52 genders

--> @Shila

The fact that Jesus was a male suggests he had a father who contributed the Y chromosome.

There is no DNA of Jesus so far as I am aware. At best, we can say he presented himself as male. 

Luke even points to Joseph son of Heli as father of Jesus,

Well, this is awkward. 

I (non-believer) must point out you (believer) are taking that verse out of context. The author was describing the consensus of those who didnt have his 'insight'. The Gospel according to Luke describes Jesus would be born of the virgin Mary. It cannot be true that the author both thought Jesus was born of a virgin and also that Joseph was his biological father.

Luke 1:30-38

And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God. And behold, even your relative Elizabeth herself has conceived a son in her old age, and she who was called infertile is now in her sixth month. For nothing will be impossible with God.” And Mary said, “Behold, the Lord’s bond-servant; may it be done to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

--> @Shila

You can't have it both ways - either Jesus was born of a virgin or he had a biological father. Both cannot be true at the same time. 

You can't have it both ways - either Jesus was born of a virgin or he had a biological father. Both cannot be true at the same time. 

Isn't the whole gender movement to broaden it's definition such that it includes labels such as 

But those are almost all boiling down to variations of the same inherent thing; mostly just with different ascribed names. Clown, and tree - not so much 

There is no doubt that there exists a plethora of individual preferences when it comes to selecting a sexual partner, but I think that, for one to ascribe each preference a seperate "gender" (a term already heavily implications of the traditional biological definition [would be akin to describing the Big Bang as "God"]) is both misleading and unnecessary.

Gender has almost invariably been used in relation to social aspects of sex since the 1960s - gender roles, gender stereotypes, etc.

But saying that, the argument you’re making seems to be not necessarily objecting  that there are not 72 “genders” in the way that word is presented - but that you object to the word “gender” being used specifically.

--> @K_Michael

SkepticalOne: How much in-vitro fertilization do you think was occurring in the first century?!

Gender is a social concept that varies from culture to culture and often determines stuff like social roles, sexual dominance, and pronouns. Pronouns are gendered, not sexed.

Well no - because gender as a concept is used to refer to your perceptions of your own sex; and has been used for the last 60 + years to refer to the social aspects relating to physical sex. 

gender is technically a social construct. 

But you could say that about so many other things as well. For example, money. 

all the way up until about 60 years ago, people didn't do that, they used gender to identify the 2 biological sexes.

Gendered behavior isn't an inherent product of biology or psychology, otherwise it wouldn't change based on your culture and upbringing.