Men commit actions; women commit gestures

[Unidian]

I haven't skipped around anything, Sue. Yes, physiology is the deciding factor in psychology as far as gender is concerned, and I've made that quite clear regardless of your blindness to it.

Of course, given that I don't subscribe to the chauvinism you and certain others here favor, that means nothing to me beyond the fact that men and women tend to have somewhat different values and priorities, and both approaches have been (and remain) necessary to the functioning and propagation of the species.

[Unidian]

LOLerskates. ROFLcopters. Sue says this:

For you, and most people, status gleaned through others is the only way you exist. My independent nature is not surprisingly completely alien to your experience of life.

And then promptly accuses Robert of being "pompous."

Gold.

[sue hindmarsh]

Unidian,

Yes, physiology is the deciding factor in psychology as far as gender is concerned

So you're saying that there are two completely different psychologies: the feminine and the masculine, and that only females have the feminine psychology and only males have the masculine psychology - and that there is no variations, or mixture of the two to be found in any person, including yourself - is that correct?

[Unidian]

No, because that would be plainly retarded.

The distinctions are just general tendencies, not inviolable rules written in stone. Men generally tend toward valuing logical thinking above emotional responses, while women generally tend toward valuing emotional responses above logical thinking. There are certainly men who place a higher value on emotional responses than most, just as there are women who place a higher value on logical thinking then most. But none of this entails QRS views, which hold that only logical thinking is to be valued while emotional responses are to be discarded entirely. Certainly it is possible to construct a worldview in which logical thinking is labeled "masculine" and emotional responses "feminine" for the purpose of devaluing one or the other. But besides you guys (and radical feminists on the other side), who would want to do so?

[RobertGreenSky]

Sue wrote:

Your indignation over your enlightenment is a little strange though, for it was you who set up the two poles: at one end, ‘the scrubs’ and at the other end, ‘the enlightened’; placing me in the scrubs set (because of my “non-enlightenment”), and thereby leaving you in the enlightened set - for according to you, you’re “not here to argue with the scrubs”. But if you say you’re not enlightened, you must also be a scrub - though a bit of a pompous one. (emphasis ignored)

Now here I had graciously exited the other thread and I find you in this one bullshitting again. I'm no scrub, Sue! In this thread I undermined Otto Weininger, got Quinn and Rowden to bail on him and then caught them in the contradiction, and ridiculed you with some wonderful writing. Have you seen better writing at Genius Forum? No you haven't but are you the least bit appreciative? In the other thread I helped Dan and David run from ethical responsibility and further undermined their claims to enlightenment. I didn't run it into the ground, content to let the arguments speak for themselves. Btw, it was pure laziness not to have answered David on Nagarjuna and which of course he won by default.

How you can fail to understand that 'scrubs' is just a little joke at your expense, and at the expenses of the other scrubs, is beyond me. You just don't argue as well as Dan and David; frankly you're shooting fish in a barrel. I can sit here and bullshit and beat you and have a wonderful time doing it. With them, I've got to work. And thank God for Unidian, in my estimation currently the best debater here, now that I'm taking off. :D

Sue, if you would condescend less you would communicate more.

[Unidian]

It's true, Sue - you should let David and Dan handle this whole gender issue, as well as that of "enlightenment" and such. You did the two of them no favors with your performance here, nor did you do yourself any. While I wouldn't dream of arguing that your thinking lacks substance because you are female, I'd have no problem asserting that it lacks substance simply because you ain't the sharpest tool in the QRS shed. If you're writing for the benefit of the world (as you quite probably feverishly imagine), then you might consider doing the world a favor and saving your fingertips the effort, because as Robert quite rightly points out, handing you your Hindenburg is just too easy.

And if that was harsh, consider it a deferred karmic payment on the Faux News hatchet job you tried to pull on me.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, it’s one thing to assert you believe women are capable of thought but, unless I am somehow gravely mistaken in comprehending your words below, quite another to argue it.

Outside the bizarre world of spiritual geniuses such as yourself, David, and Otto Weininger (who unfortunately pronounced you irrevocably thoughtless in the passage above), gender is universally understood as a physiological issue first and foremost. The simple reason for this is that maleness or femaleness are primarily physiological qualities. The psychological differences between the genders are dependent on (and secondary to) the physiological differences. If it were not so, one's physiological configuration would change as a result of having psychological qualities more consistent with the opposite gender, instead of the way it really works (the reverse).

