I think a lot of people who are “gender critical” or traditionalist in regards to trans issues could benefit from thinking a lot more creatively and with curiosity. I’m often a bit depressed by this kind of thinking from people who are often broadly open minded in other ways. At the same time, I’m not convinced by the argument that you’re making here. I’m not a biologist and have only a superficial understanding of it, but it seems to me that the idea that sex is biological but gender is socially constructed makes a lot of sense, and affords people of one sex to express any given gender identity that seems right and natural for them. Again, perhaps a deeper understanding of the science would bring me closer to your position but I’m having some difficulty understanding why broadening the definition of sex is critical to protecting trans rights? I share your concerns about closing down gender affirming clinics and I see and hear bigotry directed at trans people a lot at my job(I work in construction). I guess in some ways it just seems to me like these types of arguments won’t really help bring transphobic people any closer to opening their minds up. I’m also willing to admit that I could be wrong about this, however, and I’m open to any reading or other information you might suggest that could persuade me otherwise. Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.
First off, thanks for your comment. Secondly, I want to be clear that I’m not making a utilitarian claim related to trans liberation. I’m making claims about objective reality. Sex as commonly understood is basically a taxonomical distinction that papers over a huge amount of diversity and complexity in human sexual morphology and refers to nothing specific in itself. On that level, I think it’s up to believers in the current definition of sex to justify its usefulness and demonstrate that it has some relationship to the categories of man and woman, which again, predate current biological sciences by tens of thousands of years. Given that, it seems trivially true that the categories of man and woman needn’t be meaningfully connected to what is presently defined as “sex.” So again I’d say it’s on believers in the meaningfulness of that definition to justify why it shouldn’t be changed. Especially since its only relevance outside of the medical specialty seems to be a way to insist on a “real” difference between trans and cis people.
Third and relatedly, what this means is that defining a person as a biological woman or man is just an ideological project masquerading as a scientific one. As used it refers to an expansive and definitely non binary spectrum of traits. If one wants to use “sex” to distinguish between those capable of one or another part sexual reproduction, that’s fine I guess? But in this case it means it’s only a speculative and normative category when applied to people who A) haven’t demonstrably procreated or B) haven’t had their chromosomes tested and their fertility checked. Since this is obviously not how we use the concept of “biological sex,” it follows that any employment of the concept as such is not, contrary to what proponents would have you believe, factually or scientifically correct. It’s better to admit the truth: we use the phrases man and woman to refer to typical groupings of traits, with an implied connection to people’s hypothetical biological characteristics and functions that has only developed in recent centuries.
Lastly, I really don’t care who’s convinced by these ideas or not. The truth is more interesting and compelling in the long run than what is merely persuasive in the near term. I’d argue the popular and widespread (and false imo) dichotomy you point to between sex and gender is an example of the rhetorical harms of not insisting that both biological sex as defined in recent centuries AND current conceptions of gender are nothing more, could never be more, than socially constructed outgrowths of ideological projects. Sex and gender have always just been the same thing.
You’ve raised a lot of interesting points here, thanks for the response:) Regarding your last point about persuasion, perhaps you are right. I tend to focus on being persuasive because I’ve had some isolated successes moving people on some issues and I’ve been moved myself. But it’s kind of a fools errand when it comes to people who are dug in with bigoted thoughts. And I think it’s very clear you are engaged in a search for what’s true and interesting, as am I, even if we arrive at different conclusions.
