School and LGBT (1 Viewer)

[random93810938]

Hi guys, it's some LGBT awareness day today so I just want to start some discussions regarding the topic. Do you guys think schools are pushing it a bit too much?

I think they have a bit of a distorted perspective of "respecting and accepting" others to be inclusive which compels us to use their preferred pronouns and encourage them to do whatever they're doing. I firmly believe that respect isn't framed by the mindless validation and agreement of others, but a genuine advocation for their well-being and treating everyone equally even if they have opposing views. I also find this necessity of reassuring others as an aspect of "respect" and "inclusion" to be somewhat hypocritical since you are essentially repressing those with contradicting perspectives on the topic, which may stem from personal opinion, culture and religion, and subsequently disrespecting their right to the freedom of speech and even just their views, which they rightfully can have. I also feel that the junior years are already confused enough that they shouldn't really be turned even more confused, which can be detrimental due to their misinterpretations of things resulting from their young age, which can affect their beliefs later in life too.

Our school also has these pro-lgbt promotions around the buildings, but kind of funny that the students always take them down or vandalise on them which is a recurring joke at school. We also recently have these tokens for the LGBT awareness, and students would throw them at their friends to "infect" them and the last to touch them is basically "gay".

Although I do find it funny and even make jokes about it, I don't do so maliciously and I don't partake or support the above actions by students. I also think that it's important for school to teach students to respect LGBT individuals, but by actually treating them equally and to be more mature in the subject even if they may have different opinions, rather than just compelling students to mindlessly validate them.

So what do you guys have to say about it? I just want to see some different perspectives on this as it can be quite appealing to one's curiosity.

edit: Also, there is also a boycott today where only a couple students came, there were around 3-5 students in maths today. I only came to see what it would be like because I'm interested in such topic, though I don't support it.

edit 2: Hey guys, good conversations and the availability of people's different perspectives were quite interesting and thought provoking, however, please remember to remain respectful no matter which side you support and your views, the best way to advocate and communicate your ideas is through respectful and nuanced ideas.

edit 3: Also there seems to be a bit of a deviation in arguments on whether religious beliefs or LGBT are more valid etc, I think since there are many beliefs in the world and not everyone believes in religion, it is more insightful to be discussing the original agenda on whether the ideologies of LGBT should be pressured onto students, rather than religion x LGBT. Discussions for insight and quite curious, thanks for putting in the time to read and write.

 

[shixuans]

You've essentially said that "respect" has to be earned and built instead of mindlessly validated, which in itself I agree with.
However, there are many individuals in our lives (cisgender or otherwise) who have not earned any form of respect from us. Yet we still use the preferred pronouns of these cisgender people, if you see where I'm coming from, so why should it be any different otherwise?

I see where you're coming from in terms of "repressing those with contradicting opinions on the topic" and it's fair to say that many (especially online) queer communities, just like any other community, can be insular, radical and closed-minded.
However, racist beliefs for instance can also "stem from personal belief, culture and religion". I personally wouldn't view the discouragement of hate speech and microaggressions against minority racial groups as "disrespecting the right to free speech" and I don't think it's any different for the queer community.

 

[random93810938]

You've essentially said that "respect" has to be earned and built instead of mindlessly validated, which in itself I agree with.
However, there are many individuals in our lives (cisgender or otherwise) who have not earned any form of respect from us. Yet we still use the preferred pronouns of these cisgender people, if you see where I'm coming from, so why should it be any different otherwise?

I see where you're coming from in terms of "repressing those with contradicting opinions on the topic" and it's fair to say that many (especially online) queer communities, just like any other community, can be insular, radical and closed-minded.
However, racist beliefs for instance can also "stem from personal belief, culture and religion". I personally wouldn't view the discouragement of hate speech and microaggressions against minority racial groups as "disrespecting the right to free speech" and I don't think it's any different for the queer community.

I don't really think that respect should be "earned" as we should all have an intrinsic attitude of appreciation and care for others (people, animals, objects etc), I think this "earned respect" would be more of an admiration, like for someone with a successful career or achievement. What I meant by the "free speech" part was regarding the expression of why you don't agree with the LGBT etc and not being forced to abide by their pronouns, since it would subsequently signal the individual's support of the movement even if they do not, thus the silencing of their differing values, rather than spreading hate speech (which is very much illegal). I do agree that hate speech shouldn't be tolerated though as if it isn't monitored can develop into much more serious issues.

