Gender Roles

[Politesse]

Right now, it looks a lot like you're busy saying that there's no consensus that humans have affected the climate of the earth, because not all climatologists agree.

I did not.

 

[Politesse]

"Accurate by what metric", sheesh. By the metric of "Is this INTACT ADULT skeleton one that belongs to the sex that bears children within the human species, or the sex that impregnates the child-bearers?

Is that your definition of sex? Fertility?

 

[Emily Lake]

"Accurate by what metric", sheesh. By the metric of "Is this INTACT ADULT skeleton one that belongs to the sex that bears children within the human species, or the sex that impregnates the child-bearers?

Is that your definition of sex? Fertility?

How many times do I have to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over?

Sex is defined based on the reproductive phenotype. Males are those who have the reproductive phenotype that has evolved to support the production of small motile gametes - regardless of whether they actually produce them or not. Females are those who have the reproductive phenotype that has evolved to support the production of large sessile gametes - regardless of whether they actually produce them or not.

Please, please, for the love of basic sanity, stop pretending like you don't understand what I mean when I use the occasional bit of vaguely snarky language. It's needlessly annoying to me, and it ought to be embarrassing to you.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

With respect to the first item: gonads and their gametes...

Some hermaphrodites or intersexed persons may have a hybrid gonad:

Ovotestis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the ovarian tissue areas present in an ovotestis can differentiate a progenitor germ cell into a oocyte stem cell and the testis like tissue portion of an ovotestis may differentiate PGC into a spermatozoa stem cell. So, if true, it's not like 0 or 1 but rather can produce 0 and 1.

 

[Emily Lake]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

With respect to the first item: gonads and their gametes...

Some hermaphrodites or intersexed persons may have a hybrid gonad:

Ovotestis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the ovarian tissue areas present in an ovotestis can differentiate a progenitor germ cell into a oocyte stem cell and the testis like tissue portion of an ovotestis may differentiate PGC into a spermatozoa stem cell. So, if true, it's not like 0 or 1 but rather can produce 0 and 1.

In humans, most people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as female, having an XX karyotype and a female-typical reproductive tract. Most have one normal ovary, and one undifferentiated ovotestis. In ovotesticular disorder, any combination can occur: two ovotestes, one ovotestis with one ovary, one ovotestis with one testis, or very very rarely one ovary and one testis. Most of the time that ovotestis is sterile, and does not produce gametes at all - in fact, most people with ovotesticular disorder are infertile even if they have one normal gonad. Sometimes, in a female-typical system with a sufficient complement of estrogen/progesterone/luteinizing hormone, the ovotestis can produce ova. Spermatogenesis has never been observed in an ovotestis in a human, and there's only one documented case of a male with ovotesticular disorder having produced fertile sperm.

Humans are neither invertebrates nor moles.

Interestingly, your wikipedia page includes false information - it says that ovotestes appear in gonadal dysgenesis, which is not true. Gonadal dysgenesis presents with streak gonads, which are not the same thing as ovotestes. Streak gonads are made of fibrous tissue that didn't differentiate into gonadal tissue, although it can contain streaks of differentiated tissue. Ovotestes contain a mixture of both ovarian and testicular tissue which has differentiated. Both conditions are associated with mosaicism and chimerism, among other causes.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

With respect to the first item: gonads and their gametes...

Some hermaphrodites or intersexed persons may have a hybrid gonad:

Ovotestis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the ovarian tissue areas present in an ovotestis can differentiate a progenitor germ cell into a oocyte stem cell and the testis like tissue portion of an ovotestis may differentiate PGC into a spermatozoa stem cell. So, if true, it's not like 0 or 1 but rather can produce 0 and 1.

In humans, most people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as female, having an XX karyotype and a female-typical reproductive tract. Most have one normal ovary, and one undifferentiated ovotestis. In ovotesticular disorder, any combination can occur: two ovotestes, one ovotestis with one ovary, one ovotestis with one testis, or very very rarely one ovary and one testis. Most of the time that ovotestis is sterile, and does not produce gametes at all - in fact, most people with ovotesticular disorder are infertile even if they have one normal gonad. Sometimes, in a female-typical system with a sufficient complement of estrogen/progesterone/luteinizing hormone, the ovotestis can produce ova. Spermatogenesis has never been observed in an ovotestis in a human, and there's only one documented case of a male with ovotesticular disorder having produced fertile sperm.

