It’s Time For People to Stop Using the Social Construct of “Biological Sex” to Defend Their Transmisogyny

Time and time again, transmisogynists and transphobes go back to that old excuse that they are just standing up for the reality of “biological sex” when they spew their ignorance and hate. They say that no matter what a trans woman does, no matter what she believes, she’s still actually a man. Others cede the fact that trans women are women, but stop there and say “gender is what’s between your ears, sex is what’s between your legs” and therefore trans women are still males. Although this is a popular idea, it is based on a misunderstanding of biology, social constructs and anatomy, and it needs to stop.

via Time

via Time

A lot of this misuse of the idea of “biological sex” has, unfortunately, been centered around discussions of activist and Orange is the New Black actress Laverne Cox. Cox recently became the first out trans person (Chelsea Manning was on the cover before she came out) to be on the cover of Time Magazine. However, inside the magazine, Time said that an easy way to gain some understanding of trans people is to realize that gender and sex are two different things. They say that “sex is biological, determined by a baby’s birth anatomy” and then go on to call trans women “biological males” and trans men “biological females.”

They are trying to good allies, explaining what many see as a complicated issue, but what they are really doing is using a simplistic and outdated understanding of biology to perpetuate some very dangerous ideas about trans women. This type of dialogue allows people to think that they are doing trans people a service, when really they are just continuing to see them as something other than “real women.”

Another article about Cox came out at about the same time. This one, however, was very upfront about using what its author thinks is a good understanding of biology to claim that trans women are not even women at all. Written by Kevin D. Williamson for the National Review and later republished by the Chicago Sun-Times (who then removed it and issued an apology), this article is called “Laverne Cox is Not a Woman” and aggressively uses Williamson’s complete misunderstanding of “biological sex” (and yes, I’m using scare quotes on purpose) to misgender not only Cox, but all other trans people. He says that we need to pay attention to the “biological reality” of sex instead of the delusional world that trans people are living in.

princess-bride-you-keep-using-that-word

ADVERTISEMENT

In the article, Williamson says that (get ready for some extreme ignorance and hate here) we are experiencing a new transgender phenomenon, one where we have lost grip on reality. He says that we have an “obsession with policing language (that is based) on the theory that language mystically shapes reality…” However, just because we say trans women are women, that, according to him, doesn’t change the fact that they are men.

He instead calls Cox “an effigy of a woman,” based on his belief that sex is a biological reality and “is not subordinate to subjective impressions…” He adds that “No hormone injection or surgical mutilation is sufficient to change that.” He seems to believe that sex as we describe it is a thing that just exists, that a clear, inarguable and binary definition for sex just springs forth from nature. Unfortunately, Williamson isn’t alone in this type of rhetoric. There’s actually a wide group of people, some “allies,” some lawmakers and some just outright bigots who all rally behind the idea of using the social construct of “biological sex” to misgender trans women.

The thing people like Williamson want to cling to the most is the idea that sex is an immutable, universal biological reality that is therefore easy to categorize. Although many are willing to call trans women women (or specifically “trans women” or “transwomen” or even “male women”), they say that that is just their gender. They argue that gender is cultural and that sex is an unchanging biological fact, and that therefore their sex is still male. This is used to support “Womyn born Womyn” spaces, create fear around so-called “bathroom bills,” disallow trans women from competing in women’s sports and even defend violence against trans women.

This is a nice attempt, but it's really not this simple guys. via itspronouncedmetrosexual.com

This is a nice attempt, but it’s really not this simple guys (which is something the creator of the graphic understands). via itspronouncedmetrosexual.com

Since “biological sex” is actually a social construct, those who say that it is not often have to argue about what it entails. Some say it’s based on chromosomes (of which there are many non-XX/XY combinations, as well as diversity among people with XY chromosomes), others say it’s genitals or gonads (either at birth or at the moment you’re talking about), others say it’s hormone levels (which vary widely and can be manipulated), still others say it’s secondary sex characteristics like the appearance of breasts, body hair and muscle mass (which vary even more). Some say that it’s a combination of all of them. Now, this creates a huge problem, as sex organs, secondary sex characteristics and hormone levels aren’t anywhere close to being universal to all men or women, males or females.

