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 and social ones are called gender.
ummm, again i think your confusing gender roles with actual gender. sex and gender are the same thing. science shows there are only two genders/sexes. "psychological and social" studies on gender roles is not based in science. if it is can you please provide links to factual based scientific data proving me wrong? gender roles is a social construct and is why we have masculine females and feminine men. it does not change their genders only their gender roles.

You're confusing real and material. Or so I think, your English is beyond comprehension here.
that's funny, it was very simple to read and understand. maby you have no come back so you have to attack spelling and gramer? how am i confusing "real and material". i am only talking about the real. the stuff that is not real is just that, not real. good try on the dodge of the points though.

There's quite a load of anthropological literature about cultures where there are more than two genders.
yep, you have no answer for it? that's great you can say their is literature out their to support your case but you have not provided any of this literature or given any reasons why im wrong. you simply said, yes there is the proof is out there somewhere. :/

so as i said in the last post.
"besides calling gender a social construct do you have any way to support the claim that there is more then 2 genders? if not I rest my case, if you do i would love to look into it so maybe i can learn how i am wrong about it."