Sex is rooted in reality, but the boundaries are socially constructed.
Similarly, Pluto is no longer a planet because “planet” is a socially constructed category. It doesn’t mean that it’s not rooted in tangible, factual reality, just that we culturally decide what characteristics are required to fall into the categories we created.
biology is full of social constructs. reality is complex and messy, but to wrap their heads around it, humans put it into simple categories.
the destinction into male and female (and sometimes intersex) was creared backwards. first came the social destinctions and social importans on sex, then people searched for the reasons, to explain the destinctions.
through this they currently arrived at the definition of sex as biological organisms producing smaller or larger gametes. as if this were actually a super sensual to classify all organisms that produce larger gametes and all organisms that produce smaller gametes in the same categories respecrively. but fair enough.
but then anything that causes an organism to produce smaller or larger gamets is considered sex determening. and all caused or just correlated to this is also considered part of the sex, including social factors. so production of larger gametes in humans is cause by xx chromosomes, so all humans with those chromosomes are female, even if they dont produce gametes, and everything caused by the xx chromosomes like homrones and phenotypes produced by those is considered female and even certain attributes pushed majority on people categorized as such are considered part of it. but none of that is a must. people with xx chromosomes dont necessairily produce larger gametes, they dont necessairily have the hormones, they dont necessairily develop the phenotypes, they arent necessairily shaped by the same way by the same social system. and yet we categorise them as the same sex and categorize their attributes as wrong. this shit is social
pretending that biology/science exists without the social constructs or biases is a fool’s errand. sex is as much of a real thing as the concept of species, its a generalized idea of something that cant be easily divided or distinguished based on really anything. its made to fit the social construct we already had, science didnt sprung out in an unbiased form and has not grown out of it. the distinction is flawed and done sometimes for ease and sanity; but a lot of times because of bias
Sex and gender aren’t the same thing though. They are different concepts. I mean I am a trans woman, I identify as and largely appear to be a woman, but my biology and how I was born is physically male. This doesn’t make me any less of a woman though.
Considering sex a binary is in fact a social construct. Intersex people exist, “male” seahorses get pregnant. Some frog species can changes sexes to help balance population. A universal biological sex binary is not what nature shows. Claiming such a binary exists is necessarily a social construct, or at least social simplification of reality. Much in the way saying one magnetic pole is positive and the other negative, or “spin” on electrons. They are all social constructs.
The queerness of nature does not care about the mental gymnastics we humans have to jump through to try and make sense of things.
Removed by mod
Sex is rooted in reality, but the boundaries are socially constructed.
Similarly, Pluto is no longer a planet because “planet” is a socially constructed category. It doesn’t mean that it’s not rooted in tangible, factual reality, just that we culturally decide what characteristics are required to fall into the categories we created.
wrong :3
Removed by mod
biology is full of social constructs. reality is complex and messy, but to wrap their heads around it, humans put it into simple categories.
the destinction into male and female (and sometimes intersex) was creared backwards. first came the social destinctions and social importans on sex, then people searched for the reasons, to explain the destinctions.
through this they currently arrived at the definition of sex as biological organisms producing smaller or larger gametes. as if this were actually a super sensual to classify all organisms that produce larger gametes and all organisms that produce smaller gametes in the same categories respecrively. but fair enough.
but then anything that causes an organism to produce smaller or larger gamets is considered sex determening. and all caused or just correlated to this is also considered part of the sex, including social factors. so production of larger gametes in humans is cause by xx chromosomes, so all humans with those chromosomes are female, even if they dont produce gametes, and everything caused by the xx chromosomes like homrones and phenotypes produced by those is considered female and even certain attributes pushed majority on people categorized as such are considered part of it. but none of that is a must. people with xx chromosomes dont necessairily produce larger gametes, they dont necessairily have the hormones, they dont necessairily develop the phenotypes, they arent necessairily shaped by the same way by the same social system. and yet we categorise them as the same sex and categorize their attributes as wrong. this shit is social
What do you mean then, in regards with the original meme ? That OP should ask to see everyone’s sex ?
Thats transphobic
pretending that biology/science exists without the social constructs or biases is a fool’s errand. sex is as much of a real thing as the concept of species, its a generalized idea of something that cant be easily divided or distinguished based on really anything. its made to fit the social construct we already had, science didnt sprung out in an unbiased form and has not grown out of it. the distinction is flawed and done sometimes for ease and sanity; but a lot of times because of bias
Sex and gender aren’t the same thing though. They are different concepts. I mean I am a trans woman, I identify as and largely appear to be a woman, but my biology and how I was born is physically male. This doesn’t make me any less of a woman though.
Removed by mod
Considering sex a binary is in fact a social construct. Intersex people exist, “male” seahorses get pregnant. Some frog species can changes sexes to help balance population. A universal biological sex binary is not what nature shows. Claiming such a binary exists is necessarily a social construct, or at least social simplification of reality. Much in the way saying one magnetic pole is positive and the other negative, or “spin” on electrons. They are all social constructs.
The queerness of nature does not care about the mental gymnastics we humans have to jump through to try and make sense of things.