okay let's try specifying the concepts more precisely because your retort is confused. sexuality is a set of biologically-constructed categories primarily related to reproductive patterns, and is neither static nor binary (as nothing in biology is)
-
-
gender is a set of socially-constructed categories related to how people organize themselves in society. its up to the society to determine its form (static/fluid, binary/trinary/otherwise). however you'd be hard pressed to find truly static/binary gender categories in history
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @bensima @DanielleFong
Not interested in your priestly pontificating. You types always do the same thing. You conflate the categories you construct with a prescription for how the world ought to work. Yes, there have always been some edge cases on what constitutes “man”, “woman”, “male”, “female”
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
But until extremely recently we were quite happy to define these categories in terms of a binary, and ultimately, both are prescriptive. You cannot use “science” to make normative claims about this, it comes down to power
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
I probably agree more w Danielle on the underlying issue here. But I do think you are correct that these categories are prescriptive. Arguments about definitions in this context are not solved by gesturing to the neutral facts. Meaning is normative, it goes w a vision of society
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @0x49fa98 and
This is why on both sides it’s a rhetorical waste of time to talk about the science. Clearly sex is mostly dimorphic, everyone agrees. Then there is a social concept on top of it, linked but not restricted to the underlying biology. From there, science informs but doesn’t dictate
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @0x49fa98 and
Interestingly, science has been used by both sides in favor of their arguments. This shows how vacuous it really is for such matters. Attempts to scientifically define “woman” and “man” fail because their meaning is embedded in a particular way of life not grounded in sciencepic.twitter.com/YdCPQDTiUM
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @0x49fa98 and
Of course, there are scientific approximate correspondents to our socially embedded man and woman concepts. “Biological sex” does exist. It may be the case that transgender people have a “male” or “female” brain of the opposite sex, as I’ve heard (haven’t looked into it).
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @ResonantPyre @0x49fa98 and
I think this is worth looking into. Any discussion of this will eventually touch on this issue and strong support for the “brain in the wrong body” hypothesis that some people assume is the current state of the neuroscience just doesn’t exist.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @gaitanalyst @ResonantPyre and
We don't understand brains enough, but people's lived experience & internal experience of their gender has outlasted every model of biological sex we've had. At this point the epistemological stance is to admit that we don't understand humans or sex very well & let people be free
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
𝓓𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒 𝓕𝑜𝑛𝑔, 𝕖𝕩-𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕕𝕚𝕘𝕪 Retweeted Bologna Fish, M.D.
E.G. while there's evidence of dimorphic sizes in the BSTc brainregion, thought to be important for gender, this is in danger of reversing the causality of our understanding. (see: https://www.the-scientist.com/features/are-the-brains-of-transgender-people-different-from-those-of-cisgender-people-30027 …) But if we're drawing conclusions on brain size:https://twitter.com/BolognaFishMD/status/1263145524078587904 …
𝓓𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑙𝑒 𝓕𝑜𝑛𝑔, 𝕖𝕩-𝕡𝕣𝕠𝕕𝕚𝕘𝕪 added,
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.