First off, any sentence you include the word "most" deserves an eyeroll.

Secondly, no. The production of gametes is the question. Round spermatids are gametes.

Fertility is yet another dimension.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's unecessary to go through seventeen pages of super-specificity every single time in order to discuss something that everyone - except you apparently - already understands.

No, it is absolutely necessary when discussing precisely whether things "are" or simply "are somewhat like", in a technical discussion of what sex is.

Precision matters when discussing something precisely.

It may not be important when discussing it I general terms with a 4 year old, for example, but it is extremely important when discussing it to the level of precision where the edge cases are the topic.

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

Gonads can in fact be non-strict binary. They are more like the A and B of blood types, and some people do produce both for various reasons.

There are only two types of gametes in anisogamous species; there are only two types of gonads and each type of gonad produces one or the other gamete.

So? There are three kinds of behavioral decision buckets that individuals end up in, so your binaryism is ill placed.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Accurate by what metric", sheesh. By the metric of "Is this INTACT ADULT skeleton one that belongs to the sex that bears children within the human species, or the sex that impregnates the child-bearers?

Is that your definition of sex? Fertility?

I don't think Emily has a solid definition for "male", "female", "man", or "woman".

Clearly she doesn't because there is no real mutual exclusivity between what she mentioned, despite the "or" in her language.

Any definition of "male" that doesn't allow someone to also be a "female" is flawed, after all.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

With respect to the first item: gonads and their gametes...

Some hermaphrodites or intersexed persons may have a hybrid gonad:

Ovotestis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the ovarian tissue areas present in an ovotestis can differentiate a progenitor germ cell into a oocyte stem cell and the testis like tissue portion of an ovotestis may differentiate PGC into a spermatozoa stem cell. So, if true, it's not like 0 or 1 but rather can produce 0 and 1.

In humans, most people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as female, having an XX karyotype and a female-typical reproductive tract. Most have one normal ovary, and one undifferentiated ovotestis. In ovotesticular disorder, any combination can occur: two ovotestes, one ovotestis with one ovary, one ovotestis with one testis, or very very rarely one ovary and one testis. Most of the time that ovotestis is sterile, and does not produce gametes at all - in fact, most people with ovotesticular disorder are infertile even if they have one normal gonad. Sometimes, in a female-typical system with a sufficient complement of estrogen/progesterone/luteinizing hormone, the ovotestis can produce ova. Spermatogenesis has never been observed in an ovotestis in a human, and there's only one documented case of a male with ovotesticular disorder having produced fertile sperm.

First off, any sentence you include the word "most" deserves an eyeroll.

Secondly, no. The production of gametes is the question. Round spermatids are gametes.

Fertility is yet another dimension.

To add--Emily writes: "Most have one normal ovary, and one undifferentiated ovotestis."

Applying the word "undifferentiated" to ovotestis is a bit of a trick. Ovotestes typically have portions that have undergone tissue differentiation into ovarian tissue and other portions that have undergone differentiation into testicular tissue.

See here:
"Ovotestes are usually compartmentalized, with connective tissue separating the ovarian components from the testicular components. However, on rare occasions, an intermixture of these elements may occur."

Further, Emily writes an odd sentence, seemingly contradictory:
"Spermatogenesis has never been observed in an ovotestis in a human, and there's only one documented case of a male with ovotesticular disorder having produced fertile sperm."

One would have to imagine that such person who produced fertile sperm had one testis and one ovotestis in order for both clauses to be true, but there's a lot more going on in the clauses...enough to separate them and look deeper.

1. "Spermatogenesis has never been observed in an ovotestis in a human..."

Spermatogenesis is a process of going from primordial germ cell to other intermediate cell types to final mature sperm cell. Typically, in the process, most of these stages are occurring in the testis. However, the final stage of mature gamete occurs in the epididymis. So, depending on how strict or how we want to define the process, we could try to argue that Spermatogenesis has never been observed in a testis in a human. Technically, it's the beginning and most of the process that occurs in the testicular tissue. I don't particularly support the idea of such strict statements but I leave that as an exercise for the reader and their ideas of semantics.

From Wikipedia:

Spermatogenesis takes place within several structures of the male reproductive system. The initial stages occur within the testes and progress to the epididymis where the developing gametes mature and are stored until ejaculation. The seminiferous tubules of the testes are the starting point for the process, where spermatogonial stem cells adjacent to the inner tubule wall divide in a centripetal direction—beginning at the walls and proceeding into the innermost part, or lumen—to produce immature sperm.[2] Maturation occurs in the epididymis.

