You seem to be thinking of the labels 'male' and 'female'; but I was referring to 'sex' as biologically reproduced characteristics, and 'gender' as sociologically reproduced characteristics. The labels are statistically consistent, but the concepts are quite different. Sex is stored in our genes whereas gender is stored in cultural artifacts.
There are many possible hormonal modes and they are expressed dynamically, not deterministically, even within the same body. Hormonal behavior can be learned, it's not purely deterministic. People can be trained to habitually perform certain kinds of behaviors and postures that may not feel natural, and can grow into them, just as people can be trained, pressured, shamed: to carry certain attitudes or use certain language, to eat certain foods, to exercise certain muscles... but not others.
Nature and nurture are not clearly separable as biological and social reductionists like to think. They intermingle in countless ways on multiple scales. People exist on many spectrums, and are dynamic, not predetermined.
Totally agree. This is the "fuzzy overlap" to which I referred in my OP. I use the word 'fuzzy' because we just don't know how nature and nurture affect each other.
