Forgive my ignorance . could someone not identify as their race?/ethnicity?

[TwistednMean]

Essentialism in biology [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essentialism#In_biology]

Let's pull out the dictionary, shall we?
Essentialism is the view that, for any specific entity (such as an animal, a group of people, a physical object, a concept), there is a set of attributes which are necessary to its identity and function.

Now let's fast forward to the wiki definition:
An essence characterizes a substance or a form, in the sense of the Forms or Ideas in Platonic idealism. It is permanent, unalterable, and eternal; and present in every possible world. Classical humanism has an essentialist conception of the human being, which means that it believes in an eternal and unchangeable human nature. The idea of an unchangeable human nature has been criticized by Kierkegaard, Marx, Heidegger, Sartre, and many other existential thinkers.
Fair enough. I remember as much from my philosophy classes.

And here is the snippet you actually linked:
It is often held that before evolution was developed as a scientific theory, there existed an essentialist view of biology that posited all species to be unchanging throughout time.
What are you talking about, mate? I never said the species do not change throughout time! That's crazy creationist talk! Now, if you want to argue that biology is not essential for a species, well, you have to prove that. I know that singular anecdotes don't matter, but since you really don't like giving citations, please, find a single individual with human genome who looks like a Lovecraftian fish-person. Or just a normal fish. Maybe, even a dolphin? Then I will have significant doubts that biology has everything to do with what you are. Until then your assertions hold no more water than colander.

Just some basic reading on the subject of transgender [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender]

What bothers me is that you do not think I have even a basic understanding of transgenderism. It is almost as if you think I have no idea what I am talking about. Now, I do not imply that you are necessarily projecting here, but it is a bad start if you ask me.

The second thing that bothers me is that my words, indeed, fall on deaf ears. That is no proper way of having a conversation, is it? But let me repeat myself with added emphasis:
Now prove me that gender-identity is a THING and that it is separate from biological sex. To do that you will have to take a sample of population and ask them what gender (race) they identify with and what their biological sex (race) are. Then you apply statistical analysis to prove that with a certain degree of confidence you can claim that people have a different perception of their sex (race) from their biologically assigned one. This may lead to a conclusion that these two notions are indeed distinct.

The very same thing applies here. Asserting that transgender is something doesn't make it a scientific fact. I can assert that humans are energy beings floating in empty five-dimensional space, who have dreamed up the world around them. I can even write a wikipedia article about it. But it won't make it true, don't you agree?

Oh, by the way, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it.

Still the constant demand for citations and sources really bothers me, especially because it's something constantly used to devalue opposing view points. On the subject of transgenderism especially, it's annoying as hell, because people constantly pester me for sources, because I'm transgender. In the age of Google there is no excuse for not looking these things up yourself, burden of proof, or no. It's simply not my job to educate every single person who has a opposing view point, especially on the subject of transgenderism, if it were I'd starve to death due to lack of time to eat and sleep. If the vast majority of the psychological community's view isn't good enough for you, then you have far to high standards. The DSM-V[footnote]Fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[/footnote] uses the term gender dysphoria when referring to transgender individuals and it is not classed as a mental disorder.

You realize that it is only a book and a book can be wrong, don't you? Do you realize that there are no objective criteria to establish what is a mental disorder and what isn't? There is no specific marker in the brain that says, "uh-oh, that guy is crazy" or "nah, this guy is ok, he just likes to dress as a woman". It is all about a bunch of folks who came together to decide whom they should medicate and who can be free to do as they please. Their resolutions do not create scientific facts. If you do not agree, then you would have to admit that some fifty ears ago homosexuality was a disease, but now all gay people are miraculously cured by a bunch of guys writing something on paper.

Genetics and Biology screw up all the time such as in the case of intersex individuals [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex], or peole with Klienfelter Syndrome [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome], or people like me with XX male syndrome [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome] So your full stop argument falls on def ears, just as the biological only one does, and just like the genetic one too.

