In the Light of October 21 (1748), Man does not kill the woman, the writer stressed that only two are the sexes, “Males and females: those who pre-dispose us to our own behavior; (...) It is interesting to distinguish between sex and gender. Gender nuances, consolidates, increases, enjoys the sexual difference”. He listed the differences between men and women, claiming, if I have understood correctly, that women are different from men: “We need different views of women – especially men –”.

When we started making lists of differences between men and women – therefore, only by sex – very fond of sport in cafes, bars and gastronomic societies – I got a constant question. How good is it for us to believe in this supposed “sexual pre-availability”, or in that essence that I find suspicious of God? Tailor has put some rather risky examples, but nevertheless, who really knows if a behavior, such as playing with dolls or weapons, making road pawns or taking him to jail, is the one that has made the penis or the vulgo? Whether or not you believe in that, there will be so much research against it. But above all: What does it take us to think, yes, that's it? Do you see anything seemingly obvious? Will the Minutes be taken? And what consequences does that have between men and women who do not follow the behavior that the essence “pre-disposes” them? Going back to your examples, if the girls’ tendency to dolls is supposedly “natural,” what is it that a girl has a tendency to play with guns? What would the people around us feel? Do we let you choose your games at peace? What do we achieve with this belief in essence, that the whole of society should be free to choose our behaviors or that they should strongly impose the most alienating models of “equality” (with others of the same sex) and of “difference” (with the other sex)?

A lot of feminism claims the difference, those who talk about essences... How do we understand difference or diversity? One of the basic norms of this nature that frightens feminism and that claims essentialism is precisely to create different beings (not clones) to ensure life. But different, each being. Those who enumerate the characteristics of men and repeat the differences they have with regard to the characteristics of women put the red line in a single variable (hankartea). The nature they proclaim, on the contrary, places the red line around each being and establishes combinations between one thousand and one variables. If we look at people honestly, we would realize that there are more exceptions than the rule. That the rule of nature is precisely that of pre-programming infringements. Just in case, come whatever comes, so that we can survive as beings. We must thank those who do not follow “pre-available”, that is, those who do not care if this behavior is recommended by sex or by society. Because they all open up the possibility of another behavior, and the rule of survival as a species is an infringement.

Answer to Sastre's only example: Each example can give rise to an article of opinion – the promotion of debate is not an easy contribution – I cannot resist: “I will be eclipsed, but behind the gaze of a man following a woman’s butt (testicle, prostate, penis), I see a sexual apparatus and, behind the desire to be beautiful of the woman, I see a uterus.” Just as the phrase is made, the mind of the readers plays to guess what is said “behind the desire to be beautiful of the woman”. In this same phrase we have seen a sexual apparatus (with its ravine, prostate and penis) associated with the conduct of men in our imagination, when the time has come for the example of women, the imagination of this reader has not been able to represent the whole sexual apparatus of women. And that "womb," ha, ha, ha, has cooled my mind from blows. How do we women move through the womb? Some in our life, some 0, others one, others two, three, four ... On the contrary, we are pottorberos throughout life – if there are studies about it and what is easier, ask the women in the area – so if you have to pretend it seems beautiful, if you have to pair with the women’s sexual apparatus, it will be more related to some part of the sex you haven’t mentioned. And yes, of course, the pottorberos are also staring at each other's snares.