>>13945939Yes, because the 'attributes' of being aggressive and more capable, in general, or more dangerous and labor-intensive work in the part of males is just a social construct. Msucle mass is a social construct. There IS a gene for wearing a skirt, playing with dolls, or liking X gender stereotype.
You understand, don't you, that if gender is a social construct then transgender identity is completely moot. You cannot actually be born as a gender if gender is a construct of society and related to your upbringing and the cultural influences on your development.
Gender is a set of fashion statements, stereotypes (sometimes based on sexual traits, so sometimes accurate in a general sense) and societal roles that have been vaguely aligned to sex characteristics and tendencies.
If you choose to identify with gender as a social construct simply because you 'FEEL' like something inside you has adopted that construct from birth, you are delusional, this is simply a manifestation of deep social conditioning, as it cannot possibly be the result of genetic and inherent traits.
Half of what we define as 'female' or 'male' has been invented in the last half a century, and people still think you can be 'born into' a gender. In the early parts of the last century, not a single woman wore trousers, as just one example. Would you say the genetic makeup of every born female on the planet has just adjusted itself to take into account that social trend? Or maybe, just maybe, it's a load of bullshit.
