in today’s society, a person’s sex is one of the most important things about them. when you are born, a doctor determines your sex based upon your genitals. that sex defines almost every interaction you have with institutions (schools, hospitals, police, etc.) as well as other people in society. it entirely shapes the life that you will lead.
it chooses the toilets you can use, the prisons you could be sent to, the way healthcare staff will deal with your problems. it predestines the sports that you are likely to play, the careers that you are likely to follow. it decides whether your labour will be worth more or less, the impact of your voice, as well as how much and what kinds of violence you are likely to experience.
society is divided in two, into male and female. most people have never questioned whether sex is a valid category - whether it has any scientific basis - and most never will. even people who support trans rights often still believe in sex: a lot of discussion around trans identities talks about sex and gender as two separate things, where sex is a given biological fact.
here’s the problem: sex isn’t a given biological fact. many biologists and scientists now think that the idea that we can split people into two categories - male and female - has no basis in human biology. increasingly, the people who know most about how bodies work are telling us that it doesn’t make any sense to talk about sex as binary (as either male or female).
this might sound unbelievable, and if it does, that’s because sex is something we are given as an established truth from the moment we are born. we learn it in primary school, in biology class in high school. we see it when we go to the doctor’s, or to the hairdresser, or to the gym. our entire lives are based around sex, and so the idea it doesn’t exist is inconceivable to us.
what is biological sex?
it might help to start by asking: what is sex? broadly speaking, a person’s sex is determined by various things: chromosomes (the information in our genes), genitals (penis or vagina), gonads (testes or ovaries), secondary sex characteristics (changes in puberty, such as voice breaking or growing breasts), and hormone levels (testosterone or oestrogen and gestagen).
according to the way that most people see sex, these things are aligned. by which i mean, if you are a ‘female’, you have female chromosomes, you have a vagina and ovaries, you’ll grow breasts and start your period during puberty, and you will have higher levels of oestrogen and gestagen than you will of testosterone. the same goes for ‘males’, with the opposite traits.
the problem is that we have plenty of evidence that a lot of people do not have all of the ‘female’ or all of the ‘male’ traits. some people are intersex: they were born with a body that doesn’t seem to fit neatly into either of these categories. many of these people were and still are mutilated by doctors as babies or children in an attempt to make them fit neatly into one sex.
in the very label ‘intersex’, we have recognised the limitations of the sex binary, of defining all bodies as ‘male’ or ‘female’. we haven’t, however, questioned whether the binary of sex itself is inaccurate or flawed. for this reason, intersex people continue to experience extreme violence in both medical and social situations, which are both shaped by one’s sex.
it’s not only intersex people, although they bear the brunt of society’s refusal to question how useful sex is as a category. indeed, many of us do not neatly fit into all of the categories that you need to be ‘male’ or ‘female’. most of us wouldn’t know: we don’t test people’s hormone levels or DNA unless we think there’s a problem, for the most part.
chromosomes are a good example. they are the bits of genetic information that are supposed to define sex. in theory, men have XY chromosomes, and women have XX. but in reality, there are women with XY, and men with XX. there are even people who are born with three sex chromosomes: XXX, XYY, XXY. and many of these people would never know.
we can look at hormones, too. there are many conditions where ‘females’ have higher levels of testosterone, such as polycystic ovary syndrome. gynecomastia is a common condition in ‘males’, where higher levels of oestrogen and lower levels of testosterone lead to breast tissue growth. we can’t determine sex by hormones, either.
in fact, none of these traits are given or fixed in a body that is ‘male’ or ‘female’. it is perfectly possible to have a whole range of combinations of them, to have some characteristics seen as ‘male’ and others seen as ‘female’, and yet others still that don’t fit into either sex. we still don’t have any idea how many people tick all of the boxes for one sex, and how many don’t.
what does sex mean?
the question then becomes, if you want to hold on to the sex binary, and keep intersex as a category for people who don’t fit into it, where do you draw the line? is a woman not a ‘female’ because she has facial hair, or a low voice? is a man not a ‘male’ because he doesn’t grow facial hair, or has wider hips? who is ‘male’, who is ‘female’, and who isn’t either of them?
