Sex , Role , Gender , Genetics and Identity are all different things that should not be needlessly conflated . To demonstrate why , let ' s make a brief detour into talking about dimples . Dimples are a genetic trait which displays complete dominance . You are either born with dimples or born without dimples based on a single gene . This gene causes a shortening and weakening in the facial muscles which allows for dimple formation . Now , imagine you lived in a society where , instead of having sexbased roles , there are dimplebased roles . Dimplehavers are viewed as pretty , but weak , sunloving , open , extroverted , honest and delightfully insightful leaders , but too concerned with frivolity and beauty to be truly practical . Dimplelackers people are expected to be strong providers who are intelligently industrious introverts who enjoy solitude , an indoor lifestyle and hard work . Dimplehavers are are expected to wear loose , brightly coloured garments with lots of frills . Dimplelackers are expected to wear tightly fitted outfits with lots of pockets and , most importantly , tremendous boots it is indecent for a dimplelacker to show their bare feet . The place of a dimplelacker is in the office . They ' re just not cut out for outdoor work . Dimplehavers use the pronouns dobdidaardiself while dimplelackers use the pronouns doldildaaliodilself . And of course there are dob ' s room and a dol ' s rooms at the cafeteria what kind of sick pervert would want to eat their lunch in the same room as someone with the opposite smile ? Along comes a doctor who pioneers a dimple creation surgery . Traditional dimplebased society is turned on its head ! Dols become Dobs ! Dimplehavers start wearing steel toed footwear in public ! Dimplelackers going on national television and singing ! Cats and dogs living together , mass hysteria ! Immediately , a countermovement forms , demanding that the surgery be banned and that mandatory smile checks be instituted at every lunchroom in order to confirm that perverted dobs aren ' t putting on silky stockings just so that they could sneak into the dol ' s room and hand out carrot sticks . Does any of that sound fair or reasonable or remotely sane ? Of course not . It ' s utterly absurd to assign people clothing , occupations and pronouns based on flukes of genetics . There ' s no logical reason why a particular cosmetic trait should result in lifelong segregation into a particular social caste . If we ' re going to have these castes at all , it should be elective ! People should pick if they ' re going to seek out art or science in their life , friendship or family , wisdom or wealth . A person ' s priorities are their own , dimples or not . So , what ' s the difference between dicks and dimples that makes having one a valid caste marker and the other an absurdity ? And once you do figure out a distinction there , ask yourself if those same justifications don ' t also support racial divisions equally well . tldr Assigning gender roles according to sex is fundamentally absurd . Don ' t worry about if someone is ' really ' a man or a woman , worry about if they ' re happy in that role .