alt-text for thumbnail: The words: ““biological” sex is the gender binary” on a 2d digital art wooden background next to the non-binary flag
alt-text for thumbnail: The words: ““biological” sex is the gender binary” on a 2d digital art wooden background next to the non-binary flag
It’s not arbitrary at all, it’s just how reproduction works.
I agree gender is a social construct but let’s not dismiss basic science to make us feel better
There are plenty of people who are, in every biological sense, a woman who cannot have a baby.
Its not “basic” science at all, the concept of a strictly defined “biological sex binary” is a fucking nightmare of complexity with edge cases all over the show.
From your post history you seem to at least be an ally if not directly part of the lgbtqia+ community so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you simply haven’t thought about this very much, but please take the time to reassess.
That’s true, and I’m not arguing any of the above. I’m pointing out where the concept of biological sex comes from, two sides of the sexual reproductive cycle.
You’re confusing me. You seem to be conceding that its a silly classification that fails to successfully categorize humans into biological sexes. And at the same time, heralding it as the definition of biological sex.
Biology is far more complicated than you make it out to be. You are also invalidating cis people with your terfy logic about producing babies
Biology is extremely complicated, but childbirth is kind of an undeniable, fundamental to the continuation of humanity concept. Literally just acknowledging that is not “terfy” or whatever flavor of victim complex you’d like to use.
I’m not saying anything about gender, gender roles, etc. I’m arguing we need to have similar basis of reality in order to have a productive discussion.
Binary gender as a social concept is harmful. However it does stem from the concept of biological sex, which primarily comes from one sex’s ability to make babies. Calling someone xyz-phobic when they acknowledge that is asinine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2190741/
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mostly-male-woman-gives-birth-to-twins-in-medical-miracle-10033528.html
Biological sex is not binary, and the purpose of women isn’t just squeezing children out. I called your logic terfy because your talking points are eerily similar to theirs.
None of your articles are really making an argument against my statement. The second two are super interesting though.
She was then treated via IVF. The NCBI study is a little dense so I didn’t read all of it, but it pretty clearly describes a woman, albeit with genetic abnormalities, giving birth. Sooo…. Not sure what the statement there is.
Your issue is you have two boxes, female and male, when intersex conditions are the result of sex being a spectrum. Intersex conditions can happen in a multitude of ways, and many are not very outwardly detectable.
Masulinization and feminization is a complicated and messy process which results in people with sexual characteristics outside the binary, and sometimes this means that people are born infertile or less fertile, which invalidates your point. Biologically it’s asinine to say that bio sex is binary.
You say if someone belongs to the sex which can have babies then they are biologically women. How do you define if someone belongs to the sex which can have babies? Your definition doesn’t describe this, you just arbitrarily put someone into the woman box.