>>11775778False equivalence. The acceptance there is to do with biological age, whereas the acceptance of gay sex with a male in medieval Japan depends on if they've undergone a coming of age ceremony, which has nothing to do with biology.
Here's two scenarios:
A 40yo male has sex with a 19yo male who has not had his genpuku ceremony
A 40yo male has sex with a 19yo male who has had his genpuku ceremony
These are biologically identical situations, but socially they are different. It's not bullshit, there would be different measurable consequences for the people involved.
Maybe if you don't care about making accurate models of how humans behave then you just turn a blind eye and act like things like this are unimportant, like these posters
>>11775715,
>>11777425.
As I said at the start of this discussion, the reason the gender spectrum is accepted is that not only can it explain the common gender binary, but it can also explain these exceptional cases with no problem. It's a more powerful model that applies to humans everywhere and isn't biased to work for only one culture.
You'd complain if a physicist ignored an exceptional result in favour of sticking to an established model.
>>11777447>If this were the case these societies wouldn't have special words for them, they'd just call them women, surely?Why would they call them women when in these societies 'women' is a distinct gender identity from mahu/muxe/bissu? They have special words because being mahu is a distinct identity from being a man/woman with measurable consequences within Hawaiian society.
>in no other culture is a man in a dress considered a "woman"As a counter example with the sexes/genders reversed: Albanian sworn virgins are females in mens clothing that are considered "men"
