Edit: Also, happy to answer questions about being non-binary (specifically, gender fluid) if folks have good faith questions.
If you have heard of it, or read it, I'd love to hear what you think of her position.
I appreciate the offer to be part of a dialogue. I think it's important to improve understanding for people. As a white, middle aged (45) cismale I know I'm viewing a lot of this stuff through a very specific lens.
More people are transitioning, at all ages. More of the people who do so are visible, because of modest reductions in stigma and because there’s no longer a requirement that we disappear and cut all ties (the medical establishment used to require this). Your typical 40-50 year old parent has no idea how many of the people they went to High School and College with are trans, because they were hidden. In much the same way people had no idea how many people were gay. So this looks like an explosive change. I do expect we will see much less late transition (later than early adulthood), because more of those trans people will transition earlier.
So, why are more people transitioning? Because it’s possible and they understand it to be possible, not because there are more people who are trans. This is why it’s happening across all ages. I am a late transitioner. I started to transition as soon as I understood three things: that being trans and transitioning was a real thing, that I would not destroy my life by doing so, and that trans people can live happy fulfilled lives.
What about desistance? Some small percentage of people who transition decide that it wasn’t right for them. Most of them because of oppression, but some because it doesn’t work for them. This is much smaller than the set of people who regret that they didn’t transition, or that they waited so long to do so. It’s lower than the rate of regret for any elective surgery. There is some risk that non-binary kids who emphatically reject their assigned sex at birth are getting social pressure to conform to the other end of the binary. The pressure to be not trans at all is still very high. High enough that I don’t worry about cis kids being pressured into transition.
And there are many trans people who don’t need or want to transition, who find sufficient expression or acknowledgement in other ways. They aren’t less trans, you just don’t know they are.
Edit: added "(that I know of)" to acknowledge my limited knowledge of my friend's gender or sexuality.
Most of the trans people I know aren’t remotely avant-garde. I know a bunch of suburban women in monogamous relationships with their spouses or partners. I know a couple of suburban trans guys who are still married to the men they married before they figured it out, one of them with kids. I know several trans guys in health care. I do know a few trans people who are artist and writer types and are more flamboyant. The first trans woman I met worked at the same Wall Street brokerage I did and was very quiet.
When I go to (back when travel was a thing) places that are less friendly than the coasts and people see the trans flag pin on my bag, I frequently have people come out to me and talk about how they can never transition.
There is really no orthodoxy beyond believe people about their gender. Trans people are very different from each other and their experience of being trans varies wildly. There’s some agreement around language and tropes that seem to provoke violence towards us, but many trans people use language to describe themselves that other trans people would be offended by. But that’s true of gay people too.
I went through, as an adult, a period where I was sure I was a trans woman, and I sought therapy. This led to experimentation and further discussions that no, that wasn't the right label for me. I do regret, even as someone who is masculine presenting most of the time, that I didn't have more of a choice in my hormonal changes during my teens. Many bodily changes via testosterone are irreversible, and it would have really helped me had someone said, "let's hold off on those changes for just a little bit so we can figure out what makes you feel right."
So, that's a bit anecdotal, and it definitely doesn't apply to every child's situation, but I sure wish that we had the resources and available knowledge back then that we do now, because I probably would have taken a different path.
It doesn't help that Rogan only seems to have one hard opinion (legalize drugs) and seems to disagree with most of his guests very little, which makes for a good stage for his guests but not a very balanced discussion.
I'm still hoping he'll eventually have a trans person on (that's not Debbie Hayton, Blair White or Buck Angel).
why not one of them?
Debbie Hayton is trans exclusionary feminist, while being trans. She also writes on transgender topics for RT. I have no idea what her motivations are, she doesn't usually talk about them and in fact blocks people on twitter when they ask.