Right, so, one’s psychological qualities change as a result of having physiological qualities more consistent with the opposite gender?

What’s the difference?

[Faust]

as a result of having physiological qualities more consistent with the opposite gender?

how can your own physiological qualities be more consistent with the opposite gender? Then you were always that gender.

[Leyla Shen]

Well, yes, exactly. To be honest, I have no idea what he was trying to say, Faust. I think it's a bit of a mess, really. The “right” at the beginning of my sentence was intended as a general acknowledgment rather than an agreement in principle.

It would be fair to point out that I erroneously stated the term as “physiological qualities” in my question when it should have been “[one’s] physiological configuration.”

Nevertheless, you're quite right, and the query still stands, which is related to the proposition that one’s psychological qualities change as a result of a physiological configuration compatible with the opposite gender (I think he really means "sex" here). (Refer James’s statement above that “the reverse” is true.)

I mean, is he saying that if you are a biological female (sex) who feels male (gender) and you have a sex change (complete with penis, hormone therapy, etc.), you’ll be more masculine than you were before the sex change?

What was it that made you want the sex change in the first place; masculine or feminine? And how does this figure into the question of one’s feelings of male and/or femaleness?

Interestingly, if you answer masculine and you recognise reason as an immutable, male quality, then it follows that biological females are incapable of reason.

It seems to me he's arguing for Weininger's position, rather than (as he more forthrightly maintains) against it.

[sue hindmarsh]

Yes, sadly I wasn’t surprised by either Robert’s inability, or Unidian’s unwillingness to approach the question about the psychology of the sexes. It's a very difficult subject to approach, because so much of who we believe we are is tied up in it. It was good to see Unidian at least having a go at answering the question of whether one’s physiology was the deciding factor of one’s psychology. Being that the answer to this question not only effects one's relationship to oneself, but also effects one's relationship with the rest of humanity - it is therefore no small thing to get involved in. Unidian’s approach to the subject, seemed to indicate that he intuitively understood this, for his two answers severely contradicted one another - allowing him to maintain a foot in each camp. His first answer: that physiology was the "deciding factor" of one’s psychology, was over turned by his next reply: genders were not fixed, for they were only "general tendencies". Though I understand his desire to remain in the dark on this matter, thankfully, not everyone shares that same desire.

By focusing on this subject, we cannot help but confront the reasons behind Unidian’s confusion, and Robert’s impotency in this matter - for they are by no means alone. It is this confusion and impotency over this question that gives rise to the discrimination and chauvinism towards females - and males. Therefore, it is important to get to the heart of the matter, for surely no one can believe that females and males have not within them the potential for true equality.

The subject can be approached in many ways - one of which is asking the interesting question, as Leyla has done, about the causes that lead to a person wanting a sex change. As Leyla describes, when a person is in possession of a body of one sex, and the mind of the other - it isn’t the body alone that can make the decision to have itself altered to fit the mind. It is the mind; that is, the person’s psychology, that has to decide whether or not to go under the knife to bring about a reconciliation between the two parts.

That example shows the potential for the feminine and masculine psychology to flow through any person of either sex. And by accepting that the two psychologies have the potential to flow through either sex, we also have to accept then that the potential for rational thought, and irrational thought exists in both sexes. Now, I have no doubt that at this stage plenty of people will be saying to themselves, "Yes, of course that is true - known that for along time!" But I reckon, if that was really true - if people truly believed that each and every person had the potential for both masculinity and femininity, our society would not have developed the way it has, and with the sexual discrimination and chauvinism that it has.

So we can't stop at that point and say we have reached a rock-bottom understanding of this matter. We've only begun to scratch the surface. The job now will be to look closely at the characteristics of both psychologies to see what it is about them that gives rise to inequality and discrimination.

It is a challenge, but to my mind at least, a worthwhile one.

[RobertGreenSky]

Sue Hindarsh wrote:

... sadly I wasn’t surprised by either Robert’s inability, or Unidian’s unwillingness to approach the question about the psychology of the sexes. It's a very difficult subject to approach ...

By focusing on this subject, we cannot help but confront the reasons behind Unidian’s confusion, and Robert’s impotency in this matter ...

Sue, I chose not to discuss the psychology of the sexes. Why would you assert I am unable to do it, going on to label that inability 'impotency'? Is it really that you have a problem with comprehension or is it that you have a problem with honesty?


