Despite the fact that humans are purportedly 99.5% genetically identical to one another, no two people are exactly the same. That 0.5% variance manages to hold an ever-growing, never-ending encyclopedia of individuals who have existed, currently exist, and will ever exist.

However, even this mind-boggling diversity doesn't seem to be enough to free some from the bigoted, close-minded, inexplicably incorrect convictions indicative of an inability to truly think for oneself. And this past week, I stumbled across yet another article by someone who's fallen square on their face smack in the middle of this unfortunate bunch of human beans who've turned bananas (perhaps the author slipped on a peel?) I got this sinking feeling in my stomach the instant I read the title: "Sorry, Liberals, But Biology Isn't Up for Debate".

Oh boy (and girl... and guess what? Every other gender on the spectrum in between. But I'm getting ahead of myself.)

Like I said, the article was already doomed, but I figured I'd give it a read, since I attempt to keep an open mind and am desirous of accruing information; knowledge is power, after all.

Know what isn't? Ignorance. This article has ignorance slathered so thickly over its entirety that it's virtually impossible to discern anything else.

Let me make one thing crystal clear: I am female. I was born anatomically female. My chromosomes are double X's (but my chest is not... and that would certainly be a sight to see... I digress.) I dress and style myself in items society considers "feminine." I identify as a woman; that's the little box I check on those dopey surveys. Therefore, I cannot speak for men, nor anyone who identifies as anything other than this one extreme of the spectrum. I'm under no false pretenses that I can speak for anyone besides myself, nor that I can somehow address every piece and opinion on the subject of gender and sex that contradict what I know to be true, nor that I remotely know anything near everything about the subject.

Instead, I'll simply respond to this particular article, as it is a current and quite poster-child-esque for those afflicted by this misinformed mindset, and also appears on the same platform I write for; thereby, I take extra issue with it. I'll do so from my (sassy and loquacious) perspective, and attempt to keep it somewhat organized and logical (two more attributes that don't have a wee gender tag, cough cough.) Now that I've said that, I'll begin.

So we come to the opening lines of the piece. As are most things begun when discussing a contested, incendiary topic, it attempts mediation and reads as follows:

"My favorite color is green, and bacon is the love of my life. I have a "zombie attack" nerf gun, and I love any and every sport. I'm in a fantasy football league, and the majority of my friends are boys. I'm overly blunt, loud, and on the rare occasion I'm upset, it's not pretty."

1) Your favorite color is green. ...Congratulations? Mine are chartreuse (which is green, wow!), cerulean, and carrot orange. Part of that's because I love brightness and vibrancy, and part of that is my OCD. Regardless, I *loathe* pink.

2) You love bacon. I wasn't aware a proclivity for pig came with a gender stipulation. Is that on the nutrition fact label; some sort of added ingredient that oozes masculinity?

3) You have a "zombie attack Nerf gun." I have a katana that I received at my second degree black belt graduation ceremony. Per state law, it's not sharp, but I do believe there's this irritating little stereotype that men are the soldiers, the warriors, the ones who care pointy metal sticks. So what gives?

4) You love sports (and apparently football is your favorite.) Believe it or not, athleticism, a (sometimes overboard) passionate allegiance to teams, and the usage of various inflatable balls and the like, do not require you to brand yourself with the word "boy". (Please don't tattoo it on your chest; one could debate that's more "ragretable" than human stupidity can muster.)

5) You're mostly friends with boys. To be quite frank, I don't really take gender into consideration when forming friendships. Stuff like kindness, humor, energy, creativity, and loyalty take precedence. But maybe that's just me.

6) You can sometimes be blunt, loud, and "not pretty" when you're upset. I've never met an individual who's remotely attractive when they're yelling and stomping around like a petulant child. And like many other things that the author seems to believe are inherently masculine, directness and a booming voice that can be heard 'round the world aren't coded for by A, T, G, and C.

The author continues with:

"But, I'm a girl. I love to shop at Victoria's Secret and get my nails done.
I drink cheap white wine and the left side of my room is lined with sparkling Christmas lights. A quick coat of mascara is my best friend, and I'm a sucker for the clearance rack at just about every store in the mall."

1) You love to shop at Victoria's Secret. I hear that bras are commonly used by people with boobs. I also hear that you can wear whatever you damn well please; if Victoria's frilly femininity is your jam, go for it. I personally find them needlessly expensive and sometimes indecipherable to put on, so sometimes, I buy cheaper bras... and sometimes, even SPORTS bras! Wait, but I thought sports were for men? Something doesn't seem right there... and it's not my argument. It's yours.

2) You like having your nails painted. I personally keep mine boring and clean. I also try to keep my mind free of the bitter blitheness your piece exudes.

3) You drink cheap white wine and decorate your room with happy man-made fireflies. I'm glad you like white. It's often defined as the absence of color. Therefore, according to your illogical logic, it'd be the exception to the "gender color rule" for which you ardently advocate... so... (P.S.: tequila all the way)

4) You put on a coat of mascara from time to time. I do too, when I want my lashes to stand out more and feel like I can endure the sensation of literal little coats on my eyes. So what?

