

[genericname85]

@SureFabe no, it's not. It's male or female. There's rare birth defects that cause a person to have both, neither or a weird mixture of each sex. That is what we call intersex. There's not a third biological sex.

[genericname85]

Saying intersex is a third sex is like saying people that are born with crippled legs are a different race. It's a birth defect. Nothing else.

[crmoore]

Gender is a social construct, so in theory there can be a virtually unlimited amount.

Though to be clear, that doesn't mean they're all equally legitimate. I'm simply being technical, here. The confines of social constructs are virtually, if not actually, unrestricted.

[007kingifrit]

gender is not a social construct

Even monkeys show gender differences the same as humans do……good luck saying that’s a social construct since they existed before society www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

Across all cultures boys and girls draw differently at a young age, boys draw actions and weapons and girls draw faces www.sciencedirect.com/.../S0197455614000045

Men and women literally don’t have the same receptors in their eyes, you don’t think these differences have had a profound impact on our divergent psychology from one another?

Sax, Leonard. 2005. Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. Random House, Inc. USA.

www.psychologytoday.com/.../when-it-comes-color-men-women-arent-seeing-eye-eye

the brains literally emit different chemicals from one another
www.sciencedaily.com/.../190301160901.htm

Women seek work life balance for life satisfaction, they don’t want leadership roles is.muni.cz/.../Hakim_2006.pdf

Men on the other hand value material objects as the source of their happiness far more than women, meaning men are motivated by status and wealth onlinelibrary.wiley.com/.../...1-9004.2010.00320.x

[crmoore]

Yes, you seem to have posted an identical response to another comment of mine where I state gender is a social construct. I responded to this response of yours on that post, as well, while it doesn't seem you have after that.

So I will copy and paste most of my response from that other thread:

It seems as though there is a misunderstanding. You seem to be conflating sex and gender. Which is understandable, since up until only recently have they been considered synonymous.

So yes, males and females are biologically and psychologically different.

I have not stated or implied that the only differences between males and females are social constructs.

The links you've provided seem to regard the differences in sex, which isn't a social construct. While I was regarding gender, which is a social construct.

Are we on the same page, now?

[007kingifrit]

sex and gender are synonyms. anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what science is

[crmoore]

That's not true. We use labels to help us explain concepts, but labels aren't inherently scientific. As of now, some may say the wind and a breeze are synonymous. But one day some people may feel as though the human language can benefit from using a label to regard something very similar to wind, but not exactly the same (or it may simply need a deeper, more sufficient explanation). Then, if they create a distinction between wind and breeze, it isn't unscientific. It's just altering the correlating definition of a word to include something distinct from the other priorly synonymous words.

So whether someone claims the labels sex and gender are different isn't inherently a scientific statement, thus, it can't demonstrate someone's scientific ineptitude.

[crmoore]

Though, to be more clear, the reason it isn't scientific is alsp because social constructs are hardly scientific (arguably not at all).

[007kingifrit]

if the idea isn't scientific you should never be sharing it

and no. we can observe if something is a social construct, if it is present in one society and not another... then its a social construct

but gender roles are the same IN EVERY SOCIETY

[crmoore]

With all due respect, you don't seem to understand the breadth of social constructs.

There are likely many, many inherently unscientific (distinct from anti-scientific) social constructs you support and employ every day. For example, you likely see your boss as your boss. But a boss is not a physical component of this world. It isn't real, it's a social construct. But we asign these unscientific, unreal labels to people because it's helpful. And just because it isn't scientific doesn't mean it "should never be shared."

If you want to truly understand social constructs, you may way to look into the idea behind abstract concepts, of which all social constructs are.

Additionally, your definition of social constructs is incorrect. It's not a horrible definition, but it can be incorrect in theory (and likely often is). Just because a social construct is so prevalent that all societies adopt it doesn't mean that it can't be a social construct. But by your own definition, which is incorrect, gender roles ARE a social construct. Because in America, our view towards the roles of women differs from the views towards women in Muslim communities (so no, these roles aren't the same in every society). And the more you examine, the more aspects you consider, the less likely it is that any two societies will have identical perspectives on these roles. But again, that's not a decent definition. You could argue males and females tend to be inclined towards certain things, and I'd entirely agree. But that doesn't refute the notion the gender is a social construct.

