If ^ this is a biological reality, why couldn’t gradations of such a thing be a reality? And if gradations of such a thing are a reality, then what kind of
construct would we use to describe someone who isn’t 100% biological female/male, because even though their outward appearance is that of a female/male, any number of inward things, from plumbing to neural wiring, is that of a the sex opposite of their outward appearance.
A man (because society has defined what a male looks and feels like) on the outside, but a woman (because society has defined what a female looks and feels like) on the inside? What do we call these people who are so constructed after the manner shown and described above, or of its endless varieties?
They’re generally defined as transgender, because they don’t fit the biological ‘norm’ and are transitional in a literal sense.
So. In effect, is a woman a woman if they’re 38% genetically and hormonally a male? Are they less of a woman who is 11% male, or 1%? If a 60% female can be a woman, then can a 49.5% female be a woman?
In other words, can a person who presents as a woman, but because genetically and hormonally they’re actually 58% male, still be considered a female through dress and mannerisms? I’d say yes. This is how and why gender is considered a construct, along with social evolution that demanded roles for males and females, and forced the ‘in-betweener’ to choose one or the other.
How is this so difficult to either understand or to accept that braying loudly and consistently is the only recourse left to the doggedly dunning-krugers?
- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.