#no actual basis for a gender binary biologically

[mister13eyond]

I think people in general would be less weird about gender and trans people if it were just made more clear how incredibly artificial the idea of a human sexual dichotomy really is

External genitalia is the same basic structures configured in slightly different ways, and it's less of a binary set of options than a spectrum between two poles as intersex people fully prove

Secondary sex characteristics are entirely dependent on hormones, which means they a.) already have a wide variety of natal presentations across genders (ex cis women capable of growing facial hair, cis men with breast tissue etc are all completely normal (if slightly uncommon) outcomes) and b.) Are extremely easy to change with HRT

Hormones can affect PHYSICAL reactions to emotions (higher testosterone making anger an easier physical reaction to stress than tears, and higher estrogen vice versa) but it doesn't actually affect the ways you think about or react to things, just what your body does with that emotion.

Social and behavioral differences are EXTREMELY affected by nurture more so than nature and there are no inherent neurological differences between men and women's brains.

Our bodies are so similar to one another that transition- while socially and financially potentially difficult- is MEDICALLY incredibly fucking easy. The fact that we can just alter our secondary sex characteristics with medications and our external genitalia with fairly simple surgeries should be a clue how incredibly close all human bodies are? We Have the possibility to change so easily because there are not inherent, hardwired unmovable differences. The only real difference at this point is the capability to carry and birth children, and with the way science is going that doesn't seem like an impossible breakthrough at this point.

Idk, I'm so tired of seeing discourse from other trans people that upholds that there are fundamental differences between men and women. Until we all start agreeing that these categories are artificially enforced and that they aren't really biologically inherent whatsoever we're never going to get anywhere

[nerdy-chocobo]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1ee39wn30xo

This country is fucking ridiculous. an article like this gets posted every other day and it's always full of the most horrendous dogwhistles and blatant transphobia. Fuck this fucking country, fuck this government and fuck this jurisdiction system

[feminist-furby-freak]

Could you elaborate on how gender ideology is misogynistic?

Sure. So gender ideology (see previous ask for how I define it) is misogynistic because it denies the present and historical reality of the sex-based oppression of women, reinforces the gender binary through its obsession with gender and gender roles, and jeopardizes women’s safety by privileging AGP men. Here are some examples:

It erases gender non conformity as a normal expression of the self. We see this through the “transing” of gender non conforming children and adults, particularly feminine gay men and masculine lesbian women. TRAs love to scream that we (GCs and TERFs) are obsessed with gender roles and uncomfortable with gender non conformity when they are the ones that promote the idea that men who present feminine and women who present masculine actually need to transition. I know so many detrans butch women who were told as teens and young women that they needed testosterone and surgery to fix them. What is more regressive than telling GNC people they actually need to become the opposite gender?

It denies the reality of sex and sex-based oppression. There are two camps for gender ideologists: gender identity is more important to one’s lived experience than their biological sex and gender is real but biological sex is not. Both of these ideas are misogynistic and false. Women’s subjugation for millennia across the world is not due to their “gender identity.” To say that femaleness isn’t real or that it is something an individual chooses to be is to say that women opt/opted into their oppression, or worse, that sex-based oppression never existed at all. How does the taliban chose which children can go to school? Do you think they go up to every child and ask them their gender identity? Of course not. It is unbelievable how TRAs have brainwashed so many people into denying the existence oldest and most universal form of oppression. This falsehood is so prevalent in academic spaces it has created a revisionist history and permeated science and medical research. Periods, pregnancy, and women’s health issues are now considered TERFy and we have to do this linguistic dance with dehumanizing terminology to discuss our own bodies. Ideology is more important than reality and medical authorities are parroting lies (TIMs can safely breastfeed, puberty is reversible, testerone does not have dangerous side effects) with no scientific basis without repercussion.

It privileges trans identified men over women. Gender ideology is not more scientifically or psychologically sound than gender critical ideology. Gender ideology has been arbitrarily accepted as The Truth by the left. TRAs will say that it is the compassionate or moral opinion and thus correct but this privileges the interests of trans identifying men over the interests of women. After all, morality is subjective. Take sports for example, women want a fair chance to participate in athletics and trans identifying males want to be validated by playing in female sports. The two interests conflict but the left has decided that the wants of the male athletes are more important than the wants of the female athletes, and this is treated as the obvious morally correct stance. But is it so obvious? I don’t think so. Nobody can answer why trans identifying males (because let’s be real trans identifying females never get special privileges) are prioritized over everyone else.

Feel free to send another ask if you have more questions.

[womenaremypriority]

What is gender?

Instead of asking “what is a woman?” I propose we should ask more what gender is.  The transgender movement is, fundamentally about placing gender above sex, in language and law- although claiming sex is a spectrum or a complete construction is becoming more common.  ‘Woman’ and ‘man’ aren’t sex terms, they’re genders, sexual attraction is based on gender, not sex, and public planning should be based on gender.  So, what is it?  

The roots of the word gender came from Latin, and originally meant ‘category, group.’  It has etymological roots with the word genre, and this is partly why we have the term grammatical gender in many languages.  Gender became a synonym for biological sex hundreds of years ago, and is used partly as a more family friendly alternative.  As a separate entity, however, gender refers to the social roles of male and female.

Here are a few definitions and helpful information:

Let’s look at the specifics of the different interpretations of the word ‘gender’.

Gender roles: Self explanatory. What feminists are against. What transgender activists claim to be against, and what they claim is not the basis for transgender identity. This seems to be the most clear and understandable definition, to me, anyway.

Gender identity: An internal sense of gender. This has been claimed to exist, but how this could possibly present or feel has not been in anyway demonstrated. Studies have shown transgender people have the brains of the gender they identify as, but those studies are shoddy and flawed. Brain scans aren’t required to transition, these studies don’t account for nonbinary-identified people, and the brain sex argument has fallen out of favor- so, we’ll say that’s not what’s being discussed here. So, what is? What is this internal gender identity? Can we find it? How do we know everyone has it? And why should it be prioritized over birth sex? What’s being described is, frankly, unverifiable and flimsy. Not to mention quite useless. This doesn’t mean I think that people who claim to have this feeling are lying- they could have something that is interpreted as gender, but that doesn’t mean it’s experienced by the general population, and this feeling could be caused by any number of areas. If this feeling is, indeed, dysphoria at being referred to a certain way, and/or euphoria at being referred to a certain way, again, how can we know this is a symptom of some deep held identity, or a sign of something different? How can we verify this, and while I understand personally adapting language to accommodate someone in your life, why should this take priority over sex for the general population? Gender expression- How is this different than sex stereotypes, and gender roles? While I’m told that this doesn’t need to match general societal expectations, how does that actually work? If you’ve expressing your gender- whether that’s man, woman, or some form of nonbinary- even if you know anyone can dress how they want, even if you say ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ means something different to everyone, you are still making a connection between gender and how one looks- and according to the Miriam-Webster photo, acts. Not only is this, again, ridiculous to elevate this above sex in language and law, it’s unhealthy to hyper focus on how others see you, not to mention confusing and harmful message to constantly use the terms ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ together. I’ll be honest, even if transgender people claim the movement isn’t about stereotypes, I don’t believe that’s the case. At the very least, it’s not the message every one of them got. Conflating gender with sex, and the words ‘men’ and ‘women’ with personality, a feeling, clothes, vibes, interests, or an aesthetic, is a dangerous and ridiculous concept. Instead of what it’s claiming to do- breaking the gender binary- it’s putting men and women in a box, yourself. You are the one limiting what men and women can be. Even if everyone decided to identify as some form of nonbinary, this would not affect the reality of sexism and the perceived inferiority of 50% of the population- it would only paint a coat over it. It would make communication and activism impossible. By conflating experience of autism, or interest in space, or interest in a certain style of dress- with the terms man and woman, you are perpetuating stereotypes, not breaking them.