[007kingifrit]

social hierarchies like "boss" are not unscientific. they are observable and falsifiable. so they are scientific

but if something is done in every society... its not a social construct. its a biological construct

[crmoore]

No, what's observable is the affect these social constructs have on society. A boss, itself, is not observable. If I asked you to show me a photo of a boss, you might find a photo of your boss that you, they, and others agree is your boss. But I could do the same thing and find a photo of someone I, they, and others agree is the "non-binary" gender. Just because we call them non-binary, and many people agree with it, and they are optically observable, it doesn't mean that gender is real. Because these photos don't actually show a boss or a non-binary gender, they show a human being (or more specifically, a complex arrangement of atoms/molecules/etc), not the figurarive label those human beings have.)

And it is unscientific. Again, that's distinct from anti-scientific. It's not science-based, and it is science-nuetral. It can still have impact on science, but it isn't inherently scientific.

(Response continued below)

[crmoore]

Scientific things are real and have properties. Fire will hurt me whether I know it is fire or not. A boss does not affect me the same way if I don't know they're my boss.

For example, if I see a bonfire and I stick my hand in it, it will burn my hand. If, instead, I'm asleep and my hand is subject to fire, it will still burn my hand. But if I have a boss and I know they're my boss, they may affect me in certain ways. But if my boss is transferred to another location unbeknown to me and a new boss arrives, if I don't know that person is my new boss, they will not affect me the same way that my prior boss affected me (until I learn that they're my new boss). Because a boss isn't real, it doesn't have real properties, it's a social construct. Fire acts like fire whether you know it's fire or not because fire is a real thing within existence.

I can scientifically conclude if something is fire. You cannot scientifically conclude if someone is a boss. You can scientifically conclude people CALL them a boss, but I can scientifically conclude people CALL someone the non-binary gender (which I'd imagine we both agree is not real).

[007kingifrit]

a boss is real and has properties, i can observe the hierarchy. its science

[crmoore]

A boss does not have real properties, as I explained in the example of your boss changing unbeknown to you, contrasting fire acting the same unbeknown to you.

And what you're "observing" is the affect the social construct has on society. And that effect is only observable because we allow it to affect us. If your boss tells you to do something and you don't subscribe to the notion the they are your boss, the affect is entirely up to you. You can disobey them because the "effect" they have isn't real. But if I say "I don't believe in fire" and I stick my hand in it, my hand still burns despite the fact that I don't believe in it. That's because fire is real. A boss is not real. That doesn't mean the idea behind a boss is illegitimate, but it is not literally real. It's a social construct.

[007kingifrit]

the concept of a boss exists in all societies. YOUR boss might change, but the concept of a boss does not

[007kingifrit]

ok you're confusing natural construct, social construct and physical construct

fire is a physical construct. it existed before humans and will after. your boss is a natural construct, its not a choice that that exists or not. its something humans inherently do. they have bosses. something being a social construct implies we could choose to not have bosses BUT WE CAN'T.

every civilization ever will have bosses. no matter what its impossible not to have a boss, we humans do not get a choice in this it is baked into our psychology

[crmoore]

It does not exist in all societies. It exists in most, and that's only true as of today. Throughout history, many, many, many people did not have bosses. And again, even if a social construct is so beneficial that it is adopted by every single society, that doesn't make it not a social construct. You keep saying it does but offer no rationale as to why is allegedly does. And while we're on the subject, if all societies do employ a notion like this, then according to you it is not a social construct. But if suddenly one or more societies stop employing it, does it suddenly become a social construct again?

I'm not confusing anything. And the fact that you just said we "CAN'T" choose to have bosses is particularly odd. We do choose to have bosses. It is within the realm of possibility for us to choose to not have bosses. Bosses are helpful, it gives us order and structure. It's also a cornerstone of our society, so removing that cornerstone would not be wise for us throughout our current societal progression. But it's not forcefully obligated by nature or the universe. It is absolutely a choice. Not to be rude but I can't even fantom how someone could think otherwise. You could argue they're heavily inclined to come about, and I'd agree (up until a certain point throughout societies progression, depending on how things develop).

