Gender is an amalgamation of factors, biology only being one of them. Even with that one factor nature sometimes detours through. There's biological(XY chromosome). Chemical(testosterone). Anatomical(what you have between your legs). Neurotype(what you have upstairs). And to some extent sociological(society's dumb unspoken rules like pink vs blue, dolls vs action figures, and nurturing vs aggression).

Well, yes.

And most of those things cannot be easily, if at all, modified to fit a personal "gender" preference.

That said, biology is still the driving factor. The experiences shaping what is "you" are driven by your physical characteristics first and foremost, mental second. Particularly since the latter develop based on early "physical" input. Your gender is a crucial determinant, for better or for worse.

We can carve out of this mess certain "general" differentiations. Again, biology helps there because it's unambigious.

Don't misunderstand me - I think transsexuals should be fully accepted in a modern society, but I absolutely disagree that there is no difference between them and biological representatives of the desired gender. Those differences will affect societal interactions.

Hopefully the issue of acceptance (and societal stance on such things) will disappear with time, but it is not something that can be forced on society in an artificial way. Or something that can achieve true equality by hand-waving the biological differences.

This is an example why every single hipster shows needs to have every race, gender, and sexual orientation represented in it. But then it's also a reaction to things like Johnny Depp playing Tonto.

That is actually not the case. Biology can be very ambiguous, and it also has a lot of edge cases that can come up.

You know, what? I disagree with you. "Female protagonist" tag is a good thing, because with 1.2k games with this tag people can tell femina... I mean women with strong gender identity that their claim that "you can't freely play as woman" is BS.
Sorry, but you contradict yourself. If a human needs to use hormones, make "transition" operation to get male or female characteristics, that's by definition means that sex is defined by biology. If it was just "social construct" you wouldn't need to do anything to change sex, just change how you identify - and you are man or woman.

Actually, that's not always the case. Some people transition socially but not medically, so the body may be physically male but the person presents as female, or vice versa.

Also, there are intersex people whose bodies, even without intervention, do not match up to being either male or female. There are tons of ways this can happen; one could have some unusual karyotype (something other than XX or XY), one could have a mixture of XX and XY cells, one's body might not respond to hormones (resulting in an XY person appearing female), one's body could not produce hormones the expected way, one's genitals could take an unusual form, and many other possible conditions. (I have even read of a case where an XY person got pregnant and carried a child to term!)

Furthermore, I could point out that studies have shown that the brains of transgender people match more closely with their identified gender than their birth assigned sex.

I'm referring to "real life" and why we attach more importance to our differences than our commonality.

Than it's not "transition"! The whole point of "attack helicopter" joke is that if I say that I'm a woman doesn't make me a woman. If I'm a man, putting on a dress doesn't change my sex.
And again this just proves my point. All you discribe here is _biological_ attributes. One can argue, of course, if a person who only have nerual structure of brain and some other "minor" attributes to be female should be indetified as woman, man, or some other. But the whole point is that THERE ARE female biological attributes that make that question to exist in the first place.

You really don't understand. Anyone who says she's a woman is a woman. Anyone who says he's a man is a man. It doesn't matter how the person looks, dresses, or acts.

Also, the"attack helicopter" joke is actually highly offensive, so please don't use it.

Actually, they do disprove scientific rules. If something is found to violate the known laws of physics, then at least one of those laws is incorrect and needs to be revised. (Sometimes quite drastically, like when it was discovered that the speed of light does not depend on your frame of reference.)

This is even more true in mathematics; a single counterexample is enough to prove a statement false. If you can give me one number (just *one*) that violates the Goldbach Conjecture (that is, an even number greater than 2 that isn't the some of 2 (not necessarily distinct) primes), you have just solved a famous unsolved problem. (Before you try to do this, let me warn you that people have looked for such a counterexample, even using computers to search for them, and have failed to find any.)

Why? And why do you offended by people who say that they are something else?

Biological yes, chemical yes(though that's typically dependent on the biological, ie. men produce much more testosterone), anatomical(again typically dependent on biological unless something happened during development), neurotype yes(though again, typically dependent on biological, at least on averages across the genders). Once you know someone's biology, you can infer most of the other things you have listed, at least in terms of probabilities.

Your mention of sociological is flawed, however, at least with those examples given. There are clear differences between men and women that can be seen very, very early on in life. Girls are more interested in people, while boys are more interested in things. That's where the dolls vs action figures comes in, and men are more aggressive and competitive, while women are more agreeable and supportive. Those aren't traits that are imposed on them by society. Now of course any individual will have variations, but as an average of the whole, men will in general be less agreeable and more aggressive, while women will be more agreeable and less aggressive; among other differences. Men and women are different, but they are also equal. We complement each other quite nicely, we need both.

That's not how it works. You can't change reality just by saying something is true. I can understand the idea that a woman might want to be a man, or that a man might wants to be a woman, and I have empathy for their position. But I disagree with the idea that a woman saying they want to be a man, magically makes them into a man. They're still a woman, whom we can have empathy for and can refer to as a man. But that still doesn't make them male.

How does it become systematic? You do know that all game developers are not in cahoots and all of them have their own ideas for a game, right? So in the absence of a body dictating a racist intention, how can it be systematic racism? There is no individual intention, as you yourself have said, but there is a group intention, even though the ''system'' consists of tens of thousands of un-jointed, unconnected, unaware-of-eachother developers.

BTW systematic means ''done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical'' as per a google search.
So individual games aren't the issue, but its the industry wide lack of representation that is the problem? So if a developer made a game taking your statement of ''a single game with only whites isn't racist'' its ok but if everyone did it wouldn't be OK?

You're basically saying that because you see a pattern across a large field, its racism? You think there is some kind of body enforcing its intention across game developers? This is raving conspiracy that shouldn't be taken seriously.

You're conflating theory with observation. Statistical abnormality doesn't prove anything, in and of itself, except that there is statistical abnormality, which is expected in systems that are subject to change re time and space.

The attack helicopter joke is not intended to be offensive in any way. It only exists to point out that saying something is true, doesn't make it true. If I say that I'm a jaguar, that doesn't mean that I've now become a jaguar. Would you think it's reasonable that I can tell you that I'm a jaguar, and then you must acknowledge that by agreeing that I am a jaguar? And that it's offensive if anyone says otherwise? Despite all my physical characteristics being that of a human? You wouldn't want to be called a species-ist bigot, would you?? The helicopter joke is a way to demonstrate a flaw in reasoning in a short, effective, and clever way. It's not offensive.

You can't change reality with language. The language we use is effectively based on reality. ie. we might have different words for 'pencil' in different languages, but that doesn't mean a 'pencil' is a different object in China as it is in Canada. They're both pencils, just called different things. If a man wants to be called a woman, we can do that out of respect, but it doesn't change the fact that biologically their gender is male. At least until they change their physical biology to match what they want.

This insistance that people ignore reality and instead only say what's 'acceptable' to say is the real problem. It's effectively the same as holding up 4 fingers in front of someone, asking how many fingers are being held up, and pressuring them to say he's holding up 5 fingers.