[silverity]

"science says that human beings are either female or male" science is a tool used and defined by humans (and the societies/cultures they live in) to interpret the world around them. claiming "x is objective fact because Science Says So" is an extremely lazy argument (& implies that there is just one singular belief to be drawn from whatever is being researched in the first place). what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into "male" and "female"? who benefits from the enforcement of "male" and "female" categories? what traits do we ascribe to these categories and why?

im not claiming science is completely objective. as you've said, cultural biases can affect the way things are interpreted and understood. women know this more than anyone with the way biological essentialism has been used to define us as physically inferior and solely in existence only to reproduce. i'm also Black, and well aware of scientific racism and the history of pseudoscience claiming we are racially inferior on account of our skulls. so you really don't have to tell me anything about this.

what isn't a product of the biases of human culture or human society, however, is that humans are either one of the two sexes or a rare variation of the two. science is empirical observation, and we have observed this to be true, not just in humans but in other mammalian species. it's not a product of human society if it exists and is observable in nature. our interpretation and understanding of the two sexes, however, is what can become distorted through biases or misinterpretation. a good example being how scientists determined sperm in fertilization "conquers" the egg, but modern studies suggest the egg is actually extremely selective, and entraps/pulls the sperm inside. right? nobody can disagree humans don't reproduce via eggs and sperm. it's the interpretation of the process of it that is affected by cultural bias— particularly the assumption that anything female is inherently passive, and anything male must be active/aggressive.

"what actual function does it serve to categorize humans into male and female?".

most radfems, and a lot of marxfems such as myself, support gender abolition. sex, in our view, is a neutral thing that exists in nature and need not say anything about how you should behave or of your role in society. it is only through the social imposition of gender (which radfems define as a system of hierarchy of males over females and everything that reinforces this, not an innate identity as trans people would say) and it's maintenance via the enforcement of "femininity" (infantilization, sexualisation, submission) for women and of "masculinity" (aggression, control, dominance) for men, that certain traits, roles, behaviours are assigned to men and women. natural sex and it's observation through science do not assign any traits to the sexes. since humans have evolved to become civilized social beings we are no longer ruled by our animal instincts or natural biology.

so in relation to your latter questions, i think we are probably in agreement? we both disagree with the current social order of the sexes, but we disagree about how to eradicate this. the pro-trans side argues in favour of gender identity and the irrelevance of sex. but this doesn't really do away with gender stereotypes, does it? it just allows a few to switch to the opposite side of the gender binary. and making sex irrelevant (though, interestingly, "gender affirming care" is completely about mimicking biological sex markers associated with your "gender identity", so that's rather contradictory) would serve only to invisibilize women's oppression, which unfortunately occurs on a sexual basis. if you disagree that women's oppression is rooted in how men have sought to control and police women's reproduction and sexuality, please read some radical or marxist feminist theory.

the radfem side argues that treating gender as an "identity" in the trans way naturalizes the traits ascribed to the sexes as innate qualities to the sexes. womanhood is femininity, such that any feminine man or man who prefers feminine forms of expression is really a woman. & manhood is masculinity, such that any masculine women or women who wear their hair short are really men. this idea of "gender identity" also tries to pretend women are only oppressed because we adhere to femininity, so it's our own fault for not simply "opting out" of femininity and womanhood as "trans men" do. and when "trans women" present as feminine, they are oppressed just as women are. neither are true, when masculine-presenting women still face female oppression (including "trans men") and femininity (worn by the "trans woman") is only demeaned because the female body it is assigned to is demeaned. "trans women" may experience oppression bc of their gender non-conformity as males but never female oppression nor anything of female experiences.

the radfem position is that you can dress however you want and express yourself however you want, but on the basis of your sex you are still either a man or a woman. man = male human, woman = female human, that's all these terms should mean. we should stop gendering the sexes, essentially. we think gender dysphoria (as in genuine distress over your natural sex and a disconnect with your physical body) is a condition resulting from the oppressive system of gender that restricts both women and men, and think people should receive treatment, not affirmation. there's no issue with gender non-conformity, and if anything radfems encourage gnc especially where femininity is concerned, only that it is harmful to insist your gender non-conformity as a man makes you a woman. men are not the default of the species and women are not non-men, we are not an identity for men to claim when they feel repressed by other men or the standards of masculinity.

intersex people are the only people who may be assigned the wrong sex at birth, and i realise this is probably a very complicated experience for them and so im not really interested in policing what intersex people consider themselves. but most intersex people can still be defined as either male or female in terms of their biology (and so male intersex people should not enter women's sports, for example). the language of "AFAB/AMAB" has been bastardized and taken from the intersex community and applied to people who are NOT in any way intersex. for the rest of us our sex is not wrongly assigned, it is correctly observed.

in an ideal world sex should not be important beyond healthcare, sports, and other instances where it is necessary to take into account the physical differences between men and women e.g. for the safety of passengers in vehicles, which is commonly tested using only larger male measurements. while we still live in a society where women are oppressed on the basis of sex, it is necessary to recognise sex in order to combat this exploitation and inequality, via safeguarding women and female children, providing safe single-sex spaces (something the UN describes as essential in ensuring women have a right to public life), opportunities for women to boost our representation and participation in society, policies aimed at assisting women in male-dominated careers and so on. this is essentially the same thing as recognising the reality of race and how non-white people face disadvantages and discrimination. just as it would not help Black people to invisibilize the social reality of race (note the SCOTUS has just struck down affirmative action on the basis of race) it would not help women to invisibilize sex, nor the sexual dynamics (the threat and reality of sexual assault, abuse, sexual exploitation) that exist between men and women.

[foxfairy06]

Look I was like you before. I thought that there were only two genders for a pretty long time. That gender euphoria wasn’t a thing, that you had to suffer to be trans, etc. But I spoke with my psychologist and she said to me that the SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS is that gender is more complex than male/female.

This was a hard pill to swallow but it’s real. I don’t hate you at all, after all that would mean that I hate myself from 1 month ago. I wasn’t transmed back then because I was a bad person, I just genuinely believed that I knew the truth and that everyone else didn’t.

And I’m not even super “radical” now. Stuff like alterhuman, otherkin etc. I still have some doubt towards.

If you’ve been in the transmed ideology for very long I can totally see how hard it is to even fathom that transmed doesn’t reflect how gender actually works. But I sincerely believe you can make that step.

Even if you don’t change your beliefs I still wish you a good day.

