Let's Chat About Gender and How Biological Sex Isn't Real

[JustAName]

I think "assigned/designated male/female at birth" goes a long way to replacing "biologically male/female" and is more accurate anyway.

[Ree]

I'm going to walk away from this for a while, for my health. Some parting thoughts:

Ix - I'm going to request that, in differences of opinion on the way forward, you defer to those most directly affected and harmed by something. In this case, I'd ask that you defer to trans & intersex people about how best to address the fact that "biological sex" is broken.

Jondare - if, by your admission, you can't give me an example where "biological sex" as a distinct concept is necessary, then why can't we abandon it in favor of specific descriptions of whatever characteristics its meant to stand for? We can describe differences in chromosomes or anatomy in their own terms, without reference to "sex" as a concept.

Memo - I appreciate it, but I tend to just ignore people whose transphobia is grounded in explicitly religious rhetoric. It's healthier that way.

Hekla - the term I (and, like, every trans person I know) would recommend is just "has XY chromosomes" or something similar. No need to dress it up in language that carries additional, harmful baggage.

Fayili's dead-on about terms like CAMAB or DFAB, but I generally prefer if birth sex-assignation is just not a thing that's discussed (since it can easily be twisted back into the same gross stuff).

Rando gross transphobe in this thread - I hope everyone you love abandons you.

[JustAName]

I've mostly seen it used wrt enbies who want to let people know what pronouns to avoid most.

[korvys]

Men and Women think and behave differently too. They are very different things, some people just THINK that they are a gender that they are not.

This idea is called Biological Determinism and is widely discredited. And you are being grossly transphobic.

[JustAName]

(Shhh don't acknowledge them, we weren't.)

[korvys]

Ah, my bad. It's such a common idea that pops up in these sort of discussions, thought I should put it down.

[Volafortis]

AMAB and AFAB are far batter than biologically male/female.

To say "biologically male/female" implies that the person is actually their at-birth designated gender, which is not necessarily true.

The fact is we have no real accurate way to biologically determine gender. (To anyone who claims trans* is a new concept, it's not. It's actually as old as humanity itself, there are plenty of histories that involve people who would, in modern times, likely be trans*.)

Something is biologically determining gender, but we know it's not chromosomes, genitals, etc... because people can have a certain set of chromosomes/genitals that is typically associated with male/female and still biologically *be* their identified gender.

That is why saying "biologically male/female" is wrong. Because being trans* is a biological thing.

[Deedles]

I just wanted to slide into the discussion for a moment to bring pause and say - Thank you all! This has been a very educational thread to read.

[MotorWaffle]

The fact that I don't have a uterus wasn't determined by social constructs. What people expect of one gender versus another did not magically cause me to sprout a penis. I developed male genitals because I have a different biological makeup than a person with a uterus. That is not a social construct. That is a fact of my being. The differences between myself and a person of traditionally "female" sex are measurable, quantifiable and observable. They are, in every sense of the word, real.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome and other such conditions are not common enough to change our entire definition of sexuality. They are pretty clearly outliers.

The way society treats the minimal percentage of the population that doesn't fall into the two standard categories of biological sex is in no way relevant to an objective discussion of whether or not biological sex does or does not exist. Is it terrible, and should we be better to each other as a species? Absolutely. Does it make a slightest difference in what is observable fact? No.

I also take issue with the framing of this discussion. Right off the bat the title of the original article posted preemptively attacked any naysayers by instantly labeling them transmysoginist. That's not how you start a discussion, that's how you start an argument. Also, I feel the discussion of gender relations in non-human animals is entirely relevant to the biologic nature of sex in mammalian life forms, be it to the credit one side or the other.

I am as accepting of trans people as I am of anyone else. It doesn't particularly affect me, nor do I see any reasonable reason I should take offense to it. Saying that biological sex is not real however is just not true. Also I'm not introducing myself as "a cis-male born with the male sex." I'm introducing myself as Mike.

[Duckay]

MotorWaffle, I think you're confusing your terminology. You are correct that Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome should not change our definition of sexuality. That is, however, because sex, gender and sexuality are not directly related like that. I think you were looking for "sex", there.

[korvys]

such conditions are not common enough to change our entire definition of sexuality.

Yes, each person has a particular set of genitals, a particular set of chromosomes, a particular set of secondary sexual characteristics, a particular gender expression, etc. These are objective facts about you.

