[Discussion] Nonbinary makes no sense??

[HowDidIGetPrem]

I get a lot of the weird identity shit, but nonbinary just makes no sense to me. Can someone explain this shit? If nonbinary means the person identifies as something that's not male or female, maybe a mash of the two, that would mean they've already assigned and embraced certain qualities to be male or female(thus have belief in social constructs).

If there's more genders, this would mean they're assigning the traits they have to whatever gender they hold, right? But.. if their individual genders aren't acknowledged and gender roles are constructed, wouldn't this mean there's nothing to say what traits actually belong their genders(there's no actual social construct for them to rely on)?

 

[NOBLE TOAST]

There is confusion. Gender is a concept. What most people mean when they say that really refers to how many sexes there are.There are only two sexes. Gender is a concept made up of reinforced cultural and social contracts.

Transsexual means changing ***...if you don’t get a *** change then you aren’t transsexual.

Now what I don’t get it the term of pan sexual.If one claims to Be. pansexual they usually say I’m atttacted to everyone...and this is where i Usually chime in and say you aren’t “pansexual” you are bisexual. It defeats the argument that a tranwomen is indeed a woman of you have to make up a whole new term to describe being attracted to them. You don’t have to be attracted to transsexuals All people have a preference,all men and women who are straight aren’t attracted to all people of the opposite ***.

 

[kimb]

There is confusion. Gender is a concept. What most people mean when they say that really refers to how many sexes there are.There are only two sexes. Gender is a concept made up of reinforced cultural and social contracts.

Transsexual means changing ***...if you don’t get a *** change then you aren’t transsexual.

Now what I don’t get it the term of pan sexual. Of one claims to Ben pansexual they usually say I’m atttacted to everyone...and this is where i Usually chime in and say you aren’t “pansexual” you are bisexual. It defeats the argument that a tranwomen is indeed a woman of you have to make up a whole new term to describe being attracted to them. You don’t have to be attracted to transsexuals All people have a preference,all men and women who are straight aren’t attached to all people of the opposite ***.

Just like how *** is a concept based on the biological reality of physiology and genetics, gender is a concept based on bio-evolutionary traits and behaviors associated with each ***. *** and gender are strongly correlate with only uncommon abnormalities in human behavior like such found in mental disorders, being the only exceptions.

 

[NOBLE TOAST]

Just like how *** is a concept based on the biological reality of physiology and genetics, gender is a concept based on bio-evolutionary traits and behaviors associated with each ***. *** and gender are strongly correlate with only uncommon abnormalities in human behavior like such found in mental disorders, being the only exceptions.

physiology refers to sexual characteristics.

Gender is exclusively social conditioned contracts reinforced throughout the years based on cultures and religion.

correlation is not causation

 

[Punk Hazard]

Alright I'll try to break this down simply for you. ***=biological aspects that determine male and female; gender=aspects that are independent of biological aspects of male and female(***), but are socially associated with those aspects.

Having a penis=biological male=***; males don't wear dresses=social behavior associated with males=gender.

Gender is pretty much anything that you would associate with biological ***, but isn't an actual part of biological ***. So while a society wouldn't associate dresses with the male biological ***, a man isn't actually bound by his biology to not wearing a dress. Gender also includes psychological associations with *** like gender roles, sexuality, and that goes into people who are trans.

Nonbinary means that a person doesn't believe that people have only two options with their gender. Meaning, nonbinary acknowledges that gender and *** aren't the same thing, and that a person doesn't have to do masculine things just because they are male.

Nonbinary=if you're a man and you want to wear a dress, wear a dress. If you're a woman and you want to wear a man's jacket, wear a man's jacket.

Gender being a social construct is evident by the fact that in different cultures, you'd have different gender roles. For example, in some Middle Eastern countries, one aspect of gender there is that women don't drive, while there's no such gender role in America or England. In Japan and Scotland, there are male clothing items that would be considered feminine in America or Mexico. If gender was biological/not a social construct, you would not find differences in gender roles across different cultures. Every country would have the exact same gender roles for all of history.