The entirety of your comment is inapplicable because you fail to realize that I'm nonbinary. I am non-binary and do **not** believe that there are only two genders.

1. Transmedicalist ideology does not mean that you believe that one must suffer to be trans or that euphoria doesn't exist. We as a community have a majority which agrees that any sort of incongruence is dysphoria, and that euphoria is just a positive expression of dysphoria.

2. There are a significant number of sources that suggest that transmedicalists are right about a lot of things. Such as Dysphoric trans women having very similar grey matter structures to cis women. The people who make avid claims about nonbinary not being real have likely not read the documents that hold a basis for our beliefs. In fact: the neurological gender perspective (which is THE transmed perspective), has several studies to boot that strongly suggest the sexual spectrum of brain sexual dimorphism. Even one study in particular marking the brain waves of people who call themselves "bigender" and experience different brain activity in specific halves of the brain when dysphoric or euphoric about specific parts of their bodies.

3. Transmedicalism isn't inherrently against nonbinary people there are many nonbinary centered transmedicalist groups. Most of us don't genuinely agree that there are only two genders. There are some bad actors and in general, we don't claim them as representatives of our core ideology. The only thing that transmedicalists believe, defining them as transmedicalists is "Dysphoria and transness are one in the same, and there is some kind of biological cause for gender dysphoria, which proves objectively that transness is not a choice, for no argument to make against that. This would be good for Nonbinary people such as myself who feel disadvantaged by the systems that tucutes support. Even then, the systems that they caused, regardless of whether they support them or not.

I believe you're confused about what transmedicalism actually is because you're talking to a transmedicalist who is nonbinary, seeking treatment for their dysphoria, believes that euphoria is an effect of gender dysphoria, and believes that gender is a spectrum far more complicated than simply "M/F". None of my ideas are antithetical to the core values of transmedicalism nor are they contradictory towards the main community. Transmedicalism at it's simplest terms is "trans men and cis women are different on a very fundamental biological level" and so versa for trans women and cis men. Therefore transness is not a choice, and cannot be taken on. One is simply born that way."

[crossdreamers]

Why are gametes so important for "gender critical" and transphobic "feminists"?

The "transphobic "gender critical" feminists, also known as trans-exclusionary radical feminists or TERFs, have become increasingly focused on gametes (sperm and eggs) to determine biological sex.

Given that they deny the existence of gender identity, gametes therefore also becomes the cause of legal and cultural gender identity. In this way they think they can deny trans women the right to call themselves women, and trans men the right to be seen as men.

In a new article transgender philosopher and activist Julia Serano points out that to decide whether a man is a man and a woman is a woman on the basis of gametes is a social and cultural dead end. We never ask people to see their gametes when we interact with them.

Moreover, as any real feminist will tell you, to divide people into men and women on the basis of gametes, is an old fashioned and patriarchal approach to gender. According to this approach women are women only by nature, and throughout history men have been allowed to deny women any rights that do not fit the traditional concepts of natural gender abilities and behavior.

So why do TERFs find this dichotomy so appealing?

Julia Serano explains:

There seems to be two main reasons why gender-critical activists have gravitated toward gametes. The first is that most other sex characteristics—whether they be chromosomes, genitals, other reproductive organs, and so-called secondary sex characteristics (e.g., facial hair, breasts, muscle/fat distribution)—do not fall into a strict dichotomy. There are XX people who exhibit certain male sex characteristics and XY people who exhibit certain female ones. Some intersex people have chromosome combinations that fall outside of XX and XY, and/or sex characteristics that fall “in between” what is considered “standard” for male and female. In addition to this, trans people often change our sex characteristics via gender-affirming hormones (which alter our secondary sex characteristics) and surgeries (which may reconfigure our genitals and other reproductive organs).

Ultimately it all boils down to this: "There must be a strict binary because that would define trans people out of existence."

The scientist Julia Serano then goes on to describe what science really says about gametes, biological sex and gender.

She points out that trans people are "a pancultural and transhistorical phenomenon". Trans people arise "as a part of natural variation rather than being mere products of any specific culture." Trans people are "the inevitable outliers that exist in every complex biological system".

The conclusion?

In other words, much to gender-critical activists’ chagrin, gametes are actually a part of natural variation and sex diversity, rather than the antithesis of it.

Read Serano's article here.

Photo of Julia Serano from Medium. Photo #2: bodym

[daysincetheindefinatehiatus]

Gender Nonconformity in The Prince and The Dressmaker

 Because American society is so dependent on predictable relationships between people of different sexes, otherwise known as a person’s biology, American  society does not know how to interact with gender non-conforming (GNC) individuals. This underlying mystery has allowed some far-right activist groups to argue that GNC people at large are perverts, pedophiles and rapists, rather than people attempting to feel comfortable in their own bodies. The author and illustrator of The Prince and the Dressmaker, Jen Wang seeks to demystify the experiences of transgender, and gender nonconforming people in a way that goes beyond the gender binary. Wang uses a vibrant, cartoon-like and expressive art style, to convey a story analogous to the all too familiar Cinderella story American audiences seem to adore. This allows Want to create a book that is appealing to wide age ranges, and creates a familiar basis to explore otherwise daunting subjects. Wang is then able to use other character’s confusion as a stand-in for the readers, thus explaining concepts that are difficult in a way that does not come off as preachy to readers. Once a baseline of knowledge is established, Wang creates empathy for Prince Sebastian, and by extension other GNC people by centering the rest of the narrative on some common problems, and their effects on people without falling into the trap of focusing only on the misery of being GNC. 

Throughout the book, Wang employs the use of bright colors, and a simplistic art style to make the book seem more approachable to all audiences. Many of the most impactful scenes in

the book are those where there isn't any dialogue. Near the beginning of the book, Frances, the dressmaker, is tasked with making a new dress for a guest attending Prince Sebastian’s royal ball. Despite the fact that the guest herself does not talk at all in this scene, it is clear that she is only at the tailor's shop because her mother is making her go. Otherwise, she has absolutely no interest in going to the ball. Her arms are crossed, she refuses to look at the readers, and when she does, she has a deep scowl on her face. Likewise, before Frances even speaks, it is clear that she is unhappy at her job. Her hair is unkempt, her eyes have bags, and she is hunched over uncomfortably, focusing on her work. Later, when the girl uninterestedly opens the box with the dress in it, Wang conveys in only one panel that Frances had managed to make a dress the girl liked. Suddenly the girl is no longer scowling, her eyes are wider, and her eyebrows are raised curiously. In only a few pages, with very few words, Wang has already outlined some key facts about the main protagonist: Frances is overworked, but also good at what she does. This makes the dialogue that is had all the more impactful. It also increases the likelihood that a potential reader flips through the book and is able to understand large swaths of the story before they actually sit down to read it. 

