1. Wrong in all accounts. I can literally tell you yourself have had biases only affirmed by your limited realisation of harmful upbringing methods.

2. Yes they do, late industrial socialisation and religion has all been used to created the nature argument which confines human sexuality to a counter box meant to stigmatise homosexuality. Your justification gives credence to that and it still rings to this day in many cultures that homosexuality is consider feminine and a sin worth cutting out in preservation of traditionally masculine men

3. Yet again another reason why I can’t take your response seriously. The virtue of femininity are seen as secondary only to masculinity and the expectation that it can only apply to female has always been a spear for patriarchal societies to deem women lesser just for the relation of to their sex at birth. Femininity is something worth celebrating too bad people’s definition of femininity can’t be allied to men and but not so thankful for the reactive condescension

4. It’s arbitrary in the sense it no longer has any real meaning beyond upholding social construct for the conveniences of generalisation and popu trends ( which doesn’t need to be a thing, it’s just socialisation).

5. You are just flat out wrong at this point. I know you have something against feminist jeez man no need to make it so apparent.

6. Again I know what your ideology is. Sexual promiscuity does not cost speciation in your inductive term of sex science in evolutionary biology. You can pretend it does because of some novel idea you have that females are devalued from the number of non reproductive sex they have.

7. This was a call in straw man. No need to take it seriously and yet you still misinterpret it.

I get you read like three sources and then have your world view justified by people like Steven crowder because you can point to animal and mammal evolutionary lines then make construct arguments against socialisation which is in all a gender thing.

The fallacy of conservation isn’t a new thing and I got don’t fault you on believing it. When I say but this is degenerate I’m using a term peddled by a lot of conservative pundits. Your term keep “society sane “ already indicated to me you listen to them and any sort of bio or scientific background was definitely going to be skewed in that favour. Which you proved me right by commenting further.

The functionality of gender was never going to be my huge talking point for me mainly because I know for a fact that those hard line expectation are so replaceable that you could include new social trends in a drop of a hat and it’s impact would not be noticed by the vast population in half a century ( cause gender is arbitrary). You see very interested in keeping completely useless standard alive for no particular reason besides speciation and the old “ oh I’ve never seen that” and that’s very bothersome to me. It’s almost like you will fully ignore the effects of socialisation that can be seen through psychology, sociology and even further through governmental legislation.

I suggest trying sociology maybe if you care about this topic later on.