 

[Venomous Cobra]

physiology refers to sexual characteristics.

Gender is exclusively social conditioned contracts reinforced throughout the years based on cultures and religion.

correlation is not causation

is goth a gender?

 

[itachifan7]

There is confusion. Gender is a concept. What most people mean when they say that really refers to how many sexes there are.There are only two sexes. Gender is a concept made up of reinforced cultural and social contracts.

Transsexual means changing ***...if you don’t get a *** change then you aren’t transsexual.

Now what I don’t get it the term of pan sexual.If one claims to Be. pansexual they usually say I’m atttacted to everyone...and this is where i Usually chime in and say you aren’t “pansexual” you are bisexual. It defeats the argument that a tranwomen is indeed a woman of you have to make up a whole new term to describe being attracted to them. You don’t have to be attracted to transsexuals All people have a preference,all men and women who are straight aren’t attracted to all people of the opposite ***.

Bisexual infers that they are only two genders pansexual is a more inclusive term I guess. Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Nonbinary means that a person doesn't believe that people have only two options with their gender. Meaning, nonbinary acknowledges that gender and *** aren't the same thing, and that a person doesn't have to do masculine things just because they are male.

Nonbinary=if you're a man and you want to wear a dress, wear a dress. If you're a woman and you want to wear a man's jacket, wear a man's jacket.

Your explanation would make sense to me, but the guys I see claiming to be nonbinary don't treat it as an viewpoint but as a descriptor and implicate there being more identities to pick("spectrum") from rather than denying existing labels. It seems like more, literally more, of the same thing rather than the idea that your *** doesn't have to determine your behavior and whatnot.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Your explanation would make sense to me, but the guys I see claiming to be nonbinary don't treat it as an viewpoint but as a descriptor and implicate there being more identities to pick("spectrum") from rather than denying existing labels. It seems like more, literally more, of the same thing rather than the idea that your *** doesn't have to determine your behavior and whatnot.

The point of nonbinary is that while there are two biological sexes, there aren't just two ways to express gender. That's why they say it's a spectrum. They are not denying that biological male and female exist, just that their identities and ways they can express themselves go beyond just "I have a penis" or "I have a vaginal."

 

[Aim64C]

This is really a rather simple subject. As has already been pointed out, *** is biological - and not just related to anatomy. If you have a y chromosome, you're a male. If you don't, you're a female. While there are some (extremely) rare exceptions to this rule, they still serve to prove the rule.

What people refer to as "gender" is somewhat more complicated as the very concept of what gender applies to is subjective. In many traditional senses, the roles of people within society and family life were part of the subject of gender. Many household chores were considered feminine tasks while work away from the home or that was physically demanding was a man's work. Going beyond this is whether or not the perception of this is 'absolute' or 'relaxed.' I can see being a lumber-jack as a man's job. That said, it is not as though I look down on a woman for going to undertake that job. Nor do I look down on a man for vacuuming the house, even though that is more of a 'woman's domain.'

Moreover, we can see this in the expression of dress and attire. While it is true that "what a man wears" and "what a woman wears" are socially subjective in many ways, what is absolute is the concept of communication. When we dress ourselves, we are looking to satisfy our attempt at non-verbal communication. We have a target audience in mind when we are dressing ourselves for social events (or even general outings) and we are looking to be satisfied that we are sending that message when we look to 'wear what we want.' This means that, in order for our communication to be effective, we need to appeal to the surrounding cultural trends. Regardless of what we think our manner of dress means, if it isn't understood by the eyes of those around us, then the attempt at communication failed.

*** has a very real influence on the 'subjectivity' of all of these concepts, however. The bodies of women, physically, do not compare with the bodies of men, who have bathed in testosterone since birth. The biology of men drives them toward physically demanding tasks and those that imply danger. Men almost always have a very practical and functional way of approaching dress. We like to keep it simple and to the point. Again, there are always those who lay at the end of the norms distribution, but in pretty much every culture, male attire is simple and often work related.

