This line of thinking has never sat quite right with me, although I can see where it comes from. The reason it doesn't sit right is largely because of this:
Quote from: Samantharz on February 19, 2012, 12:23:10 AM
I'm not talking about Gender Roles, because you and I both know that a lot of traditional gender roles are silly. No, what I'm talking about is our very natural, evolutionarily driven gender binary. Perhaps mentally there is a "third gender" – but as far as nature cares, that third gender might as well never exist. Men use sperm to fertilize a female egg. We procreate, we survive, and we thrive. This "third gender" cannot survive without the natural gender binary of nature.
The sociological aspect of this gender binary makes perfect sense. The reason why women are women and men are men is simple to understand, that is how our evolutionary drive to procreate works. It is much simpler to have distinct, identifiable differences between the two sexes for easier procreation. You can find this everywhere in nature, look up sexual dimorphism. Our gender roles are largely evolutionarily driven.
It feels to me like using evolution, nature, physiology and biology to justify a belief in a gender binary, and on the other hand believing that it's possible for an individual to not fit the sex they were assigned at birth... well, it's like trying to have your cake and eat it.
The reason is because when using that line of thought, on the one hand you accept self-determination enough to for a person to be able to know they
aren't their birth sex, but then kinda dismiss self-determination by saying that binary genders are there solely for an evolutionary and biological purpose. So if you're a man, you make sperm, and if you're a woman, you make eggs, and the two come together to continue the species. And that's that.
Which in turn begs the question: if your birth sex is perfectly capable of contributing to this biological and evolutionary driven procreation, and possesses all the attributes necessary for existence within nature... where does the mental acceptance that you
aren't that sex come from? Because, unless I'm missing something, if it were only about biology and procreation as a need to continue the species... such feelings of disparity wouldn't exist naturally. And it could even be argued that in evolutionary terms it's
detrimental since , if the need is so strong that you physically and medically change your sex, you lose that ability to procreate.
(Although that does also lead to an interesting offshoot of humans having evolved to the point where we're able to do such things, and with the state of human knowlege of the world around us being what it is, there's no longer the biological need in many areas of the world to pump out twenty kids in the hope that one or two don't die before they reach adolescence. Evolution is a strange mistress.)
Anyway, as far as I can see, this leaves only two possible conclusions:
a) Either the feeling that one isn't their birth sex is an illusion and we're all just deluding ourselves, or in the words of the Bloodhound Gang: "You and me, baby, ain't nothin' but mammals, so let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel"
b) That humans are more than that, and
do possess the self-determination and self-awareness to know that they don't fit their assigned birth sex. If that's the case, then it stands to reason that there are going to humans who have that same self-awareness to know they don't fit the
other sex, either... and the whole idea of biology and procreation insisting that there can only be a binary model is a largely redundant argument in terms of the human species.
I don't see how you can have it both ways.

Who knows, maybe mentally we already
have evolved to the point where a purely evolutionary, rigid binary model ceases to be useful, and we're just waiting for biology and anatomy to catch up.