the philosophical point of this discussion: it is unreasonable to posit a single viable response to a complex issue. The rational response is to try multiple solutions.

You don’t seem to agree. — Banno

The new political spectrum I envisage ranges from ideological traditionalists to scientific rationalists, and on that spectrum, I'd place your argument on the middle ground. You're hedging your bets, and that's not an unreasonable response to a complex issue - for you. I am more toward the scientifically rationalist end - because I know more about the solution I devised, and my claim is - that's not unreasonable for me.

In my view, we cannot afford a 'less energy' approach to the future - because of entropy. Civilisation is a designed state that takes energy to build and maintain. Balancing human welfare and environmental sustainability in our favour - in a manner that is socially, politically and economically sustainable requires vast amounts of energy. A 'less energy' approach implies trouble - people forced into poverty by dictatorial government, forever after. How can that work? I wouldn't even start down that road.

I believe that magma power is more than adequate to meet global energy demand; I'd be looking to exceed global energy demand two or three times over in order to extract carbon from the air, desalinate water to irrigate land, recycle all our waste etc - very energy intensive processes nonetheless necessary to a long term sustainable future.

I believe it can be done. The idea would be to drill through hot volcanic rock - close to magma chambers, but not into magma chambers. As you so astutely recognise, magma is pressurised - like a fizzy drink. There are gasses dissolved into molten rock under enormous pressure, and if that pressure is released, it explodes. Drilling for magma energy is not risk free. It's dangerous stuff, but the risks can be minimised, and the potential rewards are beyond measure.

East Anglia ONE - UK offshore wind array, 102 turbines, 7 MW each, producing 714 MW - enough for 600,000 homes. It took 10 years to build, and cost £2.5bn.

The UK has 30 million homes. So roughly, that would require 6000 windmills, costing £1500bn - ish. Only from 2030 - UK government intend phasing out petrol cars, adding the transport energy demand of 30 million cars to the national grid. So 10,000 windmills costing £2500bn. Plus storage facilities - because wind is intermittent. Wind turbines have a working life of around 25 years, and then need replacing. — counterpunch

Brilliant. A little 'broad brush' maybe, but you've given us some actual figures to back up your argument from the real world. Good move.

Right then, let's have the figures for your solution. £2.5 trillion for wind every 25 yrs (according to your figures - I'm not endorsing them, only the fact that you've bothered to present them). What is the cost for your solution to fuel 30 million homes and 30 million cars, and what is it's replacement time?

Oh yes, and

What are the environmental consequences of doing so? — creativesoul

plus the cost of any insurance needed against those consequences.

Oh and we'll have to have that breakdown for each country, of course, since contrary to @Banno's suggestion, you're claiming this is the solution for each and every country in the world.

But presumably you've got access to all this data, yes? Otherwise you'd be arguing with a little more humility. So let's have it, then we might all get on board, but if not we will have at least been usefully informed.

For an indication of what's possible, we could look at IDDP-1.

"The borehole of this well was unintentionally drilled into a magma reservoir in 2009. The hole was initially planned to drill down to hot rock below 4,000 metres (13,000 ft), but drilling was ceased when the drill struck magma at only 2,100 metres (6,900 ft) deep. This same occurrence has only been recorded once, in a Hawaiian geothermal well in 2007, but in that instance, it resulted in the sealing and abandonment of the hole.[6]

In IDDP-1 the decision was made to continue the experimental well, and upon inserting cold water into the well, which was over 900 °C (1,650 °F). The resultant well was the first operational Magma-EGS, and was at the time the most powerful geothermal well ever drilled. While not producing electricity on the grid, it was calculated that the output of the well would have been sufficient to produce 36 MW of electricity.[7] ...."

I think there are more accessible magma deposits, and better techniques for extracting energy - not least, containing thermal expansion inside pipes, to produce high pressure superheated steam - to drive turbines, to generate electricity. I'd envisage a considerable improvement in energy yield; above and beyond the 36MW potential of this one hole.

To put that in context, 36 MW is five £250m windmills worth of energy; only constant, high grade energy - not intermittent, low grade energy that will forever require fossil fuel back-up.

I don't see any costs in there, nor replacement schedules, nor risk assessments.

Oh, and the other thing that would be interesting to hear is why, if it's cheaper, lower risk and lower environmental consequence, yet produces free energy - why is no-one doing it already? Why are firms investing in low return industries when they could be selling electricity at half the price of their competitors and still making a huge profit?