Females, on the other hand, tend to be far more visually verbose in their dress and customs. Clothing is often ornate and attempts to tell a more complicated story. Positioning of accessories is symbolic, jewelry and its location holds subtle meanings and implies affiliations, etc. These are all part of the generally more social world of women, who generally prefer to interact with other people. Women are constantly found in the fields of medicine and services where the job deals heavily with interaction between people. Contrast to men who tend to work on things/objects. In many cultures, women spend a great deal of time looking to convey complicated social messages using their manner of dress - and it almost always results in more ornate styles of dress.

Not that the sexes can't communicate with each other using this method. If a man walks up to my girlfriend and hands her a necklace, and then she wears that necklace ... what is she saying to me, and why am I trying not to flip over tables in grandiose displays of rage?
If I bother to iron my clothes and prim myself up a bit before meeting a girl on a date, why is she flattered?

These systems of nonverbal communication are a massively under-rated factor in our socialization. When people dress and behave in ways radically outside of the understood 'language' of these systems, then people become confused, irritated, and frustrated.

All of this translates into other implications for careers, family life/roles, the relationships between the sexes, etc. While there is room for subjectivity and personal expression, the reality is that most people fall within the trends of their ***. How rigid the social interpretation of those trends, and how penalizing the social reaction to those outside the standard distribution is part of what is condensed into the concept of "gender."

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

The point of nonbinary is that while there are two biological sexes, there aren't just two ways to express gender.

This makes no sense. This sentence is implicating more than two genders rather than being unbound to existing genders, but there's no roles for additional genders to exist since they haven't been acknowledged.

That's why they say it's a spectrum. They are not denying that biological male and female exist, just that their identities and ways they can express themselves go beyond just "I have a penis" or "I have a vaginal."

You yourself wrote that gender is a social construct tho, so you should understand why this makes no sense. How can their gender be a thing if there's no consensus on the person's individual gender? There's nothing for them to align with, so, at that point, they may as well say "gender is bullshit" or "no gender." Instead, they cling to additional labels and further reinforce the idea of genders.

This is really a rather simple subject. As has already been pointed out, *** is biological - and not just related to anatomy. If you have a y chromosome, you're a male. If you don't, you're a female. While there are some (extremely) rare exceptions to this rule, they still serve to prove the rule.

What people refer to as "gender" is somewhat more complicated as the very concept of what gender applies to is subjective. In many traditional senses, the roles of people within society and family life were part of the subject of gender. Many household chores were considered feminine tasks while work away from the home or that was physically demanding was a man's work. Going beyond this is whether or not the perception of this is 'absolute' or 'relaxed.' I can see being a lumber-jack as a man's job. That said, it is not as though I look down on a woman for going to undertake that job. Nor do I look down on a man for vacuuming the house, even though that is more of a 'woman's domain.'

Moreover, we can see this in the expression of dress and attire. While it is true that "what a man wears" and "what a woman wears" are socially subjective in many ways, what is absolute is the concept of communication. When we dress ourselves, we are looking to satisfy our attempt at non-verbal communication. We have a target audience in mind when we are dressing ourselves for social events (or even general outings) and we are looking to be satisfied that we are sending that message when we look to 'wear what we want.' This means that, in order for our communication to be effective, we need to appeal to the surrounding cultural trends. Regardless of what we think our manner of dress means, if it isn't understood by the eyes of those around us, then the attempt at communication failed.

*** has a very real influence on the 'subjectivity' of all of these concepts, however. The bodies of women, physically, do not compare with the bodies of men, who have bathed in testosterone since birth. The biology of men drives them toward physically demanding tasks and those that imply danger. Men almost always have a very practical and functional way of approaching dress. We like to keep it simple and to the point. Again, there are always those who lay at the end of the norms distribution, but in pretty much every culture, male attire is simple and often work related.