There is no reason women are precluded from attaining understanding in Buddhism and in Daoism. There is no figure in Buddhism or Daoism so fundamentally stupid as Otto Weininger, recognized as a genius at this place by men of little discernment, and women of little discernment, too. Men and women are fundamentally the same, isolated thinking creatures yet despite that isolation capable of understanding other human beings. Now Roseanne is perhaps right in saying that men cannot begin to understand childbirth until they have passed a ten pound ham, but still I think men can understand women and vice versa.

There. I have discussed the psychology of the sexes. Given that you are supposedly embued with 'masculine psychology' I could write of your 'diesel dyke perspectives' but then I don't go in for that sort of thing. Your honesty has been a point in this thread so by all means keep your bullshit up, Sue.


Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

The subject can be approached in many ways - one of which is asking the interesting question, as Leyla has done, about the causes that lead to a person wanting a sex change. As Leyla describes, when a person is in possession of a body of one sex, and the mind of the other - it isn’t the body alone that can make the decision to have itself altered to fit the mind. It is the mind; that is, the person’s psychology, that has to decide whether or not to go under the knife to bring about a reconciliation between the two parts.

Brilliant erudition, Sue! It's the mind that decides to have a sex change operation! However did you reason your way through the labyrinths of that difficult problem? Yes, sex change operations are an important aspect of understanding the psychologies of the sexes. Seeing your erudition reassures me that your voice, a leading one in the field of understanding feminine weaknesses, will brillianty guide us all through this, the 21st century.

[Dan Rowden]

Robert wrote:

Men and women are fundamentally the same

I see, so you're only attracted to women because of their curvy tits and arses and ability to drop sprogs, right?

[RobertGreenSky]

As a btw:

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:

By focusing on this subject, we cannot help but confront the reasons behind Unidian’s confusion, and Robert’s impotency in this matter - for they are by no means alone. It is this confusion and impotency over this question that gives rise to the discrimination and chauvinism towards females - and males. Therefore, it is important to get to the heart of the matter, for surely no one can believe that females and males have not within them the potential for true equality.

Are you smearing me, Sue? You're labeling me and then suggesting that what was labeled leads to 'discrimination and chauvinism towards females - and males'.

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert wrote:

Men and women are fundamentally the same

I see, so you're only attracted to women because of their curvy tits and arses and ability to drop sprogs, right?

And what I wrote was this, 'Men and women are fundamentally the same, isolated thinking creatures yet despite that isolation capable of understanding other human beings.' Why did you edit my thought like that and why did you ask such a question? Most of my women friends are accomplished, most with degrees, some advanced, and some are professors. None of them are so small-minded as to even begin to argue so cheaply against another person. Was your edit and your question meant to continue Ms. Hindmarsh's smear? Are you trying to justify that smear with your influence, Dan? Keep it up, and there will be a clear pattern of dishonesty. You can pretend you have no responsibility, but how will you argue it? If honesty toward me doesn't matter, where does it matter? Now I've written cheap jokes, and I'm not always proud of them, but I never libeled you, Dan, not once. You know how I've been libeled; you were avoiding admitting them last night.

[Dan Rowden]

Sue, I chose not to discuss the psychology of the sexes. Why would you assert I am unable to do it, going on to label that inability 'impotency'? Is it really that you have a problem with comprehension or is it that you have a problem with honesty?

I imagine that she's basing her judgement on history. In the 4 years or so of acquaintanceship with your thinking and arguments I imagine she thinks there's never been anything beyond "smears" offered by you in that arena of thought. I mean, that's understandable isn't it, given your predilection for simply labeling ideas "nonsense on the face of it" or "absurd on the face of it" or "there is not a reason in the world to believe a single word of it" (and apparently not a single reason in the world not to, given none is offered). These pieces of logical vacuity appear to represent the most substantive offerings from you on the subject. I can well understand Sue's belief in your impotency as those "rejoinders" are as limp as a licorice lamppost.

[RobertGreenSky]

Sue, I chose not to discuss the psychology of the sexes. Why would you assert I am unable to do it, going on to label that inability 'impotency'? Is it really that you have a problem with comprehension or is it that you have a problem with honesty?

