Yes. We could say "Individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies, and their personal identity" instead. Why invent words.

Also known as 'Default'?

This is a bit vague.

Sometimes, in some contexts, you need a descriptive term.

Plus, "default" is a bit normative (like, saying "normal"). Seriously it shocks you so much that some technical terms pop up to shorten long descriptive sentences into one unambiguous concept ?

Yeah. I tolerate people who are black. You won't coerce me into supporting their wrong skin colour.

Is it really so complex? When it boils down to three things, (four, if you want to throw in the 'special' identities like otherkin), do you really need a more complex descriptor than, 'Identifies as biological, Identifies as male, and Identifies as female'?

Since I was talking about beliefs and choices, I don't see where a non-choice like skin color comes into it. Oh, is that a strawman I see out there in the distance?

Bi is no a gender. It's a sexual orientation. That's leaves 4.

Technically, you could split trans in M->F and F->M, so we are still at 5 total.

To that, you could maybe add an handful of genetic anomalies and we are left with 40 redundant choices. I totally get what you are saying. The gender field is not supposed to be a hip thing, it's just supposed to be informative.

Yes it is. Because when you actually observe it (observe the range of diversities, in your society, and even more worldwide, with so many societies working on different categories), then you realise that people's sexual indentities is a constellation of complexities.

So, two things. You work on it (sociologically, antropologically) and then you need words in order to shorten your texts to redeable and non-tedious sizes (that's why sciences have their own specific, extra-precise, unambiguous jargon). Or, you try to make things easier in society, raise a bit people's awareness and tolerance, trying to exclude less people into negation and invisibility, so you popularise these notions, in order to relativise our norms a bit, and to give the conceptual tools needed to "think" ("process", "see") the diversity. This leads to a clearer, more precise understanding of the realities of people around you.

See it as getting more name for the colours of the light spectrum, even in a place where there is a dominant tint.

I like you. You're both Canadian and sensible about this. Really, I have to wonder if most of those 'genders' on Facebook are to fulfill the 'special snowflake' quota. And really, do most advertisers care if you identify as a hermaphrodite reptile with chili cheese fries?

The strawman is you reducing it to beliefs and choices, while it is absolutely not as simple as that. And anyway, even if it was about beliefs and choices, then the fact that you consider yourself entitled to be judgemental about it is wrong all the same. It would still not be something that warrants moral judgement.

You would have preferred the "jewish" exemple, for the increased level of choice it implies ?

Allow me to smash your metaphor asunder. When going from Red to Orange, do I bother with naming off every single color between? Each color may be unique, but there is no point in trying to define each one, especially seeing as we can only see so many colors anyway.

One of these is red, one is reddish orange, and the other is orange. Only in a very specific niche area do you need to bother to go any deeper than that and declare, 'Banana Spackle Pinkish Blue Viridian Yellow Red.'

In that case you are in front of people from different categories. It's not a theoretical classification of possibilities. When you encounter a person from a specific sexual identity, then having a term to describe it becomes relevant. And LGBT doesn't cut it, because it doesn't cover all realities.

To get back to the silly metaphor, if I show you a bolt and want you to describe it, you may find yourself in a situation where both "orange" and "red" would be a bit wrong. Having a specific word makes communication more accurate and efficient.

And we are not talking of objects, but of people. So, (self-)identification may matter a bit here. A banana would be less annoyed by "well, no it's not exactly that" and "I DON'T CARE. CLOSE ENOUGH, YOU'RE THAT TO ME".

Approximation, when describing people's realities, sometimes lead to confusion, misunderstanding, various problems.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. That you think people aren't, or at least aren't entitled to hold an opinion that differs from yours, is very telling.

Sex and political beliefs are choices, or at least, if having sex or the political ideology someone follows is not a choice, than there is a huge problem with that situation.

So why does that choice issue matter, why did you bring it up ? You're entitled to dislike black people.