you, like the women at the APA, tend to assert a lot of terms with your own ideological baggage attached to them, consider them objective (while — remember — our chromosomes/balls are relative) and then put a scientific dressing on it.

A couple of things here.

First, you’ll have to point to specific examples where I “asserted terms with ideological baggage.” What terms? What baggage?

Second, I never asserted that anything I said was objective. I was very careful to use language (“my own view”; “I imagine”; etc) that made it clear I was voicing my subjective opinion, with the exception of the statistics related to violent crime rates, which are objective and which were cited with sources.

Third, you’ve revealed your own bias here, with the phrase “like the women at the APA.”

The acknowledgements page of the APA guidelines PDF reveals that the document was prepared by the following people:

Fredric Rabinowitz, Matt Englar-Carlson, Ryon McDermott, Christopher Liang, and Matthew Kridel, with assistance from Christopher Kilmartin, Ronald Levant, Mark Kiselica, Nathan Booth, Nicholas Borgogna, and April Berry.

Ten men and one woman.

There are many contradictions and/or incohernencies which I have pointed out.

I didn’t see any that I agreed with.

You seem to see some contradiction in the APA couching their position as objective, while they are discussing masculinity as culturally relative.

There is no contradiction there. You’re making a category error, if that’s your reasoning for dismissing their opinions as relativistic.

Let’s look at race as an example. Opinions on race are a societal construct. Surely we can both agree on that. Is it a contradiction, then, if we objectively state that racism is a relativistic social construct? Of course not.

As for why the APA is couching their position as objective authority, it’s because they have the anthropological evidence to support their opinions.

Perhaps check out the related column on Takimag by Degroot

I’ve just looked it over, and I believe I could rip it to shreds on a number of points where he is either interpreting the guidelines wrong or just using poor logic, but frankly, I’m not sure why I should bother. I’ve already done all the arguing here, and you have shown a complete unwillingness — or an inability — to engage with my arguments.

Else, there is really too much of a gulf between the way you see reality and the way that I do. There are many layers of priors and social conditioning that stand between our general sensibilities.

That’s a cop-out. Whatever divide there may be, it hasn’t stopped me from engaging with your arguments, but you seem unwilling or unable to extend me the same courtesy.

Frankly, you’re just coming across as incapable of defending your own beliefs.