If DeSantis wins

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Excuse you?!
Poor choice of phrasing on my part, now that I look at it. My intended gist was that he'd been recognizably trying to pretend he'd really always known <insert topic he'd expressed and demonstrated ignorance of> long before people started calling him out on, and that I suspect that people's initial willingness to set it aside because it just wasn't worth pursuing had emboldened him into thinking that he'd successfully bluffed us rather than the lot of us just rolling our collective eyes at the transparent lie and moving on.

You think I don't know you can get in trouble from threatening people or defamation or saying "bomb" on an airplane?
Suffice it to say that I find it to be very telling that you're now trying to claim knowledge of defamation and the generalized existence of non-protected speech while trying to prove that you're familiar with the concepts of incitement and solicitation, indicating that you're still unfamiliar enough with the topics that you remain unable to distinguish between them.

You do realize you then have to apply this to EVERYONE right? If you say you can't rile up a crowd if you know there are weapons, then people riling up BLM protesters with speeches will have the same applied to them. You can just easily shut down any protest by having someone purposefully come with a gun and tell the person giving the speech that they have a gun and then the speech wouldn't be able to be made. Pretty dangerous precedent you're wanting to set here that can effectively squash any protest you want. And, this is all because you don't like Trump.
Not remotely. Setting aside for a minute that I'm explaining existing precedent to you and listing out the factors that indicate Mens Rea and culpability, the specific point you're referring to there was that Trump riled up a mob that he had reason to believe had violent intent, specifically moved to better enable that by telling security to stop checking for weapons, and pointed them at a target that they then violently assaulted. This is, once again, where the imminent lawless action test comes in: It centers on speech directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).

That your takeaway from that is to claim you could shutdown any speech by telling the speaker that you had a gun is both dishonest and...well, stupid. For starters, the proportionate remedy would be removal of the weapon or the person with the weapon if they get belligerent about it. Second, once again, we're specifically referring to an instance wherein the speaker allegedly specifically told event security to stop checking for weapons because he was sure that they weren't going to be used against him, which is a very different beast than simply hearing that somebody had a gun. Rather it's circumstantial evidence indicating that Trump expected a lot of his rallygoers to be armed as they marched on the Capitol with the goal of making Congress overturn the results. And finally: If a speech riling up a crowd results in a riot: OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHARGED WITH INCITEMENT! For fuck's sake, it's literally in the books! "(d) Any person who willfully incites another to engage in a riot and that inciting results in a riot or is directly and imminently likely to produce a riot is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor." and escalating from there.

Yet again, you make the critical mistake of assuming that the people you're talking to must be as intellectually lazy as you are and therefore cannot have actually researched their points.

Trump literally gave exact specifics on marching to the capitol peacefully to have your voices heard. Everything about "fighting" and whatnot were generalities, the same a coach of a team would say in half-time locker room speech to fire up the team. Specifics outweigh generalities. If there were specifics about directly being violent that would then make null the peaceful specifics. But that didn't happen.
And yet again you fall back to arguing that since he said peaceful one time in an hour long speech that is all you need to know about it and nothing can ever convince you otherwise.

One state shouldn't have a say in this manner, that is the point. You can't have states, based on federal law, interpreting it differently. Trump should be on all the ballots or none of the ballots, anything else can't happen. If the argument of the case isn't about Trump being an insurrectionist or not, it's on the prosecuting attorneys for presenting the case with an asinine argument that's just a waste of everyone's time. If they are challenging that a state has the right to interpret that amendment how they please, then they are challenging the wrong thing.
If you were arguing the virtues of any one state being able to make a sweeping declaration, that would be one thing. But that's not what you've been arguing. What you've been arguing is that the evidence doesn't show Trump to be an insurrectionist and insisting that arguments suggesting his guilt were "all because you don't like Trump", and mischaracterizing the evidence so you could scoff at it as irrational.

