I disagree abt the sexed diseases post, but mostly on the topic of "genitalia = gender," because some diseases (like genetic colorblindness and hemophilia) are carried on the X gene, and males (having only 1 as opposed to the 2 of a female) are an order of magnitude more likely to inherit such a condition since the presence of the gene by itself guarantees its assertion, while females would need two infected X genes from both parents to guarantee activation. & fr 99~% of the pop, gender = sex.

the way i’d say that would be that “what are your sex-determining chromosomes” is another influencing factor — much like all the other stuff, there are cases where someone’s got XY chromosomes with, say, androgen insensitivity, leading to someone who would under any other metric save genotyping be considered “female”. so yes, someone with XY sex chromosomes has a much larger chance of colorblindness, but that’s because they have XY sex chromosomes, not because they’re male.

i mean, you can pick any one of these traits and say that’s the thing that makes someone “really” male or female, but i guess my point in listing all these things is to say that there is no “predisposed to ___ on account of being biologically male/female”, because it’s not “male” or “female” as such, it’s one specific biological factor that is only usually correlated with perceived or assigned sex — there is no monolithic “biological sex”, there are just a whole lot of factors we lump together (“reify”) into two categories because of their correlation. that doesn’t make the categories “biological reality”, it just makes them statistically convenient.