I don't see any costs in there, nor risk assessments. — Isaac

Me either. It's almost as if that's not possible at this stage.

Oh, and the other thing that would be interesting to hear is why, if it's cheaper, lower risk and lower environmental consequence, yet produces free energy - why is no-one doing it already? Why are firms investing in low return industries when they could be selling electricity at half the price of their competitors and still making a huge profit? — Isaac

I don't know. Why, at one time - did people carve glaciers into chunks and transport the ice thousands of miles, when they could just have invented the refrigerator? Madness!

I don't see any costs in there, nor risk assessments. — Isaac


Me either. It's almost as if that's not possible at this stage. — counterpunch

Then how do you know it's better than wind?

Why, at one time - did people carve glaciers into chunks and transport the ice thousands of miles, when they could just have invented the refrigerator? — counterpunch

They did invent the refrigerator.

I'm wondering about heat transference. what is the medium between the hot magma and the pipes in the chamber containing the water that is to be turned into steam? How big a bore hole are we talking about? How much heat transfer surface will be needed to absorb the heat necessary to superheat the water in the pipes? How much heat will be lost from the steam between the bottom of the well and the turbine? Is the amount of heat loss significant?

One of the technical difficulties I see is getting enough piping into the bottom of the well, pumping water down, and getting high pressure steam back up at the top. I'm not an engineer, so I don't have any tables to consult here. But suppose a pipe breaks at the bottom of the well--either a cold water supply or a steam return. How would it get fixed? Will the operators be able to pull the everything out of the hole quickly enough so that too much generating time isn't lost?

District heating distributes steam for several miles, but building-heating steam is neither superheated nor under very high pressure.

Little know fact, maybe. The pre-refrigerator ice industry was started in New England in the early 1800s, taking ice out of lakes in January and February. The ice cubes (big ones) were packed in sawdust and would last into the summer. The first big market was in the Caribbean and the American south. Soon, however, ice was being shipped to England and the ice industry spread across the northern states. An apartment I lived in in 1971 in St. Paul had previously had ice boxes in the kitchens. There were doors in the hallways for icemen to deliver the chunks of ice directly into the ice box. The doors were still there in '71; the ice boxes (made of wood) were converted to cupboards.

Householders had to empty a pan under the ice box which caught the melting water.

Of course people used the ice to cool drinks, too.

I'm wondering about heat transference. what is the medium between the hot magma and the pipes in the chamber containing the water that is to be turned into steam? — Bitter Crank

Ceramic probe around X20 - P91 chromium steel pipes.

How big a bore hole are we talking about? — Bitter Crank

I'm looking at letting the entire facility into the side of the volcano - with bore holes of 18" diameter drilled from inside the facility, toward the magma chamber - at a depth of around 1km.

How much heat transfer surface will be needed to absorb the heat necessary to superheat the water in the pipes? — Bitter Crank

The ceramic probe is designed like the element inside a kettle - coiled around, with the liquid (not necessarily water) flowing in and out of the probe. The surface area coverage exposed to heat could be maximised in various ways; including flattening the pipes - but this is problematic, because smoothness of the interior is an issue with superheated steam. It was a problem for steam trains. Irregularities allowed for condensation, reducing the steam pressure.

How much heat will be lost from the steam between the bottom of the well and the turbine? Is the amount of heat loss significant? — Bitter Crank

This depends on the liquid used, the pressure and temperature available, the depth of the bore hole and the smoothness of the pipework. Using water, and assuming a steam temperature of 190–230˚C, jet velocity of 100 m/s at a pressure of 200 kPa - in a bore hole 1km deep, it would take 10 seconds from the probe to the surface. Depending on the thermal qualities of the pipework, my guess is it wouldn't be a huge issue. These are all good and relevant questions - I wish I could answer more precisely, but it's all still very preliminary.

.

I wish I could answer more precisely, but it's all still very preliminary. — counterpunch

That's precise enough -- close enough for government work, as the saying goes.

So, many small bore holes rather than a few big ones.

