I am not sure that just because someone produces sperm vs eggs delineates them as male vs female. You could produce sperm but have endocrinological phenotypes (driven by genes) affect your physiology, so it wouldn’t make sense to keep insisting that one is male then.

Also, how does this definition take into account intersex people who produce both types of eggs? They’re a man? Or woman? What subcriteria would you use to define them, and then why wouldn’t you use that same subcriteria on single-cell producers?

At a socio-political and cultural level, it seems useless to worry about how someone’s sex is defined. There’s no purpose served other than to create a class of people who can conveniently be othered and used as a means to distract from people who are truly damaging to society—the greedy and resource hoarders.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 34 points 6 months ago

Cissexism often relies on denying the realities of intersex bodies. Or underplaying how common they are.

The reality is biological sex is clustered bimodal traits.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder 28 points 6 months ago (2 children)

At a fundamental level her argument appears to be "I define biological sex and gender as the same thing, no other definition may exist".

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I am saying that sex is not necessarily binary either.

[–] BeardedGingerWonder 13 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sorry, I didn't mean to take away from your point at all, you're very much undermining her entire argument.

[–] nifty@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

No apologies needed, I was just clarifying what I meant ^^

[–] festnt@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago

and she's using only one characteristic that can be used to determine sex when it doesnt even work alone (other characteristics have to be met, and even if most of them are met, theres probably still exceptions cause biology is fun like that)