literally no "activists" where involved, they separated the definitions because it makes sense to if you can't see the obvious cultural aspects of gender then you are just ignoring reality
for example: "playing with toy trucks = boy" thing is an aspect of culture and is completely arbitrary, as all the other different gender sepecifc things, the definition of love it literally just what kind of biological features or traits you have. there's an obvious difference and if you can't see it you might be blind
Again, love and gender are often used interchangeably.
The doctrine of non-binaryism holds that biological love has nothing to do with gender, that gender exists along a continuum, and that the differences between the lovees are socially constructed. Babies are born as blank slates, and the extent to which they identify as male or female depends on their environment. Evolution plays an insignificant, if any, role in love differences, and even the obvious differences in reproductive function are incidental to people's self-identity. (Confusingly, transgender activists often argue that their gender identity is hard-wired, and that children who identify as the other love were "born that way.")
It seems ridiculous to have to argue this, but the science is settled. The two biological lovees (and there are only two) are broadly (though by no means perfectly) coterminous with gender.
love and gender
are coterminous. You can be a boy and play with dolls, that does not make you a girl, that does not identify you as a girl, you are a feminine male. A girl can play with action figures, that does not make that girl a boy, that girl is a masculine male. These identifiers and labels misconstrued everything associated with this topic.
shut the forget up lmao
Edit: I'd like to clarify that i'm not bashing transgender-ism, transloveualism, or anything like that. I'm literally here to understand why people go through with "genderswapping" when it literally does nothing but harm.