What is sex essentialism, and why is it (as you seem to imply) wrong
Sex essentialism is the belief that some concept of "sex" creates some essential or material reality of how one behaves or acts. It is to say "female" therefore "values modesty".
Women are sex-segregated from men in situations where close proximity in a confined or intimate space is expected
This is an "is". It does not establish "ought". Banging on about what people have done in the past does not justify doing it in either the present or the future.
people were generally uncomfortable
Except that this is not even a rule the world over. Evidence yields that this discomfort is a function of something entirely absent from the genetic template.
Again, "is" does not inform "ought".
Males are also larger and more violent
People largely effected by testosterone are
generally larger and more violent.
This does not justify treating
any given individual as "larger" and "more violent", unless they, as an individual, are either larger or more violent than the norm, and it only justifies treating them as exactly as large and violent as they are, no more and no less.
Yes, I have done the act that your religion calls 'misgendering'.
Good. Now was that so hard?
What I've done is certainly not wrong, but it does not do what you claim. It does not ascribe a gender to somebody contra their beliefs about their own gender. It just doesn't.
Yes, it does. It claims in equal parts that their beliefs about their won gender are wrong, and that your beliefs about their gender are right.
The
government has no right to do that, especially if you claim it is
It is my moral duty to keep doing what you call 'misgendering', even when, out of politeness, I might have used the wrong-sex pronouns for somebody
This forum must be so oppressing to your moral duties then I guess.
Thankfully, the failed tack of your moral compass does not define this place.
Then you are guilty of misgendering
Yes! I AM! How kind of you to point that out. I have fully admitted to explicit misgendering, the instance of the time I called you "she" and "her".
I apologize and continue to feel bad over having done that. It was wrong of me.
As has been discussed at long length I find that it is more than appropriate to treat someone as ambiguous, when they claim they lack gender.
It is not reasonable to assume offense when someone says "they are a great person" when they could have said "he Is a great man". Both are true statements with one being more general.
Sex is a binary, because there are only two gamete types.
Sex is not binary because as a generalization, it is a bad approximation of what is actually going on with respect to a set of loosely related and often comorbid minutiae of which the gamete produced is only a single facet of the whole.
you continually, repeatedly use "it's" when you mean "its"
No, my autocorrect has it's quirks, and as it's prone to do that and while it's not hard to go back and delete apostrophes, it's also generally not worth my time. So you'll have to deal with the it's I'm afraid.
Also of all my autocorrect's flaws, it's failure to process my omission of an apostrophe occasionally gets people to jump the shark on grammar Nazi bullshit and TROLOLOL.
And mammals have a binary sexual reproductive strategy. Produce small motile gametes or large sessile ones
Not all of us...
I know a number of people, as has been mentioned, that you would object to calling anything but women, who have done nothing of the sort. And of those you would insist as, men as well...
Not that you do a thing with those gametes anyway.
If you are now trying to claim sex is not real, good luck with that.
Sex is not real. It's an approximal simplification of something that is real, a set of largely but not necessarily comorbid traits.
Societies organised themselves around the sex binary.
Societies organized themselves around slavery and racism too. It doesn't make it fundamentally right to have done so.