I imagine that she's basing her judgement on history. In the 4 years or so of acquaintanceship with your thinking and arguments I imagine she thinks there's never been anything beyond "smears" offered by you in that arena of thought. I mean, that's understandable isn't it, given your predilection for simply labeling ideas "nonsense on the face of it" or "absurd on the face of it" or "there is not a reason in the world to believe a single word of it" (and apparently not a single reason in the world not to, given none is offered). These pieces of logical vacuity appear to represent the most substantive offerings from you on the subject. I can well understand Sue's belief in your impotency as those "rejoinders" are as limp as a licorice lamppost.

Time and time again I've intently analyzed arguments, and written good arguments. You have written yet another distortion and the truth is catching up with you. You present yourself as enlightened and yet you write distortions again and again.

[Dan Rowden]

Robert wrote:

Men and women are fundamentally the same

I see, so you're only attracted to women because of their curvy tits and arses and ability to drop sprogs, right?

And what I wrote was this, 'Men and women are fundamentally the same, isolated thinking creatures yet despite that isolation capable of understanding other human beings.' Why did you edit my thought like that and why did you ask such a question?

Because the second part is an existential observation having nought to do with any gender differences. The first part implies no differences between the sexes; I'm trying to ascertain if you believe this, or, if you don't, what differences you see.

Most of my women friends are accomplished, most with degrees, some advanced, and some are professors.

So what? That has exactly zero relevance to anything we have ever said about the genders.

None of them are so small-minded as to even begin to argue so cheaply against another person.

Oh, I bet they are. They must be of that type if they hang with you.

Was your edit and your question meant to continue Ms. Hindmarsh's smear?

It was a stand alone question designed to get you to actually say something on the issue.

Are you trying to justify that smear with your influence, Dan?

Is paranoia a facet of your normal personality?

Keep it up, and there will be a clear pattern of dishonesty.

You are incorrigibly precious and affected, Robert. Change the record, will ya.

You can pretend you have no responsibility, but how will you argue it?

You can pretend that I pretend to have no responsibility, but how will you argue it?

If honesty toward me doesn't matter, where does it matter?

What do you know of honesty? Don't talk to me about things you don't really value but simply use as weapons against others, Robert. I have no time for your pomposity.

Now I've written cheap jokes, and I'm not always proud of them, but I never libeled you, Dan, not once.

You called me a racist, a misogynist and a Nazi in the Larkin debate (and I wasn't even directly involved in the thing). You need to appreciate that libel is in the eye of the beholder.

You know how I've been libeled; you were avoiding admitting them last night.

Truth is its own defense, dude. Even you believe that when you label others.

[Dan Rowden]

Sue, I chose not to discuss the psychology of the sexes. Why would you assert I am unable to do it, going on to label that inability 'impotency'? Is it really that you have a problem with comprehension or is it that you have a problem with honesty?

I imagine that she's basing her judgement on history. In the 4 years or so of acquaintanceship with your thinking and arguments I imagine she thinks there's never been anything beyond "smears" offered by you in that arena of thought. I mean, that's understandable isn't it, given your predilection for simply labeling ideas "nonsense on the face of it" or "absurd on the face of it" or "there is not a reason in the world to believe a single word of it" (and apparently not a single reason in the world not to, given none is offered). These pieces of logical vacuity appear to represent the most substantive offerings from you on the subject. I can well understand Sue's belief in your impotency as those "rejoinders" are as limp as a licorice lamppost.

Time and time again I've intently analyzed arguments, and written good arguments. You have written yet another distortion and the truth is catching up with you. You present yourself as enlightened and yet you write distortions again and again.

Oh, well, it might be the case that you've produced arguments that go beyond mere platitudinous dismissals. I frankly don't recall them, so, whilst conceding their probable existence I'll add that they can't have been especially memorable. And in all likelihood Sue has never seen them therefore only knows your views via the aforementioned platitudinous dismissals, which, of course, are legion.

[RobertGreenSky]

You don't remember my arguments, Dan? Why I'm just ever so disappointed. Since we're dealing with what's been going on for four years, how about the argument that David Quinn does not agree with Nagarjuna but with Nagarjuna's opponents? Do you remember that one, Dan? Didn't you and I discuss women and eastern psychology (and 'rational enlightenment') at Future Philosophy? Since the quality of my argumentation is in dispute I'll have to take some time and work up a presentation. I'll get to work on it tomorrow if you don't mind; it's approaching 1:00 a.m. mine. Did you so quickly forget that I pointed out that while you all were bailing on Otto Weininger in this very thread that you had praised him to high heaven elsewhere? Didn't take much to make that argument but it did catch you in a rather remarkable contradiction, given that you all are supposedly enlightened folk. By the way, Dan, you never answered what parts of Weininger you still accept. Do you accept the antisemitism and why did you write that an antisemite was a spiritual genius? If you quote me try to quote both parts of the question, please.

