Forgive me, but this is a load of absolute horseshit. There's a gulf of difference between choosing given terminology based on religious belief and choosing terminology based on personal interpretation of scientific text.
Sex and gender aren't the same thing. It boggles my mind how seemingly complicated this is for some people to grasp. There's a substantial corpus of established science and historical research that more or less proves that physiological sex and social gender are not and never have been mutually causal; your argument here is predicated upon the notion that a person's chromosomes are inextricably linked to their gender, which simply isn't true.
In [1], you're literally making the exception that proves the rule here. What do you define as "male characteristics"? Doesn't it seem like that might not be the most rigorous qualifier for determining whether or not somebody falls on one side or another of whatever arbitrary boundary you seem to be defining?
Does it not strike you as a little cruel to suggest that treating a person with a modicum of respect over a social issue that barely (if at all) affects you is as offensive as disrespecting an entire religious viewpoint?
Is it really that hard to understand that in pursuit of whatever maladaptive compromise makes you feel more comfortable in your belief, you're actively harming people who have to constantly struggle to be understood or even recognized in modern society?
Doesn't that feel a little selfish? Like you're missing the point a little?
Sex and gender aren't the same thing. It boggles my mind how seemingly complicated this is for some people to grasp. There's a substantial corpus of established science and historical research that more or less proves that physiological sex and social gender are not and never have been mutually causal; your argument here is predicated upon the notion that a person's chromosomes are inextricably linked to their gender, which simply isn't true.
In [1], you're literally making the exception that proves the rule here. What do you define as "male characteristics"? Doesn't it seem like that might not be the most rigorous qualifier for determining whether or not somebody falls on one side or another of whatever arbitrary boundary you seem to be defining?
Does it not strike you as a little cruel to suggest that treating a person with a modicum of respect over a social issue that barely (if at all) affects you is as offensive as disrespecting an entire religious viewpoint?
Is it really that hard to understand that in pursuit of whatever maladaptive compromise makes you feel more comfortable in your belief, you're actively harming people who have to constantly struggle to be understood or even recognized in modern society?
Doesn't that feel a little selfish? Like you're missing the point a little?