I think some things seem pretty clear about this issue and others not so much. We’re a sexually dimorphic species, with only one reproductive strategy, small vs large gamete producers, with correspondingly different anatomy in most cases with the exception of intersex people. It’s the idea of the means of reproduction rather than the eligibility that is salient here. Defined this way I find it difficult to understand how sex could be considered a social construct-many other species have this same reproductive strategy but were the only ones who have a socially constructed gender, as far as I know. I know some people have suggested sex is a spectrum but I’d be a little out of my depth debating the facts there. To me it seems like the idea of biological sex has some utility, and it affords us as a species to have as much flexibility with our gender as each of us requires individually. I think it’s sad that people would use this biological reality as a cudgel against trans people, and I think that’s small minded thinking. I’m a cisgender male who is comfortable with a male gender, I realize that might result in a bias on my part here. But I also want everyone to be comfortable and happy in their own skin, whatever their gender identity may be, and I hope one day our society is more accepting of trans people than it is now. We seem to see this issue differently but I hope it’s clear that I’m just expressing my opinion based on my reading of biology. I think the human experience is infinitely varied and trans people are a part of that incredible diversity. Thanks for giving me a lot to think about:)
Lol I can hear some republican congressman now “if we let the woke mind virus destroy biological sexes, it won’t be long before they redefine the whole concept of the species!”😂😂But yeah, all these taxonomies are far from perfect, you’re right. Maybe there’s sort of a Platonic ideal that is being grasped though. I mean, a person with XXY chromosomes still has a Y from their father and an X from their mother. Yes they are perhaps on a “spectrum” of maleness or femaleness that may or may not affect their gender identity, but I don’t think it’s society that is necessarily defaulting this person as male, it’s the presence of a Y chromosome. And yes, in this case that defaulting would be erroneous, but we’re talking about relatively rare cases here. If the presence of such cases means that sex is on a spectrum, well, that could be, it’s certainly fair to consider. Like I said, I do think I’m a bit out of my depth debating this, but I appreciate you giving me a lot to think about. I actually think you made a stronger case for your argument in your responses than Scientific American did, it’s given me some things to ponder. I’ll pop my head up here again if something else occurs to me that would add some value to this conversation, but thanks for taking the time to respond:)
Lmao well, republicans will say an ol' shit to reinforce their supposedly natural hierarchies so of course they've got no qualms with misrepresenting scientific complexities. Rigorous materialism has always been anathema to their whole project. I appreciate the chance to discuss these things in depth. Take care.
I appreciate your reply and I hope you’ll allow me one further response because I don’t think we’re as far away as you might think.
Fundamentally, my argument relies on three claims.
One: any attempt to taxonomize animals is definitionally non-objective. That is, human beings cannot literally be of a type (which is what a taxonomical classification is) since all human beings are genetically and physically distinct. There exists no essence beyond or under their existence which might give “real” basis for saying x being is a type of human being. This is just a utilitarian method of naming and categorizing things. See also the species problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept
Two: even if you wish to use biological taxonomies to define sex, the way average people do so is not only factually inaccurate but wholly unrelated to how biologists today think of sex in humans. (I haven’t discussed this as much because it’s been discussed so much elsewhere, including in the Scientific American article I have linked in the original post).
Three: even if it were true that biological and medical scientists use the simplistic understanding of sex, the one that is considered common knowledge and frequently deployed to imply trans people aren’t “really” the sex they say they are, which again they don’t, it would still not follow that this concept of sex is somehow necessarily related to the categories of male and female or man and woman as commonly understood.
I think i’ve dealt enough with the third for now. Instead, I’d like to illustrate the effect of first two claims by pointing to something you said in your reply: “I think some things seem pretty clear about this issue and others not so much. We’re a sexually dimorphic species, with only one reproductive strategy, small vs large gamete producers, with correspondingly different anatomy in most cases with the exception of intersex people.”
One, as pointed out, the concept of a species is, like sex, problematic. No such thing actually exists outside of the frame of reference that is evolutionary taxonomy. As such it is wholly utilitarian and has no deterministic relationship to reality. Second, it is not factually true to say, within this frame of reference, that human beings are sexually dimorphic. Human sex expression is actually a bimodal distribution, even if you limit it to gametes (some people don’t produce them) and especially if you don’t. Here’s a good review of that https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/63/4/891/7157109?login=false
Unless, of course, you just limit your definition of sex to “capable of sexual reproduction” which would again only be theoretical unless an individual’s gamete production had actually been measured and observed. But as you point out, the “anatomy” correlation is just that—a useful trend for us to have identified. The problem is that if you are just talking about gametes then a non-trivial amount of people have no sex at all, even people who are otherwise entirely “female” or “male” by other definitions of sex. This is just nonsensical.