This was like my first reply to you. What I meant by "I haven't seen anything that would make him an insurrectionist" is referring to his Jan 6th speech. Notice how I said I don't know everything he's said and did?
Notice how you also said that you "feel the case is paper thin against Trump". Also recall that my first statement to you was about how you kept on invoking the song "Right to Party" as if it were some zinger of a comparison that proved that the case against Trump was irrational hysteria that didn't stand up to scrutiny.


Then when you say there is more than just the speech, I replied with the following:
And the point that you've consistently failed to understand is that I was providing context on the circumstances behind the speech that made the characterization of it as incitement far more warranted than claiming the same about a 30 year old that thought yourself clever for declaring it equivalent to.

I get yelled at and called ignorant and not understanding basic legal frameworks when the decision was unanimous. But according to you guys (not you necessarily Bedinsis, I don't think you called me ignorant and whatnot), I don't know what I'm talking about, and SCOTUS will just "make up shit" and Trump will win because the conservative judges will outvote the liberal ones. Yeah, none of that happened.
Let me quote for you what I actually said:

And again, even without that, this kind of case is the type that makes the Supreme Court cagey to begin with, and for this specifically, one the justices are giving every indication that they aren't actually judging the merits of the case but rather have been focusing on the political ramifications of the case irrespective of those merits. They've been openly contemptuous of the very concept, to the point that Kagan out and said that "the question that you have to confront is why a single state should decide who gets to be president of the United States ", which feels like a pretty strong indication that their ruling will likely be decided as a matter of political principle with little to no regard for the evidence for the case, and basically boil down to declaring that the courts shouldn't be allowed to rule that Trump was guilty of insurrection, specifically because such a decision would impact the election. Not to put too fine a point on it, Kagan's stated logic reads as "Not guilty because he's a political frontrunnner" rather than "Not guilty because the evidence didn't show it". Hence the "if we're judging the case purely on merit" qualifier. Statements from the Justices at this time indicate that the merits of the case are going to have very little to do with their decision.
Since I evidently have to explain even this to you, "merits of the case" mean judging based off the facts of the case that would either establish guilt or innocence. "Based on the evidence, how do you find", to put it directly. So when I say that a court is making a decision irrespective of the merits of the case, that means that they aren't judging whether or not the case proves guilt, but instead entirely on technical or procedural issues (e.g. when the statute of limitations has run out, evidence of guilt doesn't factor in). My analysis, such as it was, was that the justices had indicated that they weren't judging the case based off the evidence of whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection, but instead on whether or not the courts should be allowed to make such a ruling as a matter of course, on principle if you will. And I specified this because your arguments with me have been focusing on whether or not the evidence showed Trump's guilt, and you asked me whether or not Trump would legally be declared an insurrectionist. My answer was that what I'd seen indicated that the upcoming ruling was going to sidestep that question and instead void the decision by declaring that courts could not rule on the matter at all.

And if you stop and read the ruling, you might notice that that's exactly what happened, even going a bit further than I expected in that I had presumed they'd simply say the state courts could not make that judgement, but the ruling actually goes as far as to say that the Federal courts can't do it either, instead declaring that it is something that only Congress can do (which, frankly, is a judgment I share Ag3ma's concerns about).
 
Last edited:

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,003
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Neither of which are definitive of biological sex or unchangeable.



The author wasn't. As per linguistic scholars.



Zero people, whose sex differs from their gender, prefers to go by bio sex pronouns.
They are.

Based on common sense and the reading of it, the author was referring to multiple people.

You got proof of this?

Suffice it to say that I find it to be very telling that you're now trying to claim knowledge of defamation and the generalized existence of non-protected speech while trying to prove that you're familiar with the concepts of incitement and solicitation, indicating that you're still unfamiliar enough with the topics that you remain unable to distinguish between them.
:rolleyes:

Not remotely. Setting aside for a minute that I'm explaining existing precedent to you and listing out the factors that indicate Mens Rea and culpability, the specific point you're referring to there was that Trump riled up a mob that he had reason to believe had violent intent, specifically moved to better enable that by telling security to stop checking for weapons, and pointed them at a target that they then violently assaulted. This is, once again, where the imminent lawless action test comes in: It centers on speech directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. an immediate riot).