When Prince Sebastian hires Frances to make dresses for him, he is afraid to reveal to her that he is biologically a male. When Frances does inevitably find out, she does not care all that much. Ultimately, her dream job is making clothes for the wealthy. Who that person is, and what they want her to make doesn’t really factor into the equation for her. This does not, however, mean that she understands the prince. Much like the reader, this is new territory for her, so Sebastain later goes on to explain, “Some days I look at myself in the mirror and think ‘that’s me Prince Sebastian! I wear boy clothes, and look like my father!’ Other days, it doesn't feel right at all. Those days I feel like I’m actually… a princess.”  (Wang 44.) While she doesn’t outright

state it in the book, in interviews Wang has said that she wrote Sebastian to be genderfluid. He isn’t a transgender woman, which is at least somewhat familiar to the audience, but rather, he switches between being masculine, and feminine on a day to day basis. Although this description is an overly simplistic definition of what it means to be genderfluid, it does serve as a good starting point for those who are just being introduced to genders that exist outside of, or in between the well understood male and female binary. This point then gets reinforced as Sebastain goes out of his way to present in more masculine ways sometimes, and in more feminine ways others. It’s not that Prince Sebastain is unhappy as a boy, he just does not want to continue to suppress the side of himself that is actually a girl. He is capable of being perfectly happy, and confident as a boy, the same way he is capable of being anxious as a girl. 

Unlike many other stories trying to promote the acceptance of GNC individuals, Wang does not fall into the trap of making Sebastain’s life miserable to make readers feel bad for him. Sebastian has anxiety related to his gender identity, as do his real world counterparts,  but his relationship to gender is more complicated than that.  In chapter 2 of the book, Sebastian’s feminine alter ego Lady Crystallia is born when she enters, and wins a beauty contest. This is the first scene in which readers get to see Sebastain exude confidence. Before this moment, Sebastian is always worried about being found out for who she is, even in the moments just before she walks on stage. By giving these comparisons Wang asserts that while Sebastian’s gender identity is a component of his anxiety, it is also one of his main sources of confidence. It’s not a part of him that he can suppress happily. Wang effectively asserts that there is happiness to be found in being a GNC. it is not that they are sad that GNC people deserve kindness, it’s that they are human, that makes them deserving of kindness. Because this nuance is made explicit within the story Sebastain accurately reflects his real world counterparts.

As Prince Sebastian, and Frances’ relationship morphs from a simple working relationship into a friendship, the problems Sebastain faces because of his gender nonconformity become more apparent. Sebastian faces pressure from his parents to find a wife, and take the throne. He can't seem to do this because he feels a deep shame associated with his gender identity. As Sebastian runs into more walls related to his gender, he acts in ways that are increasingly self-destructive. Research by the University of Manchester found that an increase in shame, often as the result of transphobia, has correlated to higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse and even suicide, as well as other destructive behaviors. Likewise, as Sebastian becomes more desperate to hide Lady Crystalia, he ruins relationships that he cares deeply about. After a heated fight based on tension from Sebastian’s need to hide, Frances quits working as his dressmaker. At the same time. Sebastian’s parents become insistent that he marry, so much so that his father actually has a heart attack because of it. Once again Wang is able to highlight the loneliness that comes along with hiding a GNC identity

Consumed by loneliness, Sebastian agrees to marry Princess Juliana. Shortly thereafter, he sneaks out as Lady Crystaliam for what he believes is the final time. There, she drinks until she passes out  and is assaulted by Princess Juliana’s brother. Although this scene is kept vague to stay within a family friendly rating,  this is a scarily common occurrence for transgender individuals. According to the US Trasngender Survey, 1 in 5 transgender people will be sexually assaulted within their lifetime. After her assault, Crystallia is then outed to her parents, and the entire kingdom by Juliana’s brother. At first, the parents are shocked, and unaccepting of their son. They are afraid of the pain that he will have to go through because of his identity. It is not until his father meets Frances, who has returned to make sure Sebastian is OK, that he realizes that Sabastian has support in his life. Frances loves Sebastian, both as a prince, and as a Princess.

Sebastian’s father needed to see this unconditional love to accept his kid. While Sebastian had been on a drastically downward spiral before coming out to his parents, he begins to flourish once he experiences acceptance. He is more comfortable as a man, and as a woman overall, and is pursuing goals along with Francis that are exciting for the both of them. Once again Wang is closely mirroring research showing that transgender individuals are more likely to succeed in life when they are met with acceptance rather than being shunned by those who they love. 

Although I would have liked for Sebastain to have been given more agency in who he reveals Lady Crystalia too, I find this story to be an overall good introduction to the world of gender nonconformity for those who are unfamiliar with it. Before I realized fully that I was GNC, I spent a long time feeling disgusted by gender non conforming individuals despite the fact that I was otherwise entrenched in the queer community. My Grandma experienced the same phenomena. Here was a woman who protected  queer people from the police pre stonewall, stood up for those suffering from AIDS in the 80s, and who was able to accept her granddaughter as a lesbian without question, completely disgusted by that same granddaughter when she dressed as a man or used he/him pronouns. In both of our cases, this book was able to serve as a gentle guiding hand into the world of gender nonconformity, and I am confident in this graphic novel’s ability to do the same for others as well.

[feminist-pussycat]

Why does lupus affect more women than men?

“Lupus is a complex autoimmune disease that primarily affects people assigned female gender at birth, but it can occur in all people. Research suggests the higher prevalence in people assigned female gender at birth is due to the effect of estrogen on the immune system.All people with lupus experience similar lupus-related symptoms, but symptoms may be more severe in men.

“Lupus can affect all people, but it is significantly more common in people assigned female gender at birth. In places, we refer to “women” as compared to “men” in this post, because the research and data we quote use these binary terms.”

Problema Numero Uno: The term “assigned female gender at birth” is SO incorrect. You are not assigned anything, you are observed. You are not assigned a gender, you are assigned a sex.

Problema Numero Dos: Women have to be “assigned female gender at birth”  but men can be men.

Problema Numero Tres: I have a strong feeling this “estrogen” effect is nonsense. They just say this because they think any problem that is more prevalent in women must be due to their mysterious women hormones.

Problema Numero Cuatro: What a cute little disclaimer. Gotta stave off the perpetually offended at seeing the word “woman” instead of blah blah assigned babymaker at birth! It’s not our fault folx, it’s just that all the research is bigoted and uses outdated terms!!!

Oh god, it continues to be shitty.

“Many autoimmune diseases tend to affect people assigned female gender at birth more. Why? One theory suggests this is due to chromosomal differences between people of different sex.”

You JUST said you were going to say women! Cowards.

“Research has found that in lupus, the immune system may be abnormally activated by estrogen.“

What so-called research is this? It links to this study that finds that males have more severe lupus, and are more likely to get worse nephritis and progress to renal failure.

They actually say the quiet part out loud: “The increased rate of SLE in females implicates hormones as essential in disease manifestations”.

They think any problem that is more prevalent in women must be due to their mysterious women hormones. The study they linked to has its own full set of problems, so I won’t get into that here.

“Some research suggests there may be a link between oral contraceptives (“the pill”) and post-menopausal hormone replacement therapy and an increased risk of lupus. However, other research has not. Also, studies have not shown an increased risk of lupus flares from oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapy... clearly, more research is needed to explain how hormones like estrogen affect a person’s risk for autoimmune disease.”

So it seems like you don’t actually know all that well that the lady hormones have anything to do with it.