[007kingifrit]

people not having bosses is NOT the same as saying the concept of a boss didn't exist in those societies. sure a farmer on his own land in the middle of nowhere has no boss BUT HE STILL KNOWS WHAT A BOSS IS INHERENTLY

[007kingifrit]

you don't understand that finding individuals who don't do the thing is not evidence something is a social construct. that's not how this works

[crmoore]

I didn't say it was the same thing, though I admittedly could have worked it better. What I was saying was that it's inevitable for societies to have been made without that society, by-large subscribing to/employing the, notion of a boss.

And you do not "know what a boss is inherently" you can learn it from extrinsic sources, but it is not "inherent" knowledge.

But I ask you: if a boss is a real thing with real properties, why do those properties not affect me if I'm unaware of who my boss is? And why does fire affect me if I'm unaware of the fire? Please answer this

[007kingifrit]

a boss is a natural construct because given enough time all societies will inherently have them appear. not every INDIVIDUAL is affected by a boss but every SOCIETY is

[crmoore]

I've already stated that prevalence does not make something real or a "natural construct, and I've already stated that it isn't inherent. I've asked you to explain why it is and you seem to just be repeating yourself.

You're also fairly consistently not answering my other questions, so it seems like we're not really having a discussion. With all this taken into consideration, I'm going to ask you one more question, and if you do not answer it, I will not continue this conversation.

The question is: from this point forward, are you going to answer my questions, and address and refute my points? Because if not, I may as well not be having a conversation at all.

[007kingifrit]

yes prevelance DOES make something a natural construct, if all socities do it independent of one another then it isn't invented by society, it must come from someplace deeper

what question didn't i answer? put lines on each side of it -------------------like this-------------------------

i think you just don't understand what the words you use mean

[crmoore]

Firstly, I'd like ask you what you think a "natural construct" is. I had a suspicion that you just made that word up, and my suspicions now seem to be confirmed when I looked up the definition of "social construct" and found entries, then looked up the definition of "natural construct" and didn't.

Now, I'm not one of those people who say "that's not a word, thus, you shouldn't use it, or, thus, it is illegitimate." Because every word isn't a word until it is used. The problem is that since "natural construct" isn't an official word (as of now), and thus, isn't well-defined, this argument could just be an absolute mess due to the highly technical nature of it. And it's hard to have a conversation about what is or isn't when someone is using a term that they made up that the rest of society hasn't agreed on.

Like I could ask you what a natural construct is, then I could ask you how the quality of being a natural construct inhibits the ability to also be a social construct. And then you'd literally just assert your rationale to be truth or fact because a natural construct is whatever you want it to be because you just made the term up. Social construct, however, is an official term.

And you've repeated yourself again. You've already asserted that if all societies do something then it must not be a social construct. I've already not only disagreed, which prompts a more sufficient explanation on your part, but even refuted that claim, which prompts a refutation of my refutation, of which neither seems to have occurred.

So, I now explicitly ask you: do you have any reason or evidence to support that if it is present in all societies then it is not a social construct other than "it must be"?

[crmoore]

And it's not just questions you haven't answered, it's points you haven't addressed/refuted.

So here are a number of them:

----------what you're "observing" is the affects these social constructs have on society, you're not observing the social construct itself. You can't show me a photo of a boss, you can only show me a photo of a human (and if you say you can show me a photo of a boss and show me a photo of you or someone else's "boss" then you should address how that is supposedly legitimate proof and also how me showing you a photo of someone who is "non-binary" isn't legitimate proof of the existence of "non-binary" people).----------

[crmoore]

----------Scientific things are real and have properties. Fire will hurt me whether I know it is fire or not. A boss does not affect me the same way if I don't know they're my boss.

