Anyway, there is a very real reason why most people fit neatly into this binary gender classification.
Because of culture and society.
A male is usually (not always) predisposed to act out behaviours in accordance with his biological makeup: that he is physically stronger, has higher testosterone levels, has a brain geared more towards aggressive behaviour and less towards empathy than his female counterparts, and other facets which make him likely to act in a particular fashion.
There are sexual differences, but much of these are based on society.
Look at almost every culture in human history -- males dominate, as well as hunt, fight, wage war, and protect women and children, while women tend to be subordinate, child-rearers, gatherers etc.
You think that is the exact same today?
but there can be no argument that these are not the most obvious inclinations of males and females, due to biology.
Load of absolute nonsense. These are societal based differences, and largely created by influence from outer factors that have a basis in Human social relations, not biologically based.
Women in most human societies -- before the advent of contraception -- would have been pregnant a significant portion of their lives, and would have spent a significant portion also displaying their very intrinsic, evolutionary desire to feed and nurture children -- it is really only in the last hundred years that this has come into question, and not even in all societies.
We have had a lot of progress in understanding nature and society.
And to a large extent, this is still the norm in many less developed cultures, precisely because these biological differences in strength, size and reproductive capacity compliment each other in this very obvious fashion.
Just remember, you can't derive an is from an ought, plainly fallacious.
If gender is a construct, it is a construct in the same way as it is for bulls to have horns, thus fight, and sows to have udders, thus feed calves.
Not at all, society created gender in the same way we created hierarchy and the state.
This, again, isn't to say it is morally right or wrong to be transgender, it is just a statement of fact: transgenderism is an exceptional circumstance -- some would say a medical or organic psychological condition, for which there is in fact significant scientific basis.
Since gender is societal, transgenderism has a basis in leaving societal norms, not biological norms. An easy way to disprove this is with language. Language came into human society a long time ago, but is not something within us, it is a formation of rhe mind. To say that using language (different term, "transgender", as opposed to typical classification) in a different way than usual is a medical condition of some sort is pure hogwash.
Among monozygotic twins where one is transgender, the other is also quite likely to be transgender, while among dizygotic twins, where on is transgender, there is a near universal absence of the same tendency in the other twin.
That is actually not completely true, but this phenomena can arise. Here is the real question concerning this, How are these similar people (twins) exposed to the social world? Influenced in many similar ways? How do they respond to their environment? Their psychological and biological makeup can possibly influence how they may respond to their environment, which could be something shared by twins. It is like the gay gene, there isn't exactly a found gay gene, but there was a study done that has found a gene that increased the chance of homosexual. It could largely be based on response to a specific social environment.
Now, back to the point, inheriting a language use and perception is complete nonsense, especially in this case.
So it an be concluded that there must be a significant genetic component to transgenderism.
Which would simply not be the case when considering social influence as a major impression on human behavior.
Transgenders and transexuals, as you know, can't procreate as the gender they identify with.
But can with the opposite biological sex. The idea of gender has nothing to do with it, it is society that has made this categorization.
I am talking about gender, not sex (which is a social construct too, but has a biological basis).
Those who lie outside the binary classification are an exception, not a norm.
This just proves my point.
So yes, gender is what you might call a social "construct", but it has significant and valid biological bases.
No, it does not. Biological sex does have a valid biological basis though.
However, it is ludicrous to come at this problem with the idea that non-binary gender is the norm.
What is "normal" here is dependent upon the context of society. Society (social relations) created gender.
They may hate the belief in God and concept of God (as told by a religious text or philosophers), they do not have to believe it is true. Also, I don't think "everyone" that has a lack of a belief in God is talking about it. Many intellectuals don't talk about it since it is just as silly and irrational to them to accept God as accept Zeus as an existing being.
Just because you broke up with your GF doesn't mean she never existed no matter how angry you are at her because yet still, the evidence of her existence is in your bitterness towards her.
That wouldn't be proof she exists in itself. Someone could have an imaginary friend and get mad one day and blame it on the fact that his imaginary friend turned on him, then be bitter about it. If this happened, would this mean the imaginary objectively exists? No it wouldn't.
You know a GF exists because you can experience her with the 5 senses empirically. You cannot see, feel, touch, taste, or hear God, God is immaterial and supernatural.
