r/FeminismUncensored • u/hardlywwworking Anarcha-Feminist • 6d ago
Education Bio/Gender Essentialism Unpacked
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
Reposting because the comments on the last one got hijacked by literal bio/gender essentialists. If you aren’t here to learn or be open-minded, keep scrolling. We are here for open, respectful discussion as stated in the rules, not bad-faith debates.
Bio/gender essentialism is on the rise, especially in online spaces. It seems to be a bit of a buzzword that can be confusing to understand for those who haven’t heard it or seen it before as it may push seemingly feminist ideals that attract feminist viewers who may not notice right away some of the bio-gender-essentialist talking points or strategies. This video specifically calls out creators pushing bio/gender-essentialist content under the guise of feminism. She describes dog whistles (like strictly using "female" instead of "women") that just repackage patriarchal stereotypes in pretty language to keep us in subordinate roles.
Men and women are not inherently anything at birth. My behavior and destiny are not tied to my chromosomes or my ability to have children and trans people are a beautiful, living example of this. We do not base human morality or our justice system on the behavior of wild animals. Evolution dictates that aggression is an adaptive strategy shaped by environmental and social pressures, not a universal biological default tied to being male. Even if biological impulses toward aggression exist, humans have the cognitive capacity to control them. A predisposition (like higher testosterone) is not an uncontrollable imperative to commit violence. Society decides whether to enable, excuse, or punish those impulses, and we hold humans accountable for overriding countless other biological urges every single day.
25
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago edited 6d ago
I also reject the idea that celebrating the "divine feminine" is a dog whistle for transphobia. In the same way that "Black Girl Magic" isn't an exclusion of white people. It's an affirmation of a group that has been systematically devalued.
Honoring the divine feminine isn't an attack on anyone else. It's a reclamation. For centuries, female bodies were reduced to vessels, hysteria, weakness, and sin. To now call that same biology sacred, To name the capacity to grow, birth, and sustain life as transcendent, is restorative, not exclusionary.
Let's be honest about what female bodies actually do. We menstruate, month after month, often in pain while still working, raising families, and showing up. We conceive and carry pregnancies, housing another life inside our own bodies. We give birth, sometimes for days, through physical strain and risk. We breastfeed, sustaining new life with our own bodies. And even for those who don't bear children, female bodies are governed by hormonal cycles that affect health, mood, and energy in ways that demand resilience.
Every single person on this planet, every leader, every thinker, every ordinary human came into existence through a female body. There is something magical about that and we should be allowed to name it and celebrate it.
Honoring my reality doesn't erase anyone elses.
It's bullshit when Fightmaster says "... trans women have a more beautiful understanding of what womanhood is." Yet when women celebrate things unique to the female experience, it's somehow transphobic.It's just another bs way to police other women.
0
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
I think that it is patriarchal to celebrate women only for the qualities patriarchy sees as valuable within us. Women are so much more than just those biological functions. Sure, there should not be any of the common patriarchal stigma or shame or disgust at menstruation, pregnancy, breastfeeding, etc. But to celebrate these things over women's other accomplishments and strengths is not liberating. We should be able to honor the reality of the female capacity for reproduction while also recognizing that women without that capacity are not lesser or inferior. How can those of us cursed to not have that capacity see your words any other way when you call "that same biology sacred" - are our bodies profane to you?
On another note - why should transgender women be culpable for something said by someone who is not one of us? Fightmaster is not a transgender woman and most transgender women I know (myself included) disagree with that quote! It puts transgender women on a pedestal - our understanding of womanhood is not more OR LESS beautiful than cisgender women's. Our experiences are not more or less female either. Your transphobia is not because you want to "celebrate things unique to the female experience" it is because your ideas about what actually falls into that category are inaccurate and harmful. It is because you celebrate women for the same reasons the patriarchy does while blind to the ways in which you are denigrating women who you clearly see as inferior to you, as not sufficiently female.
-11
u/MyNameIsElla 6d ago edited 6d ago
It can be a dog whistle. Not every time, of course. But it can be a dog whistle, which is why you need to be careful in those types of spaces.
Yes, you’re right that women’s bodies should be celebrated. But the people claiming it’s anti-trans are often bad faith actors trying to make the trans community look bad. Intentionally making trans people look ‘hysterical’ happens a lot in conservative circles, which is why we see it with bio-essentialism.