How exactly do they screw up? I have a degree in biology and I have no idea what you're talking about. Throwing in random wikipedia links does nothing to support your assertions, by the way. It is a game of facts or don't even bother.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-Snip-

Well you ignore the citations in the articles, or the fact that the things I posted are actually things that happen in biology that show biology and genetics aren't a perfect base line. That people are born with genetics of XXY, or like my self with XX chromosomes, yet are born physically male.

But I'm not willing to spend a significant amount of my personal time researching the subject to your satisfaction, which a little birdie told has informed me is going to be impossible. Based on your previous behavior on the subject, you're just going to dismiss my sources and strawman my arguments to your heart's content. As I said before it's not my job to educate you, it's not my job to do the research for you, burden of proof be damned. If a community consensus in the scientific realm, who specialize in things like transgenderism, isn't enough to convince, then I can't provide evidence to meet your honestly impossible standards. Besides a source I trust tells me you have a history of leveling transphobia against trans individuals, on these very forums, completely throws out any trust I have in your ability to be unbiased on the subject. So good day to you, and good life to you, because I honestly don't have to listen to you, thus I'm not going to.

 

[Silvanus]

Sorry, but you seem not to understand what science means. Unless you use scientific method to back your research up, you are not a scientist, you are an assertionist at best.

Usually, when somebody criticises somebody else for providing nothing, they provide something themselves. Otherwise, it looks like vacuous grandstanding.

http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00158-5/abstract

"Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated FtM transsexuals is closer to the pattern of subjects who share their gender identity (males) than those who share their biological sex (females). Our results provide evidence for an inherent difference in the brain structure of FtM transsexuals".

http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00325-0/abstract

"Before cross-sex hormone treatment female to male transsexuals (FtM) differ from females but not from males in several brain fibers".

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html

"Here we show that the volume of the central subdivision of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BSTc), a brain area that is essential for sexual behaviour, is larger in men than in women. A female-sized BSTc was found in male-to-female transsexuals. The size of the BSTc was not influenced by sex hormones in adulthood and was independent of sexual orientation".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754583

"Overall, our study provides evidence that MTF transsexuals possess regional gray matter volumes mostly consistent with control males. However, the putamen was found to be ?feminized? in MTF transsexuals. That is, the gray matter volume of this particular structure in the MTF transsexual group was both larger than in males and within the average range of females. Interestingly, in a positron emission tomography (PET) study, it was demonstrated that the left putamen in a sample of MTF transsexuals (n=12), who had no history of estrogen treatment, activated differently to odorous steroids when compared to control males (Berglund et al., 2008). Taken together, these findings lend support to the hypothesis that specific neuroanatomical features are associated with transsexual identity, where the particular role of the putamen requires investigation in future studies".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056697

"MFTR [nonhomosexual Male-to-Female transexuals] differed significantly only from male controls, and only for EST-AIR and EST-AND. These data suggest a pattern of activation away from the biological sex, occupying an intermediate position with predominantly female-like features. Because our MFTRs were nonhomosexual, the results are unlikely to be an effect of sexual practice. Instead, the data implicate that transsexuality may be associated with sex-atypical physiological responses in specific hypothalamic circuits, possibly as a consequence of a variant neuronal differentiation".

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/12/cercor.bhu194.full

"Investigating structural networks in female-to-male and male-to-female transsexuals, we observed differences in hemispheric and lobar connectivity as well as local efficiencies when compared with healthy controls. Previously reported regional characteristics of transsexual patients mostly represent the transition of the biological sex to the actual gender identity. Hence, our interregional findings add valuable complementary information as the evaluation on a network level revealed unique features, which seem to be specific for each of the patient groups".

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

-Snip-

Holy crap on a cracker @Silvanus, those are some good sources. I thank you for dredging them up, if not for the sake of the argument I've presented, but for the material presented that looks like a good read. Thanks again.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I guess you could identify with the culture of another race that is generally associated with them, but apart from that, no.

 

[TwistednMean]

snip

Did you actually read anything I have said except for the short paragraph that you cited? If you did you would realize that your citations in no way contradict what I am saying. On the contrary, KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime is the one who suggest that biology has nothing to do with being transsexual. Something that scientists have demonstrated to be false in the very article you have quoted above. There is no established connection to show that it is causation rather than correlation, of course, but the difference is there.