Those who claim that sex is determined by chromosomes must not realize that sex is assigned at birth not by chromosomes, not even by gonads, but by genitals. In fact, the vast majority of us never learn what our sex chromosomes are. Sex isn’t something we’re actually born with, it’s something that doctors or our parents assign us at birth. So if sex is determined by genitals, they must be clearly binary and unchangable, right? Wrong. Genitals can be ambiguous at birth and many trans people get gender confirmation surgery to change them. Neither chromosomes nor genitals are binary in the way that “biological sex” defenders claim they are, and the vast majority of measures by which we judge sex are very much changable.

"Hey, sorry about that whole 'assigning sex at birth thing.'" "No problem! I know that it has no real effect on who I am as a person today!" via intimatehealthhelp.net

“Hey, sorry about that whole ‘assigning sex at birth thing.'” “No problem! I know that it has no real effect on who I am as a person today!” via intimatehealthhelp.net

It’s pretty bizarre that we place so much importance on an assumption that doctors make when we’re born. A doctor took one look at me the moment I was born and that’s supposed to determine what bathroom I use, what sports I play or really anything else about my current life? We don’t hold adults to those standards in other aspects of their lives, so why do we with this one? 

While it is true that gender and sex are different things, and that gender is indeed a social construct, sex isn’t the Ultimate Biological Reality that transphobes make it out to be. There’s nothing intrinsically male about XY chromosomes, testosterone, body hair, muscle mass or penises. If an alien civilization found earth, they wouldn’t look at a person with a penis and say “Oh, that must be a male, sex based on genitalia is the One Universal Constant.” Sex, like gender, is indeed socially constructed and can be changed.

If sex isn’t the All Mighty Binary Universal Constant that some people think it is, why do they place so much importance on it? The easy answer is that it gives them an excuse to misgender and exclude trans people, and specifically trans women. They can pretend they’re just standing up for science, but they’re really just saying that trans women aren’t fully women and that trans men aren’t fully men. People need to start learning about what sex really is and what social constructs really are. People need to stop misusing biology and spreading ignorance and misunderstanding. People need to stop looking for excuses for their anti-trans bigotry. All of this needs to stop and it needs to stop now.

Mey Rude is a fat, trans, Latina lesbian living in LA. She's a writer, journalist, and a trans consultant and sensitivity reader. You can follow her on twitter, or go to her website if you want to hire her.

Mey has written 574 articles for us.

264 Comments

  1. I am transsexual ftm and this article is so much f***ing bullshit. The fact you transition is not changing your body into another sex. You will NEVER ever be a biological female if you were born a male. Hormones and operations are making you look like the opposite sex, nothing else. So you can fit in as one. The only thing which needs to stop is this bullshit the author is writing. Yeah call me transphobic because I don’t agree with this feminist tumblr crap. I feel like I’m one of a very few sane transsexual people on the internet sometimes. And people wonder why transsexual oh yeah sorry, transgender, since transsexual is outdated now, people are hated on. Well this is the reason

  2. This article provides no compelling reason WHY people should reject sex as a meaningful category. The author doesn’t even have any sources, so this reads like a really poor op-ed. Also, it’s one thing to see eye-to-eye with Butler and Fausto-Sterling and other academics who have put forth these radical ideas–and quite another to massively simplify them (which is always dangerous when it comes to analysis of gender, race, etc.) and treat them as absolute facts. It’s almost ironic.
    I’d be surprised to find out that there is any link between feminist spaces created for women-born-women and the horrific hate crimes to which transwomen are subject. The only way to really confront these issues within our communities is to support open dialogue, rather than accusing certain factions of another marginalized group of directly contributing to gender-based violence.

  3. I agree with most of what’s written in this article but for one thing: While the term ‘biological sex’ is most certainly a rather outdated method of defining the binary view of men and women, it does still retain importance with regard to medical matters.

    Trans-men can be and are still at risk of developing medical complications that genetically speaking arise in people with bodies that develop according to xx chromosomes.

    And trans-women are still at risk of illnesses and medical complications that affect those whose bodies developed according to xy chromosomes.

    My ex-boyfriend and his current girlfriend are both Trans, and while I was dating him he still had to make sure his doctor knew that while he identified as a man, his body was still subject to biological issues related to his xx-chromosomal structure (Ie. He’s still at risk of ovarian cancer and other medical issues that affect xx-chromosomal body structures)

    His girlfriend meanwhile has to get a yearly checkup for her body, because aside from the already incredible number of biological issues she suffers from (overactive thyroid and possible benign thyroid cancer, progressive myopia, irregular heart condition, and mental instability), she still has the sexual organs that develop in accordance with her xy-chromosomal stucture, including the testes and prostate, which as you know can be susceptible to prostate cancer and testicular cancer, respectively.

