please point me to 'biological sex' and then explain to me how you know it free from any social categories

any notion of 'biological sex' we can try to identify is always already gender, always already social, by virtue of us having identified us. we can't reach beyond the concepts we use to apprehend the world, and even if we could, anything we could bring back would then again be a concept

Show thread

less abstractly, why do you think such-and-such a biological characteristic would be masculine or feminine? if you look at it on a microscope, where will you locate the masculinity or femininity? do the cells wear little pink bows maybe? are there girl molecules and boy molecules? a sex boson that mediates the interaction of making some particles like teal and some like pink?

what's the a priori reason a dick is 'male' but a pussy is 'female'? it doesn't exist. this notion of 'sex', something that is like gender — 'masculine' and 'feminine' are supposed to be categories that can apply to either gender or sex — but also isn't it, can't actually be located within the realm of biology. the 'maleness' or 'femaleness' come from outside: you're projecting them into bodies informed by your preconceived notions of them

Show thread

ultimately 'biological sex' is an incoherent category; it doesn't exist and can't exist. the idea of a sex/gender split is only an attempt at sequestering some of gender away from criticism: 'this, this is social. but this, this is biological, and you're not allowed to touch it'. it's an ideological distinction

Show thread

@a_breakin_glass i'm not sure what you're asking or how you expect me to answer it

@esvrld cis people: "who would want to criticize the idea of biological sex at 3 am?"

me: "oh boy, 3 am!"

@esvrld and hell, even if you assumed it was, that doesn't change the fact that sex characteristics are mutable at every level, something which people trying to make that case often (and sometimes deliberately) ignore, so even if you did buy that premise it wouldn't mean there's anything inherently male or female about anyone, which is usually the implicit part of that argument

@amandag @esvrld the thing biological essentialists usually bring up to counter that point is karyotype, (even though that's far more variable than they like to admit) which shows that ultimately, the point of that sort of view of gender/sex is to tie how people are allowed or expected to live their lives to a circumstance of their birth which they didn't choose and cannot change

why am i still posting about gender 

@esvrld (i know i'm probably supposed to agree with this but i honestly cannot see anything wrong with "biological sex is chromosomes, it is mostly relevant to who you are as a person outside of colorblindness and the dirty dirty (for now)" other than it using the same words as gender
i'm probably gonna get blocked for this aren't i)

[!] important correction 

@esvrld aaaaa i somehow typed "mostly relevant" when i meant "mostly irrelevant" how did i mess up this badly asdjfh

@esvrld uh
biological sex is when you have sex with a biologist

@esvrld I don't understand. Imagine a binary between car/truck. Neither exist because they are collections of discrete components, and few components are inherently car-or-truck-like, but an assemblage of them can be called car, or truck. This is how people name things.

While no person is 100% male or female in every biological sex characteristic, I don't think you can claim that the sex categories don't exist unless you're also willing to disassemble a lot of human language.

@sixohsix i'm not reading all of that, but whatever you're saying, it's probably wrong

@sixohsix Nobody is arguing that the categories themselves do not exist. That your second section still references "biological sex characteristics [sic]" implies that you missed the overall thrust of the thread.

"few components are inherently car-or-truck-like," actually no components are inherently car-or-truck-like at all if 'car' or 'truck' is a linguistic category applied later. This seems like you know you shouldn't appeal to a platonic ideal form of 'gender,' but you do so out of habit.

@esvrld Is it better or worse that in French, Spanish, and probably a bunch of other languages, that the words for dick and pussy are female and male respectively?

@esvrld The a priori reason a dick is male, and a pussy is female, is that statistically, people with XY chromosomes are extremely highly likely to have a dick, and people with XX chromosomes are extremely likely to have a pussy. And it just doesn’t matter.

The question of what is masculine and feminine comes from our pattern recognizing brains helplessly projecting superstitions onto the biological reality. There is no reason females shouldn’t like trucks, or males shouldn’t like dolls. There is no reason females shouldn’t become doctors, and males shouldn’t become nurses. That doesn’t make biological fact into fiction. And again, it just doesn’t matter. If something is truly characteristic of one sex, they’ll embody it regardless of our opinions on whether they should. If something is not, they won’t, no matter how hard we complain that they should.

The only thing that matters is that people have the power to live their lives, no matter what any of us thinks is proper for them to do. An it harm none do as you will, and such.

I suppose it does matter a little how people are forcing others to act out their delusional stereotypes, making males act non-male and females act non-female just to satisfy some twisted distortion of reality. But that also means giving people the power to live their lives, so that the assholes telling males they can’t enter the building in high heels won’t have the power to stop them.

@cy @esvrld
The "twisted distortion of reality" is a legacy of our very primitive early cultures and religions, desperately trying to impose order and predictability and simplicity onto a very scary, chaotic and unfathomable world so that we could just relax for five minutes without dying of flood, famine, food poisoning, plague, bear attack, toothache or invading hoardes. They wanted everything to be black & white because you can't play chess with M&M's.

@esvrld top and bottom quarks imply that instead of finding subatomic sex (biological), you actually find subatomic sex (fuckin)

@esvrld "if a specific one of your proteins looks a specific way, it inherently and totally changes your entire being on an essential level, no I can't explain what I mean by that"
- cis ppl

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!