“it is commonly believed that men cannot develop lupus. This may lead to them receiving their diagnosis much later and potentially when their disease is more severe. In fact, lupus has been linked to more severe organ damage in men and faster disease progression.“

I can’t actually find anything supporting the assumption that men think they can’t get lupus and so that’s why they get diagnosed later than women. Maybe they should think critically and wonder if the conclusion that “men get it worse than women” contradicts their “it comes from female hormones” assertion. You know what I can find though?

“However, the diagnosis of lupus can be delayed in women - that is, it takes less time for men to be diagnosed with lupus once they present with symptoms... late onset lupus affects a higher percentage of men.

Biological sex differences in immune function, especially those induced by sex hormones, are less likely explanations of sex differences. Recent studies suggest chromosomal basis and environmental exposure differences for the sex differences in the incidence of lupus.”

Anyway I hate the medical field’s treatment of women.

[qweerhet]

there's something deeply annoying to me about the "misogyny isn't just diet oppression" crowd (tbc: a statement i agree with, there is no such thing as "diet oppression" and anyone positing any particular form of oppression as "lesser" or "not important" is wrong and also annoying) supporting their arguments with statements about material effects of gender essentialism and the patriarchy and attributing them to misogyny.

like... idk it's just bad argumentation to be like. misogyny is a real form of oppression. to prove it, let's talk about how abortion is policed. that's not misogyny, that's something that affects men and every single other gender equally to women, it stems from patriarchal ideas that are very difficult to pick apart but basically boil down to:

capitalist white supremacist patriarchy relies on control over white reproduction to maintain itself

it also uses reproduction to punitively harm poor people, particularly people of color, for existing

conservative dogma views sex outside of reproduction as something to be punished, and pregnancy/children as objectified methods of punishment

the key factor in oppressive policing of abortion and access thereof isn't gender, it's biology. it affects people who are capable of becoming pregnant completely regardless of their gender, and its implementations in the real, material world are not affected by gender. men who need abortions have absolutely no institutional access to abortions or privilege within the reproductive realm by virtue of their gender, and "not being a woman" has absolutely no effect on a class of people's abortion access so long as they are capable of becoming pregnant.

if i get into the weeds of this discussion with people who are really defensive over abortion access being an issue of misogyny, they usually tend to default to "rule of majority": if the majority of people who need abortions are women, then it's misogyny, regardless of if other people get lumped into that category or not.

that's, to me, missing the point: misogyny is a word about societal attitudes and dogmas about women, which oppress and disadvantage women. the patriarchy is the phrase for the oppressive structures that harm classes of people on the basis of biological essentialism and rigid gender roles, which feeds misogyny, transphobia, misandry (speaking particularly to "misandry" as a form of white supremacy, ableism, and transphobia targeted towards men in a targeted gendered way, not whatever the fuck MRAs mean when they say it), exorsexism, and all other forms of gendered oppression.

like... it's not feminist to erase an entire marginalized group from the issue that affects them in a targeted way because there's more of another marginalized group that it also targets! it is not feminist to insist on calling gendered issues that do not specifically target women on the basis of their gender "misogyny." people other than women who have uteruses are not outliers, they are normal, common, and intended targets of restricting abortion access. when you decide that trans and intersex people are acceptable collateral damage in prioritizing cisnormative views of bodies, you have already lost your attempts at feminism. relying on this fallacy to prove to people that misogyny is real is only going to lose you trans, intersex, and otherwise gender-non-normative people who should be a part of your movement and listening to what you have to say, because you are contradicting their lived experiences and saying that's okay because they're a minority.

(especially when there are actual misogynistic standards and ideas currently prevalent that you could be using to prove your point, which absolutely affect women regardless of birth assignment and conformity to the sex binary!)

[quizzically]

i'm so over gender like actually. I am not third wave of being over gender i'm like 88th wave gender neutralhead for my own self. My physical presentation is a little more complicated and while obviously tying into my identity is a whole nother can of worms. and on a basis of pure, like, in my head secretgender what i actually feel inside, i literally could not care about it less and thinking about my gender identity brings me no joy or gratification at all, infact it feels like a roadblock in my head that i hate when people make me reckon with. it's not like i'm repressing something or have a problem cause it's not like i'm trying or wanting to figure it out anymore. i've figured out my gender a thousand times for myself but now it's come to the stage that i have to project it externally

I Just Dont Care

there's nothing that will make you hate the gender binary more than being maverique-adjacent and just wanting zero part of it, not just not wanting to choose but not having to have to choose in the first place. like leslie feinberg said "ill never be a boy or girl as long as thats a question that has to be asked". nothing will make you hate it more than just not wanting to be GENDERED. EVER. STOP HAVING IT BE RELEVANT, KILL IT. i dont want gender markers on profiles or licenses I dont even like being called trans most days it's just like a clinical thing that i pull up in discussions it's like my blood type.

i like being a butch on a pure like my-role-position-in-society level it's like having a job. i like being butch to women and men. i like people thinking im a boy because i was born a girl and its like, i want to just be defiant in any way i can, i like defying expectations. and also i love "boy clothes", more comfy and practical and less revealing on the whole than presenting in "girl clothes", i know thats old headed talk but just to get a message across. I like being chivalrous and acting masculine and proud and standing up for myself but even then not all the time, im kinda a pansy. i know that will never unmake me a butch but you know what i mean. that's literally as far as it goes.

i'm just a person. i'm a human. that is so cliche. but like. humans are incredibly smart animals while we are animals our emotional intelligence is like through the roof 300 times over. We could afford, to not do this. bleh.

gender is so totally important to so many people though. this is not like a global righteous statement for the state of the world its just my ideal. Idk maybe in an ideal world where we never invented the gender binary it wouldn't be such a priority to lots of people to be understood as one thing or another...at all. maybe gender dysphoria is a lot more of a biological thing idk im totally not qualified. U ever see a trans person get their driver license or id changed. crazy stuff it warms your heart it's so nice. bt again a lot of the reason they might want to be one thing or another is because of this...ridiculous, colossal, thousand million year empire or stereotypes, and standards, and ideas and rules that we've made up, for these two little boxes. that we either want to stay in or leave.

[hillnerd]

Why do you think J K Rowling is transphobic? What did she actually done to be called like that? Do you call her this on the basis of your evidence or just because other people also does it?

This is a much more thorough breakdown of it than I am willing to go into here: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy https://one-colorado.org/new/how-the-nyt-and-jk-rowling-influence-anti-trans-policies/

Conflating gender and sex is inaccurate and transphobic. (source)

Claiming that trans women put cis women at risk of harm is inaccurate and transphobic. Trans women, specifically trans women of color experience gender-based violence at much higher rates than cis women. (source)

Assuming that all people have body parts that fall into a biological binary is inaccurate and transphobic. (source)

Her essay had some of the biggest issues: "[Jkr does] not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."

That whole 'men in women's bathroom' fear is a huge problem. She stated herself as not FULLY terfy- she was sort of ok with 'certain trans people' (quotes from me)- but she is a radical feminist who prefers to make sure natal women are safe first and is part of the fearmongering against trans people that keeps so many from being able to safely use a bathroom or changing room without horrid scrutiny coming their way.

Since then, though, she has done money-raising for many actively anti trans individuals.

