Many thanks for the comment and for the Restack. Most appreciated, though looking forward to your elaborations 👍🙂.

However …

"mashing everything together is, at least in effect, just ignoring the devils in the details, or trying to sweep them under the carpet."

I disagree.

You say po-tat-oe, I say po-ta-toe … 😉🙂 You ever see this “meme” ⬇ about “three sides to every story”?

Seems that we more or less agree on the “different dimensions” and I’ll more or less concede your point about “some ‘critical mass’” However, I think our different “points of view” are on the value of those different dimensions as a system of categorization — largely the objective of my post — and in the problems associated from an over-reliance on that “critical mass”.

Wonder if you’ve ever run across the “Stroop Effect”: words for colours IN colours that don’t match the words themselves. For example, the word “green” written in the red colour — tends to confuse people.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S…

Similar to what comedian Dave Chappelle was getting at with his joke about the transgendered here in a post by Barbara Wegner:

There’s a serious and quite glaring incongruity between a bunch of those “critical mass” dimensions, and a couple of other salient ones.

So what is the “gender” and pronouns for Phil Illy of AGP-Gate “fame”? For Bruce Jenner and his ilk?

No doubt that that “critical mass” works in most cases, but it’s the proverbial “edge cases” — the transgendered in particular — that emphasize the fact that they are, in general, engaged in something of a fraudulent bait-and-switch, are trying to sail under a false flag.

However, maybe somewhat more important to the issue of gender ideology in schools, I think the multiple dimensions serve to emphasize that all of those traits are just “dependent variables”, they only correlate to a greater or lesser extent with our sexes, and are not at all definitive of them.