I have a question about the sex gender distinction, and how trans-advocates interpret it, vs how feminists interpret it.
My understanding, is that the classic feminist model of sex and gender is: Sex refers to your biology, primarily your reproductive organs. Gender refers to learned identity that is typically associated with sex.
Behavioural differences between men and women are due to gender not sex.
The behavioural differences we're typically talking about are: women/girls like playing with barbie dolls, talking, are more submissive, more emotional, like the colour pink, while men/boys like playing with trucks, are more aggressive and boisterous, more technically minded and less emotional.
The feminist argument is that these behavioural differences are learned and instilled into us by our parents and society; girls are given barbies dolls to play with and encouraged to play with them, children mimic adult behaviour. My understanding with transgender politics, is that again you have the sex/gender distinction of physical biology vs behavioural identity.
However, transpeople feel like their gender identity is mismatched to their gender, and that this is from birth. This suggests that gender identity is in some sense 'hardwired' rather learned.
ie. With perhaps the exception fa'afainis, a person with male biology that identifies as female, isn't doing so because they've been taught to like pink and play with barbie dolls, but it's something intrinsic to their brains wiring.
My question is - how are these two separate views reconciled? If gender identity has an element of intrinsicness, then it would suggest that there are 'intrinsic' male and female behaviours, and behavioural differences between men and women aren't the product of our culture.