[RobertGreenSky]

Dan wrote:

**quote

Robert wrote:

Men and women are fundamentally the same

I see, so you're only attracted to women because of their curvy tits and arses and ability to drop sprogs, right?

And what I wrote was this, 'Men and women are fundamentally the same, isolated thinking creatures yet despite that isolation capable of understanding other human beings.' Why did you edit my thought like that and why did you ask such a question?

Because the second part is an existential observation having nought to do with any gender differences. The first part implies no differences between the sexes; I'm trying to ascertain if you believe this, or, if you don't, what differences you see.

Most of my women friends are accomplished, most with degrees, some advanced, and some are professors.

So what? That has exactly zero relevance to anything we have ever said about the genders.

None of them are so small-minded as to even begin to argue so cheaply against another person.

Oh, I bet they are. They must be of that type if they hang with you.

Was your edit and your question meant to continue Ms. Hindmarsh's smear?

It was a stand alone question designed to get you to actually say something on the issue.

Are you trying to justify that smear with your influence, Dan?

Is paranoia a facet of your normal personality?

Keep it up, and there will be a clear pattern of dishonesty.

You are incorrigibly precious and affected, Robert. Change the record, will ya.

You can pretend you have no responsibility, but how will you argue it?

You can pretend that I pretend to have no responsibility, but how will you argue it?

If honesty toward me doesn't matter, where does it matter?

What do you know of honesty? Don't talk to me about things you don't really value but simply use as weapons against others, Robert. I have no time for your pomposity.

Now I've written cheap jokes, and I'm not always proud of them, but I never libeled you, Dan, not once.

You called me a racist, a misogynist and a Nazi in the Larkin debate (and I wasn't even directly involved in the thing). You need to appreciate that libel is in the eye of the beholder.

You know how I've been libeled; you were avoiding admitting them last night.

Truth is its own defense, dude. Even you believe that when you label others.[/quote]

**endquote

I haven't had time to look at this one thoroughly but I do note:

You called me a racist, a misogynist and a Nazi in the Larkin debate (and I wasn't even directly involved in the thing). You need to appreciate that libel is in the eye of the beholder. - Dan Rowden

I searched the debate on the term 'Nazi' and you were not called one. It is becoming clear that arguing with you results in problems with honest response, whether in your quibbling, your distortions, or as in that case with an outright lie. That is certainly unbecoming of someone who attempts to pass himself off as 'enlightened'. I'm afraid we're also going to have to look at the canon for ethical responsibility for honesty and while I cannot insist that you won't do well I frankly suspect you won't.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of your post and trying to analyse it without resort to platitudes or lies.

[Dan Rowden]

You don't remember my arguments, Dan? Why I'm just ever so disappointed.

Are not!

Since we're dealing with what's been going on for four years, how about the argument that David Quinn does not agree with Nagarjuna but with Nagarjuna's opponents?

That, like libel, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't know of any way to get around diametrically opposed interpretations of an author's views. I think it's one of those things that must be left to the judgement of the independent observer.

Do you remember that one, Dan?

Indeed, who could forget such finery. I nearly swooned at the sight of it!

Didn't you and I discuss women and eastern psychology (and 'rational enlightenment') at Future Philosophy?

Yes, I believe you're correct on that. I'll have to take a peek and see what's extant. My memory could probably handle being taken out for a lively jog in the park. Pity about the yapping dogs, though. Don't you hate them?

Since the quality of my argumentation is in dispute I'll have to take some time and work up a presentation.

That would be swell, actually, given the issue has been raised in this place. We can't really expect people to go traipsing all over the Internet in search of argument we claim to have made. Not without relevant links at least.

I'll get to work on it tomorrow if you don't mind; it's approaching 1:00 a.m. mine.

Take whatever time you need. I'm not expecting the world to end this week, unless you've heard something you're not telling us about...

Did you so quickly forget that I pointed out that while you all were bailing on Otto Weininger in this very thread that you had praised him to high heaven elsewhere?

