I am not incensed at all. Say, gender equals to genetalia 99.x% or 9x% of the time.. for arguments sake we can substitute one for another.. The reason for usin

I am not incensed at all. Say, gender equals to genetalia 99.x% or 9x% of the time.. for arguments sake we can substitute one for another.. The reason for using that word is to show the absurdity of any gender based argument, feel free to substitute it with "people who can grow beards" if you like. As specific data points they may have relevance as tools, but, making sweeping claims about 50% of humanity makes for bad reasoning.. I think if you can be nuanced about gender vs biology then I'm sure you can see what I'm talking about. "Why are most men criminals though? It's probably because men are just generally more aggressive than women." You probably meant to say, why are most criminals men.. That is the danger when we start dealing in sweeping arguments.. it's easy to jump from the specific to the general and not notice.. I just think it's pointless to bring in gender into things where it's not relevant.. 4 out of 5 top defence companies are led by women.. it's a data point sure, but live through the life of that person who got to the top, did she get there because of being a man or woman, no, there is a bunch of hardwork and time they put in to get where they got to.. can you replace that woman with just any other woman, both are women right? Ofcourse not, because she is there because of what she can do, not because of her biology. The individual has more power over their lives than just being robots dictated by biology. Making biology central to reasoning about larger things is denying the power of the individual.