5) You like shopping clearance. Who the hell doesn't? I'll admit it, I couldn't contain a little snigger at this one as I bought a cute dress from H&M that was on sale WITH A SALE COUPON, TOO. Woah! (Small amounts of) dolla dolla bills, y'all!

Next, we come to this gem:

"Something so innocent as a gender reveal party is now being analyzed and judged by the liberal leftists of our increasingly sensitive culture."

1) You are quite literally doing the *exact same thing* from the reverse perspective. That doesn't make you superior. I'm doing the same thing from the original perspective. It's like the Matrix, except no one has superpowers OR superiority. There's just being offensive and prejudiced, like you are.

2) Nothing else needs to be said.

But because there's more of this heinous article to dissect, I do have more to say. The author writes:

"It's actually quite funny that people now think that can defy biology and demand that others do the same.
I've heard argument after argument that fights against the meanings of sex and gender. "Sex is just a reproductive organ," they say. "Gender is who you want to be."
What happened to the two being the same? Google defines them as synonyms, so why don't we?"

1) I'm not laughing. Are you laughing? It's the equivalent of typing "lol" with a straight face. No one thinks they can defy biology. No one is defying biology, as a matter of fact. The only one defying anything here are those who are bonkers enough to file "gender" and "sex" as synonymous in their brain libraries.

2) You state you've heard people say "sex is just a reproductive organ." Now, I'll play devil's advocate here (no double entendre intended, cross my heart) and cheekily remind everyone that "sex" is actually the mushing together of said sexual organs (mmm, hot). The other definition, which I realize you're going for, is of biological anatomy. Are you going to tell me that your Vicky's Secret bras and glittery nails are coded for in your DNA? Yeah. Didn't think so.

3) "Google defines them as synonyms."

... Oh, where to begin? Let me just stop laughing hysterically for a second. Ahem.

Google is, FYI, a compilation of data, facts, opinions, and perspectives assembled by HUMANS and presented tidily for you on some size of glowy rectangle. As it happens, your article pops up when I search "sorry liberals two genders odyssey" (thanks, Google!) Hopefully, mine will show up under searches like "humorous refute of regrettable, rude lunacy," and perhaps even on other search engines that don't dictate truth vs. fiction, either!

Google responds based on whatever damn thing you type into it. If Google told you to go reenact King Kong, (gorilla suit mandatory, because it's funny and because like I said earlier, you're bananas... get it?) would you do it because Google is unequivocally omniscient? When I was doing some research on the "gender color rule" myth, actually, I came across such brilliant searches as "what color is the color red?" Please don't tell me you're actually subscribing to this stupidity. PLEASE. It's not like I gave this piece any real credence from the start, but it flew right out the window and over the cuckoo's nest after this stunner.

I realize that I've made comments on virtually every word of this article. Guess what? I'm gonna keep doing that, because even after the Google fiasco, it still continues to provide fodder, such as:

"In rare cases, babies are born with both male and female sex organs, but it is impossible for both to function fully and together. I don't care if you have a vagina but want to be a boy. You're a girl. I don't care if you don't want to be either gender at all. You're male or female. Period. That's not an opinion, that's factual biology.
Read the internet. Read science, for goodness sake."

1) Yes, sometimes babies are born with both a penis and a vagina, to varying degrees. These are called intersex individuals, and they, more than anything else ever could, defy your ridiculous argument. They bury it six (million) feet under. They're biologically male AND female. Their sex is both male AND female. You are both wrong AND really, really wrong.

2) You don't care if people want to be "either gender at all." Goody for you. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn whether you care or not. You don't have any bearing on others' identities. Not even the magnanimous Scarlett O'Hara does.

3) I can't be the only one who finds "period" a funny comment in the context of a gender vs. sex debate. And I'm so very glad I'm not the only one who realizes gender is not solely two extremes... but to believe so is extremely wrong (get it? Get it?)

4) "Read the internet." Please don't try the Google thing again, and please, double check your grammar.

5) "Read science, for goodness sake." Firstly, your article is from a website based in religious discourse (and it's a .com resource.) This isn't science. This isn't unbiased or factual. And speaking of factual... as a matter of fact (hehe), I've quite often heard people like yourself state that science is entirely separate, and second to, God's will and action. You can't have it both ways.

Now, try reading actual "science" (and it's from an .edu resource, wow! Thanks, Google! You never fail to tell me that gender and sex are the same thing. ...Wait.)