Another geothermal approach which is being used (to a small extent) in Minnesota (and other places) involves the differential temperature of soil about 6 to 10 feet below the surface. In the winter buried pipes extract heat and in the summer dissipate heat. The soils are generally around 50-55º F all year round, depending a bit on soil type and rainfall. This approach is good for homes and small buildings. Either trenches can be dug to bury the pipes, (or pipes can be tunneled) or bore holes can be used.

This approach works in temperate zones. In very hot areas subsoil temperatures tend to be too warm for cooling.

I've seen that heat difference engine approach used - I think it was a program called Grand Designs, where they follow people building their own homes from scratch. As you say, pretty small scale. Produces some power for domestic use - and not a bad use of materials, if you happen to be digging a foundation.

So, many small bore holes rather than a few big ones. — Bitter Crank

I suppose it's technologically possible now, to drill holes big enough to drive trains through, but the decisive factor - I think is, that I'd be drilling through hot volcanic rock - at temperatures upward of 500'C. My best guess for how the drilling would proceed - is inside an envelope of supercooled gas - preferably, not flammable gas, so maybe, nitrogen. The nitrogen would cool the drill bit; and I think this would impose limits on the size of the bore hole. Further though, geological stability might come into play with anything much bigger than a couple of feet wide. So, yes, many small bore holes - with inlet and outlet pipes - cold water in, hot steam out. Alternatively, it may be possible to just drill straight through - past the magma chamber, and pump cold water in one end, and harness hot steam jetting out the other.

I empathize with your suggestion, but I think it's the wrong area to try and force progress.

The dissolution of truth is a natural consequence of a struggling society and of an "empire" at risk of collapse. In the contemporary US, this presents itself as an unprecedented denial of objectivity-- mostly on the Christian right, in my opinion, but in certain sectors of the left too. We need to address the underlying issues that cause this dissolution of truth as opposed to delineating a Science Party.

While I think that the lost art of objectivity is generally better-preserved on the left than on the right, I could not name a certain "chunk" of the political spectrum that I think would undeniably fit the Science Party.

I empathize with your suggestion, but I think it's the wrong area to try and force progress.

The dissolution of truth is a natural consequence of a struggling society and of an "empire" at risk of collapse. In the contemporary US, this presents itself as an unprecedented denial of objectivity-- mostly on the Christian right, in my opinion, but in certain sectors of the left too. We need to address the underlying issues that cause this dissolution of truth as opposed to delineating a Science Party.

While I think that the lost art objectivity is generally better-preserved on the left than on the right, I could not name a certain "chunk" of the political spectrum that I think would undeniably fit the Science Party. — Rosie

The difference is that right wing incoherence is actually based in the ignorance of historical belief, and is a compromise to accommodate that - in the context of freedom of speech and opinion. There are people who believe the earth was made in seven days - well, so what? Everyone knows why they believe that; and why they refuse to accept the fact the earth is billions of years old.

The left's incoherence is both deliberate and dictatorial - like for example, how facts matter when talking about climate change, but don't matter when talking about gender. Their position on truth is one of convenience to the power game they're playing; like Doublethink from Orwell's 1984:

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

This is probably at great risk of going of topic, but the left is cornered with truth with regards to gender. They identify, correctly, that the existence of a body is not equivalent to the categorisations of either sex or gender we give might give to them. One's body is a body, not a sex or gender. To think this is concerned with ignoring truth is to entirely misunderstand what is at stake.

It is off topic. I'm not at all keen to get into a debate about gender theory; particularly one that states a political position as a fact - without any explanation.

the existence of a body is not equivalent to the categorisations of either sex or gender we give might give to them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I disagree, and so does the science. Developmental psychologists like Piaget - note distinct differences in play patters and behaviours between boys and girls that cannot be attributed solely to socialisation.

The difference is that right wing incoherence is actually based in the ignorance of historical belief, and is a compromise to accommodate that - in the context of freedom of speech and opinion. — counterpunch

Clever argument, but it doesn't hold up in the face of current political realities. As you're well aware, a plenty of people on the right believe that, for example, COVID is literally not real and Joe Biden somehow stole the election. Bringing up this kind of thing fifteen years ago might have been strawmanning, but it isn't anymore-- this is a significant portion of people on the right, including (apparently) some people in the US Senate. There's something more than a "free speech" compromise happening here. This is deceit of the masses by a demagogue.

