>>103514687To be fair, I somewhat agree. We don't really have any *need* for a third gender, or any other number. Humans only have two sexes, after all, and gender is really just an array of stereotypes about sex. What we should really be striving for is a more flexible or fluid definition of those genders. Letting women wear pants is a good thing, because it allows for more fluidity and a more responsive social system, something desperately needed in this age. Adding more genders themselves... Just complicates things? Since really all the new gender is is a new set of stereotypes you're held to.
Tumblrina's and /pol/tards don't really discriminate between Sex, Gender, and Sexual Orientation, but they should. There's only two sexes (do you have a Y chromosome, or not? There's no between), by extension only two genders (People with two X chromosomes are expected to wear skirts, people with only one are not), although hopefully more fluid than they used to be (god forbid we ban yoga pants), and an array of sexual orientations to mix and match between those. That is, Man who likes men, Man who likes women, man who likes both, man who likes none, and so forth.
You can break all of those down to arbitrarily small boxes, save for Sex, but the question is really... Should you? What use is it? Defining sexuality with more granularity sure, but straight, gay, asexual and bisexual already pretty much cover all the bases that need to be covered. The other stuff is covered by paraphilias, which don't really need to be announced to the world.