Females, on the other hand, tend to be far more visually verbose in their dress and customs. Clothing is often ornate and attempts to tell a more complicated story. Positioning of accessories is symbolic, jewelry and its location holds subtle meanings and implies affiliations, etc. These are all part of the generally more social world of women, who generally prefer to interact with other people. Women are constantly found in the fields of medicine and services where the job deals heavily with interaction between people. Contrast to men who tend to work on things/objects. In many cultures, women spend a great deal of time looking to convey complicated social messages using their manner of dress - and it almost always results in more ornate styles of dress.

Not that the sexes can't communicate with each other using this method. If a man walks up to my girlfriend and hands her a necklace, and then she wears that necklace ... what is she saying to me, and why am I trying not to flip over tables in grandiose displays of rage?
If I bother to iron my clothes and prim myself up a bit before meeting a girl on a date, why is she flattered?

These systems of nonverbal communication are a massively under-rated factor in our socialization. When people dress and behave in ways radically outside of the understood 'language' of these systems, then people become confused, irritated, and frustrated.

All of this translates into other implications for careers, family life/roles, the relationships between the sexes, etc. While there is room for subjectivity and personal expression, the reality is that most people fall within the trends of their ***. How rigid the social interpretation of those trends, and how penalizing the social reaction to those outside the standard distribution is part of what is condensed into the concept of "gender."

Can you make your point more obvious and not veer too far off into the unrelated?

 

[Aim64C]

The point of nonbinary is that while there are two biological sexes, there aren't just two ways to express gender. That's why they say it's a spectrum. They are not denying that biological male and female exist, just that their identities and ways they can express themselves go beyond just "I have a penis" or "I have a vaginal."

I find this "non-binary" stuff needlessly troublesome nitpicking.

It's not truly a "gender exists on a spectrum" - it is an obsessive venture to quantize behavioral trends within the context of masculine/feminine gender perceptions arbitrarily defined by its undertakers. It is the basic assumption that EVERY action taken by a person is an expression of their gender.
This is the same crowd of people who insist they can determine whether or not a person is homosexual by the way they sit or from the career path they chose.

It is an extension of the hyper-sexualization of our culture, where everything has become about *** to varying degrees. Every interaction between men and women must be seen within a sexual light. While it is a mistake to completely ignore the importance of *** within our culture - it is also a grave mistake to make everything about *** by trying to pretend gender is independent of ***. Because *** does underwrite a massive amount of our existence as corporeal beings, the attempt to categorize "non-binary gender" ultimately routes back to expressions of sexual interest.



As a similarly afflicted fan of Madoka Magica, who would cosplay as Homura Akemi in a hearbeat (even though my personal favorite is Kyoko Sakura - her character arc is actually the most amazing... from the most selfish and self-centered of them, to the one who actually dies as a magical girl by sacrificing herself to spare 'the weak human' at the bottom of the food chain)... what does that make me within the non-binary system of labels?

It's silly. I'm just a guy who likes the show and would find it funny to Sis Puella Magi. Not every woman who dresses up as Sasuke is looking to express a masculine (or feminine) quality in doing so.

It's a two-prong system of attack on society. On one end, people are dressing as nonsense and claiming nonsense. On the other end, categories of nonsense are being introduced and treated as official as people attempt to decipher what these new categories mean and how they apply. In the mean time, it has a disastrous impact on how men and women communicate with each other and some are completely destroyed by the vicarious living of their parents.

 

[Punk Hazard]

This makes no sense. This sentence is implicating more than two genders rather than being unbound to existing genders, but there's no roles for additional genders to exist since they haven't been acknowledged.

What? My post implies there are more than two genders because there are more than two genders. There's an infinite amount of possible genders because there's literally limitless ways a person can express themselves with gender roles and identities.

