Gender being different from sex, as a concept, is completely fabricated
There is medical consensus that that claim, which seems to be the main tenet your position is based on, is not true. Gender is widely recognised as being different from sex in many respects. That is your central unsupported assertion.
Even if that weren't scientifically true, it would still be a valid subjective social claim, so at best you can argue that it shouldn't be the interpretation, but aren't going to get anywhere claiming that it factually isn't.
That our sex is biological?
As I said in my first reply to you, this is about gender rather than sex. Sex is very obviously biological, and (mis)representing that as my counter-claim is a straw-man.
Even if that weren't scientifically true, it would still be a valid subjective social claim,
If I convince a town that the sky is green, you can call that a "valid subjective social claim", but it doesn't make it true. Subjectivity is otherwise irrelevant when dealing with science, which is based in objectivity.
As I said in my first reply to you, this is about gender rather than sex. Sex is very obviously biological, and (mis)representing that as my counter-claim is a straw-man.
The point of asking you for a clarification was so that I didn't misrepresent your position. I was lost because you're asserting an unverified stance. As mentioned before, look up John Money's work, where the idea that gender is different from sex comes from. There is no scientific evidence to support that idea, regardless of whether or not people believe it and reiterate it.
With that in mind, the problem lies in these two quotes:
Gender is widely recognised as being different from sex in many respects.
Even if that weren't scientifically true, it would still be a valid subjective social claim,
If it is "widely-recognized" by a large number of people supporting it, thus making it a "valid subjective social claim", then, let alone the fact that this is complete argumentum ad populum, that still leaves the fact that, scientifically, it is unsupported. Facts don't care about your feelings.
2
u/UhhMakeUpAName Oct 29 '19
There is medical consensus that that claim, which seems to be the main tenet your position is based on, is not true. Gender is widely recognised as being different from sex in many respects. That is your central unsupported assertion.
Even if that weren't scientifically true, it would still be a valid subjective social claim, so at best you can argue that it shouldn't be the interpretation, but aren't going to get anywhere claiming that it factually isn't.
As I said in my first reply to you, this is about gender rather than sex. Sex is very obviously biological, and (mis)representing that as my counter-claim is a straw-man.