That your takeaway from that is to claim you could shutdown any speech by telling the speaker that you had a gun is both dishonest and...well, stupid. For starters, the proportionate remedy would be removal of the weapon or the person with the weapon if they get belligerent about it. Second, once again, we're specifically referring to an instance wherein the speaker allegedly specifically told event security to stop checking for weapons because he was sure that they weren't going to be used against him, which is a very different beast than simply hearing that somebody had a gun. Rather it's circumstantial evidence indicating that Trump expected a lot of his rallygoers to be armed as they marched on the Capitol with the goal of making Congress overturn the results. And finally: If a speech riling up a crowd results in a riot: OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE CHARGED WITH INCITEMENT! For fuck's sake, it's literally in the books! "(d) Any person who willfully incites another to engage in a riot and that inciting results in a riot or is directly and imminently likely to produce a riot is guilty of a Class A1 misdemeanor." and escalating from there.

Yet again, you make the critical mistake of assuming that the people you're talking to must be as intellectually lazy as you are and therefore cannot have actually researched their points.
How are you gonna remove a person with a gun from public property if they are just there?

I'm not claiming there is no law for inciting a riot. What I'm saying is what you think incitement is and what it actually is legally are 2 different things. Why weren't tons of BLM speakers arrested for incitement? Because a lot of BLM protests turned violent so anyone riling up protesters would be LIKELY to produce a riot. You have to go very far with speech to get in legal trouble for saying something.

And yet again you fall back to arguing that since he said peaceful one time in an hour long speech that is all you need to know about it and nothing can ever convince you otherwise.
And the specifics of what was said. Did Trump ever say to forcefully break into the Capitol?

If you were arguing the virtues of any one state being able to make a sweeping declaration, that would be one thing. But that's not what you've been arguing. What you've been arguing is that the evidence doesn't show Trump to be an insurrectionist and insisting that arguments suggesting his guilt were "all because you don't like Trump", and mischaracterizing the evidence so you could scoff at it as irrational.
That was my original argument as why the states removing Trump from the ballot was stupid, it was because they can't legally do that and it's just gonna get overturned. I am interested if Trump would be legally considered an insurrectionist and that's a different thing obviously. I believe that would have to come down to the stuff he did to try to challenge the voting results because nothing from his speech would make him legally an insurrectionist.

Notice how you also said that you "feel the case is paper thin against Trump". Also recall that my first statement to you was about how you kept on invoking the song "Right to Party" as if it were some zinger of a comparison that proved that the case against Trump was irrational hysteria that didn't stand up to scrutiny.
Yes, BASED ON WHAT I KNOW. Everyone is b!tching about the Jan 6th speech and that is paper thin.

And the point that you've consistently failed to understand is that I was providing context on the circumstances behind the speech that made the characterization of it as incitement far more warranted than claiming the same about a 30 year old that thought yourself clever for declaring it equivalent to.
That context isn't very meaningful. Unless Trump actually said at some point he wanted people to violently do something when he was endlessly complaining the vote was stolen, there isn't much there. Now if he did something illegal to try to change the vote (which I don't know the ins and outs of), I would think that would be considered being an insurrectionist.

Let me quote for you what I actually said:



Since I evidently have to explain even this to you, "merits of the case" mean judging based off the facts of the case that would either establish guilt or innocence. "Based on the evidence, how do you find", to put it directly. So when I say that a court is making a decision irrespective of the merits of the case, that means that they aren't judging whether or not the case proves guilt, but instead entirely on technical or procedural issues (e.g. when the statute of limitations has run out, evidence of guilt doesn't factor in). My analysis, such as it was, was that the justices had indicated that they weren't judging the case based off the evidence of whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection, but instead on whether or not the courts should be allowed to make such a ruling as a matter of course, on principle if you will. And I specified this because your arguments with me have been focusing on whether or not the evidence showed Trump's guilt, and you asked me whether or not Trump would legally be declared an insurrectionist. My answer was that what I'd seen indicated that the upcoming ruling was going to sidestep that question and instead void the decision by declaring that courts could not rule on the matter at all.