Blair White is a transmedicalist, who is so concerned about her own validity as a trans person that she insists on narrow diagnostic critera that just about include her. This makes her popular with a certain crowd. Her take on trans people that aren't exactly like her has been inconsistent. For a critical discussion with her and someone confronting her with said inconsistencies, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o_yuAuzl6Q
Buck Angel is similarly a transmedicalist, but more by virtue of transitioning at a time where only extremely few trans people were allowed to transition. Buck is a bit of a special case as one of the first trans men to transition, but he heavily relates to the Harry Benjamin Standards of Care, about which you can read some fun things here: https://twitter.com/orclesbian/status/1190481639501160449
I'm not really opposed to either of these people being on JRE, but their views on trans people have already been represented on the show a few times, whereas I haven't really seen any more inclusive advocates discuss this issue with Rogan.
This is part of a wider issue with the JRE guest selection, but that'd go too far for a HN comment already way too long.
So, you're asking an honest question, but it's pretty insensitive and I hope you're curious because this is the truth. Framing that as a curious question makes me wonder if you even read the title of the book -- the title is quite obviously meant to be antagonizing to trans people. So that's not a great start. But here we go.
As for the contents of the book itself, it's little different from much trans-antagonistic pseudoscience and literature -- the main difference being that it's focused on guys rather than gals. It cherry-picks studies and anecdotes to promote harmful stereotypes, and presents trans-ness as a status symbol (it's not, it fucking sucks to be trans in the presence of cisgender people who know that).
To address the "craze", we need only look at history. I'll use mine. In the 1990s, when I was in middle school, I noticed distinct feelings that I now understand to be gender dysphoria. I didn't get it at the time; but sexual orientation was quite the buzz, and I knew I was bi very early on. In the 2010s, our society underwent a phase transition on its view of trans people. I met some other trans people, had some curious conversations, and started to put the pieces together. It took me several years to overcome my transphobic cultural upbringing; and several more to overrule the same of my ex-spouse. Coming out was hard. As with many, I lost friends and family to their prejudice. But even so, it's way easier now than it was in the 90s or even the 00s.
One commonality between trans and autistic people is that we don't always feel welcome around cis / allistic people. Not really knowing why, we form cliques of people who are feeling the same stuff. Many of the trans people I know are, yes, autistic, but also were outcasts as kids. In speaking with other late-transitioning people of my age, I've seen a pattern: others in our friends group have transitioned in the intervening years. Do groups of trans kids gravitate towards one another and have shared gender discoveries? Well duh, of course they do! It's not a "craze", it's a result of teenagers talking to eachother about their feelings, having appropriate language to talk about them, and having even the slimmest feeling of safety in coming out.
It points out that there are some social contagion factors to some expressions in our youth. Which is completely reasonable given how much clout gives you in modern social media, for example. And that an impressionable girl with low self-esteem can suddenly "become trans" and win social favor, which I don't see how you could find unreasonable if you've ever been a teen.
Maybe approach it a little more open-mindedly. You basically dismiss everyone in the book as just being unable to "cope with loss" which isn't much different than dismissing any group (like trans people) with some convenient reason that leaves your world-view untouched.
Also not sure how your anecdote disproves the craze, especially since the craze is talking about the last 5 years. Your experience in the 90s has little bearing on 2020 where you get instant social proof on social media in some circles by putting a rainbow flag in your username. Times are different. You don't think social contagion could explain any part of the 800% increase in trans identity among the youth? I don't see how you couldn't believe that on any 800% increase in what the youth are doing.
It's like amphetamine abuse among kids. I have extreme ADHD and to some degree depend on the drug to get what I want in life. Just because you could write a book about kids claiming to have ADHD just to get prescribed a great recreational drug (and I bet you could even call it a craze, as it seemed in uni) doesn't mean I can't have ADHD or that everyone is an abuser. I would consider myself weirdly defensive to the point of dismissing inconvenient truths if I were to believe that, yet that's what I see you doing.
That you give yourself so much authority on trans matters, especially in response to such a reasonable point, is kind of an example of what I see as modern trans clout these days. Why wouldn't a teen want that? As the book points out, it's incredibly easy to "be trans" when the rest of your friend group in high school is suddenly on the non-binary spectrum unlike when you were a kid.
Your insistence that you have more authority than an actual transperson to explain the emotions driving trans identity because you've read a book about the 'transgender craze' is probably a more realistic reflection of 'modern trans clout'...