 

[random93810938]

I'm all for accepting LGBTQ people, it's none of my business what they want to identify as or what their sexuality is, etc. but to a concerning extent schools have been trying to MAKE this other people's business. My school gets pride, rainbow posters around, etc, which can be insensitive to people who hold certain values or religious beliefs, or who are just uncomfortable with sexuality stuff. This is especially concerning that there are 11 year olds in our high schools, being pressured to make decisions on their sexuality before thy have hit puberty and sexually developed, which could be confronting or confusing to them. I'm all for LGBTQ rights and acceptance but pushing these agendas on school age children is, in my opinion too far.
For the record, kids in my school also meme on these posters and events as well as passing around 'gay touches' based on touching these rainbow items. I wonder if this is a thing at every school now? And I wonder if this is causing the promotion of LGBTQ in schools to have an opposite effect.

Honestly these games are probably just kids being immature and just trying to have fun. I don't think it has a significant opposite effect as many people know it is a joke, but may make some kids who are secretly in the LGBT to be uncomfortable and anxious of telling.

 

[shixuans]

I don't really think that respect should be "earned" as we should all have an intrinsic attitude of appreciation and care for others (people, animals, objects etc), I think this "earned respect" would be more of an admiration, like for someone with a successful career or achievement. What I meant by the "free speech" part was regarding the expression of why you don't agree with the LGBT etc and not being forced to abide by their pronouns, since it would subsequently signal the individual's support of the movement even if they do not, thus the silencing of their differing values, rather than spreading hate speech (which is very much illegal). I do agree that hate speech shouldn't be tolerated though as if it isn't monitored can develop into much more serious issues.

Don't you think that using the preferred pronouns for someone is upholding your "intrinsic attitude of appreciation and care for others" by validating their personal identity?
Individuals respecting (by your definition) other individuals does not necessarily need to be a political act unless you make it so - perhaps it is at your school from a social standpoint though. If I may ask what are some other components of the pro-LGBTQ rhetoric that you disagree with?

 

[shixuans]

My school gets pride, rainbow posters around, etc, which can be insensitive to people who hold certain values or religious beliefs, or who are just uncomfortable with sexuality stuff.

Some people hold certain values and religious beliefs which promote the exclusion of women from education, and may be uncomfortable with sharing workplaces with women. Not to make an ad-hominem attack, but judging by the information displayed on your profile, you are most likely a woman who is undergoing an education. I hope you understand where I'm coming from when I don't really think insensitivity in this regard should be that big of an issue (this also goes for really radical leftists on twitter).

Personally I think people do take it too far both ways. There's no need for people to make their sexuality their entire personality, and similarly no need for people to let anti-LGBTQ rhetoric stay rent-free in their heads.

A bit tangential but omg you're also doing agriculture for your HSC this yr. Best of luck

 

[shixuans]

and exposing children to the concept of LGBTQ (which they DO NOT need to know about at that stage in their lives).

so by this definition - mentions of heterosexual relationships should also be banned in schools? Would be so glad to have half my ext 1 texts removed from the syllabus honestly.

I think it's worth noting that a lot of points within this discussion derives from US politics, which we all know to be quite bipartisan and extremely polarising.

 

[shixuans]

Also specifically in regards to schools - there is definitely a discrepancy between regions. I think broadly speaking the closer people live to the Sydney CBD, the more open they are to the queer community. Have you ever seen Surry Hills... pride flags everywhere.
I've also heard some of the all-girls' schools really take these social movements seriously.

 

[mmmmmmmmaaaaaaa]

. but to a concerning extent schools have been trying to MAKE this other people's business.

this is what I am not a fan of

 

[nsw..wollongong]

woah good evening yall be writing essays on here

 

[Unovan]

Personally I'm against how much LGBT+ gets pushed to impessionable young people. I have no problem people identifying as what they want or loving whoever they want to, but I don't think its something that should be as publicised as is. I believe that the need to be seen as "socially progressive" and "accepting" has just led to increased confusion and artificially inflated rates of gay, lesbian and transgender identification because people feel like they need to belong or join the social movement. That's not to say people who are gay shouldn't be supported, respected etc., but its gone too far in my opinion, in particular transgenderism.

 

[shixuans]

Since when did heterosexual relationships fall under the domain of LGBTQ...