Furthermore, this method would be misleading to the extent that it is normative. That is, to the extent that it suggest that binary “sexual types” are “normal,” and all others are deviations from a norm, when in fact no such norms actually exist. Types have no real existence in the same way cells or hormones do. As pointed to above re:the species problem, “human beings” do not even exist as a class—that’s just a useful way of talking about creatures who have certain similarities. A class whose members are mostly capable of sexual reproduction. This means that as such, humans have no “reproductive strategy.” This puts the cart before the horse. All living organisms categorized as humans exist as a result of sexual reproduction, and only those humans capable of sexual reduction will do so. Human beings both as individuals and as a group have no forward-looking teleological relationship to reproduction. Having been sexually produced is merely a commonality shared by all living organisms called human (obviously, because otherwise they wouldn’t be here). It doesn’t follow that that “reproduction” as such is somehow a real part of our being in any other sense (again obviously, because not all human beings can or do).
If you want to focus on the “means of reproduction” be my guest, but this is not how human biologists and medical professionals understand sex. Furthermore, defining sex according to gametes, again, leaves many people unsexed and turns sex into a topic of conversation relevant only with doctors and potential breeding partners. I can see the utility in that, but I fail to see how the terminology so defined could be relevant to how we actually see and use the term sex in day to day life, since what we mean by sex usually refers to many more features than this (such as genitals, as you point out). This is why I argue in my piece that the choice to focus on this aspect of sex as THE defining feature of “real” “biological” sex is an ideological one, rather that a choice about what is useful, sensible, or scientifically relevant, which is how such claims are usually presented.
Which brings me back to my original point: this all being what it is, I fail to see why the average person would need to talk about another individual’s “biological sex” unless they are doing so to imply a distinction between “real gender” and “fake gender.” I can see the usefulness in talking about population-level sexual characteristics and reproduction in educational or research settings, which is why I don’t have any issues with various definitions of sex as scientific tools, but I see no justification for talking about the “biological sex” of various individuals the way many want to do. I hope this long comment has sufficiently demonstrated what I mean when I talk about sex as a culturally contingent category rather than a real one. Ultimately not only is human sex culturally constructed, so are our concepts of sex in other species and so is the idea of a species itself. Both a fertile XX person and an infertile XXY individual would still be seen as having some correlation of traits called a biological sex, right? Well then sex can’t be real or binary on these terms, full stop. It’s just an interpretive lens with applications that are either useful or not. It is in no sense as real as the gametes, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics, among other traits, that it references.
Ultimately, all scientific questions are philosophical to some degree unless they are concerned with the question of whether or not some specific thing exists in the material world.
lmao you know you can just admit that you’re out of your depth, right? this is clearly not your area of expertise, but here’s a tip: even a fool is considered wise when he remains silent.
I have to applaud your commitment to being a lunatic online. Few people are deranged enough to spend so much of their life writing completely ignorant gibberish about things that don’t affect them. You’re special 🤡
In your response to my comment above you said your statement was not based in bigotry but it seems like you’re engaged in the literal definition of it. “Trannies like you are raping women” is certainly an example of prejudice and stereotyping of a person simply based on their identity. If you can’t see how that’s hateful I don’t have much else to say.
If you read my responses above to her post you may find that I don’t agree with the author on questions of biology and sex as a social construct, so I’m certainly not saying that one must “capitulate” to a particular agenda in order to have a respectful disagreement about a controversial subject. I try to respect people’s basic humanity, be they trans, gay, straight or whatever. In my opinion it’s a matter of human decency. I certainly won’t try to get you to accept a definition of womanhood that you are not prepared to accept, that’s not my place as a man to do so. I would only encourage you to keep the basic humanity of trans people in mind but I don’t think my brief comment here will move you much in that direction
What do you hope to accomplish by showing up here and throwing insults and personal attacks around? What grounds do you have to diagnose mental illness in someone based on a blog post? I don’t think you’re trying to make a point other than expressing your anger towards someone who it seems like has done you no wrong. It seems to me an expression of bigotry and not an attempt at good faith dialogue around an admittedly contentious issue.
