Everyday Feminism Wants You To Know That Biological Sex Is A Social Construct

We’ve heard time and time again from the left that gender is nothing more than a social construct. We’ve been forced to believe that there are only two categories to choose from. Thus, dozens of new gender identities were born. I’m going to list some of them off, because I REALLY want this to sink in.

Crystagender: When gender randomly changes, often feeling broken or fractured between multiple genders.

Agenderflux: Describes someone who is agender but experiences intermittent periods of feeling masculine or feminine.

Two-Spirit: An umbrella term traditionally used by Native American people to recognize individuals who possess qualities or fulfill roles of both genders.

Skoliosexual: Attracted to genderqueer and transsexual people and expressions (people who don’t identify as cisgender).

Pansexual: A person who experiences sexual, romantic, physical, and/or spiritual attraction for members of all gender identities/expressions.

We’re just scratching the surface here. In the past, individuals in New York have been able to choose from 31 gender identities, including “gender bender,” “third sex,” “androgynous,” “gender gifted,” and “two-spirit.”

We get it. The left is wholeheartedly convinced that gender is nothing more than a social construct. If you thought they’d stop there and be satisfied with shoving dozens of gender identities down society’s throat, HA! You’re naive. Now, they’re arguing that biological sex is a social construct too. In fact, if you say a trans-man is actually a biological women or a trans-woman is actually a biological man, you’re mistaken. Screw biology. Screw science.

[arve url=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/eWVRzGMVXbM”]

If you didn’t watch the video, here’s the gist. Binary sex isn’t as cut and dried as everyone thinks. Even though this is based on FACTS like the existence of certain reproductive organs and “secondary sex characteristics” like boobs and beards, it’s wrong to assume someone’s sex by the existence of those very characteristics.

People with penises tend to develop facial hair, gain muscle mass, and get a deeper voice. People with vaginas tend to develop breasts, get wider hips, and have more subcutaneous fat.

But these are not perfect differentiators of sex. Some people with penises don’t develop much if any facial hair, while some develop beards, and the amount of facial hair that they have doesn’t make them more or less male.

There’s some overlap in these characteristics. A man can be shorter than a woman. Some men have higher voices than women. Therefore, these characteristics cannot be defining factors. That’s the argument. The individual in the video goes on to say that secondary characteristics can be changed through hormones and reassignment surgery. Surely, something that can be so easily changed isn’t a very good foundation for determining the sex of an individual, right? (Again, this is their argument, not mine.)

Now, I know what you’re thinking. Secondary characteristics can vary, but that doesn’t change the fact that these individuals either have a penis or a vagina, right? WRONG. Because you can also get that “corrected” through surgery, it’s also not a useful defining factor.

Some people assigned male at birth have vaginas, thanks to a surgery called vaginoplasty. Some people assigned female at birth have penises, thanks to a surgery called phalloplasty. So genitals aren’t a great indicator.

 

And gonads – so, ovaries or testes – are often removed in the case of testicular or ovarian cancer. But if a woman has her ovaries removed due to cancer, is she no longer female? If a man has his testes removed due to cancer, is he no longer male? I don’t think so. And I don’t think you can say that gonads define a person’s sex without believing that.

 

So, out of the five ways we have of determining someone’s sex, four of those five – hormones, secondary sex characteristics, genitals, and gonads – cannot be accurately used to determine someone’s sex.

Here’s where the mental gymnastics really kicks in.

For example, if someone was assigned male at birth, but took puberty blockers and hormones and had a vaginoplasty, they would have “female” hormones, secondary sex characters, and genitals. So, three of their five ways of determining sex would be “female.” They wouldn’t have male or female gonads at that point, and let’s assume their chromosomes are XY. That means three-fifths of the sex criteria point to female, and only one-fifth points to male – and if you believe that sex is an unchanging biological fact, that couldn’t be possible. But it is.

The individual is really missing the point here. If a baby was born a boy and his parents forced him to take puberty blockers and hormones, that’s willful manipulation. It doesn’t change the fact that he was born a biological male. It doesn’t change his chromosomes. But wait! There’s an argument for that too.

But if you want to argue that sex is entirely determined by chromosomes, then you’re arguing against the definition of what we call biological sex. Because sex has never been only about chromosomes; it’s been about all five of these traits.

 

And tell me, what good does dividing people based on their chromosomes do? If chromosomes don’t determine your hormones, secondary sex characteristics, genitals, or gonads, what purpose do they serve in differentiating people?

 

The answer is: They serve no purpose. There’s no reason to divide XX people and XY people. That is an arbitrary distinction that has no effect on the how the person looks or behaves or navigates the world.

And there you have it. The left is so desperate to erase the existence of two sexes that they’re openly admitting that chromosomes “serve no purpose.”

You can’t know someone’s chromosomes by looking at them, and even if you could, it wouldn’t give you any useful information about the person.

 

That’s the point I’m trying to make: Sex is not a biological fact, because it is determined by things that are largely changeable, and the only part of it that is unchangeable doesn’t have any real-world effect. So it is just as much a social construct as gender is.

If it takes you THAT long to explain something as simple as gender/biological sex, chances are you’re the one who needs to look in the mirror and do a little reassessing. I mean, really. The entire video could’ve been summed up in one sentence: You are whatever you feeeeeeeeel you are.