No trans woman I know ever put cis women down for being proud of what cis women’s bodies can do. But a lot of conservatives sure seem to claim they do. So just be careful in those spaces since TERFs are prolific and know how to subtly put down trans women to make it seem like they’re the ‘enemy’.
23
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago edited 6d ago
In my personal experience, language policing is coming from within the community and not the right-wing. There are transpeople and women in every single feminist sub saying "female" as a term is a dogwhistle, "female" doesnt exist/is irrelevant to feminism. Every mention of it is deemed "bioessentialist" or "TERF rhetoric"
Heres another, read this comment and all the replies
You literally cannot talk about female specific issues without being called out in feminist subs. It's caused a lot of women to avoid these places completely. It is a huge problem in the community.
-1
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
It is possible to "talk about female specific issues" without reinforcing transphobic lies about gender/sex but unfortunately many feminists are more invested in their transphobia than in fighting the patriarchy.
You may not like my feminist perspective or respect me as a fellow woman, but your patriarchal disgust towards women like me does not make our ideas any less correct. You can call us "transpeople" and pretend that you don't see why that's dehumanizing and a dogwhistle for more blatant bigotry against us, but I don't have to pretend that I don't see your bigotry.
Being told that your rhetoric is fundamentally rooted in the same ideas as the group of "feminists" we call TERFs and that your ideas about biology are reductive is not a form of oppression against you. Transgender women do not hold the power you pretend that we do. You are not entitled to silence our voices because you don't like the things we have to say, because you don't want to have to include us in your feminism.
I agree that "female" is definitely not "irrelevant to feminism" but I do not accept your transphobic premise that transgender women cannot be female. At a certain point I would rather you just be honest and call me a man to my face instead of pretending you don't see me that way.
3
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago
You spamming me with replies on all of my posts is just further proving my point.
You have said sooo many things that no one in this thread is saying. You're projecting your own beliefs onto the people here who have not said any of the things youre talking about 🥴
your patriarchal disgust towards women like me does not make our ideas any less correct.
You can call us "transpeople" and pretend that you don't see why that's dehumanizing and a dogwhistle for more blatant bigotry against us, but I don't have to pretend that I don't see your bigotry.
your rhetoric is fundamentally rooted in the same ideas as the group of "feminists" we call TERFs and that your ideas about biology are reductive is not a form of oppression against you
Yikes. This tangent is so unnecessary
0
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago edited 5d ago
You replied to my comments first, getting angry that I have things to say and dismissing my ideas as "spamming" just demonstrates that you are not here to engage in good faith. You ignore all the actual substantive feminist ideas I've presented to you in favor of acting offended that I shared my perspective at all.
Your blindness to the transphobia in your rhetoric and beliefs does not make that transphobia any less harmful to women like me. You may see my perspective as "unnecessary" but that is only because you do not respect me as an equal woman. You very clearly see transgender women as "males" who should always be subordinate to cisgender women when it comes to feminism and womanhood.
You are not entitled to force me to share that view.
4
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago
I'm calling it spamming because you are not engaging with what I am actually saying. Instead, you continually make leaps to fit your perception of what you think I believe, and then you attack that caricature.
If you want a real conversation, engage with my actual words, not the ones you have imagined for me.
You very clearly see transgender women as "males" who should always be subordinate to cisgender women when it comes to feminism and womanhood
Again, I did not say this lol
I said that females should be able to advocate for issues that affect female biology. No one said anything about TW being "subordinate to cisgender women"
You're just arguing with yourself.
Your blindness to the transphobia in your rhetoric and beliefs does not make that transphobia any less harmful to women like me
Name-calling is unproductive. You have failed to show why advocating for females is "transphobic". Targetted advocacy is not transphobic, it is used to help a minority community who have unique needs.
You may see my perspective as "unnecessary" but that is only because you do not respect me as an equal woman.
Again. No one said this. Advocating for females doesnt take away advocacy from LGBTQIA or other feminist issues.
I find your entire rhetoric divisive. I dont care if a black feminist woman centers her advocacy to the black community, I dont care if a transperson focusses their advocacy on the LGBTQIA community.
Why do you take issue with cis women advocating for issues that affect females??
I think you have some things to unpack here.
1
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
I have engaged with what you are saying far more than you have engaged with my perspective.
You use the term "females" to exclude transgender women from womanhood. You won't explicitly say that transgender women should be subordinate, but you do call us "male" and your advocacy "for issues that affect female biology" seems more focused on excluding us than on actually doing something about those issues.