This is not how it works in the real world, is it?
Someone becoming trans will lose access to a large number of potential dating partners, they will be bullied and ostracized, they face increased levels of violence, they face reduced worker protections, etc etc.
Doesn't this confirm my point? Why is it brave to be trans? It's because you face increased violence, ostracism (often from your own family), etc etc.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
I specifically referenced the title of the book, because it should be a dead giveaway that the book isn't a great start for this conversation. Nowhere did I say that I only looked at the title, that's your weakening interpretation. I read about a dozen reviews, pro and con, and I'm quite familiar with the literature and science on the subject of trans people.
> It never says that the crazy describes all trans people. It doesn't call all trans fakes.
Sorry, did you even read what I wrote? I didn't say anything about "all trans people". I said that the book is cherrypicking. I'm not denying that those cases exist, I'm saying that those cases are rare.
> You basically dismiss everyone in the book as just being unable to "cope with loss"
Who are you responding to??? I didn't say anything about that.
> Your experience in the 90s has little bearing on 2020 where you get instant social proof on social media in some circles by putting a rainbow flag in your username.
Oh hey, an actual reference to something that I wrote! I'll respond to that. I specifically noted my experience in the 90s, because my transition was delayed 'til the 2010s. I specifically explained why we're seeing a massive increase in the rate of people coming out. But you missed it, because you're focused on attacking the weakest interpretation of what I said.
> That you give yourself so much authority on trans matters, especially in response to such a reasonable point, is kind of an example of what I see as modern trans clout these days.
Yeah, I've got so much "clout". People in my industry are happy to give plaudits for my "bravery", but multiple previous co-authors have ghosted me. Co-workers don't take me seriously like they used to. So professionally, I experience tokenization and isolation. I've lost family, I've lost friends, but if I had a twitter account I'm sure I'd get some followers. But some of my trans friends do get extra followers for being trans -- many of them chasers and trans antagonists who are variously bent on making their lives hell. Whoop di fucking doo. I'd strongly prefer to not be trans, but that's not a choice I've got.
Am I an authority on trans matters? Well, I am a member of the community and I see the good the bad and the ugly -- both from within, and from without. I'm also in regular contact with high-school age trans kids through group counselling -- I don't share their experiences because that would violate their confidentiality.
So what's your basis for authority? All I see is your experiences with amphetamines and you may have read a book about trans people that was written by a blatant transphobe. And you're imploring me to have an open mind. Guffaw.
Some parents of trans children talk about "rapid onset gender dysphoria". They claim their child was happy until they got to about 12 and then all of a sudden BAMN they became trans because the Internet told them to. They'll sometimes claim that science supports them.
There's no evidence that ROGD exists. It's a term that's only ever used by people who are trans-excluding, or by people debunking it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/political-minds/2020...
> The paper claims that there is a new diagnostic entity called "rapid-onset gender dysphoria." This term comes from a paper published in the journal PLoS One, in which the author anonymously surveyed parents recruited from websites that focus on the theory that trans youth identify as transgender due to "social contagion" and online influences. Unfortunately, the paper did not survey any of the youth themselves or their clinicians. The only thing the paper established is that some people online believe that youth rapidly become transgender as a result of watching trans-related content on Youtube and Reddit. article continues after advertisement
> People should be aware that parents often think that transgender youth became transgender "all of a sudden," because youth were closeted prior to coming out, due to fear of family rejection. Presumably, youth with parents who believe being transgender is a disease would be likely to conceal their identity for prolonged periods of time. It would be important to interview the youth themselves to know if this were the case.
https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie/jkrs-claims-part-6-lisa-...
> There was a lot wrong with Littman’s paper. Firstly the study involved no trans people, just the parents of trans people. Secondly all of the participating parents were found on just a handful of websites such as “Transgender Trend” and “Youth Trans Critical Professionals”, which run forums specifically for unsupportive parents of trans kids. As JKR notes the controversial paper received a lot of criticism from within the scientific community:
> "The journal took the paper offline and re-reviewed it before republishing it."