some people have argued that sex is still a valid category because it’s about reproduction. it’s true to say that the social division of the sexes is at least in part due to this. but here’s the thing: most people wouldn’t see men or women who are unable to have children without medical aid as any less ‘male’ or ‘female’ because they can’t. reproduction can’t justify the sex binary.
you might be wondering why it’s so important to call sex into question. one reason should already be clear: the division of people into sexes at birth is the reason and justification for surgery performed on intersex babies and children before they are old enough to make their own decisions. sex means that we just assume everyone would want to fit into the binary.
but the problem is far larger than that. there are some aspects of our identities that shape every aspect of our lives. one of these is sex, another is race. to be male, or female, or to be white, or a person of colour: these determine what we can do, and how we are oppressed in a society where men and white people have more power.
and it’s worth noting that these things aren’t separate, so white men and men of colour have different experiences and are subject to different forms of violence, as do white women and women of colour. it’s also important to remember that race has no biological foundation. it’s a creation of colonial, white supremacist society and history. our lives are determined, in different ways, by things that have no biological reality.
if sex isn’t real, then we might ask ourselves why it continues to matter. why are people still divided into ‘male’ and ‘female’? this is a huge topic, and, in truth, people don’t fully know or agree on the answer. it seems, however, that we might track the division of the sexes into ‘male’ and ‘female’ back to the respective roles of many people with vaginas and penises in reproduction, and human societies have added extra layers of meaning to that.
the important thing to note is that dividing people up into sexes is useful for people in power, and has been for centuries. if people believe that everyone is ‘male’ or ‘female’, if they believe that sex is related to reproduction, if they believe men and women are inherently different, it is far easier to maintain control over their actions and sexual relations.
why is this useful to people in power? for one, it grants them control over people’s actions, relationships with others, and access to certain spaces and activities. but more clearly, it helps to ensure control over sexual reproduction, over who has sex and has children with who, which is essential to keeping society going in the direction you want it to.
when sex is seen as a biological fact, the role it plays in controlling where we can and can’t go, who we do and don’t see, and what we can and can’t do, goes largely unchallenged. even now, where we have begun to challenge the social roles given to the sexes, we still find it normal to use separate toilets and have separate sports teams, because we see sex as a natural truth.
where does gender come into this?
the division of society into two sexes has several consequences, one of which we’ve just explored: control over people’s bodies, relationships, actions and movements. but another one is becoming increasingly apparent in today’s society: it makes life much harder for people who don’t see themselves as the sex they were assigned at birth.
in recent decades, we’ve seen the term ‘gender’ used more and more. often, we make a distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’: sex is the biological make-up of the body, whereas gender is the identities and ideas we associate with certain bodies. in fact, gender is now used by many governments and institutions in place of sex.
by separating gender from sex, several things have been made possible. we have been able to critique toxic masculinity, for example, along with the associations often made between femininity and foolishness, hysteria and weakness. we have been able to call ‘gender roles’ into question, and argue that women do not exist simply to support men and have children.
the problem here is not that we have questioned these things, but that we have done so while preserving the idea of binary sex. separating gender from sex only allows us to go so far, and certainly doesn’t give us the scope we need to challenge all of the ways in which the sex we are assigned determines our roles and actions in society.
this is nowhere more obvious than in the case of trans identities. we talk about trans identities as a question of gender, which means that most people still think that trans people have a biological sex that cannot change, regardless of the hormones they take or the operations that they might undergo to change their bodies.
this goes to the heart of one of the biggest challenges facing trans people right now: the right to access same-sex spaces, such as toilets or shelters. in a society that still takes sex to be a reality, that still sees trans people being fundamentally ‘male’ and ‘female’, regardless of their identity, it’s fairly easy to argue that trans women shouldn’t be allowed in women’s spaces.