You yourself wrote that gender is a social construct tho, so you should understand why this makes no sense. How can their gender be a thing if there's no consensus on the person's individual gender?

The same way economies, race, morality, religions, etc. are.

There's nothing for them to align with, so, at that point, they may as well say "gender is bullshit" or "no gender." Instead, they cling to additional labels and further reinforce the idea of genders.

And? This is not a problem.



Can you make your point more obvious and not veer too far off into the unrelated?[/QUOTE]

 

[Punk Hazard]

I find this "non-binary" stuff needlessly troublesome nitpicking.

It's not truly a "gender exists on a spectrum" - it is an obsessive venture to quantize behavioral trends within the context of masculine/feminine gender perceptions arbitrarily defined by its undertakers. It is the basic assumption that EVERY action taken by a person is an expression of their gender.

No it's not. Because I've never seen anyone who supports the concept of non-binary act like everything you do is reflective of your gender identity. In fact, it's people who aren't supportive of such a concept that I've seen more attuned to this paradigm. People who support the concept of non-binary have behaviors they quantify with gender, and those they don't.

This is the same crowd of people who insist they can determine whether or not a person is homosexual by the way they sit or from the career path they chose.

Like I said, you're going to find this behavior in people who insist that men have to "act like men" and women have to "act like women" than people who support the concept of non-binary. And that's likely because those people don't rigidly assign behaviors to either *** as much as binary people do, who insist that men have to be masculine and women have to be feminine.

It is an extension of the hyper-sexualization of our culture, where everything has become about *** to varying degrees. Every interaction between men and women must be seen within a sexual light. While it is a mistake to completely ignore the importance of *** within our culture - it is also a grave mistake to make everything about *** by trying to pretend gender is independent of ***. Because *** does underwrite a massive amount of our existence as corporeal beings, the attempt to categorize "non-binary gender" ultimately routes back to expressions of sexual interest.

Gender is independent of *** though. Being associated with *** is not the same as being dependent on ***.

As a similarly afflicted fan of Madoka Magica, who would cosplay as Homura Akemi in a hearbeat (even though my personal favorite is Kyoko Sakura - her character arc is actually the most amazing... from the most selfish and self-centered of them, to the one who actually dies as a magical girl by sacrificing herself to spare 'the weak human' at the bottom of the food chain)... what does that make me within the non-binary system of labels?

These...are fictional women....these are drawings...what the **** are you blabbering about?

It's silly. I'm just a guy who likes the show and would find it funny to Sis Puella Magi. Not every woman who dresses up as Sasuke is looking to express a masculine (or feminine) quality in doing so.

So...you're supportive of the concept of non-binary then.

 

[Adam Driver]

All this text. All you need to know us male and female das it

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

What? My post implies there are more than two genders because there are more than two genders. There's an infinite amount of possible genders because there's literally limitless ways a person can express themselves with gender roles and identities.

@Bold, gender is not expression. I don't universally deny there being more than two genders(though I do give off the idea for brevity), I simply oppose the thought that you can claim you're "this" gender that doesn't have any social constructs beneath it WHILE showing that you understand the existing two are due to social constructs. It's not really a gender if there's nothing more to it than expression. Your previous description of how men & women can mismatch and so on is actually antithetical to a gender since it's about deviating from social constructs rather than creating more.

The same way economies, race, morality, religions, etc. are.

I don't understand what you mean.

And? This is not a problem.

It is a problem. It perpetuates the issue that challenges themselves. If you ultimately want your expression to be viewed as just that and to avoid inferences from it, why would you go further to complicate matters & propel the idea of gender? There's a huge dissonance in your statements and it's probably due to nonbinary being a broad term, but I can't overlook it because the two are very contradictory. One side doesn't approve of society defining them by how they dress, and the other side is saying "define me" but as "this additional gender."

I feel there has to be something more to the latter that I'm not grasping for them to prefer additional pronouns and such, but I really don't know what it is.

