Male & Female - Is gender an illusion?

Male & Female - Is gender an illusion?

Gender is temporal and decaying. (A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma > Occurrence of Material Phenomena, p255 onwards)

According to Buddhism & Science there is no gender to the mind but to the body.

Gender is heart base. Heart is generally used for mind born phenomena.

When one era of a universe comes to an end almost all the beings get their birth in Brahma realm ...

In non / fine material planes there is no gender, i.e., asexual.

Gender would be an anomaly in the perspective of a being in non / fine material planes but normal in other planes. Being asexual will be an anomaly in the material planes. This is all relative.

But just like society accepting LGBT groups in our time they learn to accept this gender+sex situation.

Sexual orientation and desire is a mental construct, hence an illusion as these concepts breakdown at the level of Kalapas, but gender is an part of matter constructing the corporeal body (Rupa), which is considered and absolute truth (something that does not breakdown due to meditative scrutiny into the finer constituents).

But once you use something like Vipassana meditation to see a human being you see that there is no such thing called gender in this bag of flesh and bones

When you are Anāgāmi you lose the sexual desires. This does not mean you lose your sex. Though Vipassana you experience revulsion to the 5 aggregates. I presume not every partitioner will get the deep insights as to see the arising and passing or gender.

Is gender really an illusion or is there more to this?

This depends on what meaning you give to the word illusion. It is temporal and not always present.

So is it right to think that one illusion of the mind defined all that we are as beings?

Gender is temporary and not always present but when it is it is a fact not a mental construction, hence not and illusion, as per my thinking and understanding.

I would recommend reading it fully and answering the part that is not complicated to you.

Alright, I'll try to.

Birth of gender according to Buddhism

I think the Aggañña Sutta is a story about caste. It's saying "brahmins aren't born of God, they're born of parents like other people are." It has nothing to do with gender, nor the origin of the species. Statements in the dharmadarer PDF you linked to seem to agree with or support this assessment:

However, it is clear that the Agganna narrative is Buddhist mythology, and mythology was a common didactic tool in ancient societies.

The humorous language and imagery of such suttas is understandable as they deal with well-established ideas and norms, taken seriously especially by those who used them to legitimize their affluence and position in society.

Richard Gombrich, in his Theravada Buddhism: A social history from Benares to Colombo, remarks that the Aggañña Sutta is “an extended satire on brahminical ideas, full of parody and puns... As a debunking job I think the sermon is serious: its main aim is to show that the class system is nothing but a human invention”; however, "I cannot go here into all the reasons why I think that the positive statements in the myth are satirical and not meant to be taken literally." (1988:85). In his book, "The Buddha’s Book of Genesis" (1992a), Gombrich goes on to elaborate on the significance of the Buddha’s humour in presenting a parody and pastiche of brahmanical claims, teachings and practices.

I think it's similar to the Assalayana Sutta, and/or to verse 396 of the Dhammapada,

I do not call him a brahmana just because he is born from the womb of a brahmana mother. He is just a bhovadi brahmin if he is not free from moral defilements. Him I call a brahmana, who is free from moral defilements and from attachment.

two different Bone,Muscle,Brain,etc structures

Saying "two" is arbitrary (maybe conventional and maybe wrong). You could easily say "one" (i.e. men and women are similar), or "more than two" (i.e. different men are different from each other).

spontaneous birth - Ambapali

Wikipedia says,

Amrapali or Ambapali was born around 600-500 BC to an unknown parentage, and was given her name because at her birth she was found at the foot of a mango tree in one of the royal gardens in Vaishali.

You're saying she had no parents.

Human body,culture,way of life are all based on what gender that person belongs to.

That might be "sexism" -- i.e. "basing" the social structure on gender.

But once you use something like Vipassana meditation to see a human being you see that there is no such thing called gender in this bag of flesh and bones.

That reminds me of a couple of Saivite poems,

If they see
breasts and long hair coming
they call it woman,

"if beard and whiskers
they call it man

"but, look, the self that hovers
in between
is neither man
nor woman

"O Ramanatha"

And

"Suppose you cut a tall bamboo
in two;
make the bottom piece a woman
the headpiece a man;
rub them together
till they kindle:
tell me now
the fire that's born,
is it male or female,

"O Ramanatha?

If we are going to go that far then everything but the present moment mental and physical phenomena of our individual experience is an illusion.