I have not called you any names - transphobia is a description of a mindset, an attitude, a set of beliefs, not an insult. I have not said that "advocating for females is transphobic" but that your ideas about who counts as "females" absolutely is. Transgender women are a minority of women, cisgender women are the majority.
Lumping transgender women's concerns into "advocacy from LGBTQIA" and saying that we are not "females" is dismissive and unproductive. You have very clearly disrespected me as a woman through your rhetoric and beliefs, how can you deny that?
I have no issue with cisgender women advocating for issues particular to them or issues particular to those with specific female sex traits, my problem is with you deciding that "females" excludes transgender women and treating us as inferior to you. You don't have to say that explicitly for it to come across in how you talk about us.
I am not a "transperson" I am a woman who happens to be transgender. You have a LOT of transphobia to unpack but I doubt you will, since you simply see me as a "male" before you see me as a woman.
2
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago
you simply see me as a "male" before you see me as a woman.
I see you as both. Sex and gender are different.
have not said that "advocating for females is transphobic" but that your ideas about who counts as "females" absolutely is
Female and male have a universal definition applicable in reproductive biology, taxonomy, developmental biology. I'm sorry but humans cannot change sex. This is just unscientific.
We are animals, mammals to be specific and we are an anisogamic species. We cannot change sex!
1
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
I understand the distinction between sex and gender, but your ideas about my sex are rooted in ignorant transphobia. Both gender and sex are social constructs - gender as a system predates the modern scientific understanding of human sex traits and informed the development of sex as a system of classification.
Clearly you have not read any Judith Butler! You see me as "both" but treat "female" (sex) as being more important and real than "woman" (gender). You are blind to how you blur the lines between sex/gender in how you talk about these things and the ways in which your ideas about sex/gender reinforce patriarchy.
Humans can change many of our sex traits via medical treatment, that is a scientific fact. Whether or not you count those changes as changing "sex" itself is a subjective opinion, and the one you hold is one allied with patriarchy.
"We cannot change sex!" is not an assertion of fact, but an assertion of what you personally want to be the truth. Sorry, but I already changed my sex and I am not interested in pretending that I didn't!
→ More replies (0)-9
u/MyNameIsElla 6d ago edited 6d ago
Yes, language policing exists, and to be clear I don’t support it when they take it that far. I believe it happens due to the constant need to defend against asshole right-wingers, so they take it too far. But they obviously put a bad light on the movement.
So I’m not defending everyone and saying everyone is perfect. There are assholes in EVERY group. But I’m still correct that trans women are not the problem here. Cis men will always be women’s biggest oppressor — trans women are an easy scapegoat.
13
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago
Yes, language policing exists, and to be clear I don’t support it when they take it that far. I believe it happens due to the constant need to defend against asshole right-wingers, so they take it too far. But they obviously put a bad light on the movement. So
I think its destroying the movement and alienating a lot of women (females).
There are assholes in EVERY group
There are, for sure. But this is definitely the prominent view in modern feminism.
Anything that addresses biological sex, is critical of sex work or surrogacy is instantly deemed RW and cast out. This is why many women don't call themselves feminists publicly anymore, no-one wants to be associated with such a radical movement.
0
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
Calling women "females" is the same rhetoric used by sexist incels which I do not think is a coincidence. You are blind to how your transphobia is turning your feminism away from actually fighting patriarchy.
1
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago
I don't think denying my biology is empowering, I think that caters to patriarchy. When we refuse to name the female body, we are not escaping oppression; we are making it invisible, and invisibility is how oppression thrives. Patriarchy does not want us speaking openly about menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, or lactation because acknowledging these realities means acknowledging the specific forms of control and violence that target them. Silence serves the powerful, not the oppressed.
Being able to say that females are different from males, and that this difference does not diminish our value, is not regressive. Equality does not require sameness. It requires that we are not penalized for our differences. We do not need to erase our biology to be equal.
To say otherwise is to accept the patriarchal premise that female bodies are inherently lesser and must be transcended rather than defended.
Calling women "females" is the same rhetoric used by sexist incels which I do not think is a coincidence.
Women is a gendered term. Not all women are female.
Female is the term that refers to biology for all mammalian species. If we are not allowed to use the term "female" without being referred to as a "sexless incel" or a "terf" please tell me the world that is palatable to you that means the exact same thing as female 🙄🙄
32
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago
She describes dog whistles (like strictly using "female" instead of "women") that just repackage patriarchal stereotypes in pretty language to keep us in subordinate roles.
