they are still male. that is why they have x and y even if y doesn't work. it does not change anything. Hm, wouldn't it mean that, following your logic a man who has sex with a CAIS person automatically

"Often it ends as a statistical rule, like that "in 99% (or simply most) cases" so the exception to the rule does not negate the rule like I was saying. I fucking swear It forces the rule

i had already answered the question No, you did not. For CAIS means genetical male but phenotype, behavior and identification are female. You did not answer why genes should prevail over phenotype and

if you check the first link i gave you when you first asked you would see it says "People with this condition are genetically male," I wrote just as much in my description, thanks for not reading

The main principle of the adage is seen best when there is only one or a very few exceptions. If there are exceptions, the rule is negated and a new rule (usually the old one amended) is needed. Often

If there are exceptions there is no rule. You can't find a single exception to e.g. gravity, good luck trying. So no, you are not dodging this question in that it is rare. Male or female and why?

Dude, a simple question to you: if there are only male and female is a person with CAIS, i.e. a person who: is genetical male has female external characteristics (i.e. body shape and sexual organs) identifies

The fact that people believe in something does not make it real. The belief is real. It is very important, because, true or false, these beliefs have real consequences. just because a bunch of people think

Gender is essentially an anthropological notion so what would you exactly expect? Read that book, or if you want just some examples, well, start even here.

Well, either you don't know what a social construct is or what real means. Or both. Real does not mean true or false, it simply means that something exists. Say, the belief in God (or gods). It's very

ummm, again i think your confusing gender roles with actual gender. sex and gender are the same thing. Dude, it's a definition, which means there can be no argument here. It's simply a way people chose

I think your confusing gender roles with actual gender. I'm using the terms as most science does, i.e. what is anatomical characteristics is called sex (which you apparently mean by gender) and psychological

They are always real, which exactly means what I said. In some cultures there are three genders, in Western culture 70 years ago there were only male and female, now it is still a predominant understanding

Depends on social construct, i.e. culture. In some there are only male and female, in others there are other genders. (Real does not necessarily mean biological or material.)

I think that existing monetary system is doomed Perhaps, although I hear of this imminent doom for too long to still treat it seriously. But then, everything ends someday, and so will this monetary system.

a result of a social construct, meaning there are no real genders Social constructs are real.

Dreams of destroying existing monetary systems in a few years are over because it simply is not happening. Neither is Bitcoin bringing revolution and if any has started (I really hope not an anarcho-capitalist

There's a website dedicated to such language fuckups: engrish.com, and it's older even than facebook ;)

He apparently flags posts more or less at random, original or not.

An obvious one but always good