I can see the benefit of standardized sprites, but the male ones seem to have a feminine skeletal structure. They need a tad broader shoulders, narrower hips and thighs, and due to the hips the legs wouldn't have so much of a gap between them.

Not only genitals and chest. The skeleton is broken and adjusted too.

The constructionist ideology, which gender theory is based on has long since been debunked. The study that did it is not even that new and was done around Scandinavian countries.

Just because someone reads 300 pages of anything doesn't make them an expert. I’ve read Judith Butler, Jack Halberstam, Julia Serano, Susan Stryker, and Kate Bornstein, and even with that, I wouldn’t call myself an expert either. Gender theory is an evolving academic and lived field, not something you can “solve” by speed-reading a few hundred pages. The John Money case. (which would have been easier to research if you cited the source), is tragic yes, but it’s not the foundation of gender theory.

Saying gender theory "lacks definitions" ignores that language evolves. “Man” and “woman” have always been culturally and historically fluid, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. That’s not a weakness of theory, that’s a sign it’s dealing with real human complexity..

As for pronouns being “narcissistic”: we already use preferred names and titles all the time. You don’t call someone “Bob” if they go by “Robert,” and you don’t call a doctor “Ms.” because you don’t feel like saying “Dr.” Respecting identity isn’t narcissism. It’s empathy and social construct. Regarding gender dysphoria in children, yes, young minds are impressionable. But every major medical association (APA, AAP, AMA, WPATH) agrees that affirming care saves lives. The idea of “social contagion” or “induced disorder” has been thoroughly debunked and criticized for poor methodology and political bias. At the end of the day, gender theory isn’t about forcing people to change. It’s about giving people the freedom to be who they are, without fear. (Do I agree with it? Not really, but who am I judge) If you want to debate it seriously, we need more than buzzwords, bad science, and tired Reddit arguments. I can side with some of what you said, but the majority of it is just bad research

I hadn’t heard of the David Reimer case before, so I decided to actually research it myself This took roughly 2 hours of reading his studies and the case, and it turns out there's way more to it than the version you cited. It’s a deeply tragic story, but using it to discredit all of gender theory is really cherry-picking. The case involved unethical experimentation by Dr. John Money.

What I took from this:

David was kept in the dark for years.
Money misled the scientific community.
These actions would never pass modern ethics board approval.
The Reimer case was designed to prove a theory, not help a patient.
Money ignored signs that the approach was harming David.

No real consent
Harmful interventions
Deception
Exploitation of children

Textbook example of unethical medical and psychological experimentation: which ended in suicide of both twins. (May not have been due to that as one twin was schizophrenic, losing his brother may have led to his suicide) (speculation)

It’s honestly wild how many people make sweeping statements and expect others to just nod along without question, like we’re not living in the age of Google or can’t pick up a book from Amazon. If you’re going to reference something as serious as the David Reimer case, at least read the full story, not just some online summary that fits your worldview. I read As Nature Made Him by John Colapinto, it’s 320 pages and gives the full, detailed account of what actually happened. The story is way more complicated and heartbreaking than people make it out to be. It’s not a mic drop moment for any “side” of the debate. If anything, it shows the danger of treating people like experiments and using real lives to prove ideological points. Blindly repeating something without verifying it isn’t strength, it’s laziness. You are either intentionally misleading yourself or others. Shame you can't be better.

Follow-up Maybe read The True Story of John/Joan sometime. It's not hard to read, is it?

We dig up 1000's of year old mummies and easily tell the gender but you confused dipshits can't figure things out.