i am, of course, not agreeing with that view. i’m profoundly against it. i’m simply demonstrating that in a society that still thinks people are all inherently ‘male’ or ‘female’ (apart from some rare exceptions), the argument that trans women and transfeminine people shouldn’t be allowed in women-only spaces is likely to make sense to a lot of people.
trans people can only get so far in a society that still takes biological sex to be a given. this is the case for trans women, who are increasingly excluded from women-only spaces, including services and shelters they need when they have been subject to violence by men, for no other reason that the sex they were assigned at birth.
what does it mean to be nonbinary?
it’s not simply a question of access to spaces, but of acceptance and recognition of trans identities. if people believe that everyone is either ‘male’ or ‘female’, and that these things determine a lot about you (your temperament or interests, for example), then they are unlikely to understand, let alone respect, the idea of gender identity.
it is even more of an issue when we look at the question of nonbinary people: people who don’t identify as wholly men or women. to an extent, people appear to be able to accept the concept of trans men or trans women, because they can still be neatly fitted into the categories of ‘men’ and ‘woman’ that society knows and is comfortable with.
this doesn’t, of course, mean that trans men or women are generally accepted, or that they’re not still subject to oppression and violence, because of course they are. it simply means that a society where sex and gender already exist, where we are all seen as men or women, it’s likely easier for people to get their heads around trans people who fit into these categories than it is to understand identities that don’t, i.e. nonbinary people.
i am nonbinary. i can’t explain to you what it means to be nonbinary in exactly the same way that you couldn’t explain the colour yellow to me, or that you couldn’t tell me what lavender smells like. i can try to explain, but i’ll fall short, just as you would, because it’s an experience as personal as sight or smell.
this is because being nonbinary is about having a certain relationship to your body and the world, as well as to other people and to society as a whole. it’s about how i feel in my body, and how i feel when other people look at or touch my body, or how i feel when people talk about me or refer to me in certain ways.
the terms euphoria and dysphoria are helpful for explaining what it means to be nonbinary. sometimes, the way i see my body or the way people treat me makes me feel extremely good and at ease: euphoric. other times, it makes me feel awful and uncomfortable: dysphoric. for me, being nonbinary is about feeling euphoric far more than i feel dysphoric.
(it should be noted that not all trans people agree with these terms, and many people have used them against us. most recently, there has been hysteria around a made-up phenomenon, ‘rapid onset gender dysphoria’, that has been used by anti-trans campaigners to argue that trans identities are both a mental illness and a fad.)
people who aren’t trans get this. we all know how violently men can react when people mistake them for women. we all also know how awful it feels to have someone think something about you that you really dislike - being seen as selfish, or irrational, or immature, for example - and not being able to do anything to change their minds.
i’m not nonbinary because i wanted to be unique, or because i think women ought to do and be certain things, and i do not and am not those things. i’m nonbinary because this is the way of being in the world that makes me feel happiest. just as you might be somebody who does nice things, or avoids doing mean ones, and it makes you feel good when people say you are kind or caring.
if this doesn’t make sense to you, that’s okay, because it’s a personal experience and it’s hard to share. just as it might not make sense to me if you described the colour yellow, and i’d never seen it. except, it isn’t the same, because society’s belief in binary sex means it’s like you trying to explain the colour yellow to me in a world where most people only saw red and blue.
we often accept people’s experience without understanding them. you don’t have to have broken your leg to accept that somebody with a broken leg is in pain, and come to their aid. nor do you have to have won a gold medal in the olympics to imagine that some who does will feel ecstatic or relieved.
you don’t have to understand why people are nonbinary. most people don’t. because if you’re not nonbinary, it’s like being a person who likes spicy food trying to understand what it must be like to not like spicy food. you just need to accept that they are, in the same way you accept a person with a broken leg is in pain, or a person who’s won a gold medal is elated.
where do we go from here?
there are many things that can foster or prevent acceptance, but perhaps the most important is the extent to which people in a given society question whether biological sex is real or not. if people believe that it is normal or natural for us all to be divided into ‘males’ and ‘females’, then the logical reaction to nonbinary people is mockery, rejection, or hate.
