Realizing that gender is infinitely more complicated than the binary boy/girl genital-determined nonsense we’re taught from the moment we pop out of a vagina.
being really really confused that we define gender by a couple of little biological things (genitals…
Disagreement within a community =/= arbitrary demarcations.
i didnt say that though.
"scientists and doctors and shit dont even all agree on the criterion of “what makes someone ~biologically~ male or female.” its literally arbitrary demarcations."
It looks like you are saying that “the community of individuals we’d expect to have knowledge of these things disagrees about criteria for biological sex. Therefore, it is arbitrary demarcations.” Or perhaps “The lack of agreement with the relevant field of expertise is evidence for biological sex being based upon arbitrary demarcations.”
I do apologize for misusing logical notation though. Strictly speaking it should look like ~(Disagreement within community => Arbitrary Demarcation).
no. i was saying more that people claim that science is SO clear on this (which its not). and as related, but not directly following that line of thought, i basically made the assertion that the norm of assigning binary gender to biology is the imposition of a specific articulation of gender upon bodies on variable (e.g. scientists disagree) and arbitrary (e.g. for any given criterion it seems that these are criterion for no real reason).
in other words, we are not born a gender, but are born being gendered and scientific (and binarist) communities largely (but not entirely) ignore that.
It seems to me that biological science is not clear on fringe cases, since as with most things in biology a wide variety of different things can happen.
But it does seem like most scientists (and average people for that matter) would agree on the sex of an overwhelming majority of human beings- so I don’t see how the category is arbitrary. To argue from a disagreement about a tiny percentage of cases to overall arbitrariness seems unwarranted to me. And from my admittedly limited knowledge of the major cases, it seems like they are best addressed as the result of genetic malfunctions where a section of code is miscopied, or various kind of environmental issues.
To use an example from an even less precise science than biology- in political science we talk about fascist or far-right societies and movements. Now, lots of groups are going to be borderline/debatable whether or not fascist or far-right is the best descriptor. This does not mean that the original criteria are arbitrary. Biological terms, while more precise, have similar limitations. At least in general, a combination of genetic and physical characteristics (leaning more on the genetic side form what I can tell, I’m admittedly just an interested amateur) are used to characterize biological kinds. But since genetic information can be mutated, or otherwise be miscopied and manifest in peculiar ways under exotic conditions- the kind descriptions will always be “In general and for the most part.”.
Now, simply because someone’s physical characteristics are the result of a genetic malfunction says nothing about whether or not doctors should perform surgery to make them more “normal”. That is an independent normative question. My point has simply been that the physical sex is a useful category in science and inquiry.