Regarding Gender and Sex

CW/TW: sexism, misogyny, transmisogyny, bioessentialism, cisnormativity, heteronormativity, gender binary, non-binary erasure, transphobia, genital mention.

Let’s break this down first: Gender determines sex because sex is a gendered concept, where sex does not exist in any realistic or even helpful way, even in a medical setting. So since sex is a gendered concept, and sex is more variable than just the male or female binary, this suggests that nonbinary as a gender does have a biological basis. However, even if it did not, it would not matter because gender is a combination of biology (primarily archaic, flawed applications of), socialization, and internalized gender expectations. None of this needs to necessarily be reflected in “biology”.

There are a lot of cultures that recognize nonbinary and variable genders. The idea of the gender binary itself is a colonial construct. Therefore, abolishing gender is a colonial enterprise. Generally speaking, though I claim no authority, pretty much everyone but white people know that gender is more complicated than: “a man has a penis and a woman has a vagina”.

So now we have the “gender binary”, which is not recognizing the fact that there are nonbinary genders is colonialist and transphobic. Gender is real, the binary is not. Finally, gender is much MUCH more than gender roles (feminine vs masculine). Enforcing of gender roles, whether that be enforced by society and internally personal or otherwise, is what predicates to determining gender which goes beyond identifying with a certain gender presentation or role. (-- Solid credit to the above goes to Elyse, a friend of mine, for helping me find wording.)

The fact of the matter is that science, such as biology, is not wholly based in fact and is not the be all and the end all; understanding that a lot of people treat science has the only acceptable answer with extremity and severity (and without room for acknowledging that science is always under scrutiny). A lot of it is just theoretical to some extent or another. There are a variety of arguments I have heard in regards to what "science" has to say about sex and gender.

What I know to be true, is this:

There are more than two genders, there are more than two sexes. Period. This is founded throughout psychological sciences, genetics (noting that genetically speaking, it is not just about XY but there is also chemistry involved here; if someone wants to argue genetics, arguing just XY is actually flawed and not specific enough), brain chemistry. The understanding and acceptance of more than two genders and sexes has existed for thousands of years throughout culture and history. There are, in fact, cultures that exist today that accept there to be seven genders, three genders, etc - this is the case even in North America among Indigenous peoples (noting I am not an authority or an expert on such).

Biological sex as confined to the ideologies of bioessentialism is flawed and inaccurate. Where bioessentialism dictates gender to be defined by genitals. Science, if we are to use this argument, even says there are more than two sexes. Both are social constructs.

We are not arguing that biology isn't real but we arguing that the methods in which it is used and viewed are flawed. Especially in the terms of "biological sex" where it is wholly biology that defines sex, and thereby that which falls under such as genitals and physical characteristics - that just isn't accurate. The way in which sex is used and viewed is a social construct.

Elyse worded it all very well:

"What is biological sex? Is it reproductive capacity? Some people are born without the ability to reproduce. Some people become unable to reproduce. Do they lose their biological sex? Is it hormones? There's tons of variations is hormone production, even for cis people. Are cis women with PCOS not female? Is it chromosomes? There's 40 chromosomes that "biological sex" is determined by, and variation can occur on any of them.

Biological sex is a construct as much as gender is, because it has not and will never be binary."

Continuing...

"What we conceptualize as sex doesn't even really have anything to do with reproduction. There are a myriad of other factors (chromosomes, hormones, secondary sexual characteristics) that we've mostly arbitrarily assigned to specifically relate to sperm-producing people versus egg-producing people. On top of that, there are so many people out there who don't produce gametes, for one reason or another, and there's nothing innate that separates those people from people who do, except for arbitrary societal divisions.

So while people having certain specific physical/genetic/reproductive differences are obviously real, they don't really matter in any realistic, overarching way? Like the way your reproductive system does its thing only matters to your doctor, and even if you're cis there's all kinds of things that can affect that, so the male/female shortcut isn't super useful even in a medical setting."