But thank you for proving my point none the less. It is not sarcasm, I really mean it.


Now, I ask for citations, because whatever I say is a well-known fact. Phenotype arises from the genotype through the mechanisms of transcription and translation, which happen on a cellular level. Biological sex is a phenotypical trait that depends on your sex chromosomes. That is something that is demonstrably true and can be empirically proven. Surely you won't argue that most people identify their gender with their biological sex, would you?

But what is that "gender"? You claim it different from biological sex, that it is a social construct rather than biological trait. But you provide no evidence to back it up. Neither it is demonstrably true. I can poll a hundred people on the street and almost all of them would say that they identify with whatever gender (sex) they have been biologically born with. And I am not taking your word for it. It's not how science works.

So how do you prove that your concept of gender is real? I have seen no studies that employ scientific method to demonstrate that it exists. None whatsoever. Do you see now that my efforts to apply a level of scrutiny to your assertions is justified?

Nah, of course you don't, what am I thinking...

 

[Silvanus]

Did you actually read anything I have said except for the short paragraph that you cited? If you did you would realize that your citations in no way contradict what I am saying. On the contrary, KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime is the one who suggest that biology has nothing to do with being transsexual. Something that scientists have demonstrated to be false in the very article you have quoted above. There is no established connection to show that it is causation rather than correlation, of course, but the difference is there.

But thank you for proving my point none the less. It is not sarcasm, I really mean it.

Uh-huh. Those were intended to counter the (tiresome, unscientific) argument you made that identifying as a gender at odds with one's physical sex doesn't "hold water".

You made the (correct) argument that biology is highly important, and then, somehow, came to the wrongheaded conclusion that this discredits gender dysphoria. Which is, of course, utter bollocks.

Now, I ask for citations, because whatever I say is a well-known fact. Phenotype arises from the genotype through the mechanisms of transcription and translation, which happen on a cellular level. Biological sex is a phenotypical trait that depends on your sex chromosomes. That is something that is demonstrably true and can be empirically proven. Surely you won't argue that most people identify their gender with their biological sex, would you?

Obviously not, and nobody has been.

But what is that "gender"? You claim it different from biological sex, that it is a social construct rather than biological trait. But you provide no evidence to back it up. Neither it is demonstrably true. I can poll a hundred people on the street and almost all of them would say that they identify with whatever gender (sex) they have been biologically born with. And I am not taking your word for it. It's not how science works.

So how do you prove that your concept of gender is real? I have seen no studies that employ scientific method to demonstrate that it exists. None whatsoever. Do you see now that my efforts to apply a level of scrutiny to your assertions is justified?

Nah, of course you don't, what am I thinking...

Can you stop telling me what I believe, please?

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

I really don't care how the argument itself shakes out because the only place biological sex or race really has any sort of relevance is medical records, but I don't understand how society can say "gender is just a social construct, therefore it is fluid and each person needs to find themselves on that spectrum" at the same time as they say, "race is just a social construct, therefore you cannot adopt aspects of other races because that's appropriation". To me, that logic is flawed. If situation A is irrelevant because X, then shouldn't B be irrelevant because X also? A=X and B=X so A=B.

It's not that so much, the argument being assumed here that race has some inherent identity behind it, that the races are vastly different on a basic level. Which isn't true, the races are different purely on a superficial level, though they do have different cultures too. Culturally you fall into the territory of ethnicity, which can be adopted. Though there is a vein of thought that adopting another culture is automatically wrong, disrespectful, that it's "cultural appropriation". These ideas stem from a misguided need to protect cultural integrity through cultural segregation based on race, despite the fact that this has been proven categorically a bad idea.

But the crux of the thread holds the basis that one can feel they've been born the wrong skin color, which I'll concede is possible, but I've never really seen an actual case of such a thing. Basically I question it's validity when one can adopt another ethnic culture without changing their physical race traits, along with a lack of evidence to back the idea that one can be born the wrong skin color.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry, but you seem not to understand what science means. Unless you use scientific method to back your research up, you are not a scientist, you are an assertionist at best.

