Skip to content

Sex vs. gender: I have a question

Maybe I'm guilty of not paying attention, but lately I've noticed there's (apparently) considerable pushback to the notion that human sex is binary. But it is: Women have the capacity to produce eggs and men to produce sperm. At a biological level, that's pretty much all there is to it despite the existence of a few very rare chromosomal disorders.

Gender is a whole different thing. In modern use, gender refers to a person's preferred expression of gender stereotypes, which can vary wildly and don't always align with biological sex. That's where we get the panoply of trans, questioning, genderfluid, agender, etc. etc.

With apologies for my possible obtuseness, what's the point of fighting against the reality of binary biological sex? It doesn't have any impact one way or the other on society's acceptance of gender existing on a spectrum. Does it? Help me out here.

191 thoughts on “Sex vs. gender: I have a question

  1. Bluto_Blutarski

    "Women have the capacity to produce eggs"

    My wife, who suffers from premature ovarian failure will be astonished and I dare say a little unhappy to learn that she is not a woman.

  2. EEM

    Although this isn’t really the grounds for the discussion you’re talking about, if we were to divide people up based on their physical reproductive abilities, it’s not binary at all. A huge chunk of the population is either prepubescent or postmenopausal and does not produce either eggs or sperm. This extends to the animal kingdom as well (e.g. bucks, does, and fawns).

    To create our current binary sex categories requires some very specific social choices. First, that sex is unchanging for a person’s entire life instead of something that changes as reproductive abilities change. Second, to ignore reproductive ability and instead focus narrowly on genital shape (while erasing or reassigning intersex people). Third, to decide that genital shape at birth is more important than current genital shape or function. People can choose set categories up this way, but it is a social choice, not something required by biology. And it’s kind of an awkward set up, since the transition to sexual maturity is actually a big deal and gets sort of shoehorned back in, and then folks get obsessed over what people’s bodies used to look like because current shape (due to injury or surgery) doesn’t count somehow (unless it was an intersex person being operated on at birth to make them conform), etc. And then it gets even messier because secondary sex characteristics also count, but none of them have a distribution that lines up exactly with genital shape (especially in a multi-age group) and so on.

    This is not to say that the biological characteristics used to define sex as we know it are irrelevant. Hormones, possession of organs that need to be screened for cancer, etc. are very relevant to medical care. But so are the other bajillion physical characteristics and family traits on the interminable doctor’s office intake form. Grouping certain characteristics into a named identity instead of making “do you have this organ” a checkbox on the list is a social choice. If you want a thought experiment, imagine the words “male” and “female” disappeared and instead everyone had to state exactly what they meant when using those words. It would take two seconds for dating sites and doctors offices to just ask what organs people have. It’s worth thinking about what purpose having the binary categories serves that couldn’t be done as (or more) effectively some other way.

    If your curious, I have a sci-fi book out that explores how else we could organize reproductive biology into social categories (two ways, in fact). It’s here: https://www.amazon.com/Pledging-Season-Under-Other-Moons-ebook/dp/B09T4MLP69

    1. Crissa

      And even obvious organs have overlap. What do they mark then? Even is it's a one in 10,000 occurrence we'd have over thirty thousand such people in the US alone!

      And whatever laws we have, have to take them into account, too.

  3. Chip Daniels

    The natural world doesn't sort itself into neat tidy compartments for us to sort things into like letters in a post office.

    Most things X have Y characteristic, but a certain number have Z instead.

  4. Pingback: Obtuse but based KD | Zingy Skyway Lunch

  5. dmcantor

    I agree with the comments above that "egg producing" vs. "sperm producing" doesn't cover a whole lot of people. But it's a lot better than trying to focus on penis vs. vagina (a meaningful number of people have atypical anatomies, and there is really a continuum between penis and clitoris). I think people want this to be easy and simple, but mother nature just doesn't agree.

    1. memyselfandi

      the egg producing versus sperm producing doesn't help with people with chromosomal abnormalities since they can't produce either.

    2. Toofbew

      Do we know that this has always been so? Or have there been environmental effects from heavy metals, radioactivity, chemicals, etc.? Has this been studied?

      1. Crissa

        ...because we have historical records and evidence from the natural world?

        Did you read any of the links on the first page of comments?

  6. memyselfandi

    " few very rare chromosomal disorders." They're not actually that rare. They occur in about 1 in 500 births, so the likelihood of a specific person having them is rare, but the likelihood of you knowing someone with one is close to 100%. Now gender is more related to brain development which is vastly more complicated than dna. So gender issues should be occurring an order of magnitude more often.

    1. Crissa

      And with 330 million people in the country, means there's over six hundred thousand such 'exceptions' the law would have to take into consideration for something that happens to 1/500 people.

  7. defranks

    Heh. I am not up on modern usage, but 30+ years ago, academically, "gender" meant "male/female" (or whatever) and "sex" meant knockin' boots.

      1. Crissa

        It's also not true.

        Sex has always meant physical aspects, while gender was cultural.

        There's no change here. Just that since because sex also meant the act, gender was often used to be 'polite'.

  8. Jimm

    Gender is cultural, sex is innate (genetic expression). Being life, reproduction is essential, and for mammals, this is innately sexual.

    It takes two to tango, with one of those being male and one female. it's not just an accident the word is used for both the actual act and the players.

    Sexual preference and attraction is another matter altogether.

Comments are closed.