> But it is deceptive of JKR to describe what happened in this way. The post-publication review resulted in major corrections to the paper and an apology from the editor of the journal. The editor noted “the corrected article now provides a better context of the work, as a report of parental observations, but not a clinically validated phenomenon or a diagnostic guideline”. For a comprehensive takedown of this paper see here.
That last sentence links here: https://genderanalysis.net/2018/02/rapid-onset-gender-dyspho...
If you want a more considered text for a general audience, I’d recommend Brynn Tanehill’s, “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Trans (But Were Afraid to Ask).”
Also useful is this point-by-point, sourced rebuttal to the misinformation Rogan repeatedly spreads (which references the above text):
https://www.adamconover.net/adding-evidence-to-the-discussio...
If you conceptualize gender as 'manliness' or 'femininity', you can pretty easily see that some folks are more or less 'manly', that gender must therefore exist as a spectrum. There are men who are very feminine, and women who are quite manly, so in my mind, these spectrums have some overlap.
Most folks have a pretty rigid understanding of where they fit -- they see themselves as a manly man, or ladylike, or a tomboy, etc. and that remains relatively unchanging over time. For me, it's not so simple, there are days I feel masculine and days where someone using "Mr." or "Sir" feel really viscerally wrong.
That's the quick version of how I conceptualize my own gender fluidity.
For a simple example, some days I want to listen to Tori Amos and cry, and other days I want to listen to Metallica and punch things, but nothing in any of this has any bearing on my identification with any gender.
I have some pretty obvious male secondary sex characteristics so it would be a big problem if that caused me daily discomfort, but that doesn’t really seem to be what genderfluidity is about?
If so, isn’t this freedom something that would just be good for anyone?
I think there are some distinguishing characteristics for someone who is male vs someone who is female.
What does it mean to “identify as” something?
Even within the bounds of a gender (e.g. masculine), people will find themselves wanting to be seen as a particular point within that gender's spectrum. (E.g. you might want to be seen as a tough guy, or a sensitive man, etc.) It can be frustrating to feel like you are the tough guy but no one seems to treat you that way.
The point is that experience is different for different people. Many people are comfortable with whatever, others aren't and want to try to take deliberate actions to make themselves be perceived more like how they see themselves.
I guess if they suddenly changed en masse, I’d wonder what’s up.
If they’re using it in the traditional definition (someone with a uterus and XX chromosomes) then I would disagree, because they are factually wrong. If they’re using it in the more modern sense to describe some abstract “gender”, I wouldn’t disagree because I don’t really know what that means. In either case, it wouldn’t offend me.
And for most people, “man” and “male” are synonyms. This is why people always express confusion about what it means to “identify” one way or the other. Identity is irrelevant to reproductive role, and sex is about reproduction, and gender is about sex.
OK. If you call someone gay in the 1800s, it'll probably not mean the same thing as doing it today. Terms change; distinctions between similar terms get made as they're needed.
> Identity is irrelevant to reproductive role, and sex is about reproduction, and gender is about sex.
There's several bald assertions in there. I'm infertile, so "sex is about reproduction" makes me chuckle a bit, for example.
And the distinction among “man,” “woman,” and “non-binary” without referencing sex is explained... how exactly?
> I’m infertile, so “sex is about reproduction” makes me chuckle a bit, for example.
I am now infertile too; doesn’t change the fact that I know which one of only two kinds of gametes (“sex” cells) my body could produce.
No one said they're not related concepts. Just that they're not the same.
The term "butch", for example, tends to describe a female with more manly outward presentation, where "manly" describes "characteristics generally associated by society with males". Short hair isn't an inherently male thing; it's frequently considered a man thing, though.
> I am now infertile too; doesn’t change the fact that I know which one of only two kinds of gametes (“sex” cells) my body could produce.
I don't produce gametes of either kind. Am I genderless and sexless?
"Sex is about reproduction" is as silly as "people who lose their legs aren't humans", because both are clearly untrue.
If you’re asking about _sex_, however...
in the case of intersex conditions, they arise from a disorder of sexual development which by definition arises by diverging from the typical developmental pathway of one sex or the other. Much the same as someone with a much later and artificial divergence (e.g. hysterectomy), this sex is still their sex despite their intersex condition.
