Addressing the 'sex is nebulous' position

[Brainworm]

Since 2015, TRAs have flip flopped between 'sex and gender are separate concepts' and 'sex is a pretty meaningless/unhelpful construct as it's difficult to define and/or determine- so we ought to ignore it in favour of gender'.

Recently, we have seen a resurgence of the latter position, as demonstrated in the current Peggie v Fife NHS Board.

Counter arguments based on gametes aren't particularly accessible to the general public m, whereas references to fertility are.

In developed countries, the infertility rate is approximately 9% of males and 11% of females. Of the 9% infertile males and 11% infertile females, 0% are infertile for reasons pertaining to their sex being difficult to determine.

People know that it must be vanishingly rare not to know whether a condom or the pill is a suitable contraceptive method for oneself and to suggest otherwise is glaringly bat shit crazy. These arguments link to concrete experience/action, whilst conversation about hormone levels and chromosomes refer to factors that are typically unconfirmed for a given person.

People with a much sharper mind than me (like Naomi Cunningham) will have good reason for not drawing upon fertility to evidence sex is not nebulous. This post is to try and understand why this is.

Can anyone help?

Yes, I think you're right. People muddle up sex as a reproductive system (opposite: asexual reproduction), sex as in "of the male sex" (opposite: female) and sex as an act (opposite: "not getting any").

Then some of them start calling the male sex /female sex one "gender" in an attempt at un-muddling, or because the sex-act association makes "sex" sound rude to them.

This creates another muddle, because feminists use "gender" for the baggage of assumptions and expectations and conventions dumped on people because of their sex, rather than for sex itself.

Then the gender crowd get in on the act, and "gender" also becomes an undefined internal identity and/or an external presentation, which can be completely unmoored from sex.

Then the more extreme genderists start using sex based terms for gender (like "biological female" for a MTF trans person, as we've just heard in court!) and confusion is utterly confounded.

No wonder it takes people ages to twig exactly what's been going on.

I don't think his employers would believe Upton if he claimed to be pregnant and needed maternity leave. In the same way they would believe a tm when she says she is pregnant.

Therefore i think everyone knows what sex is and it cannot be changed.

But lots of people believe its everyones duty to facilitate a man living as close to a woman as he wants to. Including not admitting we know its 'as close as possible' not actually. Anything that can be changed is celebrated and exaggerated in importance, anything that cannot be changed is diminished and ignored.

Therefore upton gets to be a woman because name change, and we get to pretend that sex is way down the list of what makes a woman.

You can’t ‘have gender’ with someone.

@Brainworm

I think this is a good point.

DU and TRAs will come up with countless deflections and hypothetical arguments in response to the fertility question.

I think this would be much more difficult to do with the contraception question. And is a subject most other people would be able to relate to.

Pill or condom?

I get that the word 'gamete' is more obscure, but it's easy to simplify it. 'People have bodies that are set up to produce sperm or eggs' is a simpler way of putting it. 'Sex is real and has consequences' is another.

The current court case is such an extreme example of a top-down class-infused deliberate confusion being introduced which damages the obvious interests of ordinary women, it might have been designed by central casting.

Having heard Upton answer the tribunal q's, I have no doubt that he would argue that a man having sex with a woman who is on the pill is himself using the pill as his method of contraception and that sex has nothing to do with it anyway as some women can use a condom with their penis shaped female genitals.

If my laptops started writing the wrong letters (it does if I have the wrong keyboard selected. Foreign instead of uk), then I fix the keyboard.

I don’t say that the letters have to change from now on. And I don’t say that everyone needs to learn and accept my new letters when I use them for work documents and in emails.

I certainly don’t expect others to learn and use my new letters when writing to me.

We need to stop supporting the idea that sex is complicated (by arguing that it might be complicated but that doesn't mean we can't define it).
It isn't complicated.

Sex is simple and men will say all sorts of crap to get access to women in a state of undress.

It’s such a ridiculous attempt to over complicate things. There are two types of bodies - one with a reproductive system organised around the potential production of
large gametes, and one organised around the potential production of small gametes. That includes those who have infertility, have been through menopause or have a DSD.

I would have loved to see DU answer are there differences in how we treat patients according to sex. For example H-Y antibody-mediated TRALI only happens to males because it’s caused by antibodies that target something found only in male cells.

If a male gets a blood transfusion from a female who’s been pregnant, and she has these antibodies (from carrying a baby boy), they can attack his lung cells, making it hard to breathe.
Women don’t have those male-specific cells, so this reaction doesn’t affect them. I would love to ask DU does he agree conditions like this exist? Does he agree no female could be affected? Could he be affected?

