>>26136>It's that tits = female is a social construct.
We can call everything a social construct in that the whole phenomenon of language is socially constructed and everything in the universe that humans name and categorize, they do so for their own human reasoning ability and social/communication purposes. But at that point the term "social construct" loses its usefulness.
I would contend that, given the fact that humans, like pretty much all mammals (and even many if not most other animals, and even many plants), are a sexually dimorphic species, and that penises and vulvae are normal physical characteristics of these two biological sexes, it's justified to say that "vulva = female, penis = male" is not a "social construct" in any useful sense of the term.
(Breasts might be a little more complicated, as there's many women with very small breasts and men with manboobs, though it should still be fine to say that comparatively larger/visible breasts, and the ability to lactate, are basically female characteristics.)
As some other people put it succinctly, "every person on the planet was conceived from an ova (large, immobile gamete) and a sperm (small, mobile gamete), and spent several months in a womb." We call those who produce sperm male, and those who produce ova and own a womb female. This is useful terminology, at the very least in medicine.
I would say it's also useful terminology in relationships (regardless of whether you want biological kids), since it seems that (and it kinda makes evolutionary sense) that people are predominantly heterosexual, i.e. are sexually attracted to members of the opposite biological sex.
And note that *none* of the above justifies any of:
- discrimination against people who don't conform to culturally constructed norms of attire, behavior, etc. seen as fitting for members of either biological sex,
- discrimination against people who have other sexual preferences than the typical heterosexuality (which probably almost everyone has to *some* degree, especially given our brains aren't perfect in deducing who is female and who is male, let alone being able to deduce at all who is actually *fertile*),
- discrimination against people whose biology has some quirks that make it unclear whether their body is better referred to as female or male.
To be honest, I think that sanctioning all sorts of "gender identities" and what not as natural truths on the same level as e.g. biological sex is an active disservice to people's liberation from concepts such as gender [norms], heteronormativity, and so on. I believe we should be taking apart and abolishing social constructs, not bringing new ones into the picture.
Note that this is not to say that e.g. women with homosexuality, men with homosexuality, women who feel constrained by restrictive gender norms, men who feel constrained by restrictive gender norms, etc. can't form political groups and advocate for their particular rights within the existing system. They should, and they should form alliances, so all together they can bring down the system.
But to create such a vast array of new "gender identities" and other personal identities and to sanction them as natural and essential parts of who we are, doesn't that split us apart and prevent us from coming together under an understanding of the shared problem from which we all suffer in our unique ways? I would contend that all of these newfangled "gender identities" are just individually flavored responses to the same restrictive gender roles. Viewing them in isolation and sanctioning them as naturally existing categories only prevents us from realizing that they are all just individual responses to the *same* problem.
I hope that made sense...