Originally posted by SurturI don't understand, this study (presented from a biased source) just proves that there are two primary sexes, which has always been the case (not including hermaphrodites, who have the primary sex of one 'gender' and the sexual reproductive organs of the other/or they have both, for example).
Since we have discussed transgender people before I wonder what your opinion is on this new study:New scientific report challenges the liberal progressive transgender narrative
Some stuff from the article:
[b]The study found that there are more than 6,500 unique genes in the human genome that express different traits depending on a person’s gender, either male or female, which explains the huge biological differences between men and women.
That means more than 21 percent of the entire human genome, which is composed of about 30,000 genes, code for gender-specific traits.
“Weizmann Institute of Science researchers recently uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed — copied out to make proteins — differently in the two sexes,” according to Weizmann.
Two scientists from the institute’s Molecular Genetics Department — professor Shmuel Pietrokovski and Dr. Moran Gershoni — “looked closely at around 20,000 protein-coding genes, sorting them by sex and searching for differences in expression in each tissue. They eventually identified around 6,500 genes with activity that was biased toward one sex or the other in at least one tissue,” the institute reported.
“For example, they found genes that were highly expressed in the skin of men relative to that in women’s skin, and they realized that these were related to the growth of body hair. Gene expression for muscle building was higher in men; that for fat storage was higher in women,” the report explained.
[/B]
Gender is still a social construction in the way that it's presented in modern culture. For example, I don't think there's any studies that definitively prove that boys like blue and girls like pink. That's an example of gender being a social construction. If we weren't so draconian about what people were allowed to like/do/dress in (particularly in the past), there would probably be far less people who identify as transgender, because our society would be freer to express itself without weird social barriers and boundaries that make little to no sense (for example, dresses actual work better for men, since they don't squish the ballsack like a lot of trousers do).
As for people who just don't feel comfortable in their sex's skin? I'm not them, so I don't judge them. They're not hurting anybody by changing their biological sex (most of which is done by hormone therapy and not actual surgery), so why should I care? Because nature didn't say we could change our biological sex? Well, guess what, nature said we couldn't cure cancer, but we're still going ahead with that.
I mean I don't think anybody is arguing that men and women don't have different bodies, or that men and women aren't different generally. But that study has nothing to do with social construction of gender, regardless of how that source tries to play it. You get butch women, and effeminate men. That's an example of how the idea of 'gender' isn't a strict binary.
I get annoyed at ultra-SJW I-identify-as-a-car tumblr stuff as next as the much person, but that's mainly because it makes a mockery of an interesting and complex system that deserves further examination.