It's cos the rhetoric is usually
"LGBTQ hypersexual, therefore we should not expose children to their influences"
I skipped a few points to anticipate that argument

If that's not your point of view, I'd like to know why you think this topic has no place in schools

 

[shixuans]

A lot of people in this thread mention "confusion" as something which a) is a side effect of increasing rates of LGBTQ+ awareness and b) has negative impacts upon development. I personally would rather be confused than repressed, facing self-loathing and living in fear — something many queer youths experience. Confusion is manageable especially as there can be systems put in place to offer support to those going through it.

Discourse surrounding the LGBTQ+ community is a key point in modern politics which many high school students will be exposed to through the news and social media if nothing else. Facing challenges with identity, whether it be specifically about gender or sexuality or related to other things, is similarly rather unavoidable especially for high school students.

I swear to god im only writing so much on this because I'm procrastinating on a past paper. I cba to finish this point

 

[random93810938]

Don't you think that using the preferred pronouns for someone is upholding your "intrinsic attitude of appreciation and care for others" by validating their personal identity?
Individuals respecting (by your definition) other individuals does not necessarily need to be a political act unless you make it so - perhaps it is at your school from a social standpoint though. If I may ask what are some other components of the pro-LGBTQ rhetoric that you disagree with?

Personally I don't really agree with the whole movement due to religion, thus I try to treat everyone equally without transgressing the values of my fundamental beliefs. But since not everyone is religious, and many have different religions, here are some from an entirely secular standpoint, these are some things regarding it:

1. From a secular view, L and G are merely sexual preferences, just like how individuals have a number of preferences and are attracted to different traits that people have, this can easily be rationalised
2. However, B, T is what I find less understandable. The use of genders is entirely for organisms, from a biological standpoint to be categorised from its features and serves the purpose to categorise them. By making it so that anyone can be any gender, it disregards its purpose and thus, have no use. The notion that by changing gender, it can make it more inclusive for oneself is also counterintuitive because since gender can be anything, it loses the original meaning and becomes disregarded, so it becomes only a title with an ambiguous meaning. Likewise, exams are intended to test students' abilities and distinguish high and low achievers, if every students has the choice of their grade regardless of ability, everyone chooses 100% and thus, tests lose its purpose and the grade has no meaning.
3. To forcefully make others speak of someone in a way that you may not agree with can be quite dangerous, not only does it infringe their rights, values and beliefs, it also sets a precedent that borderline censorship and repression of speech and though is okay, which although may seem harmful now, can set a precedent, a possibility of something more controlling in future. Is it not better to allow opposing parties to voice their perspectives, and disagree, but LGBT are not obliged to follow the beliefs of the other and vice versa.
4. Also makes women more vulnerable in sports and prisons etc

With the "intrinsic attitude of appreciation and care for others," it doesn't mean blind validation. Only because one wishes/feels that they are another gender and if they were to change, it would make them happier, mindlessly validating is not what promotes their wellbeing as the cause of the unhappiness is very likely an underlying condition, thus encouraging them to dwell in such thoughts exacerbates the problem. Imagine an anorexic individual who is underweight but still demands a plastic surgeon does weight loss surgery, for the plastic surgeon to validate that would be unethical, and doesn't solve the underlying issue causing their unhappiness, which is the anorexia and not their perceived weight

Thanks for engaging though, it's good to get differing perspectives and is quite interesting.

 

[SylviaB]

A lot of people in this thread mention "confusion" as something which a) is a side effect of increasing rates of LGBTQ+ awareness and b) has negative impacts upon development. I personally would rather be confused than repressed, facing self-loathing and living in fear — something many queer youths experience. Confusion is manageable especially as there can be systems put in place to offer support to those going through it.

Discourse surrounding the LGBTQ+ community is a key point in modern politics which many high school students will be exposed to through the news and social media if nothing else. Facing challenges with identity, whether it be specifically about gender or sexuality or related to other things, is similarly rather unavoidable especially for high school students.

I swear to god im only writing so much on this because I'm procrastinating on a past paper. I cba to finish this point

better to be confused than to cut your own dick off and regret it or screw up your hormones as a child

 

[thr@]

sorry, didn't mean to write this much, but i just wanted to add some points

2. However, B, T is what I find less understandable.

Why is B less understandable? If you're able to 'rationalise' gay and lesbian people as people who hold different 'sexual preferences', wouldn't this logic extend to bisexual people?

The use of genders is entirely for organisms, from a biological standpoint to be categorised from its features and serves the purpose to categorise them. By making it so that anyone can be any gender, it disregards its purpose and thus, have no use. The notion that by changing gender, it can make it more inclusive for oneself is also counterintuitive because since gender can be anything, it loses the original meaning and becomes disregarded, so it becomes only a title with an ambiguous meaning.

