You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Biological Sex’ tag.
The accompanying meme asks why women are increasingly described as “menstruators,” “pregnant people” and “cervix-havers,” while men appear less frequently as “ejaculators” or “penis people.”
The absolute comparison is imperfect. Some medical organizations now use expressions such as “people with prostates.” That does not answer the objection; it merely demonstrates that the same ideology can make language equally absurd in both directions.
Sex is a biological reality, not an identity. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research defines sex through biological attributes including chromosomes, hormones and reproductive anatomy.[1] Personal feelings may affect how someone wishes to dress, live or be addressed, but they cannot transform a male body into a female one or vice versa.
No male requires a Pap test, becomes pregnant or menstruates. No female develops prostate or testicular cancer. A female who identifies as a man may still require cervical screening, but that is because she remains female. Her identity does not make cervical cancer a male health issue.
Nor does saying that women menstruate imply that every woman currently menstruates. Children, post-menopausal women, women with certain medical conditions and women who have undergone surgery remain female. Ordinary category language has never required every member of a class to display every characteristic associated with it.
The linguistic transformation therefore serves another purpose. Once woman is redefined as an internal identity available to males, it can no longer reliably name the female sex. Yet medicine, law and politics still require a way to discuss female bodies. Women are consequently reassembled as lists of organs and functions: uterus-havers, menstruators and birthing bodies.
That is the anti-woman streak within transgender ideology. It does not merely ask that a small number of people be treated courteously. It demands that women surrender the language required to describe themselves as a sex class—and then presents their disappearance as inclusion.
This matters beyond wounded sensibilities. Women’s health research depends upon recognizing sex differences; Health Canada explicitly warns that failing to study women as a distinct sex can obscure clinically important differences in treatment and outcomes.[2] The same clarity is necessary when discussing pregnancy, sexual violence, sport and sex discrimination.
Courtesy toward individuals does not require institutions to falsify material reality. Medical professionals can treat every patient with dignity while recording sex accurately and speaking plainly about which sex is affected by a condition.
Women are not menstruators, cervix-havers or birthing bodies. They are women. Language that cannot say so is not inclusive; it has simply made women harder to name.
References
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research, “What is gender? What is sex?”
https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48642.html - Health Canada, “Considerations for Inclusion of Women in Clinical Trials and Analysis of Data by Sex.”
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/drug-products/applications-submissions/guidance-documents/clinical-trials/considerations-inclusion-women-clinical-trials-analysis-data-sex-differences.html - Trans Care BC, “Gender-Inclusive Language: Clinical Settings.”
https://www.transcarebc.ca/sites/default/files/2024-03/Gender_Inclusive_Language_Clinical.pdf
This excerpt taken from Jonah Mix’s essay on medium.com: An Open Letter to the Guy on Twitter Who Wonders if Biological Sex is Real
Lately, I’ve seen a lot of debates break out on Twitter over biological sex — what defines it, how it can be measured, whether it exists at all. The men who dominate these debates are often experts in their fields, meaning they use terms like “bimodal distribution” and “nonstandard karyotypes” to make their otherwise mundane points. I think most of these points are foolish, tired rehashings of fallacies first identified by ancient Greeks in the fourth century BCE. They confuse — or, perhaps, intentionally conflate — imprecision with invalidity, social perception with social construction, and binarism with exclusivity. In other words, they trade in the all-too-familiar illogic that festers at the intersection of science and philosophy, where ontological cowardice appears as the highest form of nuance.
But here I go again, right? It’s so easy to get sucked into this debate, to get that hot indignation in your stomach that comes when a foolish claim is so proudly asserted. And I don’t even have skin in the game — binary or not, my sex will still land me squarely in the “paid more, raped less” category. So what’s the point beyond intellectual exercise? It seems more and more obvious to me that even entertaining the debate is a concession, an assent to women’s lives being made the subject of thought experiments and counterfactuals plucked from the air by some post-grad who, coincidentally, has never once worried about pregnancy from rape.
So that’s my quarter-through-the-year resolution: I’m not going to debate with you about the reality of biological sex, for the same reason I wouldn’t stand on the train platform debating the finer points of physics while the man on the tracks is ground into bits. Not because your position is unassailable. Because even bringing it up makes you an asshole.
That might sound a little dramatic, a flourish of rhetoric to cover up a weak rebuttal. But how long have you spent reading up to this point? Five minutes? Ten? If so, the world has fifty more mutilated girls than when you started. Were the men who carried out those mutilations confused about what makes a female body? Did they ponder chromosome parings and standard deviations when they chose who to cut? Or is that kind of nuance a luxury set aside just for educated, progressive, worldly men like you?
Isn’t it odd that sex was never so complicated before? There was nothing ethereal about biology when it came to allocating the right to vote, or own property, or walk down the street at night without fear. We knew perfectly well what made someone female when that female-ness guaranteed a life of subservience and pain. Only when women began to say no did their bodies become a concept.
So many feminists have made this point, over and over again. I see them say it. I know you read it. Did you listen? If not, why? And why do you always respond when I say it? It seems you do know who has a female body, when it comes to deciding which perspective gets ignored.
Sex is such a mystery to you when women want shelters for themselves, meetings for themselves, words for themselves. Pardon me for asking, but is it equally mysterious when you log off Twitter and move over to Pornhub? The true nature of a female body is so complex when you lecture. Does it become simple again when you masturbate? Who does the laundry in your house? Were you somehow able to navigate an inchoate soup of X’s and Y’s to saddle your girlfriend with the dishes? Give yourself some credit — I think you know perfectly well what a female body is. But in case you don’t, here’s a hint:
It’s the only type of body that gets you thrown on the funeral pyre when the husband dies. It’s the only type of body that gets your feet bound and your breasts ironed. It’s the only type made pregnant through rape and burned with acid, the only type expected to sit quietly and listen while we redefine it away, the only type men have spent millennia criticizing and critiquing and buying and selling until we suddenly decided we don’t even know what the fuck we meant this whole time.
You know what a female body is, dude? It’s the only type of body that makes men like you ask such stupid questions. So please, stop. This is an emergency. This is three and a half billion human beings tied to the tracks, and you’re riding on the train. Your insistence on nuance, your fetish for accuracy, your smug deconstruction of common sense — it doesn’t make you thoughtful. It doesn’t make you wise. It doesn’t make you progressive. It makes you an asshole. It makes you worse than a bystander. A bystander does nothing. He watches from afar. You step into the fray just to prod the victim for the imprecision of their screams.




Your opinions…