Coming out Pansexual

[princealbertofb]

I am well-aware of the intersex conditions. That's why I said biologically male or female rather than genetically male or female. In any case, intersex conditions don't help your argument, since most of them still identify discretely either male or female.

@princealbertofb, I am confused as to what you mean by 'being born with two genders'. Do you mean the genetic chimerism? That would be a better argument, if only such chimerism produced an individual who identified as something in between male and female. Which still is not the case, from what I've read. And in any case I don't support the premise that one or two (supposed) exceptions abolish our whole understanding of gender.

I have not seen a convincing argument for your case yet. Most in-favor points are flimsy at best, specifically tailored to suit their purpose. Whichever way you wanna look at this, absolutely every person is either biologically* male or biologically female when you get down to it. There's no arguing with the facts resulting from it.


* By this I mean both, their reproductive organs, and the testosterone/estrogen ratio. Whichever one has a more definitive influence. Maybe, 'physiologic' gender is a better term to use.

And now there are people who are telling you that they aren't one or the other, or that they are both. Their bodies might be what you define as either male or female (but then what about intersex people? ) but they don't see it that way, nor feel that way. Why is their word not acceptable, if that's how they feel ?

You keep saying that there are only two genders, biological or whatever you wish to call them, and I'm saying maybe there is some other gender, something that has not been defined before, which doesn't mean that it didn't always exist.

Since gender is more of a social construct (and although I know angels may just be a pure invention of the mind, don't we say that they have no gender of their own, genderless?) why is it difficult to imagine that there is a new gender starting to be defined, much as once there was no concept of 'homosexuality' even if the facts existed.

Is it the Mormons who preach that there is no such thing as 'homosexuality'? All there is is the abnormal sin or behaviour of two people of the same gender engaging in sex together. And yet you'd be quick to tell them they were wrong.

So, I'm not insisting that I'm right, but I think the benefit of the doubt might be one of the options. I'm ready to accept that there are people out there who don't feel comfortable being plugged into the narrow definitions of male or female, and who don't need those to live fruitful lives. If they want to call themselves gender fluid, then that's who they are.

One more option, maybe I'm too dumb to understand what you're trying to explain, @meridannight.