For a very large number of people these things correlate into two main groups (i.e. cisgender men, who have a penis, XY chromosomes, etc, and cisgender women who have a uterus, XX chromosomes, etc). A subset of these attributes (mainly genitals and chromosomes) seems to be what people mean when they talk of biological sex.

I certainly don't disagree that it's convenient to have a couple of labels that are accurate for a large number of people. But it's not accurate for everyone. And in the context of the use of that language (law, medicine, psychology, etc), I don't think that's good enough.

You have not made a convincing argument as to why the relative rarity of these conditions is reason enough to not try to amend the language we use in these situations.

[JustAName]

As people have pointed out before, that intersex people are such a small portion of the population doesn't mean we should ignore them. We don't just say that hair is biologically blond, brown, or black. Redheads exist! How about that!

[Deedles]

I'm gonna awkwardly waltz into the discussion again, after pondering on the topic since last night.

I kind of feel like a better course of discussion wouldn't be whether or not biological sexes exist, but if not male and female, what names should be use, and if male and female stays, then what would those that don't fall into those neat little boxes wish to be called so we can, essentially, add them to the list.

And another thing I think, when it comes to medical forms an the like, is that Sex shouldn't be a box you tick, but a large box that you get to WRITE your answer into. That way you can answer in a way that makes you feel best represented.

[MotorWaffle]

As people have pointed out before, that intersex people are such a small portion of the population doesn't mean we should ignore them. We don't just say that hair is biologically blond, brown, or black. Redheads exist! How about that!

I never indicated we should ignore them. I said they're outliers, and that it's not reasonable to change our overall definition of biologic gender based on them. Some people don't have two arms, but that doesn't mean humans shouldn't be categorized as a symmetrical species.

[Volafortis]

Outside of medical applications, tell me one time an average person would need to know anybody else's birth sex, rather than their gender? I can't think of one, because it's not relevant.

[MotorWaffle]

You're right. In most situations a person should be seen as a person first and everything else second (if at all). Still doesn't change the existence of biological sex as an objective fact.

[Volafortis]

What exactly do you feel you gain by labeling, for instance, a trans woman, as "a biological male"

Any thing you're trying to say is already being said by the terms "trans woman" or "assigned male at birth," and it's done so in a matter that's less ambiguous and less offensive; whether intentional or not.

The word "biological" is ambiguous no matter how it's used, because being trans is biological in nature, so calling a trans woman biologically male is not only dismissive of gender, but technically false, because of the ambiguity it has regarding gender/sex.

[Avistew]

I don't think Ree was saying "let's ban the word "sex"altogether!" (although I first thought she was).

I think was she was saying was "biological sex" is the wrong phrasing, and it leads to a mentality that is not conducive to respecting several minorities, including trans people, non-binary people and intersex people.

Let's think about it for a second. When you say "biological male", you're probably thinking "penis". However a trans man has a brain that is biologically male. If they've transitioned, they have hormones and secondary sex characteristics that are biologically male. If they have undergone sex assignment surgery, they have genitals that are biologically male. As for their chromosomes, nobody knows what they are. We assume they are something and then uses that to justify calling them a female. But truth be told, chances are nobody will ever test that.

You say most people fall under male or female and it's weird to base everything on an exception. Well most people will never have their chromosomes tested so it's weird to base the whole definition of sex on something that pretty much never happens, ever.

Using "assigned [sex] at birth" is a perfectly valid definition that works for everyone. It means when you were born, the doctor said "it's a boy!" or "it's a girl!" regardless of whether that turned out to be true.

You can still say "I'm male" or "I'm female". You probably were not saying "My biological sex" in conversation before anyways. But "I was assigned male" and "I was assigned female" are not hurting you, your gender identify, your presentation or your perceived sex, and it's only an extra word. And it would definitely mean less persecution of a minority.

People who are trans and intersex are a minority yes. And I don't know about intersex people specifically, I don't know the figures. But I know trans people are still at a huge risk of being assaulted, beaten up, raped, killed, or committing suicide. The "discomfort" of adding one word here and there is nothing if it lowers the number of attacks or death.

The words "biological sex" come with the assumption that sex is something binary, easy to determine, unchangeable and birth-given. Yes what we mean, really, is "the genitals that could be seen when the person was born, as interpreted by the delivering caregiver". It does seem like a pretty flawed method and terminology when it still determines so many aspects of the person life.

[korvys]

You can still say "I'm male" or "I'm female". You probably were not saying "My biological sex" in conversation before anyways.