Honestly I just skip all this and say "Yes, but the fact is, for millenia people used vagina vs penis to classify people and the vagina people lost out badly. So from the perspective of the vagina people it doesn't matter that society might have had the idea of sex totally wrong, whether you think a woman has a vagina or not, the vagina people are the ones who lost out in real and significant ways that still shape society today, and we need to be able to talk about that and we need the rights and protections to help us deal with that.

In other words, getting us to argue about defining sex is playing the rigged game they want you play, to distract you from the super simple fact that women's rights and protections aren't bestowed by the ether to the word "woman", they are pragmatic responses to the real world needs and experiences of a particular group of people. Keep the focus on the people and their history not the abstractions and the arguments fall apart.

Don't t overlook the fact this man, when asked whether it was true that it takes a male and female to make a baby, said not necessarily!
He also claims he is biologically female.
Assuming he is spouting from the TRA handbook, no logical, factual argument will make him say anything different.
Him being a trained physician, makes it even more terrifying.

My thinking is that open minded people who are willing to engage in arguments about whether or not sex is clear cut are likely to think some of the 'nebulous' arguments might have foundation - when they can't answer the questions in relation to themselves. They may say, 'fair point, I don't know my chromosomes and they might be different to my assumptions'. They might say the same about hormone levels, or any other non visible characteristic. Even if you ejaculate or menstruate, unless you have conceived or undergone tests, you might question whether you produce ova or sperm.

My point is that argument grounded in everyday experience is more concrete. Regardless of whether they are too young or too old to conceive, or whether or not they have fertility issues, people know which contraception method they would need to use if they wanted to prevent conception. I think this brings home how cut and dried it is.

I have no doubt that people like DU would have some retort that evades the question/point but I think those who engage with an open mind (as described above) would find this applicable to themselves and the binary nature of sex. They would recognise that even if you are too young or too old to conceive, whether or not you have sex, whether you object to contraception on religious grounds, or if you know you are infertile so don't need contraception- you know which type of contraception you would need.

https://technicallyhuman.substack.com/p/a-courtroom-drama

My point is that argument grounded in everyday experience is more concrete.

Yes, I totally agree. But we have always had everyday experience despite holding strange and bizarre ideas about how babies happen. Gametes are not difficult to understand. It's worth remembering that medical students are not required to have studied A level biology. Chemistry and Maths are more important.

There are two questions here. The first is "What is sex?" and the second is "Why is it important?". Separating them makes them clearer.

I would answer that sex is a reproductive strategy in a species which requires the combining of two cells (gametes). In almost all multicellular life forms (not sure about fungi) which use sexual reproduction, there are two gametes which are identifiably different. One sex produces one and the other the other. They have a baby life form together. Fertility issues and contraception as an argument depend on an understanding of this, I think.

Unless you believe in the stork, the only possible argument against this is that it's "White supremicist cis-heteronormative science which disempowers marginalised identities". But if you are talking with someone who trots out that position you might as well give up because they are not going to listen to anything you say.

I agree with you that getting overly complex is a gift to the opposition.

Chromosomes are not always necessary in sex development. Some animals don't decide sex chromosomally, biut in response to environmental conditions. Some animals can even change sex when adult in response to environmental conditions.This fact has no effect on what sex is, simply on how it happens. Hormones seem unnecessarily complex. It's a bit like trying to define the difference between an aircraft and a sailing boat by looking at the different kinds of lift each produces. Wings and sails both produce lift, but why on earth get into those differences when you can just say that planes fly in the air and boats sail on the sea? You can talk about fat ratios, you can talk about which sex gestates, you can talk about pelvic differences, limb proportions, brain size, testosterone levels, muscle structure and anything else associated with sex to describe differences between men and women, but why would you want to when all you want to do is make a simple argument? It's not necessary. The reason we know these factors are associated with sex is because we already know what sex is.

Sex is about reproduction. It's what it is. Everything else is crap. It's important because the different sexes occasonally need different things, and society is currently configured to advantage one sex over the other.

Gametes are the definition.

Fertility is the primary reason we need the definition - just ask a farmer. (No clue was meant when argued that Maya Forstater had no sex expertise because of agricultural degree).

From a human rights point of view, I don't think it's accidental that so much equality legislation was written at the same time that the pill and abortions became widely available. No point assuming that a woman won't get pregnant as soon as she marries, if she has no way of avoiding that possibility. I think 'Call the Midwife' is very informative on this point.

It doesn't matter if a woman is fertile or infertile, she will be treated as though she is until found other wise, and in a society where the assumed role of women is fertility, she can be discarded if she isn't. (See Henry VIII)

Women can only participate equally in society if society assumes that they have access to resources to control their fertility, and that the law will protect them from rape and coercion.

Hysterectomies, menopause, female infertility etc. are distinctly sexed experiences, so it's ridiculous to argue that they equate in any way to being male.