The difference is that in your imaginary discussion, the person is proposing nuance informed by evidence. The comment you&#x27;re replying to, on the other hand, pushes against nuance based only on personal opinion.<p>I don&#x27;t know anybody who would argue that gender has absolutely no biological implications. But to suggest they tell us something about how society should be structured is the naturalistic fallacy, confusing <i>is</i> with <i>ought</i>.<p>As an example, illness and death are natural. But that doesn&#x27;t mean that we should just shrug and say, &quot;Oh well, tuberculosis is natural, so we should just accept it.&quot; The natural details of death should certainly inform how we fight it. But they can never tell us we shouldn&#x27;t.