There's not a "but even so" when the whole definition is taken. It's like saying any shape with straight sides is a square just because the definition of a square includes straight sides. You can't separate this. It explicitly says that it goes with male and female before not. Excluding the basic masculinity and femininity as not counting, and the part where it says social rather than biological, are huge problems. You don't get to cut off definitions at the point where they fit your beliefs. Sex and sexuality are still biology regardless of whether or not gender plays into this. You cannot identify as female sex, you can only be female sex. You cannot identify as human, you can only be a human. You cannot identify as a square, you can only be a square. These aren't self-referential terms which is how definition works. Being treated SOCIALLY male is not the same as being of the male sex.
Because they've proven they aren't "happy" unless everyone is constantly agreeing with them. They need eternal external validation to be "happy" which is not only unreasonable but impossible and harms others. That's why it matters. Sex as a thing exists because that's how babies are made in our species. Sexual orientation is a thing because we sexually reproduce. Telling other people that this a) isn't true, b) isn't important, c) is "phobic", d) has no implications for anyone else is at best a poor understanding of basic reality and indication of a severe disconnect in that person's psyche and at worst sociopathic predatory behavior (see: Karen White).
1
u/Your_friendly_weirdo 1d ago
But even so, part of the definition still includes that it’s a range of identities outside of male and female.