Normal is a poor description of what you’re getting at. The rate of homosexuality has no bearing on the morality or how natural homosexuality is.
People generally don’t assign moral implications to unusual genetic conditions like Albinism which are described as abnormal even though they are literally natural.
Homosexual exists across the animal kingdom, it’s literally both natural and abnormal mammalian behavior. That isn’t normally seen as being relevant to people’s acceptance of it.
> These days we understand that “normal” extends far beyond male and female.
No. It is normal to have a penis or a vagina. So, humans are either male or female. This can be stated as truth, just as a scientist would claim that humans are bipedal, even while acknowledging exceptions do exist.
> Yes, it's fact that humans are male, female, or other.
And it is a fact that humans have zero, one, two, or more legs. But you would
never argue with the scientific claim that humans are a bipedal mammal. The
exceptions do not invalidate the norm.
> This runs contrary to your claim.
It does not run contrary to my claim. My claim is that humans are either male
or female. And this is wildly, overwhelmingly true.
I don't feel any need to qualify the statement that humans are two-legged creatures
either.
There are exceptions in both cases, but they're not the norm.
Regarding the bipedal claim it is not specific enough, what is the quantifier? "All"? "Most"? "Some"?
Your second claim (humans are either male or female) uses "All". If there are exceptions then we have a contradiction.
Are you saying that a penis is what makes you a male? That a vagina is what makes you a female?
What about a man who loses his penis in an accident? Is he no longer a man? Would he still be allowed to identify as a man? Would a woman born without a vagina still be allowed to identify as a woman?
> Are you saying that a penis is what makes you a male? That a vagina is what makes you a female?
As a rough approximation, yes.
> What about a man who loses his penis in an accident?
He's a man who lost his penis. Statistically insignificant and doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of humans, by far, have either a penis or a vagina.
Again, the exceptions do not invalidate the norm that we all know is true. For thousands of years we've understood human reproduction and the role of males with penises, and females with vaginas.
More specifically it is development of testes or ovaries that makes an individual male or female. This concept applies across all gonochoric species, not just humans.
The strongest argument about why it matters is women's sports which conservatives always derided and still deride. But weirdly now people like you care about the purity of women's sports.
Maybe ask yourself why you give a s** about putting people into category A or B?
Or go read one of the famous blog posts about the assumptions that programmers make about people's names and then apply that to gender
We live in a culture where it matters a lot. We possess biology where it matters a lot. If we were robots which are about to be designed and programmed from scratch, you could ask if it's worth it to make us sexually dimorphic and ingrain it in our cultural programming. But you're too late, it's done already. Pretending it doesn't exist because you'd like it not to won't get you very far.
Not just women's sports but many other women-only spaces too. The key question is, should men be permitted to ignore women's boundaries and consent if they say they are women? If your answer is yes, then you're likely a misogynist who sees men's desires as more important than the dignity and safety of women and girls.
Why do scientists make a distinction between the different types of galaxies? Because taxonomy, and recognizing differences, can lead to better scientific understanding.
How that translates to the social realm is really a separate issue.
As an example, gay people are perfectly normal and natural.