(February 7, 2019 at 2:33 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Well, let me put it this way-- all traits are either ying or yang, Apollonian or Dionysian; that's because most scalar traits are bipolar: tall vs. short (tall would be "male"), strong vs weak (strong would be "male"). If you plot any scale vs gender, then either there's a scalar transition (one end of the scale is more typical of females, the other of males), or there's a perpendicular relationship-- neither end of the scale is typically male or female.
There are traits which depend on gender, but only on two categories of gender, and that's because traits are scalar. Someone says, "Oh trait X is masculine" or "Oh trait Y is feminine," or "Oh trait Z isn't really gender-dependent." I don't think anybody says, "Oh, traits ABC are gender-bender-ist," other than the trait of identifying as a gender bender.
The discussion, to me, is about whether if many of a person's traits are typically found in people of the other gender, you say "This is a male with predominantly female traits" or "This is a female (because of the vast preponderance of female traits), who happens to have been born in/with a male body."
I prefer the first: the classification-of-fact, in my opinion, should be as unambiguous as possible, and based on concrete reality. I find it much clearer to say "biologically male, but identify as female" than "woman trapped in a male body."
What you've stated is more or less 2 paragraphs of irrelevancy. It's like saying that there are only 2 races, black or white, and no one thinks that way.
