> That is one of the primary problems of society's obsessions with classical notions of gender.
What you go on to discuss is sex, and sexual dimorphism, which is a remarkably robust way of classification. The "classical" notions of gender (tbh, "classical" doesn't make much sense here) as sex based is fairly reasonable all things considered. Consider the arguments presented in this essay [0]. That, however, doesn't really mean much for how we should treaty people in public who desire to express their gender in different ways, which is, of course, respecting of their dignity and desires, in most cases.
Yeah, what I mean by classical would boil down to just genitalia, which doesn't really hold up in how we must respect the person and how they feel and choose to express themselves. Yes, so long as their expressions are not harming others, then we must respect their human right to choose who they are.
I've got to give a huge hat tip to Suzi (Eddie) Izzard, who -- beyond their being just a brilliant comic and generally good human being -- taught me and my fam about how the spectrum of human configuration is way more complex than just male and female.
What you go on to discuss is sex, and sexual dimorphism, which is a remarkably robust way of classification. The "classical" notions of gender (tbh, "classical" doesn't make much sense here) as sex based is fairly reasonable all things considered. Consider the arguments presented in this essay [0]. That, however, doesn't really mean much for how we should treaty people in public who desire to express their gender in different ways, which is, of course, respecting of their dignity and desires, in most cases.
[0]: https://philosophersmag.com/unexceptional-sex/