And if you stop and read the ruling, you might notice that that's exactly what happened, even going a bit further than I expected in that I had presumed they'd simply say the state courts could not make that judgement, but the ruling actually goes as far as to say that the Federal courts can't do it either, instead declaring that it is something that only Congress can do (which, frankly, is a judgment I share Ag3ma's concerns about).
And, as I said above (and I quoted myself saying), my original take was the states don't have the power to make the decision on a federal law. Other users said I was wrong and didn't understand the basic legal framework. I was hoping they would get at the main issue and determine if Trump was an insurrectionist legally but that would be an extra step.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
They are.
You believe skin and hips are *definitive* of sex? As in, men cannot possibly have skin or hips that are more characteristic of the female sex, and that all women do?

Based on common sense and the reading of it, the author was referring to multiple people.
Still haven't heard any reason to believe you over linguistic scholars.

You got proof of this?
I've got a great deal more experience interacting with queer people and in queer spaces than you do. And although it's extremely easy to find people objecting to pronouns that they don't identify with, I've literally never heard anyone whose gender identity differs from their biological sex opine that speakers should address them by birth-sex only. Can you find a single example?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,003
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
The way the collagen bonds in skin are different in men and women. You're trying to say men and women have the same hips?

I wasn't saying it's not a singular based on whatever grammar rule. I'm saying the "they" is referring to more than one person. I bet if I had 100 people read that section, they'd also say the same thing.

Are you then trying to argue that because nobody in the queer space uses pronouns by sex (just assume that's true), that the definition for pronouns being sex based aren't valid definitions?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
The way the collagen bonds in skin are different in men and women. You're trying to say men and women have the same hips?
These are /trends/. They are not absolute or definitive.

I wasn't saying it's not a singular based on whatever grammar rule. I'm saying the "they" is referring to more than one person.
OK. So why should I believe you over linguistic scholars?

Are you then trying to argue that because nobody in the queer space uses pronouns by sex (just assume that's true), that the definition for pronouns being sex based aren't valid definitions?
Not necessarily. Just like the term 'girl' has a definition describing children regardless of gender, it's a valid usage, but just not one that's terribly helpful in a lot of modern contexts when better alternatives are there.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,003
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
These are /trends/. They are not absolute or definitive.



OK. So why should I believe you over linguistic scholars?



Not necessarily. Just like the term 'girl' has a definition describing children regardless of gender, it's a valid usage, but just not one that's terribly helpful in a lot of modern contexts when better alternatives are there.
They are absolute outside of super rare circumstances.
For determining sex via skeletal remains: Sex is typically determined by the morphology (shape) of the pelvis or skull and long bone measurements.

You do realize both can be right.

You do realize if most people felt there was a better alternative to pronouns, they would use that alternative, right? The fact that people don't is telling. Making a pronoun mistake like once in a solar eclipse vs having to ask everyone their pronoun before using a pronoun; which do you think a person is going to prefer? Then you have the issue with people that work with the public, how are you supposed to get a person's attention as most people will say "sir!" or "ma'am!" to do so? Are you supposed to ask every person their pronouns everyday and then somehow remember them when you have to get their attention?
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,067
1,028
118
Are you really discussing the difference in hip BONE structure, while discussing physical appearance? You know that doesn't result in the outward appearance being set in stone, right?

You X-ray people to check their gender? Or examine their bones in your secret shed. I'm leaning option 2.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
They are absolute outside of super rare circumstances.
Absolute bollocks. I can think of quite a few men whose skin quality is more characteristic of the female sex, and vice versa.

For determining sex via skeletal remains: Sex is typically determined by the morphology (shape) of the pelvis or skull and long bone measurements.
It is indeed-- with relatively high error rates, because its done in the absence of any better method. The error rate for the Pelvis is ~8%, and for the skull it's almost ~20%. These are the traits you want to consider *definitive and absolute*.


You do realize both can be right.
You do realise linguistic scholars know more than you?