You mean the stuff I literally just talked about?

That's where I dare you to find a peer-review paper with similar research that proves that thing you're talking about even exist. Then I will admit that I am the one who is a dark-age fanatic.

Ironic, since I asked you to back up your claims and you provided nothing. But it looks like Silvanus and Kyubii have already provided that, so where's your admission?

Seriously, though. By all means, show me some peer-reviewed papers that indicate that race is comparable to gender identity. I can't find any, but I'm sure after chastising me for "assertions" you came prepared with data.

For some reason, you're not very forthcoming with it. Seems more likely this is a unscientific assertion with no scientific basis.

 

[TwistednMean]

Uh-huh. Those were intended to counter the (tiresome, unscientific) argument you made that identifying as a gender at odds with one's physical sex doesn't "hold water".

You made the (correct) argument that biology is highly important, and then, somehow, came to the wrongheaded conclusion that this discredits gender dysphoria. Which is, of course, utter bollocks.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy... there you go with the massive amount assertions again. Where do I start?

I know! I start with logic!

Biological gender dependent on the genotype is a scientific fact. There is an established connection between your sex chromosomes and internal and external genetalia as well as other sex traits. Therefore biological gender (or just sex) exists. When asked over 99,9% of people would say that they feel their gender is the same as their biological sex. Ergo social concept of gender is the same as biological sex.

Your argument is gender dysphoria occurs in 0.05% of population... something-something LGBT... something-something biological essentialism... ergo gender is a social construct. Do you see how your argument has no proof and makes no sense? If you disagree, please, feel free to correct me and provide the logic supported by facts, which made you arrive at your conclusion.

Now, I ask for citations, because whatever I say is a well-known fact. Phenotype arises from the genotype through the mechanisms of transcription and translation, which happen on a cellular level. Biological sex is a phenotypical trait that depends on your sex chromosomes. That is something that is demonstrably true and can be empirically proven. Surely you won't argue that most people identify their gender with their biological sex, would you?

Obviously not, and nobody has been.

My question was, "Surely you won't argue that most people identify their gender with their biological sex, would you?"
To which you reply with,"Obviously not, and nobody has been."

What does that even mean? Nobody identifies their biological gender? No one argues that most people identify as their biological gender?
If it's the second one how do you know that the social construct of gender is real? You can't even prove that much.

But what is that "gender"? You claim it different from biological sex, that it is a social construct rather than biological trait. But you provide no evidence to back it up. Neither it is demonstrably true. I can poll a hundred people on the street and almost all of them would say that they identify with whatever gender (sex) they have been biologically born with. And I am not taking your word for it. It's not how science works.

So how do you prove that your concept of gender is real? I have seen no studies that employ scientific method to demonstrate that it exists. None whatsoever. Do you see now that my efforts to apply a level of scrutiny to your assertions is justified?

Nah, of course you don't, what am I thinking...

Can you stop telling me what I believe, please?

By all means, tell me what you think, so that I don't have to guess. Mind you, meaningless snippets of sentences and quotes from studies without any supporting argument do not count. After all I am no psychic.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Though there is a vein of thought that adopting another culture is automatically wrong, disrespectful, that it's "cultural appropriation". These ideas stem from a misguided need to protect cultural integrity through cultural segregation based on race, despite the fact that this has been proven categorically a bad idea.

Thanks for the good response. I snipped this part because it's a point I think is a large part of this discussion because I think a lot of us (myself included, sometimes) use race and culture interchangeably and we really shouldn't. It's why white kids who grow up in mostly black neighborhoods get called "wiggers" for the way they dress and act, despite the fact it's what they grew up with. I hope it's not bad in more urban areas, but I live in a pretty rural place and holy cow, do people take some shit around here when their actions don't match expectations based solely on skin color. So...yeah. Feeling mis-raced (shhhh...it's a word now) is probably incredibly rare, if it exists at all. But getting accused of that cultural appropriation, I think that's what most people are against (which is silly, unless the appropriator is being delibrately demeaning to the culture).