I would push back a bit on this. I think you might be confusing gender with sex - gender is, more or less, a distinctly human concept. Our understanding of gender comes from what we have been taught about how men and women should present themselves, how we should behave, and what responsibilities we have. This explains why gendered expressions, behaviours, appearances, and norms differ across cultures and change over time, as the needs and the values/attitudes of societies changes (see, for eg, our contemporary stigmatisation of men wearing skirts, despite men having worn skirts for centuries. Also see other cultures' differing ideas around the construction of gender, eg, the faʻafafine in Samoa)

Your argument about the biological purpose to categorise gender/sex is also unfounded. The role of science isn't to circumscribe our reality into scientific understanding, it is the other way around: to change our scientific thinking to account for our changed reality. I also don't think its necessarily true that a category that loses its 'original meaning and becomes disregarded' makes it useless. In biology, the way we've categorised a group of organism as a 'species' has drastically changed over time, from Aristotle's classification in 300 BCE to the Biological Species Concept, to, now the growing acceptance of the phylogenetic species concept. Just because we have categorised species differently over time, doesn't make 'species', as a category, any more or less meaningful. The changes in how we classify organisms also reflects the inherently flawed nature of biology's attempt to categorise things. We're imposing a human framework of understanding differences onto life -- something that has no need to adhere to these rigid categories. Scientists find so many exceptions to our categories that a whole new category of living organisms has been created just for those which do not fall into the other categories: protists.

3. To forcefully make others speak of someone in a way that you may not agree with can be quite dangerous, not only does it infringe their rights, values and beliefs, it also sets a precedent that borderline censorship and repression of speech and though is okay, which although may seem harmful now, can set a precedent, a possibility of something more controlling in future. Is it not better to allow opposing parties to voice their perspectives, and disagree, but LGBT are not obliged to follow the beliefs of the other and vice versa.

It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest that respecting how someone wants to be called is akin to "borderline censorship and repression of speech". It is ironic that you fear that this respect will lead to a 'more controlling' future and that allowing 'opposing parties to voice their perspectives' will be better when we are literally seeing the opposite of this in real life. Florida has banned gender-affirming care, AP psychology, and LGBT-themed books in schools and libraries. The governor of Florida who enacted these changes is literally the front-runner for the Republican party in the upcoming US federal election.

4. Also makes women more vulnerable in sports and prisons etc

Empirical evidence also runs counter to this claim. Trans inmates were found to be 13 times more likely to be sexually abused than the average inmate in a 2007 UC Irvine study.

 

[SylviaB]

I would push back a bit on this. I think you might be confusing gender with sex - gender is, more or less, a distinctly human concept. Our understanding of gender comes from what we have been taught about how men and women should present themselves, how we should behave, and what responsibilities we have.

Not all transwomen conform to all or even most of these things - does that mean that those transwomen aren't women? What if a biological woman doesn't conform to literally any of the presenation, behaviors, or responsibilities associated with womanhood? Does that mean she's not a woman?

There is no coherent definition of "woman" you can give that includes all 'transwomen'.

And the idea of gender being socially defined is completely incompatible with gender dysphoria as an innate sensation - the very concept points at an inherent feeling of malehood and womanhood, and the desire in those with gender dysphoria i.e. those who are likely to "understand" the "soically defined nature of gender" to nonetheless surgically remove or alter one's genitals demonstrates the primacy of biology in gender. People with gender dysphoria are not simply (or even necessarily!) opposed to the social factors associated with their sex - they have an inherent feeling that their body doesn't match who they are.

This explains why gendered expressions, behaviours, appearances, and norms differ across cultures and change over time, as the needs and the values/attitudes of societies changes (see, for eg, our contemporary stigmatisation of men wearing skirts, despite men having worn skirts for centuries. Also see other cultures' differing ideas around the construction of gender, eg, the faʻafafine in Samoa)

I guaranteee you I could go to literally any society at any point in history and with >99.9% accuracy will tell you who are the men and who are the women, even as viewed by the people in those societies themselves.

And I could put a dress on, I could put make up on, I could put a long wig on, I could do anything else associated with being a woman. It doesn't change the fact that almost nobody anywhere in the world is going to look at me and be tricked into thinking I'm a woman.

Your argument about the biological purpose to categorise gender/sex is also unfounded. The role of science isn't to circumscribe our reality into scientific understanding, it is the other way around: to change our scientific thinking to account for our changed reality.