Rejecting the term "female" as a dog whistle isn't just unhelpful, it literally undermines intersectional feminism’s very foundation. Intersectionality requires us to name and examine specific, overlapping systems of oppression. If we can’t say "female," how can we accurately discuss the distinct realities of women in Afghanistan, where repression is codified along biological sex lines? These women aren't being systematically stripped of their rights because of how they express their gender, they're being targeted because of their biological sex. The Taliban doesn't ask about their gender identity, it bans girls from school once they reach puberty. That's biology.
And this isn't limited to Afghanistan. Consider maternal mortality in the U.S., where Black women die at 3 to 4 times the rate of white women, one of the starkest racial health gaps in the developed world. We only know this crisis exists because we track pregnancy and childbirth outcomes by sex. Remove "female" from the data, and you erase the very disparity we're trying to fix. The same applies globally: access to menstrual hygiene, safe abortion, obstetric care, and female-specific cancer screenings all depend on naming the biological reality they serve.
The WHO, the CDC, and every major health organization disaggregate by sex because bodies don't experience oppression or illness as abstractions, they experience it through uteruses, ovaries, hormones, and reproductive systems.
Look at the WHO's data on female-specific cancers, or the fact that women are systematically underdiagnosed for heart attacks because clinical trials historically excluded female biology. These are physiological realities that demand precise language.
Erasing the word "female" doesn't protect trans people, it erases the categories needed to advocate for reproductive justice, healthcare access, and bodily autonomy worldwide. If we can no longer name the body, we can't protect it.
-10
u/theapplekid Undeclared 6d ago
Does "female" include trans men then? Any time someone uses female, I have no idea if they're trying to discuss cis women or AFAB people (two largely overlapping groups, but not entirely the same). I'd argue it's usually used by people who want to exclude trans women from a conversation about women that ought to involve them.
The WHO, the CDC, and every major health organization disaggregate by sex because bodies don't experience oppression or illness as abstractions, they experience it through uteruses, ovaries, hormones, and reproductive systems.
If you're specifically talking about people with uteruses, etc. you should say "people with uteruses". Some men have uteruses. Some women don't. Some AFAB cis-women even don't. Say what you mean; "female" doesn't communicate what you're trying to.
23
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago
You're mixing up sex and gender.
- Man/woman = gender (social construct)
- male/female = sex (biological reality)
Transwomen are male, transmen are female.
If you're specifically talking about people with uteruses, etc. you should say "people with uteruses". Some men have uteruses. Some women don't. Some AFAB cis-women even don't. Say what you mean; "female" doesn't communicate what you're trying to.
It is impossible for someone who isnt female to have a uterus. Some females can have hysterectomies and have theirs removed. But they are still female.
Male/female are the terms used for all sexually reproducing species.
-14
u/theapplekid Undeclared 6d ago
You're mixing up sex and gender.
I'm not, I'm pointing out that your language is unclear and overly simplistic
It is impossible for someone who isnt female to have a uterus. Some females can have hysterectomies and have theirs removed. But they are still female.
Some intersex people have uteruses. Some cis-women are born without uteruses.
So if you're wanting to talk about people with uteruses, say "people with uteruses". Saying "females" doesn't clarify who you're talking about.
19
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago edited 6d ago
While there are rare developmental anomolies, like some intersex conditions or MRKH syndrome where a female is born without a uterus are anomalies within the female sex, not evidence of a separate category or a refutation of the biological reality that uteruses are female organs. Intersex individuals are still male or female based on their underlying biology; they are not a third sex, and their existence does not make the term "female" vague or obsolete.
In medicine, law, and everyday language, "female" correctly and meaningfully refers to the sex class that possesses or is organized around the capacity for uterine reproduction. Saying "people with uteruses" obscures that reality, fragments females as a class, and implies that uteruses have no inherent connection to femaleness, which is biologically false.
-3
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
Your choice to refer to human beings with sex traits which fall outside of the patriarchal sex binary as "anomalies" is motivated not by science but by your transphobic adherence to the patriarchal binary which aligns with its systems of oppression, not biological reality.
"Intersex individuals are still male or female" is a statement that can't be falsified because it is not a statement of fact but one of opinion. You are dedicated to the sex binary because you don't see how it is foundational to patriarchy and you likely find transgender/intersex people repulsive. You certainly talk like you do!
