please point me to 'biological sex' and then explain to me how you know it free from any social categories

any notion of 'biological sex' we can try to identify is always already gender, always already social, by virtue of us having identified us. we can't reach beyond the concepts we use to apprehend the world, and even if we could, anything we could bring back would then again be a concept

Show thread

less abstractly, why do you think such-and-such a biological characteristic would be masculine or feminine? if you look at it on a microscope, where will you locate the masculinity or femininity? do the cells wear little pink bows maybe? are there girl molecules and boy molecules? a sex boson that mediates the interaction of making some particles like teal and some like pink?

Show thread

what's the a priori reason a dick is 'male' but a pussy is 'female'? it doesn't exist. this notion of 'sex', something that is like gender — 'masculine' and 'feminine' are supposed to be categories that can apply to either gender or sex — but also isn't it, can't actually be located within the realm of biology. the 'maleness' or 'femaleness' come from outside: you're projecting them into bodies informed by your preconceived notions of them

Show thread

ultimately 'biological sex' is an incoherent category; it doesn't exist and can't exist. the idea of a sex/gender split is only an attempt at sequestering some of gender away from criticism: 'this, this is social. but this, this is biological, and you're not allowed to touch it'. it's an ideological distinction

Show thread

@esvrld cis people: "who would want to criticize the idea of biological sex at 3 am?"

me: "oh boy, 3 am!"

Sign in to participate in the conversation

cybrespace: the social hub of the information superhighway jack in to the mastodon fediverse today and surf the dataflow through our cybrepunk, slightly glitchy web portal support us on patreon or liberapay!