Consider also the context that I was responding to...i.e. lpretrich's post about gametes. Both immature and mature gametes are gametes. So, testes are producing gametes BEFORE these cells go off to other areas of the body where they become mature gametes.

The stages of spermatogenesis can be written as
spermatogonium (diploid) -> primary spermatocyte (diploid) -> two secondary spermatocytes (haploid) -> four spermatids (haploid) -> four functional spermatozoids (haploid)

Spermatids are made in the testes and are immature gametes. Their shape is round. Later, in other areas the mature sperm becomes elongated and gains motility as well as losing some superfluous cyto structures. However, a spermatid still is a gamete and through medical assistance apparently can be used for fertilization through injection. Take a look at the following paper:

Round spermatid injection into human oocytes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Many azoospermic men do not possess mature spermatozoa at the time of surgical sperm extraction. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating outcomes following round spermatid injection (ROSI), a technique which utilizes immature precursors ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Okay, so the next question ought to be, can an ovotestis produce spermatids? A testis can, so can an ovotestis?

Take a look at the following paper:

Histologically, the ovotestis had atretic and degraded follicles (Fig. 1A, B), and spermatogonia, spermatocytes, and round spermatids (Fig. (Fig.1C).1C). To explore the differentiation potential of ovotestis, we first sought to identify cell types in ovotestis using the single-cell RNA sequencing technology. We collected ovotestis samples from three intersex individuals and dissociated them into single cells for scRNA-seq. The sequencing depth was over 47,000 reads for each cell (Table S1), median detected genes were 3126 per cell, and median UMIs (unique molecular identifiers) were 9259 (Table S2). After discarding poor-quality cells, nearly 10,000 cells remained for clustering and typing. To identify cell clusters, we employed a nonlinear dimensionality-reduction technique, UMAP. Together with known marker genes and annotations (Table S3), 13 cell clusters were identified, including germline stem cells, primordial oocytes, spermatogonia, spermatocytes, round spermatids, and somatic niche cells (Sertoli and Leydig cells) (Fig. S1A). UMAP maps showed that each cluster was distinguished from other clusters with marker genes, for example, nanos2 and nanos3 in germline stem cells, kif20a and kmt5a in spermatogonia B, spo11 and meiob in spermatocytes, izumo1 and spaca6 in round spermatids, amh and wt1b in Sertoli cells, and cyp17a1 and star in Leydig cells (Fig. S1B).

Emphasis added. So some ovotestes, at least among those in the study, were producing immature gametes that were produced by spermatogenesis and with assistance could be used for fertilization.

2. "...there's only one documented case of a male with ovotesticular disorder having produced fertile sperm"

As near as I can tell this is a claim that comes from 1994 and it isn't clear what it means to be documented, probably peer-reviewed studies in modern society. But in any case, since that time, there have been documented an additional 2. So we're at 3 now.

People with ovotesticular disorder of sexual development who are given a male sex assignment rarely reproduce. Spermatogenesis has been reported in only 12% of these cases, and tubular atrophy with hypoplastic testicular tissue is the norm. There are only 3 reported cases of males with OT-DSD fathering children.

One can expect that as we globalize knowledge and improve fertility technology this number will continue to climb, especially if it is the case that a recommended path is spermatid injection for fertilization and that technology becomes improved upon for these types of cases. (Alabama not included in that prediction).

 

[Emily Lake]

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

With respect to the first item: gonads and their gametes...

Some hermaphrodites or intersexed persons may have a hybrid gonad:

Ovotestis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think the ovarian tissue areas present in an ovotestis can differentiate a progenitor germ cell into a oocyte stem cell and the testis like tissue portion of an ovotestis may differentiate PGC into a spermatozoa stem cell. So, if true, it's not like 0 or 1 but rather can produce 0 and 1.

In humans, most people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as female, having an XX karyotype and a female-typical reproductive tract. Most have one normal ovary, and one undifferentiated ovotestis. In ovotesticular disorder, any combination can occur: two ovotestes, one ovotestis with one ovary, one ovotestis with one testis, or very very rarely one ovary and one testis. Most of the time that ovotestis is sterile, and does not produce gametes at all - in fact, most people with ovotesticular disorder are infertile even if they have one normal gonad. Sometimes, in a female-typical system with a sufficient complement of estrogen/progesterone/luteinizing hormone, the ovotestis can produce ova. Spermatogenesis has never been observed in an ovotestis in a human, and there's only one documented case of a male with ovotesticular disorder having produced fertile sperm.