You do realize if most people felt there was a better alternative to pronouns, they would use that alternative, right? The fact that people don't is telling.
Fucking lol, nobody is asking people to give up pronouns entirely.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,088
5,382
118
Australia
Are you really discussing the difference in hip BONE structure, while discussing physical appearance? You know that doesn't result in the outward appearance being set in stone, right?

You X-ray people to check their gender? Or examine their bones in your secret shed. I'm leaning option 2.
My brother I’m gonna roll us a doobie, the length and girth of nuclear submarine. And we are going to rip phat tokes off that ***** until the world has calmed the fuck down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,581
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
Absolute bollocks. I can think of quite a few men whose skin quality is more characteristic of the female sex, and vice versa.



It is indeed-- with relatively high error rates, because its done in the absence of any better method. The error rate for the Pelvis is ~8%, and for the skull it's almost ~20%. These are the traits you want to consider *definitive and absolute*.




You do realise linguistic scholars know more than you?



Fucking lol, nobody is asking people to give up pronouns entirely.
Dude he's fully entering transvestigations rhetoric now. He's inches away from race realism.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,003
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Are you really discussing the difference in hip BONE structure, while discussing physical appearance? You know that doesn't result in the outward appearance being set in stone, right?

You X-ray people to check their gender? Or examine their bones in your secret shed. I'm leaning option 2.
You can tell the difference in hip structure without a x-ray...

Absolute bollocks. I can think of quite a few men whose skin quality is more characteristic of the female sex, and vice versa.



It is indeed-- with relatively high error rates, because its done in the absence of any better method. The error rate for the Pelvis is ~8%, and for the skull it's almost ~20%. These are the traits you want to consider *definitive and absolute*.




You do realise linguistic scholars know more than you?



Fucking lol, nobody is asking people to give up pronouns entirely.
Skin is rather noticeable. The fact that male skin is quite a bit thicker and the collagen bonds are different are just something you subconsciously notice.

You act like people are just using one thing to determine sex, you subconsciously notice a ton of different things that you don't even realize.

The scholars said the "they" was singular, not that the "they" was or wasn't referring to multiple people. Everybody is, for example, grammatically a singular but the word when used is referring to a group of people.

I didn't mean give up pronouns. I meant if your method of using pronouns was better, people would use it.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,504
2,170
118
Phoenixmgs just wants everyone to have to be what he says they are, so that he doesn't have to give any thought to anyone who isn't him.
Honestly, I think if the US government (re-)disenfranchised non-whites or women, he'd be on here saying it wasn't an attack on democracy and we were all overreacting, because he could still vote.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
Skin is rather noticeable. The fact that male skin is quite a bit thicker and the collagen bonds are different are just something you subconsciously notice.
This is a /trend/. It doesn't apply absolutely (or even very reliably).

You act like people are just using one thing to determine sex, you subconsciously notice a ton of different things that you don't even realize.
Nice dodge! Point remains: none of these bone-structure dimorphic differences are absolute (or even very reliable).

The scholars said the "they" was singular, not that the "they" was or wasn't referring to multiple people.
This is just nonsense.

I didn't mean give up pronouns. I meant if your method of using pronouns was better, people would use it.
Like when you switch out sex-related pronouns for the trans people you actually interact with?

Most people who aren't gigantic assholes would not insist on continuing to use sex-at-birth pronouns if they discovered the subject identified a different way.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,003
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Phoenixmgs just wants everyone to have to be what he says they are, so that he doesn't have to give any thought to anyone who isn't him.
Again, I'm Tommy Lee Jones



This is a /trend/. It doesn't apply absolutely (or even very reliably).



Nice dodge! Point remains: none of these bone-structure dimorphic differences are absolute (or even very reliable).



This is just nonsense.



Like when you switch out sex-related pronouns for the trans people you actually interact with?

Most people who aren't gigantic assholes would not insist on continuing to use sex-at-birth pronouns if they discovered the subject identified a different way.
You honestly don't think people can tell sex with just being with/talking to someone for a few minutes?