Being born “without genitalia” is still going to be one of these conditions, or the result of some other unspecified trauma or non-sexual-development disorder. They would still be either one sex or the other.
Mosaicism is an interesting case. It would depend on which cells were activating sexual development.
Ah, we've switched arguments. Upthread, you stated:
> And for most people, “man” and “male” are synonyms.
If you're now arguing for a distinction between the terms, we're now in agreement.
I don’t have to believe the shahada in order to conduct myself respectfully with a person of the Muslim faith, and I don’t have to believe a female is a man in order to conduct myself respectfully with a trans man.
It's the difference between "maleness" and "manliness". Those words are clearly related, but they mean different things. See also: "femaleness" vs. "feminine".
The latter term in either case describes cultural behaviors, clothing, accepted roles, and a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't the same as their sex. Someone can be very "manly" independent of whether they have XY chromosomes, for instance. I find it useful to be able to describe the cultural elements as one's gender separately from what organs or genes they have under the hood.
I actively seek to avoid that game, as it is untenable in a just society.
You seem to be confusing inspecting toys for conformity and inspecting systems that encourage (or require) conformity. And it's much easier to attack or be concerned about straw-positions than actual ones.
It's not problematic for someone to play with toys, or do things, stereotypical to their gender. It's a problem when they are encouraged (tacitly or not) or forced to stick within a predefined scope.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a43702/trans...
The only way this person could resolve her discomfort at her child’s inclination to play with “girl things” was to start considering her a girl.
Meanwhile where are the “gender-progressive” people sticking up for a two-year old’s right to play with whatever toys they want without sanction or punishment? Certainly not raising any concerns about this sort of story.
Combine it with the well-documented higher incidence of gender nonconformity of cis gay people at a young age, we see many supposedly “progressive” people allowing the sentiment “better a straight daughter than a gay son” get normalized without challenge.
What makes you think the mother assumes her daughter will be straight?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexuality#Sexual_o...
Every part of this is wrong.
First, let's look at sex. You've said sex is tied to reproduction (as an aside, this feels a bit cruel to all the infertile people out there) but that's wrong.
https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
> Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.
You've then said that gender is tied to sex, but that's only true in some countries at this point in history, and it mostly stems from Christian colonialists imposing their view (often using violence to do so) across the world.
https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html
> Gender, typically described in terms of masculinity and femininity, is a social construction that varies across different cultures and over time. (6) There are a number of cultures, for example, in which greater gender diversity exists and sex and gender are not always neatly divided along binary lines such as male and female or homosexual and heterosexual. The Berdache in North America, the fa’afafine (Samoan for “the way of a woman”) in the Pacific, and the kathoey in Thailand are all examples of different gender categories that differ from the traditional Western division of people into males and females. Further, among certain North American native communities, gender is seen more in terms of a continuum than categories, with special acknowledgement of “two-spirited” people who encompass both masculine and feminine qualities and characteristics. It is apparent, then, that different cultures have taken different approaches to creating gender distinctions, with more or less recognition of fluidity and complexity of gender.
https://gal-dem.com/black-trans-lives-matter-we-cant-let-the...
> There is a particular, deep-rooted racist violence in the UK iteration of transphobia. The invention and export of the concept of a rigid and oppressive gender binary was used as a device of subjugation throughout the British empire during colonialism. This included the attempted eradication of ancient and deeply spiritual understandings and lived realities of gender fluidity, including among two-spirit people in indigenous North American cultures; fa’afafine people in Samoa; nat kadaws in Burma, and hijras in India, who were criminalised during British colonial rule by Section 377 – a law used after a rebellion to “reassert colonial authority”.
You've said that identity is irrelevant to reproductive role. That's wrong, which is why there are trans-fathers who give birth.
https://mana.org/healthcare-policy/use-of-inclusive-language
> The signatures below indicate affirmation and respect for people of all genders; full agreement regarding the use of gender inclusive language in the MANA Core Competencies and in all documents regarding the profession of midwifery and provision of midwifery care; and the welcoming of transgender, genderqueer and intersex people into safe, culturally sensitive, shame-free reproductive health care. We do not refute the “life-giving power in female biology.” Rather, we support a larger vision that includes the provision of midwifery care to all pregnant and birthing people.
