GENDER WARS

There is a physiological norm, whereby under normal function A inseminates B and perpetuates the species. Physiological aberrations that do not fit this required normality are specific but also collectively more commonplace and thereby become a separate physiological norm.

"War" is concept and product of the mind... Whether or not we can separate mind and matter is less clear.

Right, in other words, just because you are unwilling or uninterested or incapable of bearing (or siring) a child shouldn't strip you of any inalienable rights.

Well, my above statement suggests that incapability is an uncommon condition or physiological aberration. 

Otherwise, instinctive programming renders all others interested and willing.....Though alternative modus operandi are now widely accepted as a social norm.  Outcomes in these instances, currently do not produce offspring......Laboratory farming should be regarded as a separate issue.

I would suggest that inalienable rights in terms of instinctive programming are unstrippable, whereas conceived and established behaviour is always subject to the vagaries of society.

Most women over the age of 50 are infertile.

This is hardly an "uncommon condition" or "psychological aberration".

Not sure of your point.

A natural age related decline in fertility and libido is what it is, and is not particularly relative to socio-conceptual  diversifications of sexuality.

People living for more than 50 years is something of a recent evolutionary achievement anyway, and perhaps a separate issue.

I was referring to this,

I'm suggesting that "fertility" shouldn't be the core measure of "male" and or "female" individual and or social identity.

The state has absolutely no reason to know my "sexgender".

The state has absolutely no reason to make up laws regarding where I can and cannot go based on my "sexgender".

I was merely suggesting that out of a population of 7.6 billion humans, the percentage of mature individuals that are physiologically  incapable of "normal" reproduction (male sperm producing and female egg producing) is extremely low....Other than this, I agree that how  people choose to alternatively achieve sexual gratification should be a matter for mature consenting adults to decide..... Though the very nature of society and state, will always incur moral judgement.... For example the "State" judges that paedophilia is immoral.....Solely based upon the rights of the individual, would you say that this is an unreasonable moral judgement?

An appeal to atrocity is undeniably atrocious.

Each individual (including children) should be treated as SOVEREIGN INDIVIDUALS.

It is important to draw a bright line protecting PERSONAL PRIVACY.

Suspected atrocity should never be carte-blanche for the state to violate PERSONAL PRIVACY.

Any crime reported by anyone (including children) should be investigated thoroughly and seriously - without violating CIVIL RIGHTS.

Well, atrocity is a collective decision...A social or "state" judgement that takes precedence over the rights of the individual..... Which was the point I was making.

"The state has absolutely no reason".......I would suggest that state/ society always has good reason to consider the implications of issues that may effect it.

All humans have three primal moral instincts,

(1) PROTECT YOURSELF

(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY

(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY

Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime.

I would disagree.

Instinctively:

1. Fight or flight.

2. Survival at all cost.

3. Property is irrelevant.

What you promote as instinct I would regard as social expectation and materialism.

I would suggest that real instinct is anarchy, and "moral instinct" is the expectation of "THE COMMUNITY"....It's perhaps a case of the evolution of matter over mind.

These apply to all mammals.

Even a squirrel will turn violent when cornered.

Bears, apes, wolves, rabbits will all fight to defend their young, but not always "to the death" (see rule one).

Lions, chipmunks, dogs and cats will all fight to defend their territory, but will usually abandon their territory to defend their young (see rule two), and will often (but not always) abandon their young to defend themselves (see rule one).

This is summarized (not countermanded) by your rule two "Survival at all cost".  Individual survival is meaningless (from an evolutionary standpoint) if your children do not reach maturity.  And survival is impossible without access to resources (property).

1. In a corner is in a corner.    A squirrel will always try to run and evade if threatened.

2. Protect if possible, though when the odds are stacked against run and try again.

3. See rule 2.

The survival of the adult and it's breeding potential is paramount...Abandon and try again is often the only option.

Concept over instinct is an evolved human tendency.