Quote Originally Posted by rachcouture View Post
I'd argue it's a little of both, really. Anyone denying some sort of innate gender qualities on a biological level when things like hormonal baths are being studied is disregarding an entire population of both cisgender and transgender people alike. Still, there is plenty to imprint on people. See: the gender stereotypes present in this thread.



I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. The issue is people outright denying both a. the existence of variations, and b. that sex/gender is a lot more complicated than what was taught several decades ago.
I agree, I think outdated information is prevalent, but the issue is more about framing than the data. Both sides of the argument broadly do the wrong thing with the data. Either they go to black and white, or they take it out of context to dump the core intent that the average layman understands. For extremely practical purposes, its easy to say "Yeah there are pretty much two 'sexes'." That statement isnt true factually, but it represents the core idea that most people fall under the two sets which make up the extreme majority - male and female. The problem with the counter argument is the typical distortion of the facts. Intersex and other genetic outliers do exist, but they do not make up a significant proportion of the population. However, their existance is used in a fashion to downplay the core intent of their being two predominant sexes. It's played up like there are just as many intersex people as male and female, and usually argued this way to fight against other aspects of the sex/gender debate. It's disingenuous and spreading wrong perceptions. IMO that is just as bad a point as the opposite side.