Your penchant for exaggeration is becoming, as usual. I didn't bail on anyone. The status he has in my eyes is on record. David's regard for him has always been qualified, as evidenced by what he said even in the Larkin debate. As much as I like Nietzsche and Spinoza, I don't agree with everything they said or the way they said things I do generally agree with. Is that "bailing" on them? Had Weininger stated his case in that quote a little differently I would have had no issue with it. Your constant need to feel that you have made points smacks of desperation, Robert. I'm sure you can do better.

Didn't take much to make that argument but it did catch you in a rather remarkable contradiction, given that you all are supposedly enlightened folk.

Wow, you do have a habit of mistaking your imagination for reality, don't you? The contradiction exists in that imagination because almost everything you think about us exists there.

By the way, Dan,

Yes, yes!? I do love a good Larkin, "by the way"!

you never answered what parts of Weininger you still accept.

I don't recall being asked such a gargantuan question. I don't think I have an inclination to attempt to answer it. Though, if you want to post some quotes you think are horribly evil and nasty and a threat to the safety of hamsters everywhere I'll try and address them.

Do you accept the antisemitism

I don't even believe in antisemitism as a construct. I certainly don't accept the accusation where Weininger is concerned.

and why did you write that an antisemite was a spiritual genius?

Why do you not care that you insert glaring logical fallacies in almost every sentence you vomit onto the keyboard?

If you quote me try to quote both parts of the question, please.

My subsequent question would have been exactly the same, but I'll keep that sensibility in mind.

[Dan Rowden]

I haven't had time to look at this one thoroughly but I do note:

You called me a racist, a misogynist and a Nazi in the Larkin debate (and I wasn't even directly involved in the thing). You need to appreciate that libel is in the eye of the beholder. - Dan Rowden

I searched the debate on the term 'Nazi' and you were not called one.

Really? Funny, I do recall it vividly, given that throughout the debate your clear MO was to link people together. That you cannot escape. You not only linked Weininger to Hitler, and by the extension method you adopted, me, you labeled a link to a Weininger quotation anthology translated by Kevin Solway and Martin Dudaniec: "Nazis on the Net". Am I mistaken that you labeled it thus? Or was that one of your jokes that I am constantly misinterpreting?

[RobertGreenSky]

Robert: You can pretend you have no responsibility, but how will you argue it?

Dan: You can pretend that I pretend to have no responsibility, but how will you argue it?

Robert: If honesty toward me doesn't matter, where does it matter?

Dan: What do you know of honesty? Don't talk to me about things you don't really value but simply use as weapons against others, Robert. I have no time for your pomposity.

And how I will argue it is by pointing out that again you quibbled, you could not write a real answer to a simple question. Would the Buddha have quibbled, distorted, or lied? Would the Buddha have said that anyone does not deserve an honest answer?

[RobertGreenSky]

I haven't had time to look at this one thoroughly but I do note:

You called me a racist, a misogynist and a Nazi in the Larkin debate (and I wasn't even directly involved in the thing). You need to appreciate that libel is in the eye of the beholder. - Dan Rowden

I searched the debate on the term 'Nazi' and you were not called one.

Really? Funny, I do recall it vividly, given that throughout the debate your clear MO was to link people together. That you cannot escape. You not only linked Weininger to Hitler, and by the extension method you adopted, me, you labeled a link to a Weininger quotation anthology translated by Kevin Solway and Martin Dudaniec: "Nazis on the Net". Am I mistaken that you labeled it thus? Or was that one of your jokes that I am constantly misinterpreting?

Where is your name in that, Rowden? Now a link to Weininger is not a link to Solway proper, but your name isn't even mentioned.

[divine focus]

Outside the bizarre world of spiritual geniuses such as yourself, David, and Otto Weininger (who unfortunately pronounced you irrevocably thoughtless in the passage above), gender is universally understood as a physiological issue first and foremost. The simple reason for this is that maleness or femaleness are primarily physiological qualities. The psychological differences between the genders are dependent on (and secondary to) the physiological differences. If it were not so, one's physiological configuration would change as a result of having psychological qualities more consistent with the opposite gender, instead of the way it really works (the reverse).

Right, so, one’s psychological qualities change as a result of having physiological qualities more consistent with the opposite gender?

What’s the difference?

He was saying that if physiological differences were not responsible for psychological differences, then nonsense would follow.