Let it Rupp wrote:
It's not that puzzling. If people admit that there are physical differences between men and women or even girls and boys, then the whole "gender is a social construct theory" goes straight in the toilet and people can't blame differences between the sexes on culture alone. That's why people are digging their heels in and being saying crazy things like males and females don't differ in athleticism.
But my understanding is, the claim that "gender is a social construct" is NOT the same as saying there are no physical differences between the two sexes. In that claim, gender isn't a euphemism for sex; rather it means the stereotyped expectations, behaviors, way of dressing, interests, social roles and so on associated with each sex - many of which vary from culture to culture & over the course of time within the same culture.
Gender was a linguistic term originally. Gender = masculine or feminine. Sex = male or female. Gender = stereotypes. Sex = biology.
The practice of using of the word "gender" as an anodyne stand-in for "sex" only started becoming popular in the 1990s. But the widespread & unfortunately confusing use of "gender" as a proxy for "sex" still doesn't explain how we've ended up at a point where some people are taking the preposterous position that there are no physical differences between the sexes.
Nor does it explain why others are arguing that if there are sex differences in humans, they are so small in number & insignificant in kind that they all can be easily whisked away by changing one's name, hairstyle & clothing to conform to the sex stereotypes associated with the opposite sex, by taking powerful exogenous drugs to mess up the endocrine system, & perhaps by getting some plastic surgery.
Medical research over the past 30 years has actually shown that the differences between male & female humans are more numerous & of greater significance than previously thought, that they exist at the cellular level, and many are the result of our different sex chromosomes rather than all being due to just our different sex hormone profiles as (predominantly male) scientists & medical experts once assumed. The difference in ICU admissions & mortality rates for men & women with COVID-19, & women's higher rates of adverse reactions to the vaccines, underscore this.
I suspect that a lot of people who say they believe boys/men can magically become girls/women, and vice versa, know this is BS. But they say it anyway because it's a socially acceptable way of expressing animus towards girls & women whilst seeming to be "progressive" & "on the right side of history." As the poster you responded to said, he doesn't care that the male child in this case has an advantage - in his view, the wishes of the male child should come first even if that's not sporting & it means forfeiting fair play for female children.
Woke misogyny is just a rebrand of the age-old attitudes known as "male chauvinism" in the 1970s.
Moreover, I fear the ethos of "inclusivity" & "trans acceptance" here are a Trojan horse in what seems to be a larger effort that has multiple aims, none of them IMO good.
One aim is to turn healthy little kids into lifelong medical patients whose sense of self & self-esteem are based on putting on a charade that involves being dependent on drugs, getting cosmetic surgeries & being utterly reliant on fashion, makeup, mirrors, photo filters & elaborate, time-consuming grooming routines in order to get just the right look to post on social media & to present to the world. Kids like this 11-year-old are being raised to believe that being "your true self" means a whole lot of posing & playacting. And that "authenticity" is achieved through artifice, & contentment will come from consumerism.
Another aim, I fear, is to "trans away the gay."
Yet another aim is to undermine the parity in school sports & many other areas of life that girls & women only have started to obtain in the past 40-50 years.