Hey, well done for coming back with a thoughtful explanation, aseriesofstillimages.
This is for kids, right? You suggested young kids - it's been a while, but I think you said 6 years old or so?
I would explain that, because almost everyone has either a male or a female reproductive system
So we are going with 'male' and 'female'? Good stuff.
and because for most of history this was regarded as possibly the most important difference between people, society came to regard us and categorise us as two completely different types of people based on this distinction - girls and boys, women and men - and it was commonly believed that the category a person fell into largely determined what they were good at, what they liked, how they should dress and behave, who they should be attracted to.
It also meant that people were sorted at birth into those two different categories of people, and given different types of names, and different ways of being referred to in language.
Sex is determined at conception and often observed in utero, if not at birth. But okay. What you're saying is that we have men and women and words to describe them. Sure.
It is only relatively recently that a lot of people have started to question and reject some or all of this way of looking at people. There are now quite a few of us who believe that the nature of your reproductive system doesn’t dictate what sort of person you are. But many of the same assumptions are still very prevalent, in some cases unconsciously, and generally people are still more likely than not to conform to some extent to the ways of dressing and behaving that are expected of their sex.
Sex stereotypes. Fine.
Some people feel very unhappy with the category they have been sorted into, and want to be regarded as belonging to the other category, or neither category, or both. Some people also feel very uncomfortable with aspects of their bodies and physical appearance which are associated with the type of reproductive system they have.
Now that's where we get the illogical leap. People object to stereotypes - fine. But why on earth would someone think that objecting to sex stereotypes meant that they are the opposite sex? Or don't have a sex?
To me this is saying:
'I think stereotypes are just socially created and reinforced myths, and I don't like the ones associated with my sex, so I'm going to choose the myths associated with the opposite sex and claim that they are my true inner essence and this is more meaningful than sex and actually changes my sex'.
It's starting off sensibly, by questioning stereotypes. But then decides that the stereotypes must actually be true in as much as they have any association at all with sex.
I suppose that's the crux of the whole 'gender' argument, isn't it? Whether stereotypes are fabricated, imposed and reinforced (feminist view) or somehow innate (genderist view). I can see both sides of the argument, but it's bloody complicated and nuanced if we're talking to six year old kids.
Kids need sex education that is clear, but most of all AGE APPROPRIATE. Sex ed that leaves kids baffled or at risk of accidental pregnancy is actively harmful.
There are drugs and surgeries which can to an extent change these aspects of people’s bodies, to make them appear more similar to the type of body associated with the other type of reproductive system. However, this is not straightforward and can have serious complications, and a person can never have a reproductive system other than the one they were born with.
Yeah, okay. But all of this seems very very complicated for a six year old who has asked where babies come from. How would you answer that?
I'd say: 'A man has sex with a woman and this can result in a child'. For a six year old.
There is no way to explain reproduction without reference to male and female sex.
Obscuring the terms and muddying the language is risky, as well as illogical and anti science.