    Their medical checks are determined by the chromosomes that controlled their physical development, which is simplified as their biological ‘sex’, medically speaking. Their gender doesn’t have much bearing on their medical needs.
    And as someone who identifies as genderfluid, I too acknowledge that my gender (or lack thereof, occasionally) in no way affects the medical reality of the fact that I too am at risk of a particular host of illnesses unique to my xy-chromosomal structure.

  4. It used to be fundamentalist Christians who were hostile to science, and now it’s fundamentalist liberals.

    “Biology is a social construct” <— This is simply a belief without any evidence to support it.

    The author presents no evidence back up the statement. She just declares that a) she finds a biological assertion to offend her sense of dignity, so b) she declares that the assertion can't be true.

    It's no different from Christians who say "I just don't feel that I'm descended from another species. I don't think God would do that."

    The author, of course, cites no biological text at all and her intellectual interests are "comic books and pop culture."

  5. While I agree on some points, and understand the point trying to be made, biological sex is not a “social construct” like most people state gender is.

    To eleborate, sex being male or female extends to species other than humans. Now, that doesn’t mean “sex” is rigid or black and white. Considering all of the things that can take place biologically including intersex conditions, there is a whole lot of gray just like gender. That doesn’t mean it’s a social constuct. Typical signs of sex accross species are based on genetic norms, not based on what society “believes” to be normal in humans.

    That being said, I think what the author was going for is that a doctor states the sex of an infant on their idea of what genitals should look like. A quick look, and innie or an outie meaning boy or girl. I suppose that’s true for some of us. It’s indiscriminate in a way, someones opinion determining a childs sex and thus their future. It’s certainly based on what “society” has deemed “normal” for male and female. As a person grows, those preliminary indicators are generally proven true or false with puberty, un-related to gender.

    As a trans-woman, I do not feel that “gender” is a social construct. I knew at age 3 there was something not quite right about my body. I struggled with it until I was 20 and figured out why. My gender is not based in what I wear or how I act based on social norms. While those things caused me issues growing up, and do still affect how I percieve and am perceived by the world, had very little to do with my decision to transition. That decision was based souly on how I feel about my body. Appearence and function. It has nothing to do with the “social norms” pushed on men and women by an ever changing society, making “gender” in specific terms for myself, inate… not a social construct.

    • Thank you Kaylee for adding some sanity to this conversation. Too much of this novel gender theory is based on post hoc reasoning. Making blanket statements that have not even a scintilla of evidence of support from science or psychology is easy when people want a narrative to suit their agenda and intra-personal perceptions. Discussing things in an echo chamber doesn’t help people experiencing these quite rare and yet unique and very interesting personal gender perceptions/awareness is not helping the cause. Stating a fact like gender dysphoria is a mental condition, or that sex and gender are biologically underpinned by genetics, or lastly that Gender is NOT a social construct does not by necessity invalidate what I’m certain are very real feelings and experiences within those who identify as transgender. Secondly, if psychology and wisdom has taught us anything its is that intuition and perceptions of the mind do not always correspond with reality. ie, thinking you are an apple and being an apple are two very distinct things. Lastly, to reduce social stigmatization as well as improve the intricate understanding of what this human phenomena truly is, constantly shouting that Gender doesn’t exist/sex is a social construct/dissenters are “transphobic” IS NOT, NEVER HAS BEEN, AND WILL NEVER BE, a winning strategy.

  6. I came here trying to understand a little more about this issue, I was surprised when I saw you writing about how its our definition of “biological sex” that was bogus to begin with.

    Coming from a background of medical studies, biology and such, I’m leaving disappointed. This had nothing to do with actual science.

    You are not helping anyone, just giving people comfort in their confirmation biases.

