do I understand the definition of a woman?

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by doubtingthomas »

Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 3:32 pm
Make your point, you tried that with your last point and failed miserably
Yes, I failed. I have no idea how to explain something to an uneducated troll like you.
Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 3:50 pm
CAIS…is when the male fetus does not respond at all to androgens and their external sexual genitals “appear” to be female
But I'll try again.
women with androgen insensitivity have normal external genitalia, namely, a lower vagina, labia, clitoris, and urethra. Girls with androgen insensitivity look like normal females and go through puberty and normal breast development, but because their bodies cannot use testosterone, they will have scant or no pubic and armpit hair
https://www.childrenshospital.org/condi ... ensitivity

Is that good enough? Or do you want me to start drawing with crayola?

Your claim that "external sexual genitals “appear” to be female" is pulled out of your butt.
Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 3:32 pm
didn’t even understand your smoking gun was actually a disease that only a biological male can have
It's called female pseudohermaphroditism.
Genetic females (46:XX) with this disorder have masculinized external genitalia, especially an enlarged clitoris...Their clitoris grows to penis size and they begin to have erections
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ph ... phroditism
Last edited by doubtingthomas on Sun May 08, 2022 6:08 pm, edited 5 times in total.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by honorentheos »

Markk,

You described the question that you sidestepped as a trap. Had you thought about it and answered it, it would help highlight that we are talking about two related yet different things when we talk about gender and sex.

I noted that "2" is an invention, a construct of culture that we've found very useful. It and numbers like it allow us to take individual items, group them into sets, and use this in our daily lives. For example, you may answer the question regarding how many kids a friend has as, "2" even though one may be male and the other female, one may be freckled and the other tanned, one tall and the other short, or any numerous variations that make them individuals. Why? Because you and the asker share an understood definition for what is meant by "kids", and the set of individuals in the world that meet that definition have the qualities of the construct "2".

You may argue that the kids and how many of them there are is not something society or culture created, as their being your friend's kids is a biological fact. And there being two of them is also a fact. So isn't all of the above just complicating an obvious and simple situation? Inventions and definitions exist precisely to make things more simple so they can be useful, which explains why you find yourself arguing tautologically for the definition being sum of the debate. Conceptually, having methods for counting is a basic, early invention of social groups that happens independent of other group influence in most cases because it does simplify and seems necessary for human societies. Yet there are variations that have been found, and more complicated inventions such as "0" or imaginary numbers do not appear in most cultures independently but were discovered and then spread.

Regarding being your friend's kids, we have the most simple answer for that meaning their biological offspring, but also adopted children they are raising who are legally their kid. We may question if your friend deserves to call them their kids if they are an abusive or negligent parent. And society may go so far as to remove them from the home and someone else adopt them legally if the situation is sufficiently dire. One of those kids may be the friend of the only biological child but is living with them, with your friend caring about their well being and calling them their kid. So while most often the instance of "kid" speaks to someone who has half that person's genes, that isn't binary and simply a question of a person's genes. Biologically? It is that simple but requires testing to confirm. Socially? We apply the simplified and shared understanding and make judgement calls.

So if you kept reading this far you are making the blah-blah-blah hand gesture and wondering why I'm so far off topic, I'm sure.

If you go back to very early in the thread you'll see Chap laid out the two sides of this question. One being biological and the other cultural/social. They pointed out that while the biological question of sex is largely defined by two major types - male and female - there are cases that do not fit as neatly into those categories even when looked at scientifically and strictly. We use male and female to describe sex, with the understanding the apparent binary definition is not comprehensive if it is useful. Both Kevin and DT have offered up posts on more variations on this to point out that arguing it is binary is not reality.

Biological sex is just one axis on which gender identity hangs. We assign characteristics to male and female members of our society. Keeping in mind that the biological binary is an over-simplification already that is useful but not precise. Society then defines what manhood is, what womanhood is. It tells you that in certain situations a male should behave one way and a female another, defining what it means to be a man and to be a woman. These definitions include socially idealized traits of each, and it informs members of society what society expects of them as either a man or woman. These definitions change and evolve, too.