So while she's not the most virulent anti-trans person around by a long-shot, and some of her stances are understandable (the concern that many gender non-conforming young women think trans is the only option for them without much other things being explored (non binary, butch lesbian etc) because sometimes that is a bit true for some) .

BUT the way she has gone about it, supports openly anti-trans people, and keeps doubling down has fed the anti-trans fire. She did this right when trans people are in massive danger thanks to the influx of bills and anti-trans legislation, anti-trans talk and anti-trans attacks.

So, she isn't like a total republican who wants the destruction of trans people- as far as terfy dialogues go she's rather mild and more in the microaggression side of things most of the time. She's living in that sort of boomer/gen x version of willfully ignorant about trans issues, but choses to speak on it with authority and spreads misinformation-- and refuses to listen to anyone. She reminds me of my gran who thinks she isn't racist- then will go into very racist sterotypes.

No one is perfect, but she has nothing but time and money at her disposal to listen to the experts on it, and has chosen to double-down on her most ignorant of talking points and spread them- when she has more resources and a more wide reaching platform than most- and it's actively hurting trans people.

Hopefully she'll change her stance, support some trans charities, and stop spreading misinformation about the 'dangers of men pretending to be trans' and her other more harmful perspectives, and stops supporting women who are promoting anti-trans agendas left and right.

Until then, I can't give her money, knowing that money could go to sources and causes I can't support.

[ehlessandraspsyche]

Blog Post 2: sex, gender, and trauma-dumping

Sex and Gender Stereotypes

The lessons this past week focused on the concept of sex and gender, as well as the concepts of brain and personality. It was important to distinguish sex and gender as these two topics are often confused with one another. Sex is the genetic and biological characteristics of a person, while gender is the socially constructed behaviors and roles that are associated with a person. Sex has an influence on gender as this is the basis of gender constructs. The fundamental physical difference between men and women is directly correlated to how gender constructs are created. For example, men are physiologically stronger than women. This ties into the social stereotype that men should do physical labor while women should do less physically demanding work. Gender stereotypes can be harmful to both sexes. Men are expected to be stoic which in turn causes men to repress their emotions. This lack of emotional stability makes men more volatile and less likely to seek help. This can be seen in the statistics concerning suicide as men are more likely to successfully commit suicide than women. For women, the gender stereotype of them being more emotional works against them. Their perceived emotionality prevents them from getting jobs that require a level head. 

Gender Identity and Presentation and my sexual orientation (??)

Coming from the “woke” generation, I try to use the correct terminology as much as possible. We learned in this lesson the difference between assigned sex at birth, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation. My first encounter with these terms was when I was scrolling through Tumblr searching for my favorite characters. I encountered a headcanon about their sexuality and I recall being confused by gender identity and sexual orientation. I thought the terms were interchangeable and I’ll admit I often forget the differences between the terms. Reading about a topic is very different from actually discussing it, so now I can recall the difference between the terms. Gender identity is the perception of being male, female, or neither. As a person, I am cisgender and I identify with my assigned sex at birth. One of my closest high school friends identifies as non-binary and they use she/they pronouns. My gender presentation is very feminine. I enjoy wearing skirts and dresses and whenever I wear other outfits my only requirement is that 1) it looks good on me and 2) it’s not masculine. Sometimes, I would wear androgynous clothing whenever I feel less girly on that day. My sexual orientation is… still up for discussion. I don’t really want to place a label on myself because I still haven’t come to terms with it yet. But if I were to place a label, I would be bisexual with a preference for men.

I'm psychologically androgynous (again, ???)

An interesting term that was brought up during the discussion was psychological androgyny- which is where a person displays both male and female gender role characteristics. It resonated with me as I feel that it is how I would describe my personality. As the eldest child and the only daughter, there were certain expectations for me that shaped my personality. As the eldest daughter, I was expected to care for my younger brothers. I was gentle, nurturing and emotional. I was basically an on-call therapist who was ready to hear whatever problem my brothers were having and solve it. As the eldest child, I was expected to be disciplined and set a good example for my baby brothers. I was stoic in the sense that I never showed my weaknesses to them. How could I, when every action that I do influences their decisions for their lives? Since I decided to study in Manila, my brothers also decided to study in Manila as well. I couldn’t openly show signs of distress in fear that they might fall apart once they see their ate crying. I had to be strong. Which is why I identified with the term psychologically androgynous as what my outer gender expression is not reflective of my psychological gender expression. 

Word Count: 665 words

References:

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, March 22). androgyny. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/androgyny

Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2023, March 23). gender identity. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/gender-identity

Date Written: March 25, 2023

[its-suanneschafer-author]

Continuing my review and summarization of Project 2025, Chapter 18 covers the Dept of Labor and related agencies

1. Reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life

2. Reverse the DEI revolution in labor policy. 

3. Eliminate racial classifications and critical race theory training. 

4. Eliminate disparate impact liability. 

5. Restrict application of sex discrimination protections to sexual orientation and transgender status in the context of hiring and firing, rescind regulations prohibiting discrimination on the basis

of sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics, and focus enforcement of sex discrimination laws on the biological binary meaning of “sex.”

6. Protect life and promote pro-family policies

7. Pass a law requiring equal (or greater) benefits for pro-life support for mothers and clarifying abortion exclusions

8. Keep anti-life “benefits” out of benefit plans

9. Provide robust protections for religious employers and issue an executive order protecting religious employers and employees

10. This actually makes sense: Enact the Working Families Flexibility Act to allow employees in the private sector the ability to choose between receiving time-and-a-half pay or accumulating time-and-a-half paid time off 

11. This actually makes sense: Equalize retirement savings access across married households and work- based retirement savings accounts should be double the limit for individuals, regardless of the allocation of work between the couple

12. This actually makes sense: require that the Consumer Price Index market basket include measurable family-essential goods.

13. Allow employers and employees to set a two- or four-week period over which to calculate overtime. 

14. Amend hazard-order regulations and allow teenage workers to work in regulated jobs with proper training and parental consent.

15. Remove ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) compliance regarding climate change, decreasing greenhouse emissions, racial quotas, abortion, and other “liberal” issues from TSP, the federal pension plan

16. Cap then phase down the H-2A visa program and phase out the H-2B visa program

17. Mandate that all new federal contracts require 70% of employees to be US citizens

18. Maximize hiring of political appointees in the DOL, implement a hiring freeze for career officials. NB: Political appointee ≠ qualified appointee, simply a Trump "yes" man. 

[keroseneinhalers]

can you make that post with sources with clickable links?

sorry for not posting sources and clickable links on a vent post. in the future, when you dumb fucks come bother us over nothing, i’ll make sure to put some links you can pretend to click on and call “trans nonsense”

to humor you here are some links that i enjoy, AND THE POST WOTH LINKS THE MOD WHO MADE THE VENT MADE JUST FOR YOU however i doubt you will read them:

[culturewarconversation]

“JK Rowling recently drew fire on social media for tweeting the statements to the effect that “biological sex is real.” The tweets began when she mocked an opinion piece that used the term “people who menstruate” in place of “women” to account for the fact that transgender men also menstruate, and prefer not to be described as women.