  7. I’m sorry. I’m okay with people being transgender, but to say that “transphobes” use the “social construct of sex” to basically be bigoted assholes towards trans people is just plain wrong. Your biological sex is what you were born with. As soon as you are made, you have XY, or XX chromosomes. (Or whatever else if you’re intersex.) That is your biological sex. It is determined by those chromosomes, and by your genitalia in most cases as well. It does not say WHO you are as a person. The reason we have biological sex determined at birth is so that when we grow up as a human being, when we see the doctors, or watch our bodies grow, we know what to expect, we know the general problems each sex has, we can tell the biological females that the bleeding from their vaginal area is a period, etc. No, people shouldn’t use the excuse that “this trans person is biologically female so I’ll still call them she” or anything like that. That would be transphobic. However, stating that the person is biologically female is not transphobic, unless being used as a way to diminish their sense of self. If someone personally doesn’t want someone to bring up their biological sex, then people should respect their wishes. However, if a doctor brings up biological sex, it is simply to help their patient, and help them know about prostate cancers, periods, breast growth, sweating, growth of hair in certain places, and a ton of other biological problems that different sexes can get. I’m sorry, but you cannot say that sex is a social construct, because it simply is not. I don’t think you understand how biology works. People can be whatever gender they want, because GENDER is a social construct. Biology is what you are born with, and you cannot change your chromosomes or cellular structure. We can be whatever gender we want, but you cannot tell people that their biological sex is false and made up. It is not. It is a categorization to help us learn about our bodies and how the sexes interact and grow and all sorts of other things. For you to sit there and say that it is a social construct is nothing more than ignorant. That being said, I am all for the LGBTQ+ community, and I am perfectly fine with people being trans-gender, or having successfully transitioned, but you cannot deny that a biology is factual, and not socially created.

  8. Person who created all this male female sex/gender: ‘if I knew you were all gonna start getting weird about it I’d never have given it a name!’. A male can have a dick or a vagina so can a women Just like a male can grow up playing with dolls dressing in pink. Societes corrupt. And it’s all western world problems how convenient, go ask the population of Angolia how bad there trans gender problems are they’ll tell you they’re busy they got mouths to feed.

  9. ELIMINATE the MYTH of the PHYSICAL REALITY of CHAIRS!

    Glad I found your post. But I think your political analysis is much stronger than your faulty logic.

    I think you are dead on in your analysis of what is at stake politically over the question of whether we should recognize both sex and gender. If sex exists, then maybe some people will feel that trans people are “only” male/female in the derivative, second-class sense of gender.

    But I would stand you position on it’s head. You ask why people believe in biological sex and you answer that they only believe in biological sex so they can say “that trans women aren’t fully women and that trans men aren’t fully men.”

    I would turn this around and ask, ‘Why would someone make such a bizarre claim like “there is no biological sex”?’ Then I would answer that you and others who deny scientific reality feel pushed into that extreme, untenable position in order to buttress your claims to be fully women/men.

    Your logic, though is faulty in two ways.

    First, not everyone who believes in biological reality is trans-phobic. As you point out, many ‘good friends’ of the community believe that both sex and gender exist side by side. But you fear the concept of sex, even when held by people of good will. I think you are speaking from your own insecurity here. As long as sex is acknowledged at all, by anyone, you feel insecure in your claim to be fully a woman. Thus you back yourself into an unsupportable position. What I think you don’t see, though, is that denying reality is not politically helpful to your cause because, to put it bluntly, it makes you look crazy.

    The second fault goes right to the (il-)logic of your argument. Basically, you think that if a concept admits border-line cases and some, very limited variability, then the concept collapses. This is mistaken reasoning. Compare the following argument:

    We must put an end to the myth of the physical reality of chairs. We all need to acknowledge that chairs are mere social constructs and therefore do not exist in physical reality. Proof? Most chairs have four legs but some have three or even none. Some chairs are made of wood, some of metal, and others of plastic. Some chairs are even so big that they might also qualify as sofas! Since chairs are clearly not an immutable, universal physical reality, the next time someone offers you a chair, you should ask them why they are trying to marginalize you.

  10. What is a ‘social construct’?

    First off, “social construct” doesn’t mean “imaginary”. Social constructs are real. Take baseball for example. It is socially constructed and also very real. You can touch it, you can pick up a bat or a mit. You can visit the stadiums or watch games on TV. Labeling something a social construct does not mean it doesn’t exist or that it disappears when you close your eyes. So what does it mean?

    Roughly, a social construct is the product of human decisions and its nature can be changed by altering those decisions. Baseball is real and three strikes really means you are out. This is an objective fact. But, if the right people get together and agree, they can change it to four strikes. Parts of society may rebel, but if there is enough acceptance, then three strikes no longer means you are out. Social constructs are things whose nature can be fundamentally altered through common agreement.