Today, in LDS church buildings leaders will take the national day set aside for honoring mothers and use it to explain the Mormon cultural ideal of womanhood, often preceding the term "womanhood" with terms like, "sanctity". Chromosomes aren't something you sanctify, though. Norms are. Norms being, "the rules or expectations that determine and regulate appropriate behavior within a culture, group, or society" as defined in sociology.

Now, being a religious conservative type, it is understandable that in your mind sex and gender are the same, God-defined binary from which no variation is recognized because God is good and perfect, and being a man or woman just simply comes naturally like prayer and belief in life after death. If someone experiences discomfort trying to fit in one of the two boxes of traditional society and protests, "Neither of these fits me", they're the problem. If someone born with a penis feels the way society describes womanhood also describes them, and manhood seems alien, if they don't just squeeze into the box labeled "Man" you insist they are "choosing" to be a woman even though they don't feel it's a choice and the social construction of the term is not an objective, biological fact but rather a bag of cultural norms and values. Or the other way around, a biological female that does not see themselves in the contents of the bag society labeled, "Woman" isn't choosing to not be female when they act according to their own individual sense of who they are as a person. If a person of either sex undergoes surgery to more closely fit the social definition of the gender they most closely associate with, that isn't choosing to be a woman or man. That's them making an outward change in the attempt to better fit in the bag of norms and values they see as being who they are as a person, comprehensively and not just based on the plumbing in their pants.

Now, the response of many younger people these days is to realize the problem isn't in trying to figure out which one of the two bags best fits, but the entire social binary apparatus is the problem. "Non-binary" is becoming a normal response to gender identity question precisely because the modern binary ideals of "manhood" and "womanhood" are damaging to individual identity and favor society over the individual. Post-modern types favor the individual over the ideal, believing it is the most realistic, and they aren't playing the game, period.

So you aren't engaging the discussion but instead asserting an outdated and ignorant position that you don't understand yourself.

All that is to say, you would call a person with complete androgen insensitivity a woman (you can't see their genes but what you could see would be interpreted as female by you), you could insert your penis into their sex organ and ejaculate, and you'd expect her to make you breakfast in the morning and blame her when she doesn't give you male offspring to carry on the family name (I get the sense you are that kind of guy but who knows. Oh, LOL! Now its ok I said that.)
Last edited by honorentheos on Sun May 08, 2022 5:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Markk
First Presidency
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by Markk »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 5:23 pm
Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 3:32 pm
Make your point, you tried that with your last point and failed miserably
Yes, I failed. I have no idea how to explain something to an uneducated troll like you.
Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 3:50 pm
CAIS…is when the male fetus does not respond at all to androgens and their external sexual genitals “appear” to be female
But I'll try again.
women with androgen insensitivity have normal external genitalia, namely, a lower vagina, labia, clitoris, and urethra. Girls with androgen insensitivity look like normal females and go through puberty and normal breast development, but because their bodies cannot use testosterone, they will have scant or no pubic and armpit hair
https://www.childrenshospital.org/condi ... ensitivity

Is that good enough? Or do you want me to start drawing with crayola?

Your claim that "external sexual genitals “appear” to be female" is pulled out of your butt.
Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 3:32 pm
didn’t even understand your smoking gun was actually a disease that only a biological male can have
It's called female pseudohermaphroditism.
Genetic females (46:XX) with this disorder have masculinized external genitalia, especially an enlarged clitoris...Their clitoris grows to penis size and they begin to have erections
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ph ... phroditism
You are butchering the context. Only male fetuses are effected by this disease. If you read you quote it state these girls and women carry the XY chromosome…which compliments that they were genetically male fetus’ as it states below and are girls and women by identification and hormone treatment and in many cases surgery. And again this is a rare disease you don’t want to acknowledge this.
What is androgen insensitivity syndrome?

Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) occurs when someone is genetically male but is insensitive to androgens (male sex hormones). This means the person has male sex chromosomes (one X and one Y chromosome) but may have female genitals.

AIS is a disorder of sex differentiation. It was previously called testicular feminization syndrome. It affects male fetuses as they develop in the womb, as well as sexual development during puberty. AIS prevents male genitals from developing as they should. It almost always results in infertility during adulthood.
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/d ... y-syndrome

This complements this…
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS) is genetic condition that affects the sexual development of a male fetus. During pregnancy, male fetuses with PAIS are unable to properly respond to male sex hormones (androgens). As a result, this affects the development of the genitals. The appearance of the genitals may vary from person to person. Some males have an unusually small penis (microphallus), undescended testes, hypospadias (urethra located on the underside of the penis), and/ or bifid scrotum (scrotum split in two). Others may have more female-appearing genitals and physical features, including a large clitoris (clitoromegaly), male breast development (gynecomastia), undescended testes, and/ or fusion of the labia. Individuals with PAIS typically have infertility. PAIS is caused by a change in the AR gene, which is located on the X chromosome. It is inherited through an X-linked recessive pattern and typically affects males. It is recommended that parents and caretakers work with an experienced healthcare team to evaluate a child with PAIS before assigning their sex. If the individual is reared as male, they may be given testosterone therapy to improve fertility and surgeries to repair structures of the penis and to reduce the size of the male breasts. If the individual is reared as female, they may be offered surgery to remove the male reproductive organs after puberty, followed by estrogen (female sex hormone) therapy.
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/ ... e-partial/
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by doubtingthomas »

Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 8:26 pm
hormone treatment and in many cases surgery.
Why are you ignoring this? "have normal external genitalia, namely, a lower vagina, labia, clitoris, and urethra.... and normal breast development"

A person with a vagina, clitoris, urethra, and normal breasts sounds closer to a biological female, wouldn't you agree?

Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 8:26 pm
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS)
Jesus Christ! I was talking about complete androgen insensitivity, not partial androgen. Women with complete androgen insensitivity have a normal vagina, clitoris, urethra, and female breasts with specialized lobules. What is a woman?
Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 8:26 pm
You are butchering the context. Only male fetuses are effected by this disease. If you read you quote it state these girls and women carry the XY chromosome
Can you explain "XXX" and "XYY"?
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by doubtingthomas »

Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 8:26 pm
Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (PAIS)
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/ ... e-partial/
Complete androgen insensitivity is usually not diagnosed before puberty, unless a lump is felt in the groin or abdomen, and it turns out to be a testicle during surgery. Usually, androgen insensitivity is diagnosed only after a young woman discovers that she hasn't started menstruation.

Partial androgen insensitivity is usually discovered earlier in life because the baby will have ambiguous genitalia.
Honestly sir, you are not very smart.
"I have the type of (REAL) job where I can choose how to spend my time," says Marcus. :roll:
Markk
First Presidency
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by Markk »

honorentheos wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 5:23 pm
Markk,

You described the question that you sidestepped as a trap. Had you thought about it and answered it, it would help highlight that we are talking about two related yet different things when we talk about gender and sex.

I noted that "2" is an invention, a construct of culture that we've found very useful. It and numbers like it allow us to take individual items, group them into sets, and use this in our daily lives. For example, you may answer the question regarding how many kids a friend has as, "2" even though one may be male and the other female, one may be freckled and the other tanned, one tall and the other short, or any numerous variations that make them individuals. Why? Because you and the asker share an understood definition for what is meant by "kids", and the set of individuals in the world that meet that definition have the qualities of the construct "2".

You may argue that the kids and how many of them there are is not something society or culture created, as their being your friend's kids is a biological fact. And there being two of them is also a fact. So isn't all of the above just complicating an obvious and simple situation? Inventions and definitions exist precisely to make things more simple so they can be useful, which explains why you find yourself arguing tautologically for the definition being sum of the debate. Conceptually, having methods for counting is a basic, early invention of social groups that happens independent of other group influence in most cases because it does simplify and seems necessary for human societies. Yet there are variations that have been found, and more complicated inventions such as "0" or imaginary numbers do not appear in most cultures independently but were discovered and then spread.