For example, if I see a bonfire and I stick my hand in it, it will burn my hand. If, instead, I'm asleep and my hand is subject to fire, it will still burn my hand. But if I have a boss and I know they're my boss, they may affect me in certain ways. But if my boss is transferred to another location unbeknown to me and a new boss arrives, if I don't know that person is my new boss, they will not affect me the same way that my prior boss affected me (until I learn that they're my new boss). Because a boss isn't real, it doesn't have real properties, it's a social construct. Fire acts like fire whether you know it's fire or not because fire is a real thing within existence.

I can scientifically conclude if something is fire. You cannot scientifically conclude if someone is a boss. You can scientifically conclude people CALL them a boss, but I can scientifically conclude people CALL someone the non-binary gender (which I'd imagine we both agree is not real).----------

^(You did acknowledge this, but you did not refute the points mentioned)

[crmoore]

----------I ask you: if a boss is a real thing with real properties, why do those properties not affect me if I'm unaware of who my boss is? And why does fire affect me if I'm unaware of the fire? Please answer this.----------

And no, it is you who does not understand these words.

Here are links to help you understand.

examples.yourdictionary.com/what-is-social-construct-common-examples-explained

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constructionism

[007kingifrit]

the answer is here -----------------------------------a natural construct does not mean it affects every person, but that all societies will inevitably invent such constructs----------------------------- so your question shows you don't know what a natural construct is

its part of human nature, not part of every individual life

dictionaries are not for adult conversation , they lack completeness, complexity and nuance. my definitions are correct

educated people NEVER use wikipedia

[crmoore]

So, you addressed pretty much none of the things I mentioned yet again.

And educated people use Wikipedia all the time, lol. What educated people don't do is state Wikipedia as indisputable fact. Wikipedia is generally a decent source of information. If I wanted to go learn about 9/11, I could go to Wikipedia and get a good understanding of it. Wikipedia can have faulty information, but that doesn't mean it always does.

What a reasonable person would do would provide Wikipedia as a result, and if both people agree with what they referenced in the link, then we both can move on. For example, if I referenced Wikipedia stating that a banana is a fruit, you wouldn't say "Wikipedia isn't a reliable source of information" because we both agree that what is being referenced is correct. I'd also like to point out that the Wikipedia link was the secondary link I provided, not the primary.

And you say I don't know what a natural construct is (I'd argue I know what you think or want it to mean, but disagree with its legitimacy as a notion in the first place), so please, in order to convince me this natural construct is legitimate, please provide some links or sources that support this notion og natural constructs of yours.

And I agree dictionaries aren't perfect, but they're generally good guidelines.

[crmoore]

Provide Wikipedia as a source*

[007kingifrit]

alright im done with you then, i put ----------------- o both sides of your fucking answer----------------------

i answered you perfectly and fully but you're too stupid to understand the answers you are given or you just don't like them

gender is not a social construct. its natural to all societies, every society has gender roles and anyone who disagrees is in a cult.

go away cultist

[crmoore]

Yes, you addressed literally one of the answers you previously didn't answer. One of several. And you're clearly not capable of having thoa discussion. If you want to leave, be my guest, but if you come back, you need to actually address what is said and support your argument.

[silkjames]

Unless someone let E. T make a collect call home lol There are only 2 A Queen & King 😁! Why is this a question did I miss something is there mutants out there lol Aliens if that's the case damn lol

[Jaylaaa2000]

I really don't know why what someone wants to identify themselves as is so important to others.

If it makes them happy let them do what they want.

People so controlling.

You must think like me, or get bullied.

[BUNroaster]

40... I don't know we should recognize that we are all different and can't live in a society that wants simplistic black and white standards for everyone but needing to name out 40 or more genders is way too much

[2ndTryatThis]

Science says there are two, religions usually agree there are two.. so it’s hard to agree that a mental disorder merits the existence of a new gender magically existing.. gender exists for breeding purposes. It’s not a window into the soul.

[CuteLingsAppreciator]

There can be as many genders as we want because it's a social construct and a social creation not based on scientific or "natural" phenomenons. In many cultures, there exists a 3rd gender too.