First off, any sentence you include the word "most" deserves an eyeroll.

Well that's a dumb position to take. Most people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as female, and have an XX karyotpye and female reproductive tract. Some people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as male, and have an XY karyotype and male reproductive tract. A very few people with ovotesticular disorder are genetic mosaics.

If you'd bothered to read, you would have understood that.

Secondly, no. The production of gametes is the question. Round spermatids are gametes.

I don't know what you think your point is. How about you elaborate?

Fertility is yet another dimension.

Another dimension of what exactly?

 

[Emily Lake]

It's unecessary to go through seventeen pages of super-specificity every single time in order to discuss something that everyone - except you apparently - already understands.

No, it is absolutely necessary when discussing precisely whether things "are" or simply "are somewhat like", in a technical discussion of what sex is.

Precision matters when discussing something precisely.

It may not be important when discussing it I general terms with a 4 year old, for example, but it is extremely important when discussing it to the level of precision where the edge cases are the topic.

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

Gonads can in fact be non-strict binary. They are more like the A and B of blood types, and some people do produce both for various reasons.

There are only two types of gametes in anisogamous species; there are only two types of gonads and each type of gonad produces one or the other gamete.

So? There are three kinds of behavioral decision buckets that individuals end up in, so your binaryism is ill placed.

"Behavioral decision buckets" that you've invented are not sexes. It's irrelevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as female

Assigning a token to some individual has no real meaning, Emily. They are who they are, and we are talking, yet again, about complexities. Ignoring the complexities when discussing the complexities is dishonest.

 

[Emily Lake]

"Accurate by what metric", sheesh. By the metric of "Is this INTACT ADULT skeleton one that belongs to the sex that bears children within the human species, or the sex that impregnates the child-bearers?

Is that your definition of sex? Fertility?

I don't think Emily has a solid definition for "male", "female", "man", or "woman".

This is a blatantly disingenuous statement. Just because you pretend that I have not repeatedly provided a clear definition doesn't mean that I haven't. Your pretense doesn't alter reality.

Clearly she doesn't because there is no real mutual exclusivity between what she mentioned, despite the "or" in her language.

Any definition of "male" that doesn't allow someone to also be a "female" is flawed, after all.

This is an absolutely inane statement. Just because you really, really, really want and wish that males can also be females in the human species doesn't make it so.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's unecessary to go through seventeen pages of super-specificity every single time in order to discuss something that everyone - except you apparently - already understands.

No, it is absolutely necessary when discussing precisely whether things "are" or simply "are somewhat like", in a technical discussion of what sex is.

Precision matters when discussing something precisely.

It may not be important when discussing it I general terms with a 4 year old, for example, but it is extremely important when discussing it to the level of precision where the edge cases are the topic.

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

Gonads can in fact be non-strict binary. They are more like the A and B of blood types, and some people do produce both for various reasons.

There are only two types of gametes in anisogamous species; there are only two types of gonads and each type of gonad produces one or the other gamete.

So? There are three kinds of behavioral decision buckets that individuals end up in, so your binaryism is ill placed.

"Behavioral decision buckets" that you've invented are not sexes. It's irrelevant.

I didn't invent them, nature did by dint of the strange mystery of existence.

It's clearly relevant because it goes straight to the thing you deny would exist at all, namely a behavioral neural suite configured to contribute in a different way, with different concerns than are attached to "egg" and "sperm" in the dance of life, a role, associated to some neurological "engenderment".

 

[Jarhyn]

This is an absolutely inane statement

To add--...

 

[Emily Lake]

To add--Emily writes: "Most have one normal ovary, and one undifferentiated ovotestis."
...

What point do you think you're making, Don?

 

[Emily Lake]

I didn't invent them, nature did by dint of the strange mystery of existence.

It's clearly relevant because it goes straight to the thing you deny would exist at all, namely a behavioral neural suite configured to contribute in a different way, with different concerns than are attached to "egg" and "sperm" in the dance of life, a role, associated to some neurological "engenderment".

Magical thinking, dressed up as gendery brains, implicitly advocating mind-body duality, and dancing along the very edge of declaring that humans have souls.

