Personally when playing as a specific gender (Owing in this context by definition gender is the correct term, since sex defines a definitive objective state.) my position on whether to pick male or female completely depends upon my mood that day. However I typically play as a male for because I find it easier to relate to.
To be honest I don't play male and female characters the same. Mostly because I don't build unrealistic characters when I choose them. I am completely aware of the inherent flaws and perks of both sexes and because I like a more realistic approach I play them as such.
I think understand what Owing is getting at.
Lets break it down shall we so that we can move on with the original topic at hand. However Owing is operating on limited knowledge and should conduct additional research.
First Definitions (within context):
- Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
- Gender: The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
- Orientation: The determination of the relative position of something or someone (especially oneself).
I believe Owing might be pointing out that the
"scientific" paper about
"new" genders is a
load of horse shit.
Why?
Because in the publication of the research states that it is
completely subjective to the individuals it applies to.
Therefore has
no basis in objective reality
(I know it's a difficult subject to comprehend but bear with me).
Another point I wish to make is that this same study that should be free and public
hides behind a paywall and only gives out a small free synopsis that the media saw and lost their minds with. I have read the paper, and have come to the conclusion that
it is indeed a perversion of objective reality.
What does it entail? Basically it points out that an individuals
"gender" (should be corrected to accurate nomenclature of orientation instead of gender) can be considered subjective rather than objective and that these individuals feel better about themselves when others recognize that they feel a particular way.
Literally the entire "study" states obvious details about how people interact and changes the nomenclature around to be edgy.
The problem with this paper is that it confuses young individuals about viable sexes that can procreate. It does this by
overtly renaming the base sexes and adding additional orientations as "genders" all in an effort to boost someones subjective self esteem.
I hope that helped and that we can now move on with the topic at hand about which gender people play as.