Regarding being your friend's kids, we have the most simple answer for that meaning their biological offspring, but also adopted children they are raising who are legally their kid. We may question if your friend deserves to call them their kids if they are an abusive or negligent parent. And society may go so far as to remove them from the home and someone else adopt them legally if the situation is sufficiently dire. One of those kids may be the friend of the only biological child but is living with them, with your friend caring about their well being and calling them their kid. So while most often the instance of "kid" speaks to someone who has half that person's genes, that isn't binary and simply a question of a person's genes. Biologically? It is that simple but requires testing to confirm. Socially? We apply the simplified and shared understanding and make judgement calls.

So if you kept reading this far you are making the blah-blah-blah hand gesture and wondering why I'm so far off topic, I'm sure.

If you go back to very early in the thread you'll see Chap laid out the two sides of this question. One being biological and the other cultural/social. They pointed out that while the biological question of sex is largely defined by two major types - male and female - there are cases that do not fit as neatly into those categories even when looked at scientifically and strictly. We use male and female to describe sex, with the understanding the apparent binary definition is not comprehensive if it is useful. Both Kevin and DT have offered up posts on more variations on this to point out that arguing it is binary is not reality.

Biological sex is just one axis on which gender identity hangs. We assign characteristics to male and female members of our society. Keeping in mind that the biological binary is an over-simplification already that is useful but not precise. Society then defines what manhood is, what womanhood is. It tells you that in certain situations a male should behave one way and a female another, defining what it means to be a man and to be a woman. These definitions include socially idealized traits of each, and it informs members of society what society expects of them as either a man or woman. These definitions change and evolve, too.

Today, in LDS church buildings leaders will take the national day set aside for honoring mothers and use it to explain the Mormon cultural ideal of womanhood, often preceding the term "womanhood" with terms like, "sanctity". Chromosomes aren't something you sanctify, though. Norms are. Norms being, "the rules or expectations that determine and regulate appropriate behavior within a culture, group, or society" as defined in sociology.

Now, being a religious conservative type, it is understandable that in your mind sex and gender are the same, God-defined binary from which no variation is recognized because God is good and perfect, and being a man or woman just simply comes naturally like prayer and belief in life after death. If someone experiences discomfort trying to fit in one of the two boxes of traditional society and protests, "Neither of these fits me", they're the problem. If someone born with a penis feels the way society describes womanhood also describes them, and manhood seems alien, if they don't just squeeze into the box labeled "Man" you insist they are "choosing" to be a woman even though they don't feel it's a choice and the social construction of the term is not an objective, biological fact but rather a bag of cultural norms and values. Or the other way around, a biological female that does not see themselves in the contents of the bag society labeled, "Woman" isn't choosing to not be female when they act according to their own individual sense of who they are as a person. If a person of either sex undergoes surgery to more closely fit the social definition of the gender they most closely associate with, that isn't choosing to be a woman or man. That's them making an outward change in the attempt to better fit in the bag of norms and values they see as being who they are as a person, comprehensively and not just based on the plumbing in their pants.

Now, the response of many younger people these days is to realize the problem isn't in trying to figure out which one of the two bags best fits, but the entire social binary apparatus is the problem. "Non-binary" is becoming a normal response to gender identity question precisely because the modern binary ideals of "manhood" and "womanhood" are damaging to individual identity and favor society over the individual. Post-modern types favor the individual over the ideal, believing it is the most realistic, and they aren't playing the game, period.

So you aren't engaging the discussion but instead asserting an outdated and ignorant position that you don't understand yourself.