There is no changed reality. Some people experience gender dysphoria. It doesn't change biological reality.

Sex and gender were never separate things, gender was used almost exclusively to avoid using the term sex to avoid evoking sexual intercourse for politeness or clarity. It was also used to denote things associated with sex without being sex themselves, not the internal state of someone independant of their biology.

In biology, the way we've categorised a group of organism as a 'species' has drastically changed over time, from Aristotle's classification in 300 BCE to the Biological Species Concept, to, now the growing acceptance of the phylogenetic species concept.

These changes were a result of anatomical and physiological reality - they were NOT changed for ideological reasons.

We're imposing a human framework of understanding differences onto life -- something that has no need to adhere to these rigid categories. Scientists find so many exceptions to our categories that a whole new category of living organisms has been created just for those which do not fall into the other categories: protists.

There has been NO scientific breakthrough that is resulting in these changes to gender. They are exclusively ideological/political in origin. Some male humans feel like they're female, and we're supposed to behave as if this is true. There's zero analogy to taxonomic kingdoms here.

It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest that respecting how someone wants to be called is akin to "borderline censorship and repression of speech".
It is ironic that you fear that this respect will lead to a 'more controlling' future and that allowing 'opposing parties to voice their perspectives' will be better when we are literally seeing the opposite of this in real life.

Wrong, totally wrong. Canada have already criminalized misgendering, and a number of US states are in the process of doing so.

Florida has banned gender-affirming care, AP psychology, and LGBT-themed books in schools and libraries. The governor of Florida who enacted these changes is literally the front-runner for the Republican party in the upcoming US federal election.

Right, one state out of 50, which is less than the number of states that are criminalizing misuse of pronouns.

Also, it's incredibly disingenuous to point at the banning of pro-LGBT books and claim that it's the republicans censoring people. The reality is that no Democrat run state in the US HAS to ban anti-LGBT books, because they would never even make it into the schools and libraries in the first place to warrant banning! If you genuinely believe that the Republicans are the ones in favour of cencorship, then you necessarily belive that all Democrat run states would permit anti-LGBT books in schools and libraries - this is obviously untrue.

Empirical evidence also runs counter to this claim. Trans inmates were found to be 13 times more likely to be sexually abused than the average inmate in a 2007 UC Irvine study.

Trans men or women? In men's prisons or women's prisons?

There is no sexual assault epidemic in mixed-sex gyms. Should be ban women-only gyms as a form of unfounded discrimination? Or should women get a say in whether they should have to allow people with penises into their spaces?

 

[Jeems Rooce]

sorry, didn't mean to write this much, but i just wanted to add some points



Why is B less understandable? If you're able to 'rationalise' gay and lesbian people as people who hold different 'sexual preferences', wouldn't this logic extend to bisexual people?



I would push back a bit on this. I think you might be confusing gender with sex - gender is, more or less, a distinctly human concept. Our understanding of gender comes from what we have been taught about how men and women should present themselves, how we should behave, and what responsibilities we have. This explains why gendered expressions, behaviours, appearances, and norms differ across cultures and change over time, as the needs and the values/attitudes of societies changes (see, for eg, our contemporary stigmatisation of men wearing skirts, despite men having worn skirts for centuries. Also see other cultures' differing ideas around the construction of gender, eg, the faʻafafine in Samoa)

Your argument about the biological purpose to categorise gender/sex is also unfounded. The role of science isn't to circumscribe our reality into scientific understanding, it is the other way around: to change our scientific thinking to account for our changed reality. I also don't think its necessarily true that a category that loses its 'original meaning and becomes disregarded' makes it useless. In biology, the way we've categorised a group of organism as a 'species' has drastically changed over time, from Aristotle's classification in 300 BCE to the Biological Species Concept, to, now the growing acceptance of the phylogenetic species concept. Just because we have categorised species differently over time, doesn't make 'species', as a category, any more or less meaningful. The changes in how we classify organisms also reflects the inherently flawed nature of biology's attempt to categorise things. We're imposing a human framework of understanding differences onto life -- something that has no need to adhere to these rigid categories. Scientists find so many exceptions to our categories that a whole new category of living organisms has been created just for those which do not fall into the other categories: protists.



It's also a bit disingenuous to suggest that respecting how someone wants to be called is akin to "borderline censorship and repression of speech". It is ironic that you fear that this respect will lead to a 'more controlling' future and that allowing 'opposing parties to voice their perspectives' will be better when we are literally seeing the opposite of this in real life. Florida has banned gender-affirming care, AP psychology, and LGBT-themed books in schools and libraries. The governor of Florida who enacted these changes is literally the front-runner for the Republican party in the upcoming US federal election.


