I feel like gender identity is not very meaningful as a designation with the advent of seemingly infinite designations on what I have seen described as a spectrum. For example when I read about demisexual or cupiosexual people or people who can change their gender “fluidly”, I can’t help but think these are just newly invented terminology for personality traits, rather than what we typically think of as “gender”. To me gender is only useful as something that is tied to biological sex, rather than what has now come to be called on the progressive left as “gender identity”.<p>It also seems these new frameworks for describing people breakdown when we confront the necessity of sex specific space like with sports. To that end, rather than trying to forcefully declare various gender identities as subsets of the existing “biological genders”, why aren’t all these simply lumped into a third category that isn’t hierarchically connected to existing terms like male/female/man/woman? It seems like that is what Argentina is going for by having a category X on their ID cards as described in this article. I do worry about the potential erasure of biological sexes - it seems some, like the person quoted at the end of that article, are explicitly seeking to make society completely genderless, which I feel will have many negative cultural and social impacts, apart from simply colliding with more traditional worldviews.