Politrukk said:
This is my opinion obviously, but what do you guys think?
And can someone even explain to me what in the world qualifies something to be a new gender outside of biology?
I was going to act all exasperated that this is still such a hard concept for people to grasp, but then I figured that because these threads just don't stop coming, it must just not be a very intuitive idea. Which is understandable, when you think about it. Anyway...
"Sex" is a metaphysical attribute[footnote]Some would argue Social attribute[/footnote] which depends entirely upon sex-specific chromosomes: the Xs and Ys. For the most part, humans are reproduced with one of only two combinations: XX, and XY. However, there are also a significant number of humans reproduced with other combinations, such as just X, just Y, XXX, XXY, XYY, and so on. Of these, not all are able to function healthily as human beings, but many are. As such, they are equally 'valid' combinations of sex chromosomes and should be considered as just another variety of human.
"Gender" is a social attribute which can depend on anything. It is not present in every culture, and is not a biologically necessary feature of human societies. In many contemporary dominant cultures (including, probably, yours), it is primarily determined by a set of apparent phenotypical characteristics which only partly reflect sexual differences. In our society, there are only really two accepted genders: "Man" and "Woman", often conflated with "Male" and "Female" (see below). However, this is not the case in all cultures around the world or across time as, as mentioned, gender is not a necessary feature of human nature. In some cultures there are 3, 4, 5, or even more genders determined by various characteristics which can include features as arbitrary as what month you were born in, or where. Much like how we associate pink with femininity or blue with masculinity.
Of course, those people wouldn't call those characteristics arbitrary. Much as we don't call sexual characteristics, or other social characteristics, arbitrary in their determination of Gender.
But they are, really. We massively overplay physical differences between genders. Even the biggest, baddest, most aggressive, most manly man, when compared to the smallest, daintiest, kindest, most womanly woman, is still like 99.99% the same on the genetic and structural level, yet these tiny differences are used to justify radically divergent behaviour and treatment. Ex: The Draft. Women aren't so lacking in strength and stamina compared to men that they couldn't make good conscripts. Especially now the ability to kill someone only requires the ability to lift and aim a 2-3kg gun. Swords have always been pretty light, too. So why not draft them?
The Aliens watching us must be laughing.
Fundamentally there's no reason for things like this to be the way they are, even though it seems to many, right now, like it's the only way things could be. It's simply the result of ignorance. That's why the two terms are conflated so regularly.
It's like that story: Two young fish are swimming along, enjoying their day. An older fish swims by and says to them, "Morning! How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit before one turns to the other and asks...
"What the hell is water?"