a fabulous essay called "Axiomatic" (her introduction to her book Epistemology of the Closet) that explores (among other things) that idea-- that people are distinguished by so many things and preferences, are so complicated- gender is only one of them.  If you don't know her body of work around queer/gender studies, you should check it out.

humans seem to have a lot of duals, or pairs of things, eyes, ears, nostrils, arms, legs, feet, hands, lungs, balls, breasts, sides of the brain; its a long list if you get into detail.

Not me, I'm female! LOL!

bilateral symmetry.  Our body is built by cells dividing, and doing different things after dividing.  The simplest way to make a body is for the two cells to do the same thing, but mirror-opposite of its sister cell--because the axis of division defines a "direction" the cell can easily sense.

The same underlying cause is responsible for our recognizing pairs in the world around us:  two is the next number after one.  A cell is a cell; to make more, the simplest thing to do is make two.  An idea is an idea; the simplest way to take a more complex view of the world is to subdivide that idea into two parts.  Mind/body, left/right, up/down, in/out.  Same thing with sex:  there are plenty of bacteria that simply divide asexually, but animals (and plants, and fungi) do something more complex.  The simplest thing we could do is to have two sexes; it was advantageous, so we do.  Three (or four) sexes might provide an even bigger advantage, but it is even more complex and therefore a harder system to maintain.  Apparently, three or four sexes simply aren't worth the trouble at a biological level.

Sex is what your underoos are covering.

In a pun-intended nutshell...

they think it is more polite or genteel to use 'gender' (don't say the 's' word!), and genuinely don't realize there is a difference.

as a grammatical term; it's something words have, only imperfectly related to the sex of the referent. (I was exposed to foreign languages at a much earlier age than most Americans seem to be.)
Then in the sixties it seemed to me that people were using "gender" as a euphemism for "sex."
Only later did I notice some people making the sort of distinction this diary points to.
I'm still not convinced that the euphemistic use is an "increasing misuse." My impression is still that it was there first, and what is here considered the more accurate usage is really a more recent development. Or maybe it's just that most of us aren't aware of any difference between our own "sex" and "gender," and so it seems that the distinction is more an affectation of a minority.
Does anyone know the real history of the term?
In any case I am biologically male, psychologically more male than female, and orientation I'll deal with when that is polled.

I've "leaped" into the next broad age category this year.

Love Dean and the 50 State Strategy!

Not so much.....;)

As long as you get sex, right?

well -- at least in the WaPo's view.  Remind me to tell you the story about Leonard Downie, Juan Williams and the columnist Judy Mann (she died a couple of years ago).
Okay, I'll consider myself reminded.
Juan Williams was at the top of his game at the Post when the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings started.  He wrote columns defending Thomas, what a great guy he was, how he was being mistreated.
Turns out that Williams had "stumbled" into his own little harassment problem.  Apparently he had been annoying a number of women on the Post staff with comments, hitting on them, etc.  Complaints were made but nobody did anything.  Finally a group of women (as I remember it was 7 or more) stormed into Downie's office and demanded he do something.  Poor Juan -- he was forced to apologize.  Such a terrible punishment.
Meanwhile, Downie decided that Judy Mann, an excellent columnist who had been in the Metro section, was too "shrill" (yes, he used that word) and he demoted her to the style section.
And no one did anything about the lack of ethics Williams showed in writing about Thomas' harassment issue while neglecting to admit he was having a little problem himself.
I confronted Downie about this when he appeared in a panel discussion -- he gave me the same look Bush gives when people dare to criticize the emperor.

go read chick lit and eat bon bons or something that doesn't tax my poor little brain too much.

2:1 male last time

hopefully table fits better for most viewers now.