This is where I'm coming from. The few times you might find a use for "biologically X", are in matters of medicine or law, etc. It's formal language. Accuracy matters in those cases, and "biologically X" is simply not accurate enough for that. Even a very small minority is enough to make that true.

In normal conversation it's a bit more interesting, because we have to make assumptions for conversations to flow smoothly, but the consequences for getting it wrong are less as well. It seems like you're probably safe referring to someone based on how they present themselves, if you even need to refer to gender at all.

[Hekla]

I would like to touch on something else, but this might be a bit controversial, so sorry if I offend anybody, and I would be happy to try and discuss the following with different language or in a different way.

What I want to touch on is the idea that people have male of female brains (or even, for example, 'gay genes'). I'm somewhat uncomfortable with some of the biological determinism that that implies. I think that there are plenty of studies showing that transgender people often have a brain that more closely resembles the brains of people of their own gender, rather than what one would expect considering their genetics. I also know that there are some genes that have been linked, to some degree with sexuality.

Here's my issue with focusing too heavily on that. While it does help bring people around to the idea that LGBT people are 'born this way' and other such messages, it could conceivably be used to deny people their sexuality or gender. Having a model 'male' brain if you have female genetics doesn't necessarily mean you are male or should be male. Having a 'female' brain if you have female genetics doesn't necessarily make you a female, you could be a trans man and there is nothing wrong with that.

Not that there is anything wrong with scientific evidence showing some medical basis for sexuality or gender, but I'd treat it with a similar caution as I treat claims that the brains of men and women are vastly different in terms of function, as has been plastered all over 'popular science' publications. There will be some trends, but I don't think they should be too broadly applied for risk of being damaging.

I'm not entirely sure if that made sense, so sorry if you didn't quite catch what I was trying to say.

[Ree]

I think I follow what you're saying, Hekla, and I agree that we really don't need to discuss the etiology of sexuality or especially gender. Nobody needs to "prove" their gender to anyone.

Stuff like "brain sex" is especially problematic, because it broadly just reaffirms biological sex (especially in a binary way), which is a concept we need to abolish. To avoid veering off-topic, that's pretty much all I'll say on the matter.

Avistew, that's pretty much what I'm saying, yeah

In conversation, you (often) refer to someone by their gender (as you probably already do). Guessing at someone's gender isn't a great idea (it's better to just ask what pronouns someone uses), but you definitely refer to presentation and not assumptions about "sex" there.

[CamelKnackRambleHort]

Ree, if you feel comfortable doing so, could you answer a question for me? I am trying to fully understand your position, and I want to know if I got it correct.

Your problem is not with the scientific concept of sex, meaning the method of genetic recombination by which our species has historically reproduced that requires two distinct groups (with certain distinct traits) within a single species population. What might be called the binary sexual reproductive pattern.

Your problem is instead with people labeling a woman as "biologically a male" or a man as "biologically a female" and using that to marginalize the individuals labeled as such. That is to say, the problem is not the scientific concept but the unwarranted assumptions and social attitudes built up around the concept.

Is this a correct summary of your position? Are there any nuances that I seem to have missed, or am I just completely off base?

[Ree]

Ree, if you feel comfortable doing so, could you answer a question for me? I am trying to fully understand your position, and I want to know if I got it correct.

Your problem is not with the scientific concept of sex, meaning the method of genetic recombination by which our species has historically reproduced that requires two distinct groups (with certain distinct traits) within a single species population. What might be called the binary sexual reproductive pattern.

Your problem is instead with people labeling a woman as "biologically a male" or a man as "biologically a female" and using that to marginalize the individuals labeled as such. That is to say, the problem is not the scientific concept but the unwarranted assumptions and social attitudes built up around the concept.

Is this a correct summary of your position? Are there any nuances that I seem to have missed, or am I just completely off base?

I don't have issue with sex (the action) or the scientific conceptualization of sexual reproduction, no.
My issue is with the practice of assigning people and bodies a "biological sex" (as a property of them); the practice of assigning gendered terms (like "male" or "female") to bodies and people. While, yes, I'm principally concerned with the social effects of that practice and discourse, that does include scientific and medical discourse.

Remember, scientific discourse is created by scientists, who are people who live in societies and are influenced by the discourse, norms, and institutions of those societies; scientific discourse is thus itself influenced by that social context. Science does not exist outside its sociocultural context; nothing does.

Does that answer your question?

[CamelKnackRambleHort]

Yep! Thanks a bunch.

[Ree]

(just quietly bumping this since people were directed towards it during a stream tonight)