I think a lot of people who are “gender critical” or traditionalist in regards to trans issues could benefit from thinking a lot more creatively and with curiosity. I’m often a bit depressed by this kind of thinking from people who are often broadly open minded in other ways. At the same time, I’m not convinced by the argument that you’re making here. I’m not a biologist and have only a superficial understanding of it, but it seems to me that the idea that sex is biological but gender is socially constructed makes a lot of sense, and affords people of one sex to express any given gender identity that seems right and natural for them. Again, perhaps a deeper understanding of the science would bring me closer to your position but I’m having some difficulty understanding why broadening the definition of sex is critical to protecting trans rights? I share your concerns about closing down gender affirming clinics and I see and hear bigotry directed at trans people a lot at my job(I work in construction). I guess in some ways it just seems to me like these types of arguments won’t really help bring transphobic people any closer to opening their minds up. I’m also willing to admit that I could be wrong about this, however, and I’m open to any reading or other information you might suggest that could persuade me otherwise. Thanks as always for sharing your thoughts.
First off, thanks for your comment. Secondly, I want to be clear that I’m not making a utilitarian claim related to trans liberation. I’m making claims about objective reality. Sex as commonly understood is basically a taxonomical distinction that papers over a huge amount of diversity and complexity in human sexual morphology and refers to nothing specific in itself. On that level, I think it’s up to believers in the current definition of sex to justify its usefulness and demonstrate that it has some relationship to the categories of man and woman, which again, predate current biological sciences by tens of thousands of years. Given that, it seems trivially true that the categories of man and woman needn’t be meaningfully connected to what is presently defined as “sex.” So again I’d say it’s on believers in the meaningfulness of that definition to justify why it shouldn’t be changed. Especially since its only relevance outside of the medical specialty seems to be a way to insist on a “real” difference between trans and cis people.
Third and relatedly, what this means is that defining a person as a biological woman or man is just an ideological project masquerading as a scientific one. As used it refers to an expansive and definitely non binary spectrum of traits. If one wants to use “sex” to distinguish between those capable of one or another part sexual reproduction, that’s fine I guess? But in this case it means it’s only a speculative and normative category when applied to people who A) haven’t demonstrably procreated or B) haven’t had their chromosomes tested and their fertility checked. Since this is obviously not how we use the concept of “biological sex,” it follows that any employment of the concept as such is not, contrary to what proponents would have you believe, factually or scientifically correct. It’s better to admit the truth: we use the phrases man and woman to refer to typical groupings of traits, with an implied connection to people’s hypothetical biological characteristics and functions that has only developed in recent centuries.
Lastly, I really don’t care who’s convinced by these ideas or not. The truth is more interesting and compelling in the long run than what is merely persuasive in the near term. I’d argue the popular and widespread (and false imo) dichotomy you point to between sex and gender is an example of the rhetorical harms of not insisting that both biological sex as defined in recent centuries AND current conceptions of gender are nothing more, could never be more, than socially constructed outgrowths of ideological projects. Sex and gender have always just been the same thing.
You’ve raised a lot of interesting points here, thanks for the response:) Regarding your last point about persuasion, perhaps you are right. I tend to focus on being persuasive because I’ve had some isolated successes moving people on some issues and I’ve been moved myself. But it’s kind of a fools errand when it comes to people who are dug in with bigoted thoughts. And I think it’s very clear you are engaged in a search for what’s true and interesting, as am I, even if we arrive at different conclusions.