I generally see the more open racism like you see as a more rural trend, even larger towns(50,000+ residents) seem to be less prone to this, but it's because of more ethnic and racial mixing. Ethnic isolation feeds stereotypical prejudicing, which is more common in rural communities. Still mis-racing somebody? When did race become a pronoun? When did it become not racist to use race as a pronoun!? I mean we use gender pronouns every day, we do not directly identify people by race pronouns.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Oh, crap! I was just trying to use a silly word to describe people who feel they don't present as the race they feel that they are. I meant no offense, it was meant as a language joke.

...I HAVE BLACK FRIENDS!

But seriously, I meant no disrespect. I apologize for my poor phrasing, ESPECIALLY if it was hurtful to anyone who read it.

Pfft, I think I'm the one who needs to apologize here, my reaction was supposed to be a joke. Still though, how can you mis-race someone? Seems a bit silly to me, well not too silly, I once mistook a Filipino for Hispanic, that was uncomfortable... Plus people think misgendering is silly, not understanding how much it hurts when you're a trans person and somebody does it to you, especially when it's intentional.

 

[Silvanus]

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy, oh boy... there you go with the massive amount assertions again. Where do I start?

I know! I start with logic!

Biological gender dependent on the genotype is a scientific fact. There is an established connection between your sex chromosomes and internal and external genetalia as well as other sex traits. Therefore biological gender (or just sex) exists. When asked over 99,9% of people would say that they feel their gender is the same as their biological sex. Ergo social concept of gender is the same as biological sex.

That's... not logic. First off, you're conflating gender with sex from the get-go, in direct contradiction of the APA [http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx], the WHO [http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/understanding/gender-definition/en/], and various other authoritative sources. If you're just going to assert that your definition is true, provide something to back it up, and don't have the gall to criticise others for assertions without providing basis.

Secondly, you're also providing nothing to back up the statistical claim that fewer than 0.1% of people are trans; the best numbers we have put it higher [http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf], though for obvious reasons, the numbers aren't exhaustive.

My question was, "Surely you won't argue that most people identify their gender with their biological sex, would you?"
To which you reply with,"Obviously not, and nobody has been."

What does that even mean? Nobody identifies their biological gender? No one argues that most people identify as their biological gender?
If it's the second one how do you know that the social construct of gender is real? You can't even prove that much.

It means, "Nobody has been arguing that most people do not identify their gender with their biological sex".

That's the only reading that makes sense grammatically, so I'm not sure why you're confused.

By all means, tell me what you think, so that I don't have to guess. Mind you, meaningless snippets of sentences and quotes from studies without any supporting argument do not count. After all I am no psychic.

I'd prefer if you simply refrained from dreaming up nonsense and pretending that I said it.

 

[mrgerry123]

I think so yes. Just the same way that someone might not identify with their sex. It's a biological thing you have no control over.

 

[Silvanus]

Right. The World I-Never-Provide-Sources-For-My-Claims Organization. It may be an authoritative source for you, like the holy church would be for a fanatic, but I could care less what assertions WHO or APA makes unless they provide scientific studies. You see, it is so, because I am not a cultist. Oh, and lookie here! They do not provide any sources here either!!

But I am no government funded organization. I can provide a few links for you. Here is one for sexual traits being defined by genetics [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex#Sex_determination]. Here is one for gender disphoria occurring only in 0.05-0.5% of people [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria], depending on the demographic and study. Guess what, any competent scientist, no matter which field they come from, would be able to tell you that it means that people's gender is the same as their sex with a significance level below 0.001. Which in layman's terms means "I am pretty damn sure of it".

Jesus Christ, the American Psychological Association is not a valid source, but Wikipedia is.

Your first link keeps talking about how genetics usually determine physical sex, which nobody ever argued with, so that's irrelevant. From the second link, you pulled the "0.05%" stat, ignoring that it gives numbers alongside it as high as "1.2%" (New Zealand), and that these numbers are from self-reportage, which is a serious qualification.

