There's a sociological difference between gender and sex. Describing yourself as a s/he doesn't really make you a man or a woman (equivalently a boy or a girl).^[1] When people ask one to act like a boy or girl, they're demanding that you assign that particular socially defined gender stereotype to yourself, it's not a literal reference to your sex. Albeit, it isn't mathematically precise language but then again, English rarely is.

Counter to counter: There is an assumption that S.U does exist in an auction or a perfect democracy.^[2] It's an ideal, sometimes reached.

1. ^ http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/
2. ^ http://www.jstor.org/pss/1837420

'Act like a girl(or boy or lady)' is a perfect example of this. How can a girl not act like a girl? It's logically impossible. Unless you admit that when you are something, you aren't acting. Even that's illogical, since you can't act like what you are; you are what you are.^[1][2]

Counterargument:

But even gender stereotypes are not exactly defined, what is lady-like/girlie to me may not be girlie to you. Isn't the premise behind gender assignment that the sovereign assigns it to him/herself, where does social definition come in? Since when is society unanimous about anything?

1. ^ http://warisacrime.org/content/shockingly-office-told-diplomats-act-cia-was-cia
2. ^ http://newsone.com/nation/news-one-staff/report-black-students-told-to-act-like-slaves/

It's about fitting in with the rules exercised by the majority in a group. People tell you how Pakistani/British people behave, when they feel you are not fulfilling a nationally-defined-general-rule-of-behavior (whether this exists only in theory or not). Some people call this group ethic or tribal rules, they may not be entirely accurate; but that doesn't matter outside the mathematician's realm.^[1][2][3] It's like saying 'Stop there, you're in the company of certain people, observing certain intrinsically observed rules and it is your obligation to at least try to fit in'. Whether it's a 50 year old English Professor who insists on being called 'Old Tommo'(even though it doesn't suit him at all) or a Pakistani woman who could be Osama Bin Laden's(an Arab BTW) twin sister, who persists that you don't know how to act like a Pakistani, even though you've lived here almost all your life in the company of throngs of fellow Pakistanis, it is mandatory to follow these assigned rules so as not to offend anyone and then get ostracized or killed. It's better that they/we tell each other what criterion we want to box each other in, before taking drastic measures. It's the civilized way of doing things.

1. ^ http://www.hublebas.co.uk/about/group-values.aspx
2. ^ http://www.paganlibrary.com/ethics/group_ethics.php
3. ^ http://ezinearticles.com/?Understanding-Group-and-Personal-Ethics---Nu-Leadership-Series&id=419973

It has nothing to do with a set national identity(as no such thing is set anywhere in the world).

It's a form of exclusion: We know how to behave you don't; but then again that's probably because you're not really one of us.^[1]

But it's also a kind of inclusion: We invite you to behave like us, so you can learn to be one of us, the tribal/fraternity test/trial/tribulation training thing.^[2]

Either way, grouping or tribal-regulation is all very primitive, advanced civility is sitting at the apex of Maslow's pyramid accepting everyone and everything as they/we are^[3]. But who can do that, except the Dalai Lama?

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
2. ^ http://www.futurehealth.org/populum/page.php?f=The-Psychology-of-Family-by-Saberi-Roy-101118-18.html
3. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

If someone is born German and doesn't know anything about German culture or the German language, then that person cannot really be conceived ('conception' pun) as being German.^[1][2][3] It isn't about genetics or official status, it's about fitting in with social norms accepted and understood by everyone in a community and if you don't understand these rules, you aren't part of that community and that's that.^[4]

Counterargument: They are, but the fact that they are deemed outcasts/oddballs means that they are not socially accepted as members of that class/grade; even though there is no denying that they are. You are not part of a group if the group does not accept you.

1. ^ http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=coconut
2. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-Born_Confused_Desi
3. ^ http://www.facebook.com/pages/I-hate-it-when-white-people-think-they-are-black/236743669078
4. ^ http://tarifree.com/2011/05/in-white-folks-who-think-they%E2%80%99re-black-news-kim-zolciak-says-her-baby-daddy-thinks-she%E2%80%99s-sexy/

But doesn't the official rendering of a status entail that you are part of a group whether you fit in or not. Are student oddballs in a classroom not students of that class? Of course they are.^[1]

1. ^ http://www.colorq.org/articles/article.aspx?d=2001&x=raceless

If you lecture your junior or your children to work hard and blah blah blah i believe that you are completely wrong.......in my opinion everyone should live their lives as they want and given full choice..........if you burden your opinions on them and they are not able to achieve success you will be the rason no matter if you wanted their good or bad.............but if they have their choice and fail you will not be pointed out and you can proove that you were right and help them work again.....so in my opinionpeople should not lecture anyone cause the other person would feel it like wastage of time and will not implement it in his life and will live the way he loves to.........