re: Can someone explain to me how sex and gender are two different things?

Easy enough. Sex is function of biology. You know the chromosome thing. Gender is a grammatical construct, he vs. she or his vs. hers.
So you can change your gender, but not your sex.

It’s very simple.

Sex is what you biologically are and gender is what you pretend your biologically are.

Liberals think that society should ignore what you biologically are and instead all pretend that you are whatever you pretend to be. It gets more complicated because once liberals realized the make believe wishes would be semi-accepted, their make believe constraints were removed and gender was no longer limited to male or female.

Conservatives rightfully recognize that there is male and female good bad or indifferent. The truth is the truth.

If you have a dick you a man, a purist you a woman end of story

Merriam dictionary has a definition.

Liberals are trying to redefine it as a social construct and make gender independent from sex.

However, if biological sex is changed due to “gender” it is hard for me to rationalize how they are not one in the same.

Like almost all terms in English (and other languages) these terms have many different definitions and many, many different connotations. Those definitions and connotations are often NOT internally-consistent and are often NOT mutually-exclusive.

In a very general sense, "sex" refers to physical characteristics. Some would say that it is determined by the chromosomes (XX vs. XY). Others would say that it is determined by genitalia and secondary sex characteristics ("Dammit, he has a penis.") For the first group, sex is immutable and cannot be changed. For the latter, reassignment surgery might be seen as actually "changing" a person's "sex." As an example, THIS definitional difference lies at the heart of the debate about "men" competing in "women's" sporting events.

"Gender" refers to behavioral characteristics and cultural/societal roles. What one wears. What toys a child chooses. Whether one prefers to cook or to hunt. Whether one cries when sad. How one reacts to a given stimulus. Etcetera.

The confusion (and the debate), in my view, lies not with these definitions, because I think that the vast majority of the population would agree on them in the most general sense. The confusion, again in my view, arises when the "gender" characteristics and behavior displayed by a person do NOT align with the characteristics/behavior normally associated with that person's physical "sex" by a given culture. Because it seems to me that many of these characteristics are determined to be either "masculine" or "feminine" ENTIRELY by cultural norms.

Some assert that a male simply MUST display behavior which is defined as "masculine" by his culture, and that he is "mentally ill" if he fails to do so. Others assert that physical sex and behavioral characteristics NEED NOT be co-extensive, especially if a given non-aligned behavior DOES NOT cause harm to the person in question or another person.

Let’s look at the behavior of a male wearing a skirt. Skirts are feminine attire in most of the West, while males in the South Pacific and Scotland have traditionally worn garments which would fit the definition of "skirt." Even the traditional Chinese mandarin attire would be considered a skirt by many Westerners, and there are MANY more examples. In those latter cultures, wearing a sarong or a kilt or a changshan would not have been considered to be remotely "feminine," and refusal to wear them would arguably have been seen as aberrant behavior. But in most of the West, a male does not traditionally wear a skirt, and men who do so are engaging in behavior which is considered to be aberrant.

The interesting question is "How should we react when a person displays characteristics/behaviors that do NOT align with expectations in that person’s culture?"

We COULD take steps to force conformity ... jail, ostracization, etcetera. We COULD "tolerate while expressing disdain." We COULD "celebrate our differences." Or we COULD choose not to concern ourselves with these matters, so long as they do not harm others. Personally, I fall into the latter category, regardless of whether the behavior is done intentionally and with the intent of "being different" (Beto wearing a dress in his band) or whether the behavior is done because something in the physical makeup (e.g. hormonal influences in utero) or psychological makeup (e.g. childhood influences, etcetera) of a person influences that person to do so (e.g. transgenderism).

One is fact, one is fantasy

quote:

---

Language evolves.

---

True. When I was a kid I was gay.

Child-rearing has traditionally been defined as a feminine gender role. Would you describe as "mentally ill" every father who seeks custody in a divorce?

Cooking the meals has traditionally been defined as a feminine gender role. Would you describe as "mentally ill" every married couple in which the husband prepares most of the meals?

Providing the financial support for a family has traditionally been defined as a male gender role. Would you describe as "mentally ill" every man who marries a woman who earns more than him?