The left's incoherence is both deliberate and dictatorial - like for example, how facts matter when talking about climate change, but don't matter when talking about gender — counterpunch

Well, yes and no. At the very least I think it's unfair to claim that facts just "don't matter" re: the left's views on gender, as @TheWillowOfDarkness brings up. Plenty of leftists acknowledge the relationship between sex and gender, the influence of sex hormones on development, etc. A person born male is probably going to feel like, and present as, a man. The question is how we address those for whom sex and gender feel mismatched.

That said, I am frustrated by, in no particular order: 1) The fact, in many places, people are allowed to take puberty-modifying hormones with little screening. 2) The fact many leftists refuse to even entertain the idea that the large amount of young females who feel non-binary or genderless might indicate a problem with some of the expectations of womanhood, and that transitioning is not always the right option. (I was among said group of females.)

What is it with every conservative or moderate constantly bringing up 1984? ;) I've always thought we lived in more of a Brave New World.

I'd ask you to consider COVID-denialism and the events at the Capitol and the disturbing popularity of Q, and weigh those against some of the left's apparent doublethink. I am not convinced that the left is in any way more "deliberate and dictatorial" than the right.

I thought we were talking about the traditional blind-spots of the right; based in religiosity and money, both of which are - as I said, matters of freedom; freedom of conscience and economic liberty. But no; now you seem to be talking about Trump - who was highly individual. Even then, you think his supporters were deceived? I don't. I think they knew he told whopping great obvious lies - like "biggest crowd ever" - and think it's funny watching the left wing media devote hours of coverage to Trump, to disprove something they already knew was a lie.

Well, yes and no. At the very least I think it's unfair to claim that facts just "don't matter" re: the left's views on gender, as TheWillowOfDarkness brings up. Plenty of leftists acknowledge the relationship between sex and gender, the influence of sex hormones on development, etc. A person born male is probably going to feel like, and present as, a man. The question is how we address those for whom sex and gender feel mismatched. — Rosie

I used gender politics as an example of how facts are disposable to the left.

"Postmodernism and critical theory commonly criticize universalist ideas of objective reality, morality, truth, human nature, reason, language, and social progress...and is characterized by rejection of the "universal validity" of binary oppositions..."

This relates to gender politics:

"In the last fifteen years it has become routine for many social and/or historical analyses to address the variables of gender, class, sexuality, race and ethnicity. Within each of these categories there is usually an unequal binary opposition..."

So, in relation to this philosophical background, political correctness seeks to deny, and/or undermine that binary opposition - and so denies, or disregards the biological fact.

I feel somewhat ambushed by your personal stake in the matter. I don't want to upset you. But there's real damage being done by left wing ideologues, teaching primary school children there are 99 genders, and then GIDS handing out puberty blockers like smarties; all compulsory under the dictatorship of political correctness.

1984 is way more apt to left wing authoritarianism than Brave New World. Winston Smith was a citizen. John Savage was an outsider; throwing the world into stark relief. Smith was oppressed - denied freedom of thought and speech by design. Savage was a natural man in an artificial world; but a lot of people were very happy in Huxley's utopia!

So, in relation to this philosophical background, political correctness seeks to deny, and/or undermine that binary opposition - and so denies, or disregards the biological fact. — counterpunch

I had a feeling this is where your bullshit about truth in science was headed.

People are free to change gender. You're free to whine about it.

End of story.

I have read writers on the left and the right who are not lunatics, but sometimes it seems like the same toxicon (Latin poison) has addled the brains of people across the political spectrum. I can't quite put a finger on what the toxic stuff is that rewires the brains of people on the left and the right, so that they both inhabit separate but equally distorted realities.

I do not see any equivalence between the most vocal people on the left and right; the gender extremists (left) and Proud Boys (right) for example are made of different stuff. But there is something similar in the way they both formed around extreme granule positions.

Extremism isn't new, of course. I just find it perplexing that I can not detect what, exactly, is driving the current extremes.

A different extremism is that of the leftists and tender-hearted American liberals who would like to open the borders to the entire oppressed population everywhere. Yes, we could do that, but the open-border advocates have not reckoned with the effect that would have on the 320,000,000 citizens.

I had a feeling this is where your bullshit about truth in science was headed. — frank

Did you really? Wow. I myself had no idea. You must be psychic or something.

People are free to change gender. — frank

Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder according to the DSM-5. In young people, it's often a phase. Puberty blockers cause irreversible change.