I think some things seem pretty clear about this issue and others not so much. We’re a sexually dimorphic species, with only one reproductive strategy, small vs large gamete producers, with correspondingly different anatomy in most cases with the exception of intersex people. It’s the idea of the means of reproduction rather than the eligibility that is salient here. Defined this way I find it difficult to understand how sex could be considered a social construct-many other species have this same reproductive strategy but were the only ones who have a socially constructed gender, as far as I know. I know some people have suggested sex is a spectrum but I’d be a little out of my depth debating the facts there. To me it seems like the idea of biological sex has some utility, and it affords us as a species to have as much flexibility with our gender as each of us requires individually. I think it’s sad that people would use this biological reality as a cudgel against trans people, and I think that’s small minded thinking. I’m a cisgender male who is comfortable with a male gender, I realize that might result in a bias on my part here. But I also want everyone to be comfortable and happy in their own skin, whatever their gender identity may be, and I hope one day our society is more accepting of trans people than it is now. We seem to see this issue differently but I hope it’s clear that I’m just expressing my opinion based on my reading of biology. I think the human experience is infinitely varied and trans people are a part of that incredible diversity. Thanks for giving me a lot to think about:)
Lol I can hear some republican congressman now “if we let the woke mind virus destroy biological sexes, it won’t be long before they redefine the whole concept of the species!”😂😂But yeah, all these taxonomies are far from perfect, you’re right. Maybe there’s sort of a Platonic ideal that is being grasped though. I mean, a person with XXY chromosomes still has a Y from their father and an X from their mother. Yes they are perhaps on a “spectrum” of maleness or femaleness that may or may not affect their gender identity, but I don’t think it’s society that is necessarily defaulting this person as male, it’s the presence of a Y chromosome. And yes, in this case that defaulting would be erroneous, but we’re talking about relatively rare cases here. If the presence of such cases means that sex is on a spectrum, well, that could be, it’s certainly fair to consider. Like I said, I do think I’m a bit out of my depth debating this, but I appreciate you giving me a lot to think about. I actually think you made a stronger case for your argument in your responses than Scientific American did, it’s given me some things to ponder. I’ll pop my head up here again if something else occurs to me that would add some value to this conversation, but thanks for taking the time to respond:)
Lmao well, republicans will say an ol' shit to reinforce their supposedly natural hierarchies so of course they've got no qualms with misrepresenting scientific complexities. Rigorous materialism has always been anathema to their whole project. I appreciate the chance to discuss these things in depth. Take care.
I appreciate your reply and I hope you’ll allow me one further response because I don’t think we’re as far away as you might think.
Fundamentally, my argument relies on three claims.
One: any attempt to taxonomize animals is definitionally non-objective. That is, human beings cannot literally be of a type (which is what a taxonomical classification is) since all human beings are genetically and physically distinct. There exists no essence beyond or under their existence which might give “real” basis for saying x being is a type of human being. This is just a utilitarian method of naming and categorizing things. See also the species problem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept
Two: even if you wish to use biological taxonomies to define sex, the way average people do so is not only factually inaccurate but wholly unrelated to how biologists today think of sex in humans. (I haven’t discussed this as much because it’s been discussed so much elsewhere, including in the Scientific American article I have linked in the original post).
Three: even if it were true that biological and medical scientists use the simplistic understanding of sex, the one that is considered common knowledge and frequently deployed to imply trans people aren’t “really” the sex they say they are, which again they don’t, it would still not follow that this concept of sex is somehow necessarily related to the categories of male and female or man and woman as commonly understood.
I think i’ve dealt enough with the third for now. Instead, I’d like to illustrate the effect of first two claims by pointing to something you said in your reply: “I think some things seem pretty clear about this issue and others not so much. We’re a sexually dimorphic species, with only one reproductive strategy, small vs large gamete producers, with correspondingly different anatomy in most cases with the exception of intersex people.”
One, as pointed out, the concept of a species is, like sex, problematic. No such thing actually exists outside of the frame of reference that is evolutionary taxonomy. As such it is wholly utilitarian and has no deterministic relationship to reality. Second, it is not factually true to say, within this frame of reference, that human beings are sexually dimorphic. Human sex expression is actually a bimodal distribution, even if you limit it to gametes (some people don’t produce them) and especially if you don’t. Here’s a good review of that https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/63/4/891/7157109?login=false
Unless, of course, you just limit your definition of sex to “capable of sexual reproduction” which would again only be theoretical unless an individual’s gamete production had actually been measured and observed. But as you point out, the “anatomy” correlation is just that—a useful trend for us to have identified. The problem is that if you are just talking about gametes then a non-trivial amount of people have no sex at all, even people who are otherwise entirely “female” or “male” by other definitions of sex. This is just nonsensical.
