They're pointing out the stupidity of your argument, since it depends on ignoring the fact that the remaining 5% exist, in the same way that classifying everything as those two elements requires ignoring the fact that the other 1% of matter exists

are you a preschooler?

then hydrogen can become helium and helium can become hydrogen, right?

yes, are you going to use "basic physics" too??

"what is the third gender" your deliberate misunderstanding and simplification of the issue is just bad faith debate. you're proving us that fractions are "syndromes" by using only integers. this is just a display of ignorance and bigotry, it doesn't really paint you as smart as you're trying to appear

Arguments mate, or you are just wasting our time.

So far you've only voiced your transphobic opinion, that's not how a good dialog is started.

Arguing with you is a waste of time.

You haven't read anything about this. It's very clear. The first thing you learn is that sex and gender are different. Sex is biology. Gender is identity.

The second thing you learn is that sex is not binary. (And gender, being a social construct, certainly is not set in stone.) Genes may be XX, but maybe some other factor may be preventing that gene from expressing fully or even at all. This can lead to highly androgynous folks or folks with odd genital configurations. It takes genes, gene expression, and hormones for a human to express characteristics of some sex. Not all three of these are perfectly aligned. You can argue that genes control all of it, but that doesn't stand. Genes can conflict, and environmental factors can affect things.

I learned all that and more in just twenty minutes of reading. Please, go do some homework. Start with "what is the difference between sex and gender," then let the rabbit hole take you down. At least, that's the path that helped me learn a bunch of this stuff.

And regarding Dunning-Kruger, the key point is confidence. That said, I'll caveat all the above I've said with this is just stuff that I've read from sources that I trust, which I can corroborate with my existing knowledge of genetics and broader biology. I'm not an expert. I can be proven wrong. Most of this is definitions and quite simple stuff, so my confidence is high but still shakeable.

Normally, I'm a stickler about answering asked questions, but your questions seem to be based on a misunderstanding of definitions. Once you get that sorted out, we can try again and maybe learn something together

If you're going to do a binary, X and Y chromosome doesn't hold up due to the presence of functional XX males from an SRY gene. Its speculated most Y chromosomes started as X chromosomes in animals that have that dichotomy.

In fact a functional or non functional SRY gene is a better determinant for biological sex.

The fact is though that testerone and SRY receptors have relatively high variability and trying to socially stress people into a group of traits will create a feedback loop that is opposed to more natural courses of evolution.

Its likely trans people - of whom there are records of going back to time immemorial - are likely an evolutionary adaptation and serve some evolutionary function to society we may not yet understand

Since gender is socially constructed (male norms, female norms, male jobs, female jobs) the presence of trans people in society that not only understand both sets of roles but can navigate them is probably an advantage over societies where those roles are less fluid and more strict.

There's a case to be made that the more strict gender roles become, the more evolutionary pressure there is to create trans people.

You’re approaching this discussion from a place of certainty, but the reality of biology, language, and human variation is more complex than the rigid model you’re presenting.

A few key points:

1. If sex is strictly XX = woman and XY = man, how do you explain the people who don’t fit that?

1 in 50 people has a variation of sex development (VSD). That’s not an anomaly, but a substantial population.

Genetic chimerism, which is rarely tested for, suggests as many as 12% of people have mixed chromosomal expressions—that’s 3 in every 25 people who do not neatly fit XX or XY.

Any woman who has ever had a child is a genetic chimera, because she retains some of her child’s DNA, meaning many women carry male DNA within their bodies.

If sex were as simple as XX/XY, these biological realities wouldn’t exist. But they do, and they complicate the notion that sex is an unchangeable binary.

2. If hormones don’t affect biological sex, why do they permanently alter the body?

Puberty is a hormonal process. It reshapes bodies, voices, muscle structure, brain development, and reproductive function.

If sex were truly "fixed," introducing testosterone or estrogen wouldn’t fundamentally change these same traits in adults. But it does.

So which is it? If hormones don’t influence sex, then puberty doesn’t matter either. If they do, then transitioning alters biological characteristics in ways that contradict your claims.

3. If language is purely "natural evolution," why has it been deliberately changed by societies and governments throughout history?

Modern Italian was not a natural evolution—it was imposed on Italy’s diverse dialects by the state.

After WWI, German was banned in schools and public institutions in parts of the U.S.

The French government has actively tried to suppress regional languages like Breton and Occitan to enforce a singular linguistic identity.

These weren’t "organic" shifts—they were deliberate policy changes. If language only changes on its own, these documented historical events should not have been possible.

If entire nations have altered their linguistic structures through conscious intervention, why would the evolution of gendered language be any different?

4. You argue that intersex people are "rare," but rarity does not erase reality.

Left-handed people make up about 10% of the population—a minority, but we don’t dismiss their existence because they aren’t the majority.

The number of people with red hair is lower than the percentage of intersex people, yet no one claims red hair is "unnatural."

Statistical frequency doesn’t determine what is real. Something doesn’t need to be common to be biologically significant.

5. The pattern in your responses suggests you are more emotionally invested in this topic than you claim.

You’ve repeatedly expressed personal relief that trans people are not common in your area. That’s not a neutral scientific observation—that’s a personal bias.

You dismiss contradictory biological realities by calling them "defects" rather than engaging with what they actually mean.

You insist this discussion is about "logic," yet when presented with genetic, medical, and linguistic evidence, you shift the argument rather than addressing the inconsistencies.

If you want to engage with this topic honestly, you’ll have to account for these contradictions instead of sidestepping them. If your argument is strong, it should be able to withstand scrutiny. If it can’t, then maybe the issue isn’t with the facts—it’s with the assumptions you started with.

And again, those are conditions, not something you choose to be, you are simply born like that.

I was pointing out how XX doesn't always mean female and XY doesn't always mean male. I didn't say you could change your chromosomes. I think you might be misunderstanding the OP. When it says 'some XX people become cis men' it means that embryos with XX chromosomes develop into cis men, not that they decide to be later in life.

Well than, waht is someone with Chappel syndrome?

Usually a man.

Oh yes, it’s also the malformations that you were born with

How do you differentiate between "normal" and a malformation? These are just arbitrary categories we made up. The reality is that we can observe that some humans just are like that and that's fine and normal.

oh so you need drugs to mimic traits from the opposite sex (there are only two after all) and gender is given by your sex.

You're moving the goalposts. You were arguing that you can't change sex and now you're retreating to 'you need drugs to change sex', which is true for HRT, but not necessarily for gynecomastia.

It's also not "mimicking" traits. Someone with gynecomastia or someone who takes feminising HRT grows the same kind of breasts as a cis woman.

Yes, language is not “made up” it evolved and will evolve naturally, demanding language to change to cater to you is not natural.

Even if this was true it would just be an appeal to nature. Natural doesn't mean good and unnatural doesn't mean bad.

But I don't think you can differentiate between 'natural' and 'unnatural' changes to language. Do you think language just evolves on its own without any human interference? Language is by definition something we do.