You're free to whine about it. — frank

As is Dr Marcus Evans - one of the 30 or more psychologists who quit GIDS citing politically correct pressure to "affirm" this mental disorder, and proscribe puberty blockers to children. You can find him on twitter.

End of story. — frank

No. It's not the end of the story. The NHS is going to get sued big time. A test case has already gone through the courts. Expect a class action suit in the near future - and billions in taxpayers money paid out to people damaged by politically correct, medically unsound practice.

No. It's not the end of the story. The NHS is going to get sued big time. A test case has already gone through the courts. Expect a class action suit in the near future - and billions in taxpayers money paid out to people damaged by politically correct, medically unsound practice. — counterpunch

Ok. The courts will settle it then.

This is what I was talking about: the argument is the gender binary is objectively untrue, for it does not recognise various objective facts about gender, sex and the body (and the binary is most certianly not "scientific" because it tells falsehoods about empirical states of the world).

To bring this back somewhat on topic, gender, sex and its relation to bodies is a great exmaple where what's professed as the "scientific" is not so at all. Take the suggestion about gender you gave in your response to me:

I disagree, and so does the science. Developmental psychologists like Piaget - note distinct differences in play patters and behaviours between boys and girls that cannot be attributed solely to socialisation — counterpunch

What does such an observation entail? It's not "the nature" of a boy or a girl. Neither is the sole feature of individuals who are a girl or boy. Even at face value, what the observation has measured (higher rates of certain play behaviours amongst groups of children), is not reflected in what conclusion is claimed (that certian behaviours are only of girls or boys). Indeed, the observations actually show the opposite of the claim: that both boy and girls engage in either set of play behaviours, so either are of a girl or a boy. A greater number of girls behaving are certian way doesn't eliminate the empirical states of other who act in other ways. The same for boys.

Your claim suggests an empirical falsehood: that a certains behaviours are exclusive performed by girls or boys, as some are done more often by one group or another.


Then we have a question of "socialisation" vs "nature." The fact you are raising this shows you haven't looked at much in the last 40 years on the topic. Nature vs nature has long been recognised as an incoherent opposition because everything we do has both a biological and environmental component. When we are "nurtured", our biological body is responding to an environment to produce an outcome. The same is true of "nature", as when our biology grows one way or another, ot does so in an environment (and in virtue of the absence of an environment which doesn't cause it to do something else).

The nature vs nurture opposition is not scientific: it ignores how both biology and an environment go into producing something we do. In this respect the left isn't afraid of biology these days, indeed they affirm it.

Nowhere is this clearer than in accounts of sex and gender in relation to the body. The thing about biological states is well, they are biological states, regardless of how we categorise them under sex, gender or any other identity categories we might have. If we have someone who is classified as a woman, but has a penis, she still has a penis. The biological fact of her penis isn't dependent on being categorised as a man.

The gender binary is anti-scientific with respect to biology. It doesn't treat biology as its guiding principle. Rather than recognising biological states for what they are, and that they are what they are, no matter how they might be classified under sex and gender, it treats biology like it is subordinate to categories of our language, as if what we named biology was what made it what it was.

Even worse, this practice leads us to ignore , dismiss or deny the very existence of some biologies-- such as various intersex biologies or even just the biology of someone engaged in what us supposedly cross gender play (i.e. the failure to recognise more uncommon behaviours of a certian body are still behaviours of that body), for they do not fit with the binary narrative of what sort of person occurs with a given gender.

The gender binary is as far from science as you can get. It concerns itself not with describing the world and the biology people have, but with affirming a culture of placing bodies in select categories, regardless of how their biology exists.

There's only 70m citizens this side of the pond. And the politics and the philosophy are a little different - over there! But I place the blame for the polarisation we're seeing with the left. When the left adopted identity politics as the basis of a culture war, they turned politics into a zero sum game. The left abandoned a dynamic that had a general respect for a common truth, and the good of the country at its heart, and made it all about power. The left and right are no longer - colleagues across the aisle. Or the Honourable Member opposite - in British parlance. They are trying to destroy each other to get into power, and are careless of the consequences for the people and the country.

