Even if you want to separate sex and gender and define sex using sexual characteristics (not actually a good idea, see works by Judith Butler and Julia Serano among others, although I wont fight that point here), almost no sexual characteristics are immutable. The only ones that I can think of are chromosomes and gametes, but chromosomes aren't even binary (or observable without a microscope) and gametes arent a good basis either -- should being infertile affect your sex?

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Let me ask a genuine question then, if you don't separate sex and gender, how does one recognize things like differences in people's eyes. Our gender roles have no effect on those physical characteristics that are created by varying factors such as chromosomes. We characterize those differences into the area of sex normally, but like I said previously, there is overlap in the sexes, chromosomes aren't always in category A and B.

Or are you saying sex shouldn't exist at all as a classification? Fertility has no effect on what physically was attempted to be formed. Mutations and errors will always occur. That doesn't mean someone should be alloted lesser rights, that just means they formed differently.

[–] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The short and somewhat cheeky answer is that we recognise differences in people's eyes by recognising differences in people's eyes. You don't need to refer to what we have historically designated "sex" to do that.

But here's the longer answer: I'm sure it's true that in the aggregate you can observe some differences in the eye that correlate with sex. But so what? That, along with any other aggregate difference, doesn't actually validate sex as a useful category. The simple fact is that any way you split a population in two, you will see aggregate differences. These differences are then simply used to reify that categorisation as more important and concrete than it really is.

Let me illustrate this with a hypothetical. About half the population requires glasses (or other vision correction), and half doesn't. If we constructed social categories and social roles around these, people would start caring enough to research what the physiological reality correlates with. Is there a difference in athletic ability between glasses-wearers and non-glasses-wearers? Is there a difference in height? and so on and so on. These real physiological differences are then used to reify the social construct, and when someone invents contact lenses, suddenly people go "but these categories are real! look at all this evidence showing how these categories are different!" and so on and so on

but so what? You can split a population in two however you like. Short and tall, glasses or no glasses, male or female. All come along with lots and lots of associated physical and mental differences in aggregate. Why do we think sex matters more than the others? Certainly not because of any physiological differences that actually matter in the modern world. It's socially motivated.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Why do we think sex matters more than the others?"

In general, because our species dies out of you don't pair properly. You can pair a colorblind person with a nearsighted person and if the organs don't match up, no reproduction.

Throw in that our society is set up in a fucked up way that we need to increase the population at all times otherwise we won't be able to care for the elderly before us (social security, medical care... Whatever it may be) reproduction matters a lot to our society.

[–] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That may have been true once, but no longer -- there are no shortage of ways for queer couples (or, for that matter, infertile cishet couples) to have children.

Even if we assume that reproductive categories are so supremely important that we should socially categorise based on them (which I reject), that just brings us back to my original point. Why are infertile people still categorised into a binary sex that has nothing to do with their reproductive capability?

Because sex as we culturully underatand it is socially constructed. We use markers that don't reflect reproductive reality. Perhaps once they were the best proxies we had for a guess at reproductive capacity, but not any more.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

All of those ways include a male and a female as far as I know? More steps are added, like moving the sperm or egg, but in the end it is sperm and egg. Gender is what you are describing as socially constructed as per textbook definition. Infertility occurs, if you want to say they aren't male or female, or say they don't have a sex until they are sexually mature and that ends when they are no longer able to reproduce there are other names, but I think that is just overcomplicating something that was painted with broad strokes. Is it "moral/ethical/correct/right" that's for the beholder, but if your battle is just about the terminology of how to classify someone's anatomy, I'm for hoping it goes well. The more people learn, and the less ignorance about how reproduction works should make the world a better place long term I hope. Out of curiosity do you mind me asking what part of the world you live in? It's been nice discussing this, always good to hear what others are thinking/learning.

[–] flying_wotsit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

All of those ways include a male and a female as far as I know?

Nope! Sperm has been synthesised effectively from egg and used to fertilise another egg. Successful birth with this method has been achieved in animals, in humans birth has not yet been tried, it's slowed down due to regulations

Gender is what you are describing as socially constructed as per textbook definition.

Your textbooks are clearly outdated. That's fine, sociology and gender theory evolve. Read some queer theory, in particular Judith Butler.

if your battle is just about the terminology of how to classify someone's anatomy

It's not just about terminology, it's about the social constructs that are inexorably linked with that terminology. It's not overcomplication to point out that only a tiny fraction of observable sex (fertility) is actually immutable, and even that won't be for long. All others are both mutable and socially chosen to represent sex.

Out of curiosity do you mind me asking what part of the world you live in?

I do mind, sorry, my points aren't linked to any particular country or culture and so I wouldn't want you categorising them as such, intentionally or not.