Is Mise,

That's not all that was said.

I did go on to explain what was meant by that remark -
you are denying what is so obvious to see.
And selectively focusing only on that one
sentence denying the explanation given that follows.

It's your choice to do that - and it is a shame.

Dear Paul,

I'm so sorry to hear about the loss of a loved one
and friend. I received a belated card in the mail
telling me that a close friend lost her
husband in July last year. She was one of my bridesmaids.
She is finding it difficult to adjust to life without
him.

Please give my deepest sympathy to your lovely partner.

All The Best.

Foxy,

"I did go on to explain what was meant by that remark -
you are denying what is so obvious to see.
And selectively focusing only on that one
sentence denying the explanation given that follows.

It's your choice to do that - and it is a shame."

That was not a remark, that was what you claimed was a direct quote from the ABS, so kindly shew where the ABS made such an absurd claim that "61.6% of the Australian population votes YES".

I don't deny any of what follows on the ABS site, I agree with all that they say, but I cannot agree with a misquote that is attributed to them.
Perhaps you might tell us what you meant to quote?

It's your choice to deny the obvious, and it's not a shame it's merely amusing.

ALTRAV,

I don't have the time or inclination to educate someone - who is clearly not interested in understanding, lest it discredit his simplistic and ignorant worldview - on what a social construct is or how it relates to gender.

mhaze and I can recommend a book that goes into quite some detail on gender and social constructs (though I dare not link to it after how my last attempt to do so was construed). In the meantime, the OED has a good definition of ‘social construct’:

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/social_construct

I should note that although gender is a social construct, that doesn't mean that it does not have physiological influences as well. Causal/influencing factors never work in isolation, after all.

<<If these words are truly based on having been created by people then adopted by queers, I then hereby reclaim those words on behalf of the 'normal' majority of the population and declare them not to be used in relation to anything pertaining to [homosexuality].>>

How arrogant of you to assume you have that power.

--

Josephus,

I'm not sure what it is that you're trying to reduce social constructs to by inserting the word ‘merely’ into your question (given your question, I can only assume that you mean to reduce them to abstract concepts with no real-world implications), so I'll answer your question without the word ‘merely’ for now until I understand exactly what it is that you're trying to reduce social constructs to.

<<If gender is ... a social construct why are these people taking hormones and having transition surgery to change their biological genital structure.>>

Because some people feel like they are the opposite sex to what they were physically born, and want to feel more comfortable in their own bodies. I'm not sure how your question is supposed to challenge the fact that gender is a social construct.

<<[I]n case you do not understand SSM = two persons with the same genitals …>>

Not quite. Same-sex marriage refers to the marriage of two people with (as you put it) the same genitals. But, yeah, so what?

Perhaps those who are confused by the difference between sex and gender might try Google; or for a straightforward explanation.

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

Is Mise I did, and came away with the facts that none of these words that the SSM clan have and are using to make their case, were used in every day discussions many years ago, not even the medical profession. If they were, it was patient specific, and not in the public arena.

As for changing your shape and form because you 'don't feel comfortable'. Big deal! This is just one of the abnormalities that's treated with total contempt and arrogance.

I have far more respect for a queer who is say, an effeminate guy, than someone who tries to be God like (I know there is no God, you know what I mean) in a vane attempt at trying to be something he/she is not.

The end result may be what the queer intended, but most of the time they just end up looking like freaks. As I said I'm not queer but I prefer to see the real deal getting around because at least it's better looking and they haven't attacked and dis-figured themselves.

Oh Philips, how dismissive thou art now. 'With the same genitals, so what? You don't think your going to get away with that do you? I'll tell you what.

The whole concept of marriage has been done to death not only on this forum but everywhere. If you have two people who love each other like brother and sister or like the series, 'The Odd Couple', then I would say it's OK.

But you wanted the word marriage so bad you did not want all the rest of the baggage and commitment that comes with it. You just wanted the name and then you would do what you wanted with it.

The word marriage is not just about anyone marrying anyone. There are social and religious laws and teachings about that. Oh that's right you queers are above all the laws and rules that the rest of us have to abide by.

Now I get it.

How did psychologists arrive at your definition of Gender? By defining things males do and are, and things that females do and are. So the definitions were originally determined by maleness and femaleness. Funny their sexual biological identity as man and woman! It is a recent construct adopted by psychologists to develop a spectrum to place people into boxes. I know, I've done the test and it determined I was 57% female. Why? because in the spectrum my brain works according to the test as 57% a woman. However my birth certificate says I am male, and I have all the biological appearance of a man. I have always been known as a man. I do not want to change my gender. This gender theory is just that; theory; it is nonsense invented by someone doing a Masters degree who wanted to make a name for themselves. AJ. I use the period 5,000 years because that is about how long writings have used the terms man and woman. You jump to false conclusions intending shame because you imagine I need to change to your spurious view about gender descriptors.