From "Intersexuality" via the Pacific Center for Sex and Society's website:

"While many animal species are known to be hermaphroditic, for humans the term hermaphrodite is no longer considered polite or politically correct. Those with these male-female combinations of characteristics prefer to be known as intersexed or persons with intersex conditions. Basically this refers to the fact that their bodies contain features that are usually seen separately in both men and women. These persons might, for instance have gonads consisting of one ovary and one testis or gonads that are combined ovatestes. Or they might have chromosome combinations that are atypical. Humans commonly have twenty-three sets of chromosomes (46 chromosomes). Twenty-two pairs (44) of chromosomes are called autosomes. The other pair of two chromosomes is called the sex chromosomes. Males usually have one X sex chromosome and one Y sex chromosome. Typically females have two sex chromosomes that are both Xs. Occasionally, however, individuals are born with sex chromosomes that are of different combinations. This involves one type of individuals that are intersexed because of genetic variation. The most common different Intersex combination of sex chromosomes is XXY and is called a typical Klinefelter syndrome. Other combinations, such as XXXY, XXXXY and XYY also exist. These are called Klinefelter variants. An individual might also be born with a chromosome missing and thus have 22 sets of autosomes and an XO combination of sex chromosomes where the O indicates a sex chromosome (originally either an X or Y) has been lost. These persons are said to have a Turner syndrome intersex condition."

(Yes, I'm aware that this article is from 1994. In fact, it's been true since the beginning of time. Please consult the all-knowing Google, or your search engine of choice, for more recent reading.)

BOOM! Science.

Alternately, because I will always love Bill Nye:

*distant chanting of "Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill, Bill*

I know I can't ever be more awesome than Bill, but I've still got an article to write, so bear with me:

"You still have the chromosomes in your body that define who you truly are, regardless of who you think you can be. DNA doesn't change.
Your child might like pink instead of blue or football more than the mall, but ultimately, they are who they were from the moment their sex chromosome was created.
I'm not going to lie and say that men and women don't have issues due to societal stereotypes. But what I do know is that inviting friends and family over to announce the sex of your baby is not going to make that child any worse off.
I'm all for being your own person. Be unique, because no two people are the same."

1) We went over the chromosome thing already. Nice try, but time to X that one out (my DNA spells "b-a-d-j-o-k-e-s" over and over again... just kidding.)

2) "Your child might like pink instead of blue or football more than the mall," you say. Just a small grammar point, because nerdiness knows no gender: when providing two dichotomies to demonstrate a single point, you ought to construct them in the same relative order.

And now for a bigger, more important point, since you're so loath to let go of your stranglehold on the "gender color rule"... pink actually used to be a thoroughly "masculine" color. Here's a Wikipedia article on one of the yuckiest colors out there: Pink.

BOOM! Not science, but INTERNET! GOOGLE!

3) You acknowledge that men and women have respective "issues" due to societal stereotypes. Do you realize how utterly ironic that statement is? It appears not. Really, though, the true "issue" is the mob-mentality-madness you believe and promulgate using said societal stereotypes.

4) I agree: a gender reveal party is, in the grand scheme of things, an insignificant matter. It's so insignificant, apparently, that you waited until the end of your article to stick in your overarching point about it!

I don't think anyone could argue that a gender reveal party could do more harm to a child than, say, abusive relationships, neglect, bullying, violence, and pervasive lies... (I've gotta go get my doctor to check out this cough) but I absolutely agree with the argument that boxing your child in, as if they're taking one of those awful aforementioned surveys from inside the womb, in any way, is detrimental.

Remember, we are each unique in infinite ways. Whether you believe God's the architect, that science is, or some combination of the two (because beliefs also happen to run a spectrum), you simply cannot arbitrarily label people, attempting to force an identity on them. Identity is for the individual to decide; not for anyone else. Not even with cool blue balloons and adorable photoshoots and lots and lots of cake.

5) Wait. You're all for being your own person? For being unique? I guess I spoke too soon; you didn't remember, despite your weak effort at convincing readers otherwise. Your entire article; your entire perspective; the entire existence of the beliefs of people who are so blissfully (and often hatefully) ignorant on the gender vs. sex subject, such as yourself, are based in restriction, typecasting, stereotype, and the ruling of an entity other than oneself. You don't get to tack a feeble endeavor of reconciliation and neutrality on this train wreck. It won't save it, anyways.

Hold up! The train hasn't quite crashed yet! There's one final kicker:

"...what I'm not all for is the idea that parents should not gender stereotype children before they are born. Children are young, inexperienced, and lacking in wisdom."

1) So... you think stereotypes, which have inherently negative connotations and are not remotely synonymous with anything worthy of repute or credence, are right? Wrong. *tuba plays*

2) Putting a gender label on your child, or anyone, for that matter, isn't like putting a ring on it (Beyoncé had to make an appearance in this article after that bomb Halloween costume.) It's completely useless, and yes, actually potentially harmful.

3) Children are in fact young (shocker), inexperienced, and lacking in wisdom.

So am I.

And so are you. The difference here, and perhaps one of the few things that can be dichotomized?

Right vs. wrong.

(One guess as to which category you fall into. "What is 'wrong,' Alex?)