You may want to read this: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
1. “Sex is about reproduction”
WHO page: “ When a Y chromosome is present, early embryonic testes develop around the 10th week of pregnancy. In the absence of both a Y chromosome and the influence of a testis-determining factor (TDF), ovaries develop.”
These are reproductive organs.
Each detailed description of chromosomal variations references “sterility,” “infertility,” or “fertile.”
2. “Gender is about sex.”
> You've then said that gender is tied to sex, but that's only true in some countries at this point in history, and it mostly stems from Christian colonialists imposing their view (often using violence to do so) across the world.
This is an absurd claim and appears to imply that pre-colonization, people could not figure out which individuals would bear children and which would sire them based on their physical characteristics, and sort them accordingly. Hammurabi’s code had bride prices, Aztec women were not permitted be soldiers, Chinese women were taught the three followings 2500 years ago. Your statement is simply profoundly absurd. All societies — even the ones listed in your citations — especially the ones listed in your citations — have been capable of distinguishing sex, and setting up different rules of behavior that depend on sex. That is gender.
3. “You've said that identity is irrelevant to reproductive role. That's wrong, which is why there are trans-fathers who give birth.”
This is again deliberate confusion. No matter what pronoun or title you afford this trans man, his reproductive role was to bear a child and not to sire one. Only female mammals produce eggs and only female mammals bear young.
Do you perceive yourself as a man?
Generally, if you'd say, "I am a ..." then you identify as that.
You might say, for instance, I am a Catholic. Or I am a Muslim. I am a man. I am a woman. I am a chef. I am a zookeeper. I am a gun owner. I am a pacifist. I am a vegetarian. etc. etc.
Whatever your "I am a ..." statements are, they are how you identify. You will find some of them you feel strongly about and others you don't really care about but you might say them anyways. "I am a man" might not be a statement that carries a lot of feelings with it for you, whereas something like, "I am an atheist" might. Some folks are proud Republicans or Democrats, others aren't.
Others might disagree with how you identify. They might say, "Well, you might think you are a Christian, but...", and that's where we all have to collectively decide where we should be policing identities of others.
So, gender fluid, because my gender is dynamic and shifting. I don't always see myself as femme, or masculine, but rather shifting between and around them.
Ultimately, gendered stuff is all around us and it is not so easy to "just not bother".
because yes, gendered stuff is all around us, but in most "though" cases, it mostly seems to relate to sex, because that's something which is easily determinable for a large fraction of human beings.
So your problem was that other people didn't accept you for what you are: is this really different from society not accepting that you would like to have 5 wives, your parents wishing you to be a lawyer, whilst you want to be a shepherd or any other discrimination? Why do we have to divide people on a spectrum (which also suggests that personality is a measurable, which is disturbing...) to remedy this? And why is it necessary for people to advertise their pronouns, when most of the communication, where you need that is non-personal anyway?
> So your problem was that other people didn't accept you for what you are
No, the problem is that my identity didn't match my external presentation. Yes, fixing that comes with some stigma (and that sucks), but fundamentally the problem is making the outside match the inside.
> And why is it necessary for people to advertise their pronouns
Being called he causes dysphoric feelings and anxiety for me. This is not something that I have conscious control over. I have learned some adaptive behaviors, but ultimately it's much less uncomfortable for people to use they/them for me. I ask people to do this, and generally people don't have an issue. You could also use my name and avoid pronouns if you want. Ultimately, you can choose not to use my pronouns knowing it makes me uncomfortable. I ain't going to yell at you, but I'll also remember that you made a choice knowing how it impacts me.
> Why do we have to divide people on a spectrum
Great question. I actually think of gender as much more complex than a spectrum, but there are folks who see it as two, concrete points and will loudly exclaim "ONLY TWO GENDERS" to me. I'm just sharing my own observations about the behaviors I've seen and how I choose to interpret them.