Fascinating science there, but it seems like you are attempting to either confuse or impress with your knowledge, rather than clarify for those of us not working in your area of expertise. Your post still does not explain some fundamental questions. All of those examples describing events happening in nature. Two things come to mind:
1 - If gender is so fluid in nature, why not just allow gender to be what it is, on the spectrum in human nature? Why go through all these surgeries and hormone treatments to play out a desired role, when in nature, it can happen spontaneously? If we stop the medical interventions, the assigned gender goes back to what it was.
2 - If gender is so fluid, how do we actually define what is 'male' or 'female' with trans people (not not-binary queers)? For example, M2Fs very often select highly 'feminized' presentation, dress and mannerisms. Same with F2M. They love the facial hair and adopt stereotypically masculine behaviours and appearances to fit it. It's curious to me, that we question gender as a construct, and yet, we simply reconstruct the gender we are questioning.
I'd like someone with a solid background in science (not sociology or gender studies) to explain this in lay terms with clearly cited research. So far, it seems highly politicized and alarmist to the point where all questions are shut down and all inquiry is silenced. Anyone?
More information about text formats