I don't give a flying fuck if some people have thought patterns that YOU think are "girly thoughts" instead of "boyish thoughts". That has nothing at all to do with sex. Furthermore, those socially created "girly thoughts" and "boyish thoughts" that you're hanging your hat on are sexist stereotypes. You're relying entirely on the ASSUMPTION that sexist stereotypes are somehow real and meaningful and should be given precedence in society.

This isn't a leading question, it's a genuine one: Why is it so important to you that sexist stereotypes are seen as valid and meaningful?

 

[Jarhyn]

Most people with ovotesticular disorder are classified as female

Assigning a token to some individual has no real meaning, Emily. They are who they are, and we are talking, yet again, about complexities. Ignoring the complexities when discussing the complexities is dishonest.

Jarhyn, you're male. Politesse is male. Loren Pechtel is male. I am female. Toni is female. Rhea is female.

There's nothing "dishonest" in acknowledging reality.

There is something deeply dishonest in proclaiming reality conforms to your narrow binary in the face of all of the complexities of nature.

We have plenty of strongly scientific discussion of sexual differentiation, discussed right here in this thread about GENDER roles which you CONTINUALLY derail it away from. It's not about whatever microcosm you wish to isolate away from the sum of it, but the whole process.

I have tried yet again to have some real discussion not of "sex" but of gender, and you accuse me of making up fairies stories, despite actually discussing exactly the basis for the divergence and origin of the species, namely the selective forces associated with the propagation of life itself.

gendery brains

Brains have gender. Arguably ONLY brains have gender, and it does not exist as an expression elsewhere in the body.

Your persistent attempts to argue against this fact and pretend that it is nonsense and fairy stuff is noted and filed circularly.

That has nothing at all to do with sex.

Behaviors contributing to patterns of sexual signals have nothing to do with sex... Got it.

But this isn't a thread about sex, it's a thread about GENDER.

If you want to pretend gender doesn't exist that's up to you, but clearly it does and clearly you hate that fact, and I am at a loss as to figure out why.

Life has three options for most animals: sperm, egg, [neither], [both]. This means that any given species is going to have a pressure concerning the behavior and capabilities best fitting their survival strengths given those three(four, really) contexts, with much more variation being tolerable in the third.

Nothing can change that fact of nature. It is a very simple fact, and one you seem very eager to discount.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you want to pretend gender doesn't exist that's up to you, but clearly it does and clearly you hate that fact, and I am at a loss as to figure out why.

This isn't a leading question, it's a genuine one: Why is it so important to you that sexist stereotypes are seen as valid and meaningful?

 

[Jarhyn]

If you want to pretend gender doesn't exist that's up to you, but clearly it does and clearly you hate that fact, and I am at a loss as to figure out why.

This isn't a leading question, it's a genuine one: Why is it so important to you that sexist stereotypes are seen as valid and meaningful?

Why is it so important to you to dishonestly characterize the discussion of how we feel when we do things and how we feel about those feelings as "sexist stereotypes"?!?

I continually say "people don't have any obligation to feel any way".

I don't say someone who is on estrogen ought want to do anything that makes them feel feminine, not suggest there is any necessity that having estrogen contributes to any sort of behavioral driver, for instance.

I just say that humans, in general, have ways they feel about these things, and based on the evidence of discussion for thousands of years all over the earth, we fall in one of two "big" behavioral buckets or some other primary behavioral mode that is not either of the other two. For some species this has seen such a strong selection pressure that the majority of individuals occupy this niche. The niche is so deep it has driven biological caste differentiation for an entire species group, notably a massively social species in its own right.

There is nothing sexist with accepting this, and in fact the takeaway should be "genitals make no measure of what someone feels from how they act, nor should they".

There is no "ought": we need non-reproductive individuals who long to fulfill all the roles of parenthood for those who die and leave children. As long as you get a good mix of parental roles, it's all good, and most people have some overlap.

My relationship with testosterone indicates, primarily, that it is an invasive goad, not a provider to some emotional outcome, but a provider of the behavioral cue. I imagine estrogen does "the same, but a different direction".

There will be a natural tendency towards the division of those roles. It's not sexist to say as much, especially when the person saying it is willing to also say "to each their own, all can succeed in any of these behavioral groups, or admixtures".

Honestly, I see the greatest sin against trans people in general is, in fact, the exclusion of "maybe some 'trans' people are neither men NOR women by dint of role or role-relationships." The lack of any recognition of a third group, such as the Hijra, is tragic.

At least the SoC8 does acknowledge the behavioral group.