 

[NOBLE TOAST]

Your explanation would make sense to me, but the guys I see claiming to be nonbinary don't treat it as an viewpoint but as a descriptor and implicate there being more identities to pick("spectrum") from rather than denying existing labels. It seems like more, literally more, of the same thing rather than the idea that your *** doesn't have to determine your behavior and whatnot.

And that’s where the well meaning, but faulty logic of the label “Pansxual” stems from

I’m starting to think it’s political in nature as I don’t base my sexual attraction to someone based on what she’d thry were originally i love who I love....Either way they aren’t attracted to them because they regardless ***. So they are just Bisexual and to imply more is to deny transsexuals authenticity.

 

[EZQ]

Separing gender from *** is sexist. The idea of non binarysm is sexist. Let me explain:

-If a biological male, for example, says he doesn't feel identified with his biological *** as a gender, he can say he identifies as a woman, or neither. BUT, that would mean, he's giving the biological ***, a social role, that makes him not feel "not identified". But actually, your biological *** doesn't imply any role in your life, you can do the **** you want with it. But the moment you say "you don't feel identified by being a man or a woman"

1- You're saying you don't feel identified with a woman or a man's role... and you're giving a biological ***, a social role, which is the definition of sexism

2- You're saying you don't feel identified with having XX or XY chromosomes, which doesn't make sense, that's not a thing, because your biological *** is a fact.

Gender=Biological ***= Something that doesn't give you any role in society, besides what you want to do with your life, despite having a vagina or a penis, you can do the **** you want.

Don't be sexist. Gender=/= *** is a sexist idea.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Separing gender from *** is sexist. The idea of non binarysm is sexist. Let me explain:

-If a biological male, for example, says he doesn't feel identified with his biological *** as a gender, he can say he identifies as a woman, or neither. BUT, that would mean, he's giving the biological ***, a social role, that makes him not feel "not identified". But actually, your biological *** doesn't imply any role in your life, you can do the **** you want with it. But the moment you say "you don't feel identified by being a man or a woman"

1- You're saying you don't feel identified with a woman or a man's role... and you're giving a biological ***, a social role, which is the definition of sexism

They don't necessarily have to have belief in the roles themselves, just not adhere to them. Say there's a country in the world and you're expected to do things a certain way based on your skin, the 1st way, "Silly Way," if you're white, and the second way, "Serious Way," if you're black. You never decided for things to be so, but to refer to the concept of not falling under either, you'd need a word that acknowledges it.

2- You're saying you don't feel identified with having XX or XY chromosomes, which doesn't make sense, that's not a thing, because your biological *** is a fact.

There's more than just XX & XY. The statement is about more than biological ***.

Gender=Biological ***= Something that doesn't give you any role in society, besides what you want to do with your life, despite having a vagina or a penis, you can do the **** you want.

Don't be sexist. Gender=/= *** is a sexist idea.

You're playing by a different dictionary or something. *** is the fact that you're female itself. Gender is the baggage that comes along with it such as expectations to be polite or speak in a soft voice or whatever. Can you, as a guy, walk into the public caked up in makeup and not get odd stares?

 

[Punk Hazard]

@Bold, gender is not expression.

This is just factually incorrect.

I don't universally deny there being more than two genders(though I do give off the idea for brevity)

Gender and *** are not the same thing in this context.

I simply oppose the thought that you can claim you're "this" gender that doesn't have any social constructs beneath it

The thing is, EVERY possible gender does have social constructs beneath them because the things we use to represent gender identity, i.e., the differences between masculine and feminine(as well as the concepts of masculinity and femininity) are social constructs. There are no gender identities or roles that operate without social constructs beneath them.

WHILE showing that you understand the existing two are due to social constructs. It's not really a gender if there's nothing more to it than expression.

Again, this is simply factually incorrect.

Your previous description of how men & women can mismatch and so on is actually antithetical to a gender since it's about deviating from social constructs rather than creating more.

