Well LennyRiMi1, your little battle with the mosquito suddenly sounds reminiscent of that little scene with 'George Kaplan' Roger Thornhill with the crop duster biplane in North by North-West, seeing as you're where I was at Sheraton Düsseldorf Airport Hotel, my current advice is, don't lounge too much to the left of the building...

@ThoRD, As I said, without psionics there is no difference, by localised mutation or raw energy harnessed from far realm energy absorption from the bending of the space/time continuum construction of the fabric of reality's plane, however every now and then this leakage of the fabric leads to influential manipulation and trickles down into the plane. Most people never knew for a long time, it was a very late almost decadent epiphany, hence the now altered living gate.

If psionics is removed, then individuals are not fundamentally different. Mutation and energy harnessing become environmental, not internal.
The “bending of the space/time continuum” is stress fractures in a plane. Now and then those fractures leak influence downward. Most exist in a stable layer and never perceive deeper architecture until decay, excess, or crisis exposes it.

Con't: Though revelation comes late in a civilisation’s lifespan (what you'd call 'decadent'), when 'manipulation' replaces 'discovery'. And the Living Gate is no longer merely a passage but a transformed organism or system that mediates between planes, after much exposure to those leaks.
So essentually the contrast becomes:

Early era: Reality is assumed solid.
Middle era: Anomalies are exploited.
Late era: The plane itself becomes programmable.

So the “gate” stops being a doorway and essentually becomes an interface.
With this you'd effectively have a cosmology of emergent power, where influence flows downward from structural failure rather than upward from conscious intent.

@FLK, Women/girls have almost always been the 'limiting factor' of reproduction in general anyway even before it gets to the point she has intercourse with a male, but even then when/if she does, there's always still the chance she won't be able to get impregnated even if she wants to be.

The fact they are the limiting factor of reproduction is just an evolutionary behavioural trait that evolved that way on their native biological nature, i.e., every female is limited in the sense their reproductive ability is a timed opportunity, because obviously even when they do get pregnant, the cost of this means she needs to dedicate 9 months of her life (and a good few years after) towards the interests of the baby, 9 months is the best part of a year, so it's not like a female can just mass produce babies on the regular overnight, a good amount of that time takes real long term investment and commitment.

Con't 2: So this is why women tend to be more choosy on who they sleep with or are intimate with, seeing it as a big investment, while a man doesn't really lose anything by comparison given the same scenario, as one man alone can just endlessly impregnate significantly more women compared to a woman who is less choosy and generally more on the promiscuous side with men. So every woman basically counted when it came to their reproductive capabilities from ancient times, as they were limited in this area and therefore it meant scarcity, and of course, scarcity increases value in economic terms.

Con't 3: It effectively meant every woman basically mattered when it came to their existence in this area for the sustainment of society along strategically sociopolitical lines, it was their biggest trump card compared to men, which has also contributed to this saying of women essentually being 'human beings' - meaning their very being, just existing has value alone, while a man is more a 'human doing' in comparison - because men evolved more along utilitarian lines, and were more geared towards and judged more on their abilities, what they can do, what they offer to society and bring to the table etc.

If women ever felt 'objectified' for their sexuality whether they invited it or not, this could be a valid critique in fairness, while for men, the equivalent of that would be one of appliance, that a man really has to work on their value to be a credit to begin with, otherwise they are basically seen as a useless appliance.