The claim that biological sex is so complex that people who insist on material reality are transphobes is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. Biological sex is not a vague concept—it is a clear, well-established aspect of human biology determined at conception and expressed through a binary system: male and female. This binary is grounded in anisogamy, the fundamental difference between the two types of gametes in sexually reproducing species—large, immobile eggs produced by females, and small, mobile sperm produced by males. This definition is not up for debate; it is the foundation of sexual reproduction.
From the moment of conception, the chromosomal makeup (XX for females, XY for males) directs a cascade of developmental processes that differentiate the sexes. Embryos initially have both Müllerian and Wolffian ducts, which are precursor structures for the reproductive system. In typical female development (XX), the Müllerian ducts develop into the uterus, fallopian tubes, and upper vagina, while the Wolffian ducts degenerate. In typical male development (XY), the presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome triggers testes formation, which secrete hormones that cause the Wolffian ducts to develop into the epididymis, vas deferens, and seminal vesicles, while the Müllerian ducts degenerate. These are not arbitrary or socially constructed pathways—they are the direct result of genetic instructions shaped by millions of years of evolution.
The existence of Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs) does not negate this binary—it reinforces it. DSDs are rare conditions where normal sexual development is disrupted, but even here, affected individuals are still recognisably male or female. For instance, Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) affects individuals with XY chromosomes (male) who cannot respond to androgens properly, leading to a female-appearing body. This is a case of a male (XY) with an atypical presentation—it is not a third sex.
Similarly, Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) is a condition affecting XX individuals (female) where excess androgen exposure can cause masculinised genitalia, but the individual remains female because they are biologically structured to produce eggs.
Claiming that these rare conditions “prove” sex is a spectrum is like claiming that the existence of people born with six fingers means humans do not have ten fingers. DSDs are exceptions within the binary, not evidence against it. The attempt to portray biological sex as “too complex” to define is not a scientific argument—it is an ideological strategy. It is designed to blur the clear, material reality of sex in order to undermine women’s ability to speak about the sex-based oppression they face.
This brings us to the laughable falsehood that the Taliban’s brutal misogyny is somehow disconnected from biological sex. The Taliban’s oppressive rules—forcing women to cover up, restricting their movement, denying them education—are not random cultural quirks. They are systemic methods of controlling female bodies and their reproductive capacity. Women are oppressed because of their sex—their biological role in reproduction—and this is a constant in patriarchal societies worldwide. Biological sex is the very foundation of why women are targeted for control, abuse, and subordination. Denying this is not just ignorance—it is a betrayal of women who suffer because of it.
And the claim that recognising this connection is “racist” is nothing but a bad-faith tactic to silence debate. Criticising the Taliban’s medieval treatment of women is not racism—it is a moral obligation. But calling women “racist” for daring to speak about sex-based oppression is a vile attempt to shame them into silence. In reality, the only bigotry on display here is the deep misogyny of those who would rather defend an authoritarian, woman-hating regime than admit the biological reality of sex. (And yes, I personally know women who actually worked in REWA and similar, at great risk to their lives.)
Finally, the cheap, sneering question, “Why are transphobes always racist?” is a textbook example of smear tactics. It is a lazy ad hominem meant to poison the well and avoid engaging with the argument. But it is also deeply ironic—because the people pushing this view are the ones perpetuating ideological colonisation by denying women worldwide the right to name their own oppression.
Denying the binary nature of sex is not a mark of progress—it is a rejection of basic biology, an erasure of women’s material reality, and a retreat into ideological fantasy. It is not the feminists who are spreading hatred—it is those who would rather gaslight women than allow them to speak the truth.