There have always been more than two genders, in actuality. Gender is a spectrum. There's nothing wrong with being male or female, of course, though there is more diversity than that which needs to be acknowledged. It is incredibly stifling. Not only are the roles associate with gender extremely stifling and hurtful, but so is being gendered by those who don't want to be labeled against their will. I believe that we can define ourselves on our own terms. I also see non-binary classifications as just as much of an innate part of oneself as "male" and "female."
"Some species, such as some snails, practice sex change: adults start out male, then become female (See also sex reversal). In tropical clown fish, the dominant individual in a group becomes female while the other ones are male, and bluehead wrasses (Thalassoma bifasciatum) are the reverse. In the marine worm (Bonellia viridis), larvae become males if they make physical contact with a female, and females if they end up on the bare sea floor. This is triggered by the presence of a chemical produced by the females, bonellin. Some species, however, have no sex-determination system. Hermaphrodites include the common earthworm and certain species of snails. A few species of fish, reptiles, and insects reproduce by parthenogenesis and are female altogether. There are some reptiles, such as the boa constrictor and komodo dragon that can reproduce sexually and asexually, depending if a mate is available"(OR amphibians http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Amphibian and some fish http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Fishwhich are known to be able to change their gender. And again http://en.Wikipedia.Org/wiki/Sex-determi...Lodiploidy)
If god has provided us with some clues then its our duty to unveil it(Dr. Makarand Fulzele)
If in the paleolithic man had no gender division, most probably it would have been eliminated by other more competitive hominids. Gender division (men hunting and women harvesting and caring for children) can explain our success as a specie. Thanks to this division we had a varied diet because while guys provided meat, girls harvested vegetables. It is thought that when the ancestors of modern homo Sapiens introduced meat on their table, they had enough proteins to evolve bigger brains (i.E. Meat made us more intelligent). But if we had been only carnivores we would be like a lion or a tiger, always after their prey but never settling. Because we were adapted to eat plants we could harvest them and build civilization upon the agriculture revolution.
Yet in our current society gender division is rather outdated and useless, today we rely on an array of advanced technologies that we didn't evolve for. Now we have to train ourselves by maximizing our adaptability and by removing our ancient instincts. That should be the best way to thrive.
I think he who cast the first stone made the biggest mistake of humanity. Gender division, although problematic, is not at this time a ruinous factor in most relationships. A man can live with a woman and vice versa in an unequal relationship under the pre-tense that they will work things out. I think it is reasonable to say however that a person will not live with an abusive partner if they are at risk of violence. Also violent behaviour, like throwing stones, leads to suspicion, sadism and mistrust. All of these behaviours are ruining things in many spheres of society, the issue with serene gas in syria, a lack or transition to renewable energy sources, the ambition to seek education, and more.
Me not having pizza and possibly puppies at this time are a close second in the list of mankinds greatest mistakes.
I get the idea of looking at gender in terms of opposites as being kind of ridiculous. Even socially, we have far more in common than differences.
But outside that context, can it be called a mistake, let alone the greatest mistake?
Basically, like attracts like. People with similar day to day and similar issues to deal with naturally gravitate to each other. We don't eat foods we don't really like. We adopt hobbies that we find engaging, not in terms of what we think is right, or what we 'should' do, for the most part.
So to look at this as a mistake seems to be a mistake. It is a social meme that developed, and carries on, with good aspects and bad. So I guess I look at it as simply being a 'thing', as opposed to being a mistake, or good, or bad.
And to colour it as the greatest mistake of mankind seems absolutely ridiculous. Maybe poor question staging...?
The greatest mistake is killing members of our own species. Murder happens every day. Why do we do that? It makes no sense. Humanity is a big contradiction. We see ourselves as the smartest species, but most species don't murder. People need to learn how to get along. I may seem idealistic. That is because i am tired. Good night
That's what it meant and society imposed "gender roles" on it and now people twist it to make it sound like society invented gender. Society did NOT invent gender. Society invented "gender roles". Gender=/=gender roles.
Evidence of societies that had a third gender label is flawed in that none of these societies spoke English. Search around their language I'm sure you'll find a distinct word for the person's physical form, so why are we translating the word that includes the so-called third gender label into "gender"? It's an inaccurate translation, or at least it was according to how "gender" was used in the english language years ago.
I've spoken with people about gender identity and it's gotten silly. People say a person can be born one gender and dress and act like the other one but still identify as their birth gender. This I agree with. A man who dresses like a traditional woman but identifies still as a man is a man. And I don't oppose him in the least. Gender norms are socially constructed.
BUT gender is NOT. These people also say that someone could have no desire to transition, take hormones or anything, and behave exactly like the gender they were born as BUT identify as the opposite gender and then that would be their real gender. Some would even argue that someone could be born physically as one gender, act like the other gender, get a sex change operation and hormones and everything BUT identify as the gender they were physically born as and their identity is still correct.
Do you see the problem here? The way "gender" has been redefined has eliminated any meaning other than "what the individual has decided to call themselves." Using the logic used to define a person's gender then I can call myself "banana" and voila that's my gender. See how silly this is? It makes a lot more sense to speak of gender roles as socially constructed and gender as an objective physical fact based on one's anatomy, at least based on the outward form of one's body. If someone gets surgery, OK then we can relabel them. Even if they didn't have bottom surgery. But before that they're just a likely nontraditional person of the (physical) gender they were born as and got a new gender on the operating table.
Instead of saying that sex is physical and gender is mental we should say sex is about what's internally physical (i.E. Penis v. Vagina) and gender is about how the body appears on the outside. That way if someone is born male and then transitions their body and says they are still male we can say they are wrong. And if a born-male doesn't transition and says he is a female we can say he is wrong. And then words can have meanings like they are supposed to. Otherwise why even use the word "gender" or any related terms like "man" or "woman"?