Thank you so much for taking the time to write this analysis Sara. I am so appreciative that you have done so, it helps all of us struggling to find the words to resist this judgement.
Regardless of the judgement or social justice issues, the claim that "biology is socially constructed" (meaning "an illusion created to oppress women") and biological sex is not binary is on par with the flat earth conspiracy or climate change denial. Activists can deploy all the sophistry they want, biological sex is a well established observable scientific fact with great explanatory power, compatible with common knowledge across all human history, compatible with observations across all sexually reproducing plants and animals and so on.
Denying biology is the wrong approach to defend transgender rights, and just gives easy ammunition to gender-critical people because it's simply delusional.
Early biologists modelled biology based on the societal norms of the time, imposing a binary on a bimodal distribution. In most species the sex binary doesn't really exist. Some vertebrates can change sex for reproductive purposes and most plants and fungi etc. don't have a "sex" so the sex binary isn't necessary biologically. In vertebrates the sexual characteristics of individuals are bimodal, rather than binary. In humans the differentiation of sex characteristics is small (so small that we need different dress codes to differentiate into the "binary"). For instance in humans there are observable differences, on average, between female brains and male brains - but it is a bimodal distribution so you could not assign a sex to an individual based on observations of their brain; anymore than you could based on observations of their height. Sex and sex development are very complex and both primary and secondary sex characteristics are variable and overlapping. Defining individuals based on these is problematic and is indeed a social construct re-enforced by clothing and social norms. For the majority and for easily identifying potential reproductive mates in larger societies it is useful, but insisting that all individuals comply with this binary construct is in, my view, morally dubious.
Early biologists modelled biology based on the societal norms of the time, imposing a binary on a bimodal distribution. In most species the sex binary doesn't really exist. Some vertebrates can change sex for reproductive purposes and most plants and fungi etc. don't have a "sex" so the sex binary isn't necessary biologically. In vertebrates the sexual characteristics of individuals are bimodal, rather than binary. In humans the differentiation of sex characteristics is small (so small that we need different dress codes to differentiate into the "binary"). For instance in humans there are observable differences, on average, between female brains and male brains - but it is a bimodal distribution so you could not assign a sex to an individual based on observations of their brain; anymore than you could based on observations of their height. Sex and sex development are very complex and both primary and secondary sex characteristics are variable and overlapping. Defining individuals based on these is problematic and is indeed a social construct re-enforced by clothing and social norms. For the majority and for easily identifying potential reproductive mates in larger societies it is useful, but insisting that all individuals comply with this binary construct is in, my view, morally dubious.
Early biologists modelled biology based on the societal norms of the time, imposing a binary on a bimodal distribution. In most species the sex binary doesn't really exist. Some vertebrates can change sex for reproductive purposes and most plants and fungi etc. don't have a "sex" so the sex binary isn't necessary biologically. In vertebrates the sexual characteristics of individuals are bimodal, rather than binary. In humans the differentiation of sex characteristics is small (so small that we need different dress codes to differentiate into the "binary"). For instance in humans there are observable differences, on average, between female brains and male brains - but it is a bimodal distribution so you could not assign a sex to an individual based on observations of their brain; anymore than you could based on observations of their height. Sex and sex development are very complex and both primary and secondary sex characteristics are variable and overlapping. Defining individuals based on these is problematic and is indeed a social construct re-enforced by clothing and social norms. For the majority and for easily identifying potential reproductive mates in larger societies it is useful, but insisting that all individuals comply with this binary construct is in, my view, morally dubious.
Thank you so much for taking the time to write this analysis Sara. I am so appreciative that you have done so, it helps all of us struggling to find the words to resist this judgement.
Regardless of the judgement or social justice issues, the claim that "biology is socially constructed" (meaning "an illusion created to oppress women") and biological sex is not binary is on par with the flat earth conspiracy or climate change denial. Activists can deploy all the sophistry they want, biological sex is a well established observable scientific fact with great explanatory power, compatible with common knowledge across all human history, compatible with observations across all sexually reproducing plants and animals and so on.
Denying biology is the wrong approach to defend transgender rights, and just gives easy ammunition to gender-critical people because it's simply delusional.
And, their whole concept of of biology is based entirely on ignorance and misrepresentation. Nothing in the natural world is binary.
Early biologists modelled biology based on the societal norms of the time, imposing a binary on a bimodal distribution. In most species the sex binary doesn't really exist. Some vertebrates can change sex for reproductive purposes and most plants and fungi etc. don't have a "sex" so the sex binary isn't necessary biologically. In vertebrates the sexual characteristics of individuals are bimodal, rather than binary. In humans the differentiation of sex characteristics is small (so small that we need different dress codes to differentiate into the "binary"). For instance in humans there are observable differences, on average, between female brains and male brains - but it is a bimodal distribution so you could not assign a sex to an individual based on observations of their brain; anymore than you could based on observations of their height. Sex and sex development are very complex and both primary and secondary sex characteristics are variable and overlapping. Defining individuals based on these is problematic and is indeed a social construct re-enforced by clothing and social norms. For the majority and for easily identifying potential reproductive mates in larger societies it is useful, but insisting that all individuals comply with this binary construct is in, my view, morally dubious.
Early biologists modelled biology based on the societal norms of the time, imposing a binary on a bimodal distribution. In most species the sex binary doesn't really exist. Some vertebrates can change sex for reproductive purposes and most plants and fungi etc. don't have a "sex" so the sex binary isn't necessary biologically. In vertebrates the sexual characteristics of individuals are bimodal, rather than binary. In humans the differentiation of sex characteristics is small (so small that we need different dress codes to differentiate into the "binary"). For instance in humans there are observable differences, on average, between female brains and male brains - but it is a bimodal distribution so you could not assign a sex to an individual based on observations of their brain; anymore than you could based on observations of their height. Sex and sex development are very complex and both primary and secondary sex characteristics are variable and overlapping. Defining individuals based on these is problematic and is indeed a social construct re-enforced by clothing and social norms. For the majority and for easily identifying potential reproductive mates in larger societies it is useful, but insisting that all individuals comply with this binary construct is in, my view, morally dubious.
Early biologists modelled biology based on the societal norms of the time, imposing a binary on a bimodal distribution. In most species the sex binary doesn't really exist. Some vertebrates can change sex for reproductive purposes and most plants and fungi etc. don't have a "sex" so the sex binary isn't necessary biologically. In vertebrates the sexual characteristics of individuals are bimodal, rather than binary. In humans the differentiation of sex characteristics is small (so small that we need different dress codes to differentiate into the "binary"). For instance in humans there are observable differences, on average, between female brains and male brains - but it is a bimodal distribution so you could not assign a sex to an individual based on observations of their brain; anymore than you could based on observations of their height. Sex and sex development are very complex and both primary and secondary sex characteristics are variable and overlapping. Defining individuals based on these is problematic and is indeed a social construct re-enforced by clothing and social norms. For the majority and for easily identifying potential reproductive mates in larger societies it is useful, but insisting that all individuals comply with this binary construct is in, my view, morally dubious.
Thank you for your solidarity, it means the world <3