    But how much can they be altered before they become unrecognizable? Let’s look at recipes. They are famously flexible; variation between different versions is not just accepted, but encouraged. I prefer Memphis style BBQ to Texas style, though I recognize them both as BBQ. On the other hand, Chef Jamie Oliver once posted an ethnic recipe that was so unauthentic, according to many commentators, that it inspired a string of sarcastic responses. One person joked that he was making egg salad, didn’t have any eggs on hand and so substituted large chunks of salmon. He didn’t have any mayonnaise, so he used red wine. In the end he was stumped to find that his egg salad tasted fishy.

    Clearly, even with something that is acknowledged as a social construct, there are some changes that are too great for us to be able to accept that it’s just the newest version of the same thing.

    So where does biological sex fit into this picture? Well, I think those who support calling it a social construct want to tell a story like this: penises are real, vaginas are real, chromosomes and hormones are real. But, the way we package these things together into male and female is due to arbitrary decisions humans have made and these decisions can be changed. If we can rally enough acceptance, there is no reason we can’t decide that having a penis will no longer be a factor in being biologically male or female.

    So let’s examine these two claims: (1) we decided to package these elements together (2) we can choose to package them differently.

    (1) I don’t think we arbitrarily decided to package together penises and XY chromosomes. I think this connection was discovered through scientific observation. To say that even though XY chromosomes and penises are connected 98% of the time, we still have to choose to see them as part of something common is to exaggerate the leeway we have in our concept formation and to disregard the interest we have in understanding the way the physical world works. It is to attack the fundamental nature of science. “98% correlation? Absolutely meaningless until I consider the political ramifications.”
    (2) In a very radical sense, we can do and say anything we want, if we don’t mind the consequences. We could abandon the concept of biological sex if we decided that we could gain more in the realm of social justice than we would lose in other areas. But I don’t think our other interests will give way so easily. Among others, our medical interest in giving the correct treatment to the correct people will require that we retain a concept of biological sex. If enough people object, we won’t be able to call these categories ‘male’ and ‘female’, but replacements will swiftly be found. Maybe ‘penis-people’ and ‘vagina-people’.

  11. Well, that’s all wrong. I mean, scientifically wrong on almost every level. But cultural Marxism and the Emperor’s New Clothes are doing just fine I see …

  12. This is one of the stupidest articles I’ve ever read. Stop obsessing about sex and gender, and stop trying to make everyone else think your problems are their problems. We don’t give a damn what you do in private, and your sex life is your private business. Just leave us alone and do whatever stuff you like with those of your own ilk. I accept your lifestyle choice (it’s a free country, I think…) but I am not going to celebrate it, just as you don’t celebrate anything about being heterosexual. The hypothesis that biological sex doesn’t exist is delusional, and you’re just going to have to accept the fact that 98% of the people with penises have XY chromosomes and are heterosexual and are male. Prove me wrong by having XY chromosomes and then giving birth. Calling everyone who disagrees with you “transphobic” is equally stupid, useless, and only serves to make people “trans-disgusted”. Everyone has problems and issues in life. Having the general populace unwilling to embrace your fringe lifestyle is not up there with, say, having MS or living with a mental illness. People are so sick of language/thought police, it’s no wonder you are getting a backlash. Do any of you appreciate humour or know how to laugh at yourselves? Or are you permanent, humourless victims? One thing is certain, though. You do NOT occupy the moral high ground.

  13. Not one iota of scientific evidence to support your argument. Not one. The social sciences are fast becoming a joke because of unsupportable assumptions such as these that are made on a now regular basis.

  14. Can someone please explain how the idea that sexual preference (who you are attracted to) is biologically determined can be reconciled with the above argument that “biological sex” is a “social construct”?

    To explain: none of us chose our sexual preference (no one I know at least), so I’d call that biologically determined. So right there we’ve established a precedent for biology being deterministic of behavior. How are we to then believe that biological sex can only be a “social construct”?

