• AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    That’s part of what their protest is getting at — as you highlight, even “biological sex” is pretty complex (In science, I have heard that the “three G’s” (Gonads, genetics, genitals) model is the standard definition, but scientists who research biological sex seem to consider this an extreme oversimplification). Fuzzy definitions like this are fine in science, but things get much messier when we try to write these things into law. One of my problems with the recent Supreme Court ruling on transgender rights is how they use the phrase “biological woman”, as if it is a simple matter.

    I find this especially striking because I’m a cis woman who has plenty of experience of being treated poorly due to being a woman, and I feel like my “biological sex” (as in gonads, genetics and genitals) don’t factor into it much; far more significant is whether I am perceived as a woman, and this is why “gender” can be far more useful than “biological sex” in these discussions.

    • Zacryon@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 days ago

      even “biological sex” is pretty complex (In science, I have heard that the “three G’s” (Gonads, genetics, genitals) model is the standard definition, but scientists who research biological sex seem to consider this an extreme oversimplification)

      Yupp. That’s my understanding. I found this video by a biologist enlightening in this matter: Sex and Sensibility by Forrest Valkai (1:40:26, Youtube)