Misappropriating Biology for Bigotry

Let’s talk about the terms “biological male” and “biological female,” that are so often used in gender critical discourse. Specifically, why their using this to describe trans people is A: nonsense and B: fundamentally transphobic; rather than any sort of objective or scientific assessment. Especially in the context of their so vaunted “single sex spaces.” (which were never really a thing, but I digress)

Alright, first things first. Biological sex is a complicated topic, and we are going to be leaning into the complications. Sex is defined in biology, usually and simply (more on this in a bit), in three ways: Genotype, phenotype, and reproductive capacity. Which is to say your sex as defined by your chromosomes, your sex as defined by your observable characteristics, and your sex as defined by your gametes. Harry Benjamin, the sexologist who pioneered affirmative therapy and understanding of trans people and gender dysphoria in the west, defined sex as even more multifaceted in his book The Transsexual Phenomenon stating that it was chromosomal, genetic, anatomical, legal, gonadal, germinal, endocrine, psychological, as well as social.

Now, here’s the thing. When gender critical people use the term “biological sex” they usually mean, very specifically, chromosomal sex. This has issues, first of which being that most people don’t even know what their OWN chromosomes are let alone someone else’s. They can merely assume, usually on some mix of phenotype and presentation. Which OFTEN leads to misidentification, which can and does have real world consequences and reinforces very sexist and vulgar expectations on women. One of many reasons why trans-exclusionary Feminism is a fundamental contradiction.

This conception also fundamentally invalidates many intersex people, such as those with chimerism, androgen insensitivity, chromosomal anomalies, and more. These issues have led some in the gender critical movement to recently start defining it in terms of gametes, which is to say the ability to produce sperm or eggs. As Benjamin would describe it, germinal sex. Which has its own issues, chief among them being that MANY more people have fertility issues than chromosomal issues. Including and especially many of the people making these very same arguments. Really, though, this definition is even MORE vulgar, inappropriate, and reductive of a person’s identity and being into nothing more than literally microscopic specks. Which is of course, fundamentally unfeminist. Though, given how much of a part that right-wing reactionaries are playing in the gender critical movement, this is perhaps very appropriately base, reductive, and unfeminist. Simple spice for soup for brains.

This next leads us to phenotype, meaning one’s observable characteristics. Usually defined in terms of primary and secondary sex traits. This is the bread and butter of well-meaning allies, and not so well meaning transmedicalists, to define their “sex as gender” argument. Which is to say, you are a man or a woman based solely on your ability to “pass” as one, or at the very least to be accepted as one. Provided you had “gone all the way” or some other arbitrary standard, which and also with any other measure of defining this objectively falls on its face in terms of practicality.

This is of course, also, missing the point of their own argument in a MAJOR way. If we accept that A: we are defining biological sex in terms of observable sex characteristics and B: People can exhibit a broad spectrum of sexual characteristics… then by their very own logic to some degree EVERY trans person is intersex. Phenotype is more than just the presence and absence of breasts, genitals, and maybe some stuff about facial structure and body shape. Behavior and presentation ALSO defines phenotype. Which is to say, that behaviors and presentation that do not conform to one’s assigned gender at birth, means that you are phenotypically intersex. Male AND female. Biologically.

This framing, however, still has issues even in the most liberal extreme of it. Because it is reliant on external observation and not internal self-perception. Which means that you experience sex only as something that happens AT you, and is fundamentally binary. When, really, the fact that we’ve discussed intersex people at EVERY level of definition, we can get to the crux of the matter. Sex is a spectrum, or at least bimodal. Which is a position that MANY people in positions to define what is or isn’t biological have to say on the matter.

Defining sex purely in terms of how people perceive your sex to be, meaning fundamentally subjectively, basically means that you can have different sexes at different times, and from different people, and even no sex. Even without taking things like behavior and presentation as proof in itself, it still changes the context in which these things are perceived. That is to say that one’s ability to “pass” is highly contextual and subjective.

So, given all the many ways that basing sex on chromosomes, gametes, and phenotype backfires and gets cisgender people caught in the crossfire, and how often they make excuses and exceptions for these supposedly very strict definitions they are using. This means, that the major sticking point is and was NEVER actually chromosomes, gametes, phenotype, or whatever other distinction they may make. The distinction they want to highlight, is between cisgender and transgender. Literally and just transphobia.

So, dismissing this transphobic nonsense. We are still left with the questionof how to define sex in a scientific, reasonable, and fair way.

Once again, I call attention to Harry Benjamin’s criteria. Chromosomal, genetic, anatomical, legal, gonadal, germinal, endocrine, psychological, social. Varying layers of sex, as defined by varying layers of observation. Any number of which can be sexed any which way. Complicated, messy, certainly subjective… still simplistic, and proscriptive.

There is of course, a very simple answer to all this messiness, subjectivity, and wild shots in the dark. One that many of the people who make these very convoluted arguments would loath to admit, but actual people doing actual biology are fairly united on: self-perception, and self-report.

I am a biological female, because I observe myself and I see female characteristics.

The fact that I have breasts, or take estrogen, or have a penis (for now,) or whatever my chromosomes may be, whatever clothes I may wear, or whether I can still produce gametes (probably not,) have nothing to do with it.

I am female, because I want to be. Which is a female sex characteristic.