These sources are from bloody Wikipedia-- which is frankly absurd, given your own dismissive attitude towards mine-- and even they don't provide any solid basis for what you're coming out with.

Let me emphasize that for you, "Nobody has been arguing that most people do not identify their gender with their biological sex".

I quoted the 0.05% figure, but let us assume that you take the 0.3% figure from the study you cited above.
Now, please, explain to me how 99.7% of the population who DO identify their gender with their biological sex are NOT the majority. I am afraid I haven't quite reached your level of doublethink, because I have no idea how it can possibly make sense to you.

Uhrm, why would I argue they're not "the majority"? That's never been my position, blatantly.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Jesus Christ, the American Psychological Association is not a valid source, but Wikipedia is.

Your first link keeps talking about how genetics usually determine physical sex, which nobody ever argued with, so that's irrelevant. From the second link, you pulled the "0.05%" stat, ignoring that it gives numbers alongside it as high as "1.2%" (New Zealand), and that these numbers are from self-reportage, which is a serious qualification.

These sources are from bloody Wikipedia-- which is frankly absurd, given your own dismissive attitude towards mine-- and even they don't provide any solid basis for what you're coming out with.

Well after that person shot down your links, all of them, along with mine, complaining about wikipedia sources in my case... Well, a friend told me what to expect and TwistednMean delivered exactly as expected. This person is obviously going to dismiss any source that doesn't conform to their conformation bias.

Also to anyone whose wondering, instances of trans folk self reporting as trans are generally very low, because anyone who pays attention knows that trans folk take every precaution not to get outed. Generous estimates say one in five trans individuals will admit to it, but it's probably more like one in ten or fewer will admit to being trans. There are very good reasons for this, most commonly trans people get isolated and shunned, especially by their friends and families. It's not uncommon for trans folk to be abandoned, or even beaten by family members for being trans. Trans people are also at far higher risk of being beaten, raped, and murdered when compared even homosexuals, let alone when compared to heterosexual cisgender populations. So it's no wonder very few trans people are even willing to admit to being trans, let alone being the type who tends to wear it on our sleeves, like a very few of us are.

One might want to go to by medical records, but... Trans people generally get all transition related medical referrals are done by a the patient's therapist, making it deeply embedded in physician/patient confidentiality. You could go by public records of transition legally, but most trans individuals have those sealed, so no go there. Also in the case of transition, not all trans folk can transition, medically, or by extention legally, due to the cost, some just choose not to transition, and many transition very late in life. This means that accurate statistic numbers are virtually impossible to obtain, due to the personal nature that insists on secrecy on the matter.

Let me emphasize that for you, "Nobody has been arguing that most people do not identify their gender with their biological sex".

I quoted the 0.05% figure, but let us assume that you take the 0.3% figure from the study you cited above.
Now, please, explain to me how 99.7% of the population who DO identify their gender with their biological sex are NOT the majority. I am afraid I haven't quite reached your level of doublethink, because I have no idea how it can possibly make sense to you.

Uhrm, why would I argue they're not "the majority"? That's never been my position, blatantly.

Oh god this is hilarious. Twisted, no one is arguing that cisgender people are not the majority, it's factually obvious that cisgender people, those whose gender identity match their sex assigned at birth, are the majority. That means logically transgender folk are the minority. Nobody is arguing the opposite of this. How you read Silvanus as saying otherwise is baffling, characterizing Silvanus as arguing that trans folk are the majority is totally opposite to what they said. That is unless your level of doublethink is so extreme that you have to argue with your opponent even when they agree with you. Also just because trans folk are the minority doesn't make our position less valid, just like how being homosexual, or bisexual means being in a sexual preference minority, but doesn't make the preference less valid.

I can't believe I'm reading any of this. I'd respond, but it'd almost be like telling Tumblr that mayonnaise isn't a gender.

I'm pretty sure that if you're looking for people to argue in favor of mayonnaise being a gender, you're in the wrong place. But thanks for making a snide statement that adds nothing to the discussion.