Why the Gender Issue

Right. You might ask, "Why?" Why, fundamentally is our society experiencing so many questions about gender? I mentioned three. Lots of people have different ideas. Some of them get certain things right but miss others, some drop the ball completely, some are rather peculiar and miss evidence, yet none have successfully identified it fully in my opinion. I believe the answer astonishingly simple.

Remember gender in its inherent form is a question as to how one pursues values or beliefs, through fighting or caring. Society is essentially asking whether those two roles are distinct, and/or whether they are mutable. The reason is because they are asking the fundamental question. Is the pursuit of value a process which has fundamental distinction, or is it something that is subject to alteration, or distortion, something that is more liquid and traversable?

The answer is that it is a fundamental distinction, and despite the fact that there is overlap between the methods, they are indeed fundamentally distinct and clear, without actual traversal. A man may care for the things he fights for, a woman may fight for that which she cares for, but both have a certain drive that commands this. This is something that is a part of person's nature. Something beyond their biology, indeed, too, even if it is linked and for good reason, with the transgender exception which still holds the core principle and changes biology, attempts to, anyway.

This nature is both an a priori nature of a person's existence and a continued, deliberate choice. It is like how humanity, all mankind, knows murder to be illegal or unlawful, to be against some fundamental law of nature that is superior to individual laws of nations. Human beings both know, intrinsically, that murder is against the law of nature, but they also willfully choose to know that murder is against the law of nature. A man is man because that is his core nature, and he chooses to affirm that every day. While there are transgenders, they are still by essence man or woman, and through an operation, if necessary, just affirm that a priori state; they do not mutate it.

More abstractly, we again look at what it means to care for values and fight for them. Opponents of my claim would argue something to the effect of gender is a social construct. Yet this is only partially true, and it astonishes me how so many people seem to miss this. They agree with these opponents. But no. Gender is not only a social construct, but fundamentally also an a priori nature of existence. Even look at the hills of untamed land, which rise with sharp peaks but fall to graceful curves, showcasing a level of sternness and willingness to suffer, even metaphorically as a mountain (which is not alive, I'm not arguing that), and a distinct, softer, valley. These distinct elements, overlap, yet even a child who has never been taught of gender can identify their distinction.

Now, my opposition generally accepts this. Where they say I'm mistaken is that although there are certainly differences in, say, the peaks of a mountain and the curves of a valley, they do not believe that this can be fundamentally classified into two different distinctions: either peak or valley. There could be innumerable distinctions, each equally valid. It's not true for a simple reason: the nature of definitions. All that which exists needs to be defined by some opposite. This opposite need not be complete, and in many cases cannot be, but it must be defined on some basis of its opposite. Thus, rolling hills are first peaked and then have valleys, and only after that being can other distinctions like somewhat peaked, somewhat valley'd come into existence; but they will always be fundamentally one or the other, since that is by nature of a priori existence a condition of being–having some, even an incomplete opposite to define it by.

This is essential: the act of being is the act of not being everything else, lest everything form one indistinguishable blob. A plant is green because it reflects every other color, not because it possesses some "green" property. The plant rejecting blue, yellow, red, and so on is what makes it green, literally. The fact of this demands that the two fundamental distinctions between caring and fighting for what one believes in, though there is overlap, is something fundamentally predicated on absolute axioms, and that is irrefutable by every facet of nature and by existence itself. Anyone who denies this denies themself their own existence by forgetting they exist only by not being all other people. We say someone who does not have a real personality, who regurgitates only what they hear, as not being "real," or at worst being a type of nobody. It's true: the fact that they lack distinction, a mere blob of their environment, refuses their existence. This applies at scale to the world itself.

Gender is thus not only a social construct, and fundamentally it is not a social construct, but a nature of being itself–it is the pursuit of values through willingness to suffer bravely or willingness to care bravely. That is why mountains have peaks and valleys, and then overlap, but you must first acknowledge their peak and their valley, and that that will never change, is what everything of that mountain and all other things originate from and retain. The people who espouse things about gender but deny this are delusional. They miss such a foundational concept.

That's why the nation and the world grapples with these questions about gender. We are not concerned about anything at face value; the contrary. We are asking, even if we don't know it, whether the means of pursuing value and their two axioms are a core concept of nature, or whether we invent them, and can change them at will. The answer is technically both, but really the first one, because that pre-exists the latter, and only after acknowledging the former can the latter even exist. If you acknowledge there are fundamentally man and woman, always will be, and that this is a fundamental nature of existence and of people that does not change, you can then discuss how some men are more caring, some women more aggressive, but they are still men and women, and nothing else.

If you want to invent words to describe such terms, like the list of genders some people come up with, that is first of all A) quite unnecessary considering just saying a man who is caring or woman who is aggressive is already a sufficient description, and B) confuses the true nature of gender, which exists along a fundamental level a priori to people and things. The 'constructed' language to describe it should be in accordance with that fact. Now, if some people in their own consenting groups want to invent language to describe an abundance of gender, they can do so provided they are careful to not misconstrue the true meaning of gender, and do not push those viewpoints without reason or consent upon people at large, who may simply prefer a more straightforward depiction of reality and its substrate.

In short, society with the new gender questions asks if there is fundamental distinction to pursuing values that we call gender. There is.