I literally gave you an example of how 'everybody' is a singular that refers to multiple people...

Again, it's what sex the person looks most like is the vast majorities automatic pronoun response. If some person looking like a normal dude with a normal male name like say Ron is saying they want to be a called a 'she', most people will not be using 'she'. If you are using Ron in a sentence to establish who you're talking about, then switch to pronouns, you will automatically use 'he'. Just like if someone asked 'Where'd Ron go?', you be like 'Oh, he went to lunch'. Having to ask everyone what pronouns they want to use is way more work than the method people have been using for a long time. Before the mid-20th century, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.

Why can't you just let people use pronouns how they want to use pronouns?
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
You honestly don't think people can tell sex with just being with/talking to someone for a few minutes?
Nice dodge. People can usually tell the sex of other people /who abide by traditional societal gender roles in appearance/. But no, if they encounter people who don't fit that (stereo)typical mould, usually people can't reliably tell.

I literally gave you an example of how 'everybody' is a singular that refers to multiple people...
You didn't actually, though-- you gave (another) example of yourself failing to understand basic grammatical rules.

Again, it's what sex the person looks most like [...]
Shifting between appearance and sex for perhaps the fiftieth time.

Why can't you just let people use pronouns how they want to use pronouns?
Why can't you just refer to people by the pronouns they actually identify with?
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,696
2,881
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Shifting between appearance and sex for perhaps the fiftieth time.
Chromozonal sex is basing determination on Chromozones. When conservatives say Biological sex they generally mean this

Biological sex is what gametes you can produce. Unless conservatives give you this as their definition, just assume they dont mean Biological

Morphological sex is the genitalia you have. This can be different from the gametes

Gender is the APPEARANCE you show in public. If you are talking sex and appearance, you aren't using the right category, possibly deliberately to push an agenda.

Assigned sex is what the docs called you when you pop out. They get it wrong about 1 in 450 births. This may not be related to any of the above categories

Hope this helps someone out there....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bedinsis

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,003
795
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Nice dodge. People can usually tell the sex of other people /who abide by traditional societal gender roles in appearance/. But no, if they encounter people who don't fit that (stereo)typical mould, usually people can't reliably tell.



You didn't actually, though-- you gave (another) example of yourself failing to understand basic grammatical rules.



Shifting between appearance and sex for perhaps the fiftieth time.



Why can't you just refer to people by the pronouns they actually identify with?
You can easily tell a female construction worker from a male with the same clothes and everything.

How? Everybody is singular and also refers to multiple people, that is true. The 'they' in that excerpt could be grammatically singular (I really couldn't care less honestly) but it is referring to multiple people. I never said the linguistic scholars were wrong as you implied several times.

Funny how transgender people change appearance traits that directly relate to sex.

Because there's another valid definition that people have been using in English until very recently that most still use, gender wasn't even a thing.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
Morphological sex is the genitalia you have. This can be different from the gametes

Gender is the APPEARANCE you show in public. If you are talking sex and appearance, you aren't using the right category, possibly deliberately to push an agenda.
I'd mildly object to these definitions. Morphological sexual characteristics are a fair bit broader than just genitalia, though no single one is definitively absolute.

And gender is not defined by appearance, though appearance is often used to communicate or express it. But one's gender identity need not match their appearance for a dozen reasons.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,077
5,815
118
Country
United Kingdom
You can easily tell a female construction worker from a male with the same clothes and everything.
Where the hell did ''construction worker" come from? Are you just wholly playing to stereotypes now?

How? Everybody is singular and also refers to multiple people, that is true.
I'm sorry!? Please enlighten me with an example sentence in which 'everybody' refers to a single person.

Funny how transgender people change appearance traits that directly relate to sex.
....often in line with their gender, and not with their assigned sex. Kind of proving my point.

Because there's another valid definition that people have been using in English until very recently that most still use, gender wasn't even a thing.
It's already been shown numerous times that a male/female identity, separate from bio sex-- what we term "gender" or "gender identity"-- is not a modern invention at all, but at least thousands of years old.