Originally, “gender” and “biological sex” meant the same thing, or that “gender” was a grammatical concept more or less consistent with biological sex.* Then the two terms started to be used together, as first seemingly redundantly; once established in law, the treatment of “gender” and “biological sex” as two mutually unrelated terms brought forth the “trans” aspect of “social justice.” Now that normalcy has become denormalized, and contranormative social norms have trumped verinormative ones, the distinguishment between “gender” and “biological sex” has become #problematic. But by recombining the two meanings, it is not objective biological reality that is winning the day, but the idea that objective reality itself that is a social construct.
This is underscored by an androgynous blogger “Lane Silas” which sadly represents a growing segment of the Western World’s yutes, and thus the end stages of millennia old civilization…
This level of smug pseudo-intellectual idiocy requires a fisking. In order to reduce repetitiveness, it should be noted that there are abnormal cases of non “XX” or “XY” chormosome pairings (e.g. XO, XXY), or of a body developing in utero contra to chomosomes, but those are rare and not indicative of a “social norm” of recognizing that the vast majority of people are indeed women or men, a fact confirmed by not only our entire history as a species, but of practically every other mammalian species in existance.
Further, it will reduce repetitiveness to point out basic biological reality: A “Y” chromosome in lieu of a second “X” chromosome is like a fork in the road that instructs the biological program (i.e. DNA) to develop the body and mind along that of a woman (when no “Y” chromosome is present), or that of a man (when there is a “Y” chromosome). Men and women are physically and physiologically distinct from each other on a clear statistical basis. There is not gradual spectrum. You have two distinct averages with outliers that at the extremes can overlap, like two Gaussian curves. Outside of the previously mentioned biological abnormalities, this holds true, and does so for the vast majority of the population. There is no moral or sociological implications from this statement of biological facts per se.
And let the fisking begin…
“As you read the title, you may be overcome with indignation that this article is going to be a gender-essentialist rant. You’ll be relieved to know that it’s quite the opposite. My intent in writing this is to point out some serious misconceptions perpetuated in ‘trans 101′ and cisgender allyship resources, which end up doing much more harm than good for transgender people.
“Anyone with an entry-level understanding of trans issues is probably familiar with the phrase ‘gender and sex are different things.’
“While the idea of treating sex and gender as unrelated factors may result from an attempt to validate and support transgender identities, it actually perpetuates harmful cultural beliefs about the validity of sex assignment and the static nature of biological sex, which remove agency from trans and intersex people to define their own bodies and experiences. This way of thinking does nothing to combat (and in fact often co-signs) the pathologization, alienation, and exclusion of trans people, especially trans women, on the basis of their seemingly immutable ‘biological sex’.”
Darn. It started out with a reasonable statement, that “gender” and “biological sex” are not two different things… but then shoots itself in the foot with the idea that “biological sex” is just some fungible thing…
“Social Constructs, Social Constructs Everywhere…
“The reality is that the concept of ‘biological sex’ — along with gender, money, and traffic laws — is entirely socially constructed.
“Now, your first reaction may be ‘Woah, woah, woah — penises and vaginas physically exist! Genitals obviously can’t be social constructs!’
“This is at least partially true. The physical tissue and organs, to which the concept of sex is assigned, are not socially constructed; they exist through nature rather than human design.
“However, words like ‘penis’ and ‘vagina’ are socially constructed. The study of medicine is socially constructed. The criteria that arbitrarily define ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ sex characteristics and create a dichotomy between ‘male’ and ‘female’ biology, is socially constructed. The expectations, functions and genders we assign to these organs and tissues? Definitely socially constructed.”
The term “social construct” seems to be a general negation of objective reality. What a society does or does not believe to be true or accept isn’t even necessarily a “social construct” as the term itself suggests that all social norms and elements are purposefully created wholecloth from some intentional will of society rather than be a product of societal evolution. But even then, that refers to opinion and not of objective scientific reality.
Continue reading →