when trans men and women, or cis allies, fight for trans rights by distinguishing between sex and gender - as some, but by no means all, do - they not only limit how far binary trans people can go, but they make it much harder for nonbinary people to be taken seriously, and to fight against the specific violence they face. there is no point in a trans movement that does not insist upon the fact that biological sex is a myth.
so long as sex continues to be an established category, everyone loses out. there is only so far we can challenge gender roles without challenging the idea of biological sex. there is only so far we can deconstruct toxic masculinity if the majority of people still think that men are ‘male’ and therefore inherently linked to certain traits.
pointing out the flaws in biological sex is not an easy task, precisely because sex is such a pervasive feature of our society. it is one of the foundations of the ways that we think about the world, something we have known from a very young age. it will be very hard to get people to question the idea of sex, because it will shatter the way that they see the world and other people.
nonetheless, any movement for rights or against oppression must do precisely that. we might think of a house whose foundations have collapsed, which has led to cracks forming in the wall. here, the collapsed foundations are a belief in biological sex, and the cracks are all the effects of this belief: toxic masculinity, gender roles, rejection of nonbinary people, etc.
as it stands, much of feminism and many trans movements see cracks form in the wall, and try to repair them. they are focused on dealing with the surface-level impacts of the belief in biological sex. but because they don’t fix the foundations, because they don’t challenge this belief where it matters, cracks will keep appearing, and they will keep having to fix them.
until these movements take the fact that biological sex is not real as one of their central tenets, the ways in which they can actually change and improve society for everyone, but especially for women and trans people, will be extremely limited. in many cases, they will have to focus on damage control, rather than on preventing further damage from being done.
and we can still talk about sex, but for what it is: a social category that was based in colonial biology and has been used to maintain control over populations. it can still be a useful way of thinking about history and even contemporary society. we just have to start from an affirmation that sex has no biological truth, even if it does exist as a social category.
demonstrating that sex is not a biological truth is key to building a society where everybody’s identities and bodies are respected. it will take time, but it is a necessary task if we truly want to move toward equality for all people, regardless of their bodies, their desires, or how they feel in them. and that, in my view, is worth the effort.
thanks for writing this! great article and love the idea of 'bastard philosophy' :)
Thank you very much for expressing your views clearly and passionately Aaron. We certainly march to different drummers here.
On the surface I would say that when you bring up the existence of intersex individuals, you're trying to use exceptions to disprove the rule, when a more reasonable way to see things is that exceptions only prove a rule. In light of that, the following words of yours seem like massive overstatements:
"...biological sex isn't real..."
"...sex isn’t a given biological fact."
"...the idea that we can split people into two categories - male and female - has no basis in human biology."
"...it doesn’t make any sense to talk about sex as binary (as either male or female)."
"...so the idea [sex] doesn’t exist is inconceivable to us."
"...sex is not a biological truth...'
So in regards to the man in the article you cited who had fathered four children but turned out to have some intersex characteristics, is he not...a man? I mean, would anyone doubt just by getting to know and talk to him, that despite the presence of something like a uterus, he very neatly fit into one slot of the "traditional binary"? I would argue that what determines someone's sex is greater than the sum of its parts, not being completely dependent on one exact thing (reproductive capabilities, genitalia, hormones, chromosomes). But those things do fall in lockstep the overwhelming majority of the time. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it's because there is an intention behind it, a design?
Jesus thought so as he quoted Genesis and gave his "heteronormative" definition of marriage:
And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female', and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6)
Neither was He ignorant of the sexual abnormalities brought to creation as a curse for Adam's sin:
"For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it." (Matthew 19:12)
I don't think this man is a Christian like myself, but I do very much appreciate his clarity:
https://unherd.com/2019/12/yes-of-course-biological-sex-exists/
If you care to correspond in detail about this offline, you can write me:
DavidJohnPimentel@gmail.com
Regardless, I will pray that you will come to know truth through Jesus.