Please stop using the term "genders" instead of Sexes.

There's no such thing as "gender", a word defined by feminism 50 years ago as "a social construct that creates an illusion of two sexes which in and of themselves have no basis in biology", the definition replacing the 1930s meaning that the word used to have (when it was rarely used and found exclusively in highbrow medical books), of "sex as sex at birth as opposed to sex as sexual intercourse", while the feminist definition became by the 1990s the only meaning of "gender" (the fact that the word was practically not in use by the 1970s made it available to feminism as if it was a newly-coined term, hence the slow popularization since then was with the feminist meaning - social construct; that is, this is now what the word means). The concept behind the feminist term "genders" is used for denying masculinity and femininity as two innate sets of characteristics, which in turn is used for demanding the rewriting of manhood and maleness through oppressive measures, under the pretext that they have no basis in biological reality and with presenting anything male as violent and damaging (a similiar oppressive effort to delete femaleness is directed at women as well, albeit, and in contrast to maleness persecution - to a much lesser extent, with much less violent zeal, without portraying femaleness as inherently evil, and as being only a suggestion, a matter of a woman's personal choice, rather than as an obligatory moral imperative that a man is not entitled to have a choice about).

When you write "gender" you are writing "a social construct that has no basis in biology and creates an illusion that humanity has two sexes". Every time you are saying or writing the word "gender" you are helping to spread the gender cult beliefs. Write "sexes". I'm so sorry that you can't change what the word means for hundreds of millions of people, who have not yet been completely trapped by the cult but are confused about the words sex versus "gender", a confusion that is being harnessed by the cult to recruiting support for its delusions. I'm so sorry that explaining to hundreds of millions of people that in 1930 in a medical book, "gender" meant sex at birth and not "social construct" and that this is what you meant by the word, is not something you can do each time you use the word. They understand only "social construct" and for them this is what you are saying, and by that you become for them yet another person who acknowledges the lie of no-sexes, thus strengthening its validity. This universal deaf-talk around the word "gender" is what creates in millions the false impression that hundreds of millions accept the delusion (because they are using the term and the term is understood as "social construct"), causing many to think that they should accept the delusion too. Use "sexes".

Up until 10 years ago not even feminists used "genders" when referring to the sexes - read feminist books from the 1990s and early 2000s, they wrote Sexes. Everyone used only the word Sexes - books, academy, newspapers, television, the public. The spreading of the word "gender" is very new and is the spreading of a concept, not of syllables, the concept being the "seed-idea": "social construct, social construct". This is literally a type of brainwashing, one in which through an ambiguity of a term (genders) combined with tainting the other term (sexes) as "not politically correct, impolite, rude" causing people to feel embarrassed of using it until it goes extinct, a society is driven into self-brainwashing (every person feeling obliged to use "genders" and every person suspecting that when the others are using it they mean 'social construct', which leads to an impression in many that there might be a vast majority accepting the 'social construct' concept, causing many to join in; the actual number of believers thus grows, the spin of the mind-harvesting wheel thereafter accelerates, to recruit more in a faster paste, until a society goes mad). Wake up. Go back to Sexes.

A comment in anticipation of criticism from traditional men's rights activists who tend to endorse the feminist concept of "genders" as "social molds" and think of maleness as "captivity" in "social norms": I do believe that there's an intermediate path for you (and for feminists) in which you can continue believing that manhood and womanhood are partly social molds, and at the same time avoid the current extremely popular radicalization of this concept with its violent consequences to men (and to women): you could, for example, use the term Sexes and instead of defining sexes as "genders" which creates a public belief that sexes do not exist, add that some minor characteristics of the two sexes are not necessarily innate but originate from cultures, and name those, for example, "cultural sexes attributes" (this leaves open the question of whether such mild and usually superficial cultural attributes reflect a deeper biological source which is only manifested in culture but is not caused by it and hence rewriting it is not "liberation" but oppression, or are they formed strictly by culture - and I believe this question should be indeed regarded as an open question, factually it is an open question in many respects). I think that considering the enormous damage to human lives caused by all the beliefs originating from the term "genders", using a long descriptive definition instead of one word would be a small price for you to pay, and a responsible choice.