Uh oh: transgender agenda fail.

I already did. Try reading it again, sounding the words out loud. It may help.

Not trying to make anything out of anything, mate.

And you accuse me of stating the obvious? You, who made a thread to point out that there are genetic differences between men and women? That's hilarious!

Maybe that's why constant repetition of the same question or point regardless of the answers is his main discussion tactic - perhaps the only way he can understand anything is if it's explained to him twenty or thirty times in a row?

Or a bot.

The appropriate wording for this board is "still collating". 

   Perhaps as interesting as the genes that have differences are the ones that have nothing to do with sex.  Notice they found no differences in the eyes (facial features around the eyes might be different but the eyes are the same).  Notice they found no differences in the ears.  Men and women for we can tell perceive the world the same.  They see the same colors, hear the same sounds, smell odors the same way (perhaps responding to specific odors differently especially millennia ago) and knowing the world around them on the whole the same way.

   I mention this not as an argument that people should be allowed to categorize their sense connections with the world as male or female, but rather to argue that there is no categorizing them.  They are asexual.  There is no good reason to object to the sexual identity given by birth.  A person's "inner" self is not sexual, not male, and not female.  This point of course can be used to set male and female "rights" the same wherever it makes sense.  Where are the "progressives" on that?

   Here's a serious (I wouldn't mislead you about something like that would I?) test of your appreciating of women's rights.  

Why?