Your claim suggests an empirical falsehood: that a certains behaviours are exclusive performed by girls or boys, as some are done more often by one group or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I quote this line, but refer to all of your argument up to this point. You have misunderstood. Boys have tendencies toward physical spatial play - and girls toward social play. It's very well noted in the literature. These are not one-off experimental results. And it doesn't mean those behaviours are exclusive; but that there are distinct differences in patterns of play. Given a room full of toys, boys will instinctively go for the cars and footballs - whereas girls will go for the dolls. Piaget is not some left wing undergraduate psych student - he spent his life studying developmental psychology. Why impugn his professionalism?

The nature vs nurture opposition is not scientific: it ignores how both biology and an environment go into producing something we do. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's just not correct; not least because it's not nature "vs" nurture. No-one with any education would see these as exclusive. It doesn't happen, and never has. It's always been that both nature and nurture influence development, but often one is more influential. Lefties want everything to be nurture - so they can subject it to their identity politics dogma. They construe gender as a social construction - but then, I think you should read the story of David Reimer. Dr Money's conclusions were premature to say the least - and yet still form the basis of left wing gender politics dogma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

The thing about biological states is well, they are biological states, regardless of how we categorise them under sex, gender or any other identity categories we might have. If we have someone who is classified as a woman, but has a penis, she still has a penis. The biological fact of her penis isn't dependent on being categorised as a man. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That is quite possibly the maddest paragraph ever written in the English language. Barring incredibly rare genetic abnormalities, a human being with a penis is a man. Not "categorized as a man." But as a matter of biological fact, the penis owner IS a man. Incredibly rare exceptions - such as hermaphrodites, do not invalidate the fact a human with a penis IS a man. That way madness lies - and that's precisely the intent of left wing, post modernist, neo marxist, political correctness bigots and bullies, regardless of the harm their crazy making causes.

That is quite possibly the maddest paragraph ever written in the English language. Barring incredibly rare genetic abnormalities, a human being with a penis is a man. Not "categorized as a man." But as a matter of biological fact, the penis owner IS a man. Incredibly rare exceptions - such as hermaphrodites, do not invalidate the fact a human with a penis IS a man. That way madness lies - and that's precisely the intent of left wing, post modernist, neo marxist, political correctness bigots and bullies, regardless of the harm their crazy making causes. — counterpunch

You simply don't realize how dependent your concept of gender is on culture, and that gender may be much more fluid than you realize.

You simply don't realize how dependent your concept of gender is culture, and that gender may be much more fluid than you realize. — praxis

If you assert that gender is culture dependent - how do you know? It's not enough to assert my ignorance - you need to demonstrate it by proving that what you say is true. The evidence for my position, that gender is a biological fact - and that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder is overwhelming. Almost everyone's gender is consistent with their sex, and denying that - imposing re-categorisation across the entirety of society, feeding puberty blockers to confused children, allowing male criminals into women's prisons, men into women's sports, changing rooms and bathrooms - to affirm and normalise what is more readily understood as a mental disorder, is unreasonable.

You simply don't realize how dependent your concept of gender is on culture, and that gender may be much more fluid than you realize.
— praxis

If you assert that gender is culture dependent - how do you know? It's not enough to assert my ignorance - you need to demonstrate it by proving that what you say is true. The evidence for my position, that gender is a biological fact - and that gender dysphoria is a mental disorder is overwhelming. — counterpunch

The term 'gender dysphoria' focuses on one's discomfort as the problem, not identity.

The concepts of masculine and feminine, as well as our attitudes about transgenderism and homosexuality, are largely shaped by our culture. I'm not sure if I need to argue the point. Do I, or can you accept this?

The term 'gender dysphoria' focuses on one's discomfort as the problem, not identity. The concepts of masculine and feminine, as well as our attitudes about transgenderism and homosexuality, are largely shaped by our culture. I'm not sure if I need to argue the point. Do I, or can you accept this? — praxis

I don't accept this. Was I being too subtle? If you can;t explain yourself - but can only assert your pre-programmed politically correct opinion, save yourself the effort. I already know what you think. My question is, why do you think that?

For the overwhelming majority of people biological sex and gender are the same thing. Gender is not socially constructed. Humans are not born blank slates - which then have a socially constructed gender imprinted on them. Boys and girls are biologically and psychologically different, and these differences manifest as gender roles.

Interesting that you import sexuality into this discussion. I didn't raise it, but now you have - I wonder to what degree the assumption of socially constructed gender is really an excuse for submissive gay men, to play the female role - without experiencing the psychological implications of submission?