Something from within the last few decades isn’t really archaic, that is generally reserved for (well?) over a hundred years old or older, and the vast majority of Lemmy users are either North American or European. Anglo/Eurocentric is going to be the relative norm on social media in general outside of specific apps, and those then trend East/South East Asiacentric due to their development origin. You should not be surprised to encounter this.
Heteronormative will also currently still trend as a default since over 80% of the population identifies as such. Intersex is also somewhere around or under 1% of the population. While gender and sex can most certainly be different, at least currently the supermajority of people will have these aligned and will use them interchangeably. This shouldn’t invalidate or be used to discriminate against those that aren’t heteronormative by any means, but something that is true 80-90% of the time falls within the colloquial or layman’s qualifications for a broad assumption of “how the world works”.
The fact that intersex people get to decide their primary sex (or more likely had a doctor decide for them at birth) on government forms is somewhat analogous to 3 wheeled motor vehicles that can be registered as either a car or a motorcycle depending on the State and/or county. This does not invalidate car or motorcycle as categories, nor does it invalidate andly other means of transport.
Something from within the last few decades isn’t really archaic,
I did not read past this. You clearly did not read my link. Come back when you read it since it talks about cultures going back thousands of years.
You can’t use archaic as a preparative against one thing and then come back and use it as a positive for its “opposite”. I read your link, it is a perfectly good link, so I guess your arguing that an archaic Indoasia-centric queernormative world view is “the way the world actually works” instead? If you think you can understand what someone is attempting to say/discuss by only half of an opening sentence, I understand why you seem to be arguing past multiple people in this thread.
No, I’m arguing that your rigid definition of gender (that no reputable biologist would agree with) is not the way the world works. Because gender and biological sex are different and have always been different and biological sex is far, far more complicated than XX and XY.
This was your claim:
Gender was traditionally identical to sex and this issue didn’t come up much till relatively recently.
Unless by “traditionally,” you are going by an entirely Anglo/Eurocentric view of the world (and only really applies to the Christian era), which is pretty damn bigoted, I showed you that you were wrong.
The proper thing to do would be to admit it.
I doubt you will. But it’s either you were wrong or all of those other cultures are not part of humanity. Which would be very bigoted.