The concept of being non-binary doesn't deviate from social constructs however. You can't deviate from social constructs because they permeate our lives as social creatures. The concept of being non-binary deviates from the idea that one HAS to follow social constructs based on their biological *** rather than whatever they simply feel comfortable in. As I mentioned before, masculinity and femininity are both social constructs. Non-binary doesn't mean you reject that masculinity or femininity exists, it means that anyone can be masculine, anyone can be feminine, or neither if that's what they feel comfortable doing regardless of their biological ***.

It is a problem. It perpetuates the issue that challenges themselves. If you ultimately want your expression to be viewed as just that and to avoid inferences from it, why would you go further to complicate matters & propel the idea of gender?

This is just complaining that gender is complicated. Which is hardly a valid argument against the concept of non-binary. Any kind of sociological concept, whether it be race, sexuality, gender, ethnicity, nationality, whatever, is gonna be a complicated topic. Just because you can't handle it doesn't make it a bad thing.

There's a huge dissonance in your statements and it's probably due to nonbinary being a broad term, but I can't overlook it because the two are very contradictory. One side doesn't approve of society defining them by how they dress, and the other side is saying "define me" but as "this additional gender."

And that’s where the well meaning, but faulty logic of the label “Pansxual” stems from

I’m starting to think it’s political in nature as I don’t base my sexual attraction to someone based on what she’d thry were originally i love who I love....Either way they aren’t attracted to them because they regardless ***. So they are just Bisexual and to imply more is to deny transsexuals authenticity.

The difference between pansexuality and bisexuality is that bisexuals are typically only attracted to cisgendered people, and while they are attracted to both biological men and women, they have a preference between the two and like one of them more than the other, or more frequently than the other.

Pansexuality means one doesn't have any preference between biological men or women, and aren't just attracted to cisgendered people.

Pansexuality doesn't deny the authencity of transsexuals because:
A) Bisexuality simply isn't commonly used to apply to transsexuals
B) The validity of transsexuals doesn't depend on the question of "Would people **** them or not" in the first place.

Separing gender from *** is sexist. The idea of non binarysm is sexist. Let me explain:

-If a biological male, for example, says he doesn't feel identified with his biological *** as a gender, he can say he identifies as a woman, or neither. BUT, that would mean, he's giving the biological ***, a social role, that makes him not feel "not identified". But actually, your biological *** doesn't imply any role in your life, you can do the **** you want with it. But the moment you say "you don't feel identified by being a man or a woman"

This argument already fails. You're defending the concept of not separating "***" and "gender" with an argument that only works if it's already accepted that "***" and "gender" are the same thing. Also, you say that biological *** is a social role, which in of itself makes no sense as something being a social role means that what defines it and what determines can vary between societies and from culture to culture. Biological *** is the same regardless of what culture or society you're in. Something that's biological cannot be a social role/concept.

1- You're saying you don't feel identified with a woman or a man's role... and you're giving a biological ***, a social role, which is the definition of sexism

Separating gender and *** is the exact opposite of this. Separating *** and gender means that you're separating the social aspect(gender) from the biological(***), giving people the freedom to do whatever they feel comfortable regardless of their biological ***. That is the opposite of sexism as you aren't limiting people's behaviors or attitudes to their biological ***.

2- You're saying you don't feel identified with having XX or XY chromosomes, which doesn't make sense, that's not a thing, because your biological *** is a fact.

Transsexual people do not deny that they are biologically their biological ***. That's the exact opposite of transsexuality. Transsexuality operates on the principle that one's psychological and emotional state may be more attuned to the body of the opposite biological ***, hence why they identify as transsexual in the first place.

Gender=Biological ***= Something that doesn't give you any role in society, besides what you want to do with your life, despite having a vagina or a penis, you can do the **** you want.

Don't be sexist. Gender=/= *** is a sexist idea.

You literally limit people's attitudes and behaviors to their biological ***, and then say it's sexist not do so. This is probably some Grade A trolling.