    • Most of the arguments made by the trans community are logical fallacies. Dictionaries and textbooks define “sex” as being about which gametes one is potentially capable of reproducing. This is a functional definition that relates to sexual reproduction. The definitions of “male,” “female,” and “intersex” are readily available to view in dictionaries. None of them define sex as purely a social construct. Welcome to the willful ignorance, wherein people pay attention to only what suits their ends. Now, on to the claim that there’s no ‘significant’ difference between males and females. Do you know that humans share 98%+ of their genes with chimpanzees? So, we’re not ‘significantly’ different from them either. But, a human being can’t just poof! — become a chimpanzee, can they? No. Of course not. Welcome to the fallacy of selective attention, where people only pay attention to what they feel like (i.e. the similarities between the sexes) and discard whatever doesn’t suit them (i.e. the differences between the sexes, which are noted extensively in research and science journals — seriously, the Internet is burgeoning with proof of this). Now, what of the claim that they “feel” female or male, despite not having the same organs or DNA as other females or males. They claim to know what this feeling of maleness or femaleness feels like even without the whole package. Welcome to the subjectivist fallacy, when someone claims that something is not true for others (i.e. that they don’t need all those pesky chromosomes or organs to ‘feel’ male or female), despite the fact that for literally everyone else, this is what feeling male or female actually feels like. I could go on, but you get the point. You want to understand their thinking, go here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies Seriously. It’s pretty much a guide to these people. Now, that isn’t to say that there aren’t a few otherwise mentally healthy people who, for biological reasons, feel that they are the opposite sex of what they are. But, that makes sense, that’s supportable by medicine, and these precious few people aren’t religiously spouting fallacies left and right. Unfortunately, there’s precious few of them that I’ve met and they’re quiet compared to all these emboldened and obviously mentally-ill people. A healthy brain doesn’t make these kind of baseless, nonsensical statements. So, if you feel like it, call these people out. But, trust me, you’re probably not going to get anywhere. I mean, these people have biology literally staring them in the face in the mirror and they can’t see it. A few words on the Internet from a stranger won’t wake them up from a stupor that deep.

  15. The argument against biological sex is utter nonesense. This is a purely political argument.

    There is no more validity than denying males and females than there are for denying cats and dogs exist and aren’t two species. You can’t ever arrive at a factual argument that gets you there, the best you can hope for is to force everybody into accepting a functionally meaningless definition of what “gender” is, and that is, essentially the same as sex. Bar it that Sex has a verb sense which gender doesn’t.

    Your argument againnst the biological argument is nonesense.

    Yes, there is such a thing as biological gender ambiguity, but firstly, for the most part it is not the case, and secondly, when it is the case it is still determined bilogically, not by the whims of the person.

    You may well have a psychological or neurological conditon of gender dysphoria, but this conditin does not determine your gender. Nor does having gender reassingment surgery.

      • No, it’s because this website is a safe space for trans people. At this point most of the people commenting on the article are trolls or people who disagree or people who disagree and are looking for an argument. NOW, disagreement in and of itself is okay. BUT in this particular context it’s becoming toxic because the dissent is becoming the loudest voice. We don’t have the energy to keep having the same arguments in the same comments section. And if you read the comments above, it’s not like disagreement hasn’t been voiced so don’t try to argue that this is about shutting down opposing views. That’s wrong and it’s not about that.

  16. “People need to learn what sex really is.”

    So, what is it then, really? When testosterone is introduced in utero and stimulates the Wolffian duct to develop male sex organs, what exactly is it that your body is trying to tell you? Traditionally, we have concluded it’s telling you that you are a male. What do you think it’s saying? Oh, just go ahead and ignore this, it’s meaningless?

    In utero sex development is the biological process that determines your biological sex. The presence or absence of a “y” chromosome (testosterone) will determine whether it’s the Wollfian duct or the Mullerian duct that’s stimulated. In 99.99% of cases, it’s unambiguous. This is biological reality; this is biological fact. You can not change this reality, this fact, simply because it doesn’t suit your narrative.

    You can introduce the hormones your body doesn’t naturally produce and you can surgically remove or add parts. But you can not eliminate or add a “y” chromosome. You can not go back and change the process that determined your biological sex before you were born.

    Nothing you have said is in the least bit supported by science. You need to stop misusing and misrepresenting biology. You need to stop spreading misinformation and ignorance. You need to stop looking for excuses for anti-normative bigotry. You don’t get to change science or biology or physiology to suit your psychological underpinnings. It’s as though you can’t accept yourself as you are and must invent biological fallacies to make your gender choice palatable.

  17. “Cox recently became the first out trans person…” — Chaz Bono was out AGES ago. Is ignorance just some inherent part of this movement or something? Claims that penises are female, arguing that sex isn’t about biology (um…dictionary, anyone?), and then you can’t even get facts on the trans movement itself right? Wow. Really. How you manage to get anyone to take you seriously is beyond me.

Comments are closed.