The backlash on Twitter has been swift and cacophonous, and headlines have followed. GLAAD, an LGBT advocacy group, issued a response on Twitter, calling Rowling’s tweets “inaccurate and cruel.” One commenter wrote “I know you know this because you have been told over and over and over again, but transgender men can menstruate. Non-binary people menstruate. I, a 37-year old woman with a uterus, have not menstruated in a decade. Women are not defined by their periods.”

Till now, even the most thematically ambitious feminist theorists have acknowledged that sex itself is a real biological phenomenon, and that sexual dimorphism is an important component of human existence as well as human rights. Yet increasingly, such common-sense propositions as JK Rowling’s are now cast as hate speech.

As more and more people refer to themselves as trans, nonbinary, two-spirited, and gender-non-conforming, there’s been a push to realign the objective reality of biological sex to match one’s subjectively experienced gender identity. In the emerging view, the very notion of males and females existing as real biological entities is now seen as obsolete. Instead, some argue, we have only varying degrees of “male-ness” and “female-ness.” And so the very idea of segregating sports (or anything, for that matter) using binary sex categories is seen as illegitimate, since, if no definitive line can be drawn, who’s to say a purported “male” athlete isn’t really female?

The view that sex is a spectrum is not confined to fringe critical theorists. It has made inroads into mainstream culture, thanks in part to a highly sympathetic media environment. Even prestigious scientific journals such as Nature have given space to authors who argue that “the idea of two sexes is simplistic” and that “biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.” Another Nature editorial insisted that attempts to classify an individual’s sex using any combination of anatomy and genetics “has no basis in science.” A new book, The Spectrum of Sex: The Science of Male, Female, and Intersex, argues this position from cover to cover. Its publisher, a Canadian academic press, gushes that “this transformative guide completely breaks down our current understanding of biological sex.”

In February of this year I co-authored a Wall Street Journal op-ed on the subject, entitled The Dangerous Denial of Sex. Along with my co-author, developmental biologist Emma Hilton, I highlighted the harms that sex-spectrum pseudoscience can impose on vulnerable groups, including children, women, gay men, and lesbians. Since we were confined to a newspaper op-ed format, Dr. Hilton and I had scant space to explore in detail the actual science of biological sex and the pseudoscience that is sex spectrum ideology. That is the subject of this essay.

* * *

There are two main arguments typically offered in defense of the claim that sex is a non-binary attribute that exists on a “spectrum.” The first is based around the existence of intersex conditions—people with intermediate or indeterminate sex characteristics. This argument claims sex cannot be binary if some individuals have sexual anatomy that appears to fall somewhere between male and female. This argument is frequently illustrated with figures that plot intersex conditions along a continuous axis that ranges from “typical female” to “typical male”—as with this widely reproduced figure from the 2017 Scientific American article, “Visualizing Sex As a Spectrum.”

The second argument typically offered in defense of the sex-spectrum model is based around secondary sex organs and characteristics. Secondary sex organs encompass all elements of our reproductive anatomy—apart from the gonads, which are the primary sex organs. Secondary sex characteristics, on the other hand, are sex-related anatomies that differentiate during puberty, such as enlarged breasts and wider hips in females; and facial hair, deeper voices, more musculature, and broader shoulders in males. Because the distribution of these secondary sex characteristics can overlap between males and females, it is argued we should therefore view biological sex as a continuum.

This way of thinking about biological sex is now frequently presented to children in school using such cartoon illustrations as The Genderbread Person (shown below). In the purple box labeled “Biological Sex,” you’ll notice the terms “male” and “female” are not used. Instead, terms denoting the idea of sex as a continuous variable—“male-ness” and “female-ness”—are chosen. Many of the traits listed as defining one’s degree of male-ness and female-ness are secondary sex organs and characteristics: genital morphology, body shape, voice pitch, and body hair. Conspicuously absent from this chart is any mention of primary sex organs (gonads, i.e. ovaries and testes in the case of females and males, respectively) or the typical functions associated with sex, such as menstruation in females and ejaculation in males. There is also no mention of eggs or sperm (produced by ovaries and testes, respectively).

Both of these arguments—the argument from intersex conditions and the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics—follow from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.

It is crucial to note, however, that the sex of individuals within a species isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment. Pre-pubertal males don’t produce sperm, and some infertile adults of both sexes never produce gametes due to various infertility issues. Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality. In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time.

The binary distinction between ovaries and testes as the criterion determining an individual’s sex is not arbitrary, nor unique to humans. The evolutionary function of ovaries and testes is to produce either eggs or sperm, respectively, which must be combined for sexual reproduction to take place. If that didn’t happen, there would be no humans. While this knowledge may have been cutting edge science in the 1660s, it’s odd that we should suddenly treat it as controversial in 2020.

That above-cited 99.98 percent figure falls short of 100 percent because of the roughly 0.02 percent who are intersex. (The actual figure is estimated to be about 0.018 percent.) But the claim that intersex conditions support the sex spectrum model conflates the statement “there are only two sexes” (true) with “every human can be unambiguously categorized as either male or female” (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals do not demonstrate that sex is a spectrum. Just because sex may be ambiguous for some does not mean it’s ambiguous (and, as some commentators would extrapolate, arbitrary) for all.

By way of analogy: We flip a coin to randomize a binary decision because a coin has only two faces: heads and tails. But a coin also has an edge, and about one in 6,000 (0.0166 percent) throws (with a nickel) will land on it. This is roughly the same likelihood of being born with an intersex condition. Almost every coin flip will be either heads or tails, and those heads and tails do not come in degrees or mixtures. That’s because heads and tails are qualitatively different and mutually exclusive outcomes. The existence of edge cases does not change this fact. Heads and tails, despite the existence of the edge, remain discrete outcomes.

Likewise, the outcomes of sex development in humans are almost always unambiguously male or female. The development of ovaries vs testes, and thus females and males, are also qualitatively different outcomes that for the vast majority of humans are mutually exclusive and do not come in mixtures or degrees. Males and females, despite the existence of intersex conditions, remain discrete outcomes.

The existence of intersex conditions is frequently brought up in an attempt to blur the line between male and female when arguing for the inclusion of trans women in female sports and other contexts. But transgenderism has absolutely nothing to do with being intersex. For the vast majority of individuals claiming either trans or non-binary identities, their sex is not in question. Primary sex organs, not identity, determines one’s sex.

In regard to the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics, the primary flaw is that it confuses cause and effect. Remember, secondary sex characteristics are anatomies that differentiate during puberty. In females, these include (among others) the development of breasts, wider hips, and a tendency for fat to store around the hips and buttocks. In males, secondary sex characteristics include deeper voices, taller average height, facial hair, broader shoulders, increased musculature, and fat distributed more around the midsection. However, these secondary sex characteristics—while plain to the eye, and inseparable from the way most laypeople think about men and women—do not actually define one’s biological sex. Rather, these traits typically develop as a consequence of one’s sex, via differences in the hormonal milieu produced during puberty by either testes or ovaries.