Empirical evidence also runs counter to this claim. Trans inmates were found to be 13 times more likely to be sexually abused than the average inmate in a 2007 UC Irvine study.

This is quite an interesting interpretation and I'd like to give some perso perspectives on this, I'll leave dot points below to represent the points coz idk how to format this;

I actually kinda agree, I agree with op on how gay and lesbian is preference but idk why bisexual is not included coz it's a preference also.
I don't think gender is only a societal concept based on the bahviour of the individual and if it is usually done by whichever gender and how they present themselves and responsibilities. This would fall under stereotyping and not all people from the same gender likes the same things. For example, the example of men wearing skirts in the past (Scotland is an example) just means that it's part of their culture, by using the logic that gender is how we present ourselves would imply that all the Scottish population of the past are women. It isn't their intention to be a women, it is just their culture, they identify as men but just wear skirts. It is all about their intention. Ones appearance that fits the stereotypical look or dress up to look like the other gender also doesn't always mean they are that gender. Mulan for example, is quite fictional but also can be an example of intention, she dressed up as a traditional man and looked like a man, but her intention is to take her father's place in war rather than actually transgender. The responsibilities of genders also doesn't always mean what gender someone is. A woman can be a mechanic, a traditionally man's job says society, but that doesn't make them a man, as opposed to a woman interested in cars.

It is also important to know in biology the differences between the genders. In science, it can categorise the different genders and uses definitions kinda like through chromozkes and featyresand have different genetics. It simply means this category of features present in the gender. There are exceptions like protists which are not bacterial, virus or fungus and they make a new category that isn't these things, but they still categorised bacterial, virus and fungus and it is only the leftover without any defining feature to put into a group that they put into the category of protists. This is different from being in the category of a gender and changing category. By freely changing, it also takes the point of op with the exam metaphor that it can reduce meaning maybe if anyone can be any gender anyways and change whenever they want.

The censorship of the books in school libraries is also interesting because I think that some books that are censored maybe shouldn't be censored but other ones fine. I think some of them are inappropriate just like how school children shouldn't be exposed to certain websites and games etc, but I do kinda agree that some censorship is a bit far. Also not a fan of republican anyways tbh.

There is a much higher rate of mtf people who are locked up, which brings how there can be a reason why so many would want to go into a female prison and this system can be abused, there are many cases of men in mate identifying as women and going to women jail and end up harrassing them. Oppose to ftm inmates there are few. This shows that it does make women for vulnerable in jail's due to the significantly higher rate of mtf inmates which many can abuse the system, and why so little ftm going to make prisons because women being in the same setting as men in jail can be unsafe. In sports, almost everytime when a woman is against a mtf or just a male player who even have a much lower ranking, the male or mtf almost always wins which statistically shows that they are put at a disadvantage and ads to the vulnerability, this system can be abused and make unfair for bio women in sports.

Also sorry that the writing isn't that good because English isn't my first language. Pls ask questions if U don't understand part of what I wrote because your writing was interesting and it's good to have a different conversation. Also recognise that my english maybe the problem so yea.

 

[random93810938]

No? I never asserted any of that? What I was emphasising, and what I think even you are admitting here, is the social constructedness of gender. That gender is not a fixed universal category, but a fluid one which some people feel strong attachments to, and some do not. That some people can identify with more parts of their gender identity than others, and some might not. That some might want to identify with a gender other than the one they were assigned at birth, and some do not.

Pretty sure he is NOT ADMITTING it, but is infact suggesting the exact opposite that gender is a social construct

Right, because humans famously do not exist in anatomical and physiological reality?? It's also cute that you think scientific developments operate in silos, completely devoid of political or ideological factors.

Humans' anatomical and physiological reality is their genetics and biology, not their "desires" and "feelings" of this ideological movement that is purely political.

And yet you think that updating your HSC grad year to 2021 changes the unsettling fact that you, at your ripening age, continue to linger, argue, and spread misinformation on a study forum of people half your age. It's seriously a bit weird. To echo another commentor in the past:

I would debate further, but debating with you is like talking to a brick wall and probably not the best use of my time.

Good job, rebuking people who are polite and completely logical to support their perspective through your ungrounded and unrelated personal attacks really proves your point on why your argument is valid...

 

[thr@]

polite and completely logical

lol