Should Progressives Argue For Non-Binary Sexuality?
The complexity is more than cultural. It's biological, too.www.nytimes.com
I understand the case for non-binary gender, but non-binary biological sex has puzzled me. (And Google has not made it easier.) Therefore I am glad that Dr. Fausto-Sterling is willing to explain to me, in purely bodily biological terms, the case for biological sex being non-binary.
However — as one commented puts its — I am confused how this relates to most transgender people.
The author makes a strong argument for intersex existing, but the people she is referring to are not transgender people who voluntarily decide to transition. Rather she is talking about a very small segment of people born (she does not give a percentage) with ambiguous biological characteristics readily discernible.
Does this disprove Trump’s sex test idea? Yes. I get that. But it does not prove most transgender folk — i.e., those who switch for what they feel they are — are biologically born another sex.
Progressives seem terrified that if we cannot defend transgender in a scientific way, they will never get rights. This is nonsense — you don’t need to prove that transgender people are biologically different from anyone else to extend rights to them. Same thing for other LGBT people.
It goes back to the concept of mind-body dichotomy. What matters is what someone believes themself to be in their mind. Not their biology.* We can deny or be neutral on a biological cause for most transgender-ism while still extending rights to those who choose another gender.
If you tell me that you’re gay, I’ll take your word for it. I don’t need to see a DNA test to believe it. Nor should that matter.
*Sports may be the rare case where body is more relevant than mind. But that is for another day.