Read on Twitter
So the transphoberati have been insisting “trans people don’t believe biological sex exists!”. And a lot of voices I love are pointing out that that’s not true, just that it’s more nuanced or complex than people like Singal present it. I agree with them, it is. But...,
(thread)
(thread)
I actually don’t believe biological sex exists.
Hold on, slow down.
Yes, I know the biology underpinning "biological sex" is real. Anatomy is real. Gonads are real. Human development is real. Bone density is real. White blood cell count is real. Brain activity is real.
2/n
Hold on, slow down.
Yes, I know the biology underpinning "biological sex" is real. Anatomy is real. Gonads are real. Human development is real. Bone density is real. White blood cell count is real. Brain activity is real.
2/n
I know that how society regards differences in biology is essentially binary. And the oppressive force of that binary, as well as the patriarchal favoring of male over female within that binary, is real. But the idea of "biological sex" is a farce.
3/n
3/n
I’ll say it again: what we as a society think about sex differentiated characteristics, and what they represent, the terms we use for them, the things we believe about them, are a poorly defined, poorly understood farce.
4/n
4/n
Here’s what I mean:
If you look up “sex” in the dictionary, or get a lecture about biology from a TERF, you’ll invariably hear that “sex” is one of two categories (dictionary) or classes (TERFs) you’re put in based on whether you make ova or spermatozoa.
5/n
If you look up “sex” in the dictionary, or get a lecture about biology from a TERF, you’ll invariably hear that “sex” is one of two categories (dictionary) or classes (TERFs) you’re put in based on whether you make ova or spermatozoa.
5/n
They’ll insist the classification is objective. That it’s fixed. The dictionary will likely insist that it’s synonymous with gender. TERFs will insist gender is a lie, but will still end up using the term “sex” as a synonym for gender anyway.
6/n
6/n
But, both “class” and “category” are terms that relate to organizing people. If it’s into two categories, that organizational principle is inherently binary. This process is an assignment into one of two categories, that happens at birth.
It’s birth assignment.
7/n
It’s birth assignment.
7/n
We’re not talking biology there. We’re talking ontology. That’s at best, something debatable, not some objectively “biological” anything. Attaching “biological” to that is an attempt to legitimize as objective and immutable, something that’s philosophical.
8/n
8/n
And this fact, that “biological sex” isn’t biology, is reinforced by a few realizations. The first is: we don’t actually check anyone’s ability to produce any gamete at all before a “biological sex” is ascribed to them.
9/n
9/n
“Biological sex” isn’t about gametes. It’s about the presumption about a relationship between genitals and gametes. If the entire point of the term is to talk about gametes, it fails before it gets out of the gate, because that’s simply not something ever measured.
10/n
10/n
What IS measured are genitals at birth. Namely the phallus/clitoris. A long one and they declare you “male”, a short one and you’re “female”. One in between and the dyadism obsessed powers that be too often decide what it’s supposed to be for you without consent.
11/n
11/n
This “biological sex” then is a binary tool for oppression. But none of it establishes a thing about gametes.
This is not biology.
What we talk about as if it’s some concrete thing, is mostly a story we tell ourselves about several disparate concrete things.
12/n
This is not biology.
What we talk about as if it’s some concrete thing, is mostly a story we tell ourselves about several disparate concrete things.
12/n
If you talk to a trans antagonist about what they mean by “biological sex” their definition will swirl and change with every use. They’ll insist it’s about “gametes” (false) while simultaneously insisting that it’s objectively observed at birth (false).
13/n
13/n
They’ll insist it’s about the presence or absence of a Y allosome (false). They’ll insist this is a definition we use throughout society (false).
14/n
14/n
They’ll insist it’s distinct and separate from gender.(false) with sex being objective (false) and gender being a fiction (false).
Every single sentence, every statement they make about biological sex is false.
Why am I supposed to admit this is legitimate, again?
15/n
Every single sentence, every statement they make about biological sex is false.
Why am I supposed to admit this is legitimate, again?
15/n
And the terms used for “biological sex” are thoroughly gendered terms, anyway. They insist that “male” is biological while “man” is gendered. That is unless they attempt to claim both are biological and try to run trans people off their identities altogether.
16/n
16/n
Transphoberati Lite insist they’re separate, but “Male” has always been used as synonymous with “man or boy” and “female” for “woman or girl”. This is overwhelmingly the most common use of the terms and has always been their most common use.
17/n
17/n
TERFs have shown they know full well that the terms male/man and female/woman are used interchangeably, and they intend to claim both and fix them permanently to birth assignment.
18/n
18/n
But in the day to day, we ascribe gender/sex to people, not based on birth assignment, not based on gametes, or gonads, or any other feature we don't see day to day. We do it based on phenotype--a variety of secondary sex characteristics--and based on presentation.
19/n
19/n
What we do know about the biology of sex differentiated characteristics is that most people with a penis have testicles. Most people with testicles will produce spermatozoa. Most people who have testicles will have the allosome combination XY. Most. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/
20/n
20/n
Most people with XY allosomes will have a prostate. Most people with a penis will display secondary sex characteristics that we societally read as male. Most people with testicles will primarily produce testosterone.
And most people with a penis will be male. Most.
21/n
And most people with a penis will be male. Most.
