There are no sexual genders, we are what we like.
Executive summary
The claim "There are no sexual genders, we are what we like" collapses separate concepts that science and major expert bodies treat distinctly: sex (biological attributes), gender identity (an individual's internal sense of being male, female, both, neither, or something else), and sexual orientation (who one is attracted to) — each is conceptually and empirically different [1] [2]. The best current evidence shows biology contributes to gender identity and sexual orientation while social and psychological factors matter too, and many researchers and agencies treat gender as both a lived social role and an inner sense rather than simply "what one likes" [3] [4] [5].
1. What the words mean and why that matters
Major consensus efforts, including a National Academies panel, explicitly separate "sex," "gender identity," and "sexual orientation" because conflating them undermines measurement, policy, and health care; sex usually refers to biological characteristics, gender to social roles and internal identity, and sexual orientation to emotional/romantic/sexual attractions [1] [2] [4]. Treating gender as merely preference — "what we like" — ignores this consensus and the pragmatic need to measure distinct constructs for research and services [1].
2. Biology is part of the story, not the whole story
A body of neurobiological and developmental research finds that prenatal hormones and brain development contribute to both gender identity and sexual orientation, supporting a durable biological component in many cases, though mechanisms remain incompletely mapped and findings are sometimes small or mixed [3] [6]. Reviews note clear evidence for biological contributions while also emphasizing methodological limits and that biology does not account for every individual variation [3] [7].
3. Gender can be experienced as fluid and socially shaped
Experimental and psychological work shows gender identity can shift in response to perceptual and social contexts, and contemporary theories often conceptualize gender on a spectrum rather than a binary — a framework that implies both internal sense and social influence are important [5]. Longitudinal and survey data also document that sexual desires, attractions, behaviors, and sometimes identities can change over time for some people, which complicates any assertion that gender or orientation are purely fixed preferences [8].
4. Why saying "we are what we like" misfires analytically
Equating gender with liking collapses identity and attraction: sexual orientation describes who someone is attracted to, whereas gender identity is about self‑experience and role; empirical and policy work treats these as co-existing but distinct axes because the lived realities, health needs, and discrimination patterns differ across them [3] [2] [9]. Conflating the two risks erasing intersex, transgender, nonbinary, and other experiences that neither fit a simple "preference" model nor are adequately explained by attraction alone [1] [4].
5. Debates, dissenting voices, and potential agendas
There are active debates: some scholars and commentators stress biological bases; others emphasize social construction or note weak/contradictory findings in brain studies, and some organizations with ideological goals selectively cite research to support policy positions [8] [7]. Consensus reports (e.g., NASEM) aim to steer measurement and policy toward nuance, while advocacy and political groups may push simpler narratives that serve legal, moral, or organizational aims [1] [10].
6. Bottom line and limits of this synthesis
The weight of interdisciplinary science and expert consensus does not support the claim that "there are no sexual genders" or that gender is merely a matter of liking; instead, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation are distinct, overlapping, and shaped by biological, developmental, and social factors — with variation and legitimate uncertainty remaining in the details [1] [3] [4]. This briefing draws on the cited consensus reports and reviews; it cannot adjudicate every contested study or settle unresolved mechanistic questions about brain development and identity, which require ongoing research [3] [7].