Absolutely, and the level of hair splitting you can get into is maddening. It almost seems worth discarding the word entirely, in the world’s current state, as it relates to people.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

i have yet to see any convincing reason for keeping the concepts of sex and gender, even scientifically it's not useful as you can just actually specify the properties you're basing it on instead and thus be more accurate.

like, not all "women" have a womb, or breasts, or the same levels of estrogen, etc etc... So if you use the term "woman" or "female" you're inevitably going to be inaccurate, whereas if you instead say "people with XX chromosomes, a functional womb, and breasts" you're now actually precisely explaining what group of people you're talking about.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 hours ago

During this thread, i started to feel as though sex were, metaphorically, Fahrenheit pretending to be Celsius. It’s still useful in its own way, but an updated lexicon would be helpful as we evolve.

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

No, I don't agree. I concur in the personal level if it's bothering you, but a scientist, who is the guy that wants to use that data, will find useful what the statistic mean by "male" or "female". There are statistical differences between both groups. That's very useful.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t disagree, it’s just a lament born of exhaustion. As if any subsequent divisions, alternatives, euphemisms, or specifications wouldn’t immediately be surmised as “woke mind virus.”

[–] selokichtli@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 hours ago

Alright. That's absolutely understandable.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I think of it as relating to “operative definitions” when doing research.

What are we using sex to describe? Labels are descriptive, not prescriptive. It is important to distinguish chromosomal sex in some contexts, or certain traits associated with SRY activation - but ultimately it’s a category that is useful sometimes but doesn’t ultimately govern reality.

Literally no one takes philosophy of science classes lol.

But as a trans man, I am “male” in some presentations. My body processes things differently on testosterone, in ways that may make it appropriate for me to be classed as male in some contexts. There are other contexts where I need to be treated under the “female” healthcare umbrella - eg, gynecological care.

But for the context of my day to day life - what use does the appellation “female” have to me? What useful information about my reality does it give to you? We can be materialists, but our words aren’t material.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

I guess it’s fine to accept that there is no single answer to a question, but the absence of concrete definability in a colloquial term is just upsetting on its face. I recognize that there’s no real need for it to be monolithic, but even figuring out how to phrase my question without seeming threatening was a challenge.

In the end, I just want folks to feel safe when I speak to them, and through the answers imparted upon me, I’m inching closer to the level of inclusion that I strive toward. I sincerely appreciate the answer, and if there’s anything that I’ve said here that seems at odds with my stated goal, I apologize.

[–] andros_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

It’s a complicated problem. We’ve got an epistemological question that’s getting mixed up with medical conditions and psychology and the way that society treats the ways that human bodies can differentiate themselves. Exploring sex and gender is often looking at everything from genetics to anthropology to history to language to societal roles, which is cutting across too many disciplines for anyone to navigate perfectly.

And then we have to look at people. We have to look at the way this uncertainty has been weaponized by the fascist project. This uncertainty is ultimately what transphobic violence is seeking to correct - to force an answer to the question.

It is a scary prospect. We have to consider what it would look like to have a society without mandated gender roles, we have to consider what being “male” or “female” means about us as human beings, we have to figure out what it means to live “as a man” or “as a woman.” Are we really tabula rasa? Is childhood a resolution of the phallic crisis and oedipus complex? Why are some hobbies or professions more dominated by one gender over the other? What about the distribution of household labor?

It’s a Gordian knot - there’s an appeal in just slicing the thing in half.

[–] Gullible@sh.itjust.works 2 points 14 hours ago

I admit, I do genuinely love the left wing resolution to the question. “Just give people the freedom to harmlessly be themselves, or else” pretty succinctly cuts through the stochastic terrorism. From the outside, it seems like a complete philosophy with room for future development, edges only apparent when we begin to question what’s human or harmless.

Simply absolving people of the need to care about something is a gloriously tantalizing gesture, and simultaneously collectivizing them through a broader umbrella is powerful. It’s religion for atheists.