21/n
These relationships are mostly correlations, not causal relationships. And these connections at best form a bimodal distribution, not a binary. Many will point out that biological sex is just that: a bimodal distribution. I’m all for talking about such a distribution, but…
22/n
22/n
It really doesn’t matter what it is or what it should be. Because unfortunately, how the term “biological sex” was originally conceived, and how it’s always addressed, considered, debated, applied, every day, in every single setting, right or wrong, is as a binary.
23/n
23/n
Every appeal to “biological sex” will always mistake this distribution as a binary. It’s the nature of the idea, at its root. Because we’ve gendered these terms and pinned these gendered terms to cishet white society’s two idealized dyadic physical expressions.
24/n
24/n
We can talk about the science of how hormones affect muscles, bone, blood, the brain. We can talk about how human development, reproductive systems, the endocrine system. We can do this without ever invoking "biological sex" or trying to innately gender biology.
25/n
25/n
Blanket statements made about “biological sex” are invariably false claims. But they encourage people to think those claims are ironclad, universal rules. And rules like that are medically and socially dangerous.
26/n
26/n
The idea that a penis at birth MUST mean: testicles, testosterone, XY allosomes, 100% thoroughly male-read secondary sex characteristics is one that doesn’t just leave trans and intersex people to fall through the cracks.
27/n
27/n
A host of people, dyadic cis people even, have phenotypic characteristics that fall outside of what we read as matching their birth assignment.
The boundaries of exclusion bound up in this notion of "biological sex" cuts far wider a swathe than just its intended targets.
28/n
The boundaries of exclusion bound up in this notion of "biological sex" cuts far wider a swathe than just its intended targets.
28/n
“Sex” as a concept is as narrow as “a birth assigned binary based on genitals”, as nebulous as “what we think someone is based on seeing them” and as broad as “a group of people we believe have roughly the same gametes, gonads, genitals, hormones and karyotype”.
29/n
29/n
But that broad category used to be far, far broader. We know that there have been people trying to claim there is some faux biological or evolutionary basis for all women (ha!) sharing a tendency towards being nurturing, being passive, being “bad at math”, being quiet.
30/n
30/n
This idea is always given the shine of faux scientific credibility despite being by and large no more scientific than phrenology. It’s a popular conception that too many scientists have embraced rather than challenged.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/both-genders-think-women-are-bad-basic-math
31/n
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/both-genders-think-women-are-bad-basic-math
31/n
Society and the cishet white men who are most of society’s scientists want to believe that “biological sex” not only tells you for sure what someone’s gonads are, and what their gender is, but also tells you the roles and presentations they're best suited for.
32/n
32/n
The notion of biological sex in this context is an aggressive tool of the white patriarchy forcing marginalization on AFAB people on the insistent belief that their vulvas mean they are passive, weak minded, overly emotional, and less intelligent.
33/n
33/n
And what symbols are used for this split between these “biological” “opposites”? Ares’ spear 
and Aphrodite's mirror 
. The symbols for “biological sex” are color coded, mythologized representations of aggression vs. vanity.
“Biology” my entire ass.
34/n
and Aphrodite's mirror . The symbols for “biological sex” are color coded, mythologized representations of aggression vs. vanity. “Biology” my entire ass.
34/n
But “biological sex” doesn’t limit itself to marginalizing trans people, intersex people, GNC people and all AFAB people, by conflating anatomy, genetics, endocrinology, social systems, phenotype, gender roles, and presentation. It also assigns sexual attraction to people.
35/n
35/n
We know that society insists people born with a penis are attracted to people born with a vulva. No one should be mystified by the existence of heteronormativity. It’s something that targets all LGBTQIA people, as well as non-white people. https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/what-is-heteronormativity/
36/n
36/n
See how the process of heteronormativity marginalizes trans people as assuredly as it does cis LGB people, but only the one axis of oppression is noted explicitly in its name.
That erasure is far too common.
37/n
That erasure is far too common.
37/n
Cis gay trans antagonists sometimes insist that trans people have no history of our own. That we’re a recent addition and previously were tucked under the skirts/coattails of the LG movement, spanning back a century.
38/n
38/n
The reality's mostly been the reverse. Cis LG groups separate from trans people, came to the fore relatively recently, and for most of queer history over the last few centuries, society’s focus on LGBTQ+ people was centered on its feelings and beliefs about trans people.
39/n
39/n
Cis LGB+ people existed, of course. But terms like "sexual inversion" were used, a concept society and sexologists used to describe all LGBTQ people in the latter half of the 19ith century and early 20th century http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5114/
40/n
40/n
This has been spun in the last 3/4 of a century as being explicitly about gayness, framing THIS as gay history, while erasing that it's clearly trans history, too. Look at Havelock Ellis' textbook on the subject from 1896. https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9780230008038
41/n
41/n
His discussion of "sexual inversion" focuses extensively on same sex attraction, but the way he frames his discussion of inverts, the way so many sexologists did for a century before and and a half century after him, is grounded in terminology today aimed at trans people.
42/n
42/n
The sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in 1886 described AFAB "sexual inverts" as "the masculine soul heaving in the female bosom". Ellis emphasized gender role reversal and said inverts were born in the wrong body.
https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/footnotes/article/view/3844/3879
https://books.google.com/books/about/Studies_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex.html?id=nT3KsgEACAAJ
43/n
https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/footnotes/article/view/3844/3879
https://books.google.com/books/about/Studies_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex.html?id=nT3KsgEACAAJ
43/n
