Reproductive sex is important, but it’s not the only biological difference between genders.
But hasn’t the pathologization of intersex conditions contributed to medical violence against intersex people? So shouldn’t we oppose the idea that intersex conditions are “disorders of sexual development”?
I’m a bit confused here Marja…the phrase “biological difference between genders” makes no sense because gender is not biological. Yes, the pathologization of intersex conditions contributed to medical violence against intersex people, but no one here is arguing that we should continue to pathologize intersex conditions so I’m not sure where this is coming from.
On the second issue, My Only Path to Power stated “Intersex conditions represent a disorder of sex development, not an introduction of new and additional kinds of sex development.”
My apologies for missing that point, Marja. I suppose she could have improved that sentence by saying “variation” instead of “disorder.” However her intent was not to stigmatize intersex people but to point out that variations of the theme of male and female among humans don’t constitute a third sex altogether. The trans activist slogan of “sex is a spectrum” is not accurate–there are male and female and variations on those, but not something else entirely. Although nature always creates variations, that doesn’t mean the typical reproductive functions of the species exist on a spectrum of possibilities.
And there are other definitions of sex and gender.
For example, “sex is biological, gender is social,” or “sex is biological, gender is psychological,” or “sex doesn’t vary between cultures cultures, gender does.”
With some of these definitions, being trans, or having a predisposition to certain types of dysphoria, would come under sex as well as gender.
And when people make misleading assumptions about our lives because they consider us “male” or “female,” as the case may be, why should we accept their ideas of “male” and “female”?
Purple Sage 
Reproductive sex is important, but it’s not the only biological difference between genders.
But hasn’t the pathologization of intersex conditions contributed to medical violence against intersex people? So shouldn’t we oppose the idea that intersex conditions are “disorders of sexual development”?
LikeLike
I’m a bit confused here Marja…the phrase “biological difference between genders” makes no sense because gender is not biological. Yes, the pathologization of intersex conditions contributed to medical violence against intersex people, but no one here is arguing that we should continue to pathologize intersex conditions so I’m not sure where this is coming from.
LikeLike
On the second issue, My Only Path to Power stated “Intersex conditions represent a disorder of sex development, not an introduction of new and additional kinds of sex development.”
LikeLike
My apologies for missing that point, Marja. I suppose she could have improved that sentence by saying “variation” instead of “disorder.” However her intent was not to stigmatize intersex people but to point out that variations of the theme of male and female among humans don’t constitute a third sex altogether. The trans activist slogan of “sex is a spectrum” is not accurate–there are male and female and variations on those, but not something else entirely. Although nature always creates variations, that doesn’t mean the typical reproductive functions of the species exist on a spectrum of possibilities.
LikeLike
And there are other definitions of sex and gender.
For example, “sex is biological, gender is social,” or “sex is biological, gender is psychological,” or “sex doesn’t vary between cultures cultures, gender does.”
With some of these definitions, being trans, or having a predisposition to certain types of dysphoria, would come under sex as well as gender.
And when people make misleading assumptions about our lives because they consider us “male” or “female,” as the case may be, why should we accept their ideas of “male” and “female”?
LikeLike