Furthermore, this method would be misleading to the extent that it is normative. That is, to the extent that it suggest that binary “sexual types” are “normal,” and all others are deviations from a norm, when in fact no such norms actually exist. Types have no real existence in the same way cells or hormones do. As pointed to above re:the species problem, “human beings” do not even exist as a class—that’s just a useful way of talking about creatures who have certain similarities. A class whose members are mostly capable of sexual reproduction. This means that as such, humans have no “reproductive strategy.” This puts the cart before the horse. All living organisms categorized as humans exist as a result of sexual reproduction, and only those humans capable of sexual reduction will do so. Human beings both as individuals and as a group have no forward-looking teleological relationship to reproduction. Having been sexually produced is merely a commonality shared by all living organisms called human (obviously, because otherwise they wouldn’t be here). It doesn’t follow that that “reproduction” as such is somehow a real part of our being in any other sense (again obviously, because not all human beings can or do).
If you want to focus on the “means of reproduction” be my guest, but this is not how human biologists and medical professionals understand sex. Furthermore, defining sex according to gametes, again, leaves many people unsexed and turns sex into a topic of conversation relevant only with doctors and potential breeding partners. I can see the utility in that, but I fail to see how the terminology so defined could be relevant to how we actually see and use the term sex in day to day life, since what we mean by sex usually refers to many more features than this (such as genitals, as you point out). This is why I argue in my piece that the choice to focus on this aspect of sex as THE defining feature of “real” “biological” sex is an ideological one, rather that a choice about what is useful, sensible, or scientifically relevant, which is how such claims are usually presented.
Which brings me back to my original point: this all being what it is, I fail to see why the average person would need to talk about another individual’s “biological sex” unless they are doing so to imply a distinction between “real gender” and “fake gender.” I can see the usefulness in talking about population-level sexual characteristics and reproduction in educational or research settings, which is why I don’t have any issues with various definitions of sex as scientific tools, but I see no justification for talking about the “biological sex” of various individuals the way many want to do. I hope this long comment has sufficiently demonstrated what I mean when I talk about sex as a culturally contingent category rather than a real one. Ultimately not only is human sex culturally constructed, so are our concepts of sex in other species and so is the idea of a species itself. Both a fertile XX person and an infertile XXY individual would still be seen as having some correlation of traits called a biological sex, right? Well then sex can’t be real or binary on these terms, full stop. It’s just an interpretive lens with applications that are either useful or not. It is in no sense as real as the gametes, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics, among other traits, that it references.
Lastly, I’ll leave you with more theoretical reading if you wish to explore it. It concerns this last point, that sex and gender have always been the same thing: https://www.routledge.com/rsc/downloads/Gender_Trouble_Chapter_1.pdf
Ultimately, all scientific questions are philosophical to some degree unless they are concerned with the question of whether or not some specific thing exists in the material world.
Good lord what hot garbage.
That’s not an argument, but thanks for trying.
No point arguing with a delusional man. What is to be gained? Getting down in the muck with pigs etc
lmao you know you can just admit that you’re out of your depth, right? this is clearly not your area of expertise, but here’s a tip: even a fool is considered wise when he remains silent.
What are we if not a bunch of biological processes ?
Nothing.
I have to applaud your commitment to being a lunatic online. Few people are deranged enough to spend so much of their life writing completely ignorant gibberish about things that don’t affect them. You’re special 🤡
In your response to my comment above you said your statement was not based in bigotry but it seems like you’re engaged in the literal definition of it. “Trannies like you are raping women” is certainly an example of prejudice and stereotyping of a person simply based on their identity. If you can’t see how that’s hateful I don’t have much else to say.
If you read my responses above to her post you may find that I don’t agree with the author on questions of biology and sex as a social construct, so I’m certainly not saying that one must “capitulate” to a particular agenda in order to have a respectful disagreement about a controversial subject. I try to respect people’s basic humanity, be they trans, gay, straight or whatever. In my opinion it’s a matter of human decency. I certainly won’t try to get you to accept a definition of womanhood that you are not prepared to accept, that’s not my place as a man to do so. I would only encourage you to keep the basic humanity of trans people in mind but I don’t think my brief comment here will move you much in that direction
What do you hope to accomplish by showing up here and throwing insults and personal attacks around? What grounds do you have to diagnose mental illness in someone based on a blog post? I don’t think you’re trying to make a point other than expressing your anger towards someone who it seems like has done you no wrong. It seems to me an expression of bigotry and not an attempt at good faith dialogue around an admittedly contentious issue.