All that is to say, you would call a person with complete androgen insensitivity a woman (you can't see their genes but what you could see would be interpreted as female by you), you could insert your penis into their sex organ and ejaculate, and you'd expect her to make you breakfast in the morning and blame her when she doesn't give you male offspring to carry on the family name (I get the sense you are that kind of guy but who knows. Oh, LOL! Now its ok I said that.)
Well what you are denying, avoiding, or just ignorant of, is that there is a real tangible biological difference between a man and woman. And God or nature, or both…whatever you choose to believe, I will use “nature” moving forward, designed them that way, and if it was not for these differences, mankind would not exist. We have to assign words to everything in life or we would just grunt, moan and point….and not grow much as a society and in all honesty might not even exist today, who knows? Context is critical to all words, and ignoring the context is critical to your narrative. And words do change and evolve…which is what you are trying to do in order to fit this into your political narrative…lets be honest here.

In “context” to these two tangible biological beings, mankind has assigned man and women to be the name for adult male and female Human beings which singularly are biologically different, yet combined, allow the existence of mankind to exist. People that have diseases like PAIS or CAIS, or mutations, or people that change sex and gender by surgery or by hormone therapy, cannot reproduce. So there is a difference here…it might not be fair, and it might not be an easy road for these folks , but it is a reality…and pretending there is not a difference is just ignoring reality.

People that just decide to identify as the opposite sex and gender, without altering their bodies can reproduce…but that’s a different discussion and they are just pretending they are something they are not (biologically different), no matter how sincere, or no matter how much they believe it.


Let me ask you this, why do you want to change the meaning of the name woman to include folks that aren’t really biologically female as designed by nature? There is no right or wrong answer, just your opinion?
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by honorentheos »

Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 11:21 pm
Well what you are denying, avoiding, or just ignorant of, is that there is a real tangible biological difference between a man and woman.
No, the biological aspect of this is concerned with males and females. What one means by "Man" or "Woman" isn't biology, it's culture.

Take your belief both can be reduced to the adult form of male or female. What does it mean that someone is an adult? That they reached sexual maturity and can produce offspring? Unless you are a sicker person than I suspect that's not the sum of the definition in application even to you. You assign characteristics to the term that explain "adult" in non-biological ways. Society defines what is meant by "man" and what is meant by "woman". Male and female sex traits are interwoven into this definitions, but so are a lot of social expectations, cultural ideals and aspirational assertions, and above all "ordering" that assigns the individual a role in society that isn't tailored uniquely to them. Conservative culture is sociologically regressive in this way, asserting social roles over individual identity.
And God or nature, or both…whatever you choose to believe, I will use “nature” moving forward, designed them that way,
Nature didn't design anything. Evolution works precisely because every birth varies from every other birth, and adaptation and fitness to an organisms environment gives rise to change that may seem like design if you don't understand it. As pointed out, sex isn't as binary and perfect as a machine stamping out Ken and Barbi dolls. Genetics, hormones, environment, chance all affect development including sexual develop. This includes both physiological and psychological development.

It's not binary, Mark.
We have to assign words to everything in life or we would just grunt, moan and point….and not grow much as a society and in all honesty might not even exist today, who knows?
Individual.gender identity being non-binary doesn't extinguish sexual reproduction. That's just ignorance and the result of conservative fear mongering over people who don't line up to have their individuality trimmed to fit the mild you'd have them for in. News flash, it's the future whether you like it or not because it is actually the state of things. I don't think everything involved in gender politics is positive, well intentioned or resolvable in a clean manner. But the fact is our society recognizes traditional definitions for what it means to be a man or woman aren't healthy and need updated to allow for individualizatuon.