The different developmental trajectories of males and females are themselves a product of millions of years of natural selection, since secondary sex characteristics will contribute to evolutionary fitness in males and females in different ways. Females with narrower hips had more trouble delivering large-headed children, and so those with larger hips had an evolutionary advantage. This wasn’t relevant to males, however, which is one reason why their bodies tend to look different. But that doesn’t mean that a person’s hips—or any of their secondary sex characteristics, including beards and breasts—define their sex biologically. These traits, while having evolved due to sex-specific selection pressures, are completely irrelevant when it comes to defining one’s biological sex.

Analogies help, so let me offer another one. Bikers ride motorcycles, and cyclists ride bicycles. While these two vehicles share many similarities (two wheels, handlebars, seats, spokes, etc.), they differ in at least one fundamental way. Motorcycles are powered by engines and fuel, while bicycles are powered by pedaling legs. Whether someone is a biker or a cyclist depends entirely on the binary criterion of whether they are riding a motorcycle or a bicycle. This is the primary characteristic that defines bikers and cyclists. However, there are also many secondary characteristics associated with bikers and cyclists. Bikers, for instance, are more likely to wear leather jackets, jeans, and bandanas. Cyclists are more likely to wear skin-tight spandex. Bikers wear heavy helmets that contain the entire head and include a face-shield. Cyclists typically wear lightweight helmets that cover only the top of their heads.

Many of the secondary characteristics of bikers and cyclists are not arbitrary or coincidental. Like male and female secondary sex characteristics, we can map the utility of biker and cyclist secondary characteristics to their primary characteristics. Bikers wear tough clothes because they travel at higher speeds, which necessitate protective clothing in case of an accident and to mitigate windchill. Cyclists, on the other hand, exert great physical effort pedaling their entire body weight plus the weight of their vehicle, which necessitates lighter, breathable, wind-breaking clothing and protective gear. Given cyclists’ slower crash speeds, the trade-off in favor of less protective gear is worthwhile.

But a person riding a motorcycle wearing a spandex suit and lighter helmet doesn’t become a cyclist (or less of a biker) because they share these secondary traits more commonly associated with cyclists. And a person riding a bicycle wearing jeans and a leather jacket doesn’t become a biker (or less of a cyclist) by sharing secondary traits more typical of bikers. Just as these secondary traits do not define bikers and cyclists, secondary sex characteristics do not define males and females.

* * *

Because biology is complex, people can be easily swayed with graphs and drawings, especially if they purport to prove something we want to believe anyway—such as the supposedly liberating notion that sex is a spectrum instead of a binary. But a spectrum implies a quantitative axis and, when this is taken seriously, leads to troubling conclusions. One particularly popular graphical depiction presents sex as bimodal—meaning that there are two maxima representing “male-ness” and “female-ness,” around which most people tend to cluster. A viral tweet by Twitter user @ScienceVet2, now with over 17,000 retweets, conveyed the bimodal sex spectrum model using a figure similar to the one below.

You can see why this sort of representation would prove popular: It accords with our intuitive sense that most of us cluster around a male or female typology, while also preserving the conceit that there is a vast, inhabitable continuum between these two categories. Presumably, one could even take various measurements to determine exactly where along the spectrum we reside.

Again, this all sounds very progressive in theory. But the consequences are regressive in practice, since the indicia of male-ness and female-ness invoked by sex-spectrum enthusiasts will always be based on sexist ideals and stereotypes that our grandparents would have recognized.

In the modified figure below, is male A “more” male than male B? Is female D “more” female than female C? For decades, we’ve properly taught our children that this kind of logic is insulting and toxic—that a girl with more masculine features is just as much a girl as her friend with a more stereotypically feminine physique. Whether the figure’s x-axis is quantifying genital morphology or an amalgam of secondary sex traits or behaviors, the implication is that tall, aggressive males with thick beards, deep voices, large penises, and higher testosterone are “more” male than short males with meeker personalities who answer to the opposite description. Likewise, females with larger breasts, a more “feminine” waist-to-hip ratio, and less body hair would be considered “more” female than small-breasted, less curvy, hairier females.

If this sex-spectrum logic strikes you as awfully similar to playground bully logic, you’re right. Imagine the following scenario: James, 16, is a very effeminate boy. He gets relentlessly bullied in high school for his feminine appearance and mannerisms. His classmates tease, “What, are you a girl?” His teacher, upon overhearing this, consults his sex-spectrum chart and tells the class: “maybe.”

Another worrying corollary of this notion is that surgical intervention on intersex infants (sometimes called intersex genital mutilation) can change an individual’s actual location along a pseudo-scientific sex spectrum. A parent may then feel more justified in opting for other “corrective” surgeries, sometimes at odds with an infant’s true (gonadal) biological sex, in order to make their child “ideally” (in their minds) more male or more female. To be fair, most sex-spectrum advocates decry surgical intervention on intersex infants (and rightfully so, in my opinion), but fail to consider how their doctrines may encourage such practices.

The promise of sex-spectrum pseudoscience—that one’s sex is impossible to definitively determine—has a natural appeal to those who already find themselves wrestling with issues connected to their identity. It’s empowering to imagine that we may have control over something so basic as sex. In Sex Redefined, a 2015 article that appeared in Nature, authored by sex-spectrum advocate Dr. Claire Ainsworth, the final paragraph reads:

“My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain. In other words, if you want to know whether someone is male or female, it may be best just to ask.

Here Dr. Eric Vilain, a clinician and the director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles, claims that since biological sex cannot be reduced to “one biological parameter” (not true), we should therefore abandon sex classifications altogether in favor of one’s entirely subjective gender identity. This is a baffling conclusion since, even if the sex spectrum model were correct, it in no way follows that one can choose where along the spectrum they reside. Furthermore, in Ainsworth’s interpretation of Vilain’s words, we see a not-so-subtle shift from the claim that sex is a spectrum to the much more extreme claim that sex is arbitrary and meaningless. According to this understanding, a person may literally reimagine their biology, as if by alchemy, by merely stating so. What an astounding power for humans to claim. If only it actually existed.

* * *

Some trans–rights activists have asked why it should be that people like me are so fixated on an issue where the stakes seem so small. But the stakes aren’t small: If the idea of biological sex can be overturned in the domain of athletic competition, where differences between male and female are abundantly obvious, then the battle to push back sex-spectrum pseudoscience in every other area will be lost—from the admission of males into female prisons and rape-crisis centers, to the facilitation of sex-change surgery for schoolchildren. As Thomas Sowell succinctly stated in his book The Quest for Cosmic Justice, “there is only so much divergence between prevailing theories and intractable reality that a society can survive. Yet theories of equality are unlikely to be re-examined—or examined the first time—when they provide a foundation for the heady feeling of being morally superior to a benighted ‘society.’”

Advocates of the sex-spectrum model no doubt meant well when these theories originally were developed. After all, who wouldn’t be partial to an explanation of human biology that validated all of our shifting forms of self-conception and understanding? But over time, it’s become clear that they created a false theory of biology that distorts human nature and harms vulnerable individuals. When one attempts to achieve equality and justice by distorting reality, inequality and injustice are never eliminated, just relocated.

Colin Wright is an assistant editor at Quillette and holds a PhD in evolutionary biology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. You can follow him on Twitter at @SwipeWright.