Context is critical to all words, and ignoring the context is critical to your narrative. And words do change and evolve…which is what you are trying to do in order to fit this into your political narrative…lets be honest here.
People that have diseases like PAIS or CAIS, or mutations, or people that change sex and gender by surgery or by hormone therapy, cannot reproduce. So there is a difference here…it might not be fair, and it might not be an easy road for these folks , but it is a reality…and pretending there is not a difference is just ignoring reality.
Whether or not someone views their non-binary sex as unfair is presumptuous. But hey, if you took that last sentence and recognized it applied to a heck of a lot more people that the most obvious cases you can't ignore, then you'd actually be into something.
People that just decide to identify as the opposite sex and gender, without altering their bodies can reproduce…but that’s a different discussion and they are just pretending they are something they are not (biologically different), no matter how sincere, or no matter how much they believe it.
There you go again saying it's about choice. What you mean is you demand that gender be about traditional Judeo-Christian ideas about sexuality and the roles of men and women in fulfilling the commandment to reproduce according to the Bible. Blap, blap, blap.
Let me ask you this, why do you want to change the meaning of the name woman to include folks that aren’t really biologically female as designed by nature? There is no right or wrong answer, just your opinion?
I'm not wanting anything here. I'm telling you that your view is an overly simplistic one that was socially engineered to produce certain social results. And those were aimed at forcing individual identity to conform instead to social norms and mores.

Remember, Markk -
All that is to say, you would call a person with complete androgen insensitivity a woman (you can't see their genes but what you could see would be interpreted as female by you), you could insert your penis into their sex organ and ejaculate, and you'd expect her to make you breakfast in the morning and blame her when she doesn't give you male offspring to carry on the family name (I get the sense you are that kind of guy but who knows. Oh, LOL! Now its ok I said that.)
Markk
First Presidency
Posts: 814
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2022 1:49 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by Markk »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 9:31 pm
Complete androgen insensitivity is usually not diagnosed before puberty, unless a lump is felt in the groin or abdomen, and it turns out to be a testicle during surgery. Usually, androgen insensitivity is diagnosed only after a young woman discovers that she hasn't started menstruation.

Partial androgen insensitivity is usually discovered earlier in life because the baby will have ambiguous genitalia.
Honestly sir, you are not very smart.
LOL…and you are…you are trying to assert that biological males with a rare disease that prohibits the growth of the genitals are some how biological women. Why isn’t that person menstruating? Because biologically they are a male. DT it is a disease…and a very rare one, you act like I am lying here or something…it is just a scientific fact they are biological males with a rare disease that does not allow their genitals to develop.

If you read more about when discovered almost all will identify as women, and will need to have their herniated testicles removed and then take hormones to help get a body of a woman.

Here it is again for CAIS, I bolded it for you…they are biologically males, I am sorry for them, it must be hard news to find out this truth, and I am sorry you can’t grasp this.

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) is a genetic condition also caused by changes in the AR gene. However, in comparison to PAIS, fetuses with CAIS do not respond at all to androgens during pregnancy. Males who are born with CAIS appear female and have external genitals that are female, but do not have female internal sex organs, such as a uterus or ovaries.
https://rarediseases.org/rare-diseases/ ... e-partial/
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by honorentheos »

Markk wrote:
Sun May 08, 2022 11:58 pm
LOL…you are trying to assert that biological males with a rare disease that prohibits the growth of the genitals are some how biological women.
LOL, no he's not. You just can't see what he's saying because your brain can't handle reality where a person being raised their whole life as a girl and later as a woman, recognized as a woman and describe as being her parents daughter medically, and has no reason to see themselves as man could also be a genetic male but not a man...because sex isn't the same as gender.

It's illuminating how your sincere and adamantine ignorance manifests the power of misinformation.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 4265
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: do I understand the definition of a woman?

Post by honorentheos »

The extremes aren't the main issues, though. Rather, it's the numerous instances of gender identity coming into conflict with societal norms that are the real, and more important point for consideration. The extremes just make the non-binary nature of the issues obvious.

The male who other "manly men" view as too sensitive? The person who asks if someone has balls to prod them into doing something? The female who identifies as a woman whose family questions why they chose a career in a "male dominated field" when they could have been something "better for raising a family"? Those are much more common instances where the cultural aspects of gender norms conflict with individual identity or are exploited to try and get a person to conform to a social ideal. It's not about people choosing to have a sex change and wear make-up. Gender dysphoria is part of it, but you seem to imagine it's all a ploy by peole whose games of dress up weren't extreme enough. That's just ignorance on display.
Post Reply