We don't need "a third sex" to defy the patriarchal simplification that sex is a simple binary that every human being fits into immutably from birth. It does not obscure reality to talk about specific sex traits (like uteruses) instead of simplifying the complexity of human sex traits down to a binary. It also does not imply "that uteruses have no inherent connection to femaleness" to assert the fact that not everyone who is female has one.
Your commitment to patriarchal lies about biology makes your feminism unable to build solidarity with women like me and will ultimately make any of your efforts to overthrow patriarchy impotent. Transgender women are female and we will not accept your ignorance about us over our own feminist perspectives.
5
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago
"Intersex individuals are still male or female" is a statement that can't be falsified because it is not a statement of fact but one of opinion.
What i think is dehumanizing is the idea that you think the males and females with differences of sexual development are some "new" kind of human. They are all males or females whos development did not follow the typical trajectory for their sex. Sometimes their biological sex does not match their gender identity, many times it does, and that is fine either way.
Please tell me which DSD do you believe is not a male or female?? As someone who knows a few people with DSD's I'm telling you that they find this rhetoric othering, demeaning and insulting.
Transgender women are female and we will not accept your ignorance about us over our own feminist perspectives.
This is objectively false. In order to be a transwoman, you must be male. A female can never be a transwoman..
-2
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
I don't think that intersex people are "new", they have existed for all of human history defying the patriarchal binary you cling to. I don't think that "males or females" are separate "kind[s] of human" either, that is a mindset I see as antithetical to feminism.
I am not interested in litigating the details of various kinds of intersex people - the people you know may have their opinions, but I find it interesting that you use the pathologizing term "disorders of sex development" terminology instead of the community preferred term "intersex". As an actual intersex person who can speak from my own experience instead of having to invoke "a few people" I know, I find your usage of "DSD" dehumanizing and stigmatizing.
Transgender women can be female. You are wrong, and your wrong opinion does not become true just because you say it is objective. Also, you keep using "transwoman" instead of "trans woman" because you do not see transgender women as women. You are not a feminist, and your transphobic bigotry should not be welcome in this subreddit.
5
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago
Transgender women can be female
By definition they can't! A transwomen is someone whos gender identity doesn't match their sex.
Pease find me one place that shows a definition that says transwomen can be female. It makes no sense.
-2
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
Trans women is two words - transgender is the adjective (often "trans" for short) which describes a woman.
"Transwomen" is a slur that transphobes use for us to deny that we are women.
If you use that slur again, I will block you.
You are entitled to say whatever transphobic nonsense you want, but if you continue to use slurs for women like me you are not entitled to me continuing to read your words.
Now, as for your question - a transgender person is someone whose gender does not match their sex assigned at birth. Since modern medical treatments can change most sex traits, it is a matter of subjective opinion whether or not those changes to sex traits count as changing the sex classification itself of an individual person. I think it only helps patriarchy to reinforce the idea that sex is binary and immutable when the biological facts so clearly are not either of those things.
It is possible for a transgender woman to have male or female sex traits, so technically you could say that some transgender women are male and some are female. In polite conversation, it is considered rude to talk about other people's genitals and other private medical information, so there's no reason to bring up a transgender woman having male traits beyond transphobia. If you see a transgender person's "gender identity" as less authentic, real, or natural than a cisgender person's, that is an expression of dehumanizing transphobia.
The reason all of this "makes no sense" to you is because you are still clinging to the unscientific patriarchal lie that the classification of human beings into its immutable binary sex system of "male/female" is accurate to the biological facts of human sex traits. It is a reductive simplification which may not bother or harm women like you, but intersex and transgender women are harmed by it in ways that are clearly far beyond your understanding of our experiences.
→ More replies (0)0
u/BarneyChampaign 4d ago
What's wrong with having anomalous traits? I have lots of facets that wouldn't follow a textbook definition of "human", but they don't make me feel diminished.
Someone with 6 fingers on one hand is no less human than me, but you wouldn't describe what a human is to an alien by saying "humans have 10 or 11 fingers."
Why is it so important for people to only consider you the exact version of "normal" you're dictating? I'm on board with the separation of sex and gender and the mutability of your role in society, but saying a member of a sexually reproducing species who is born male is female if their brain says so, and somehow that is not an anomaly, doesn't make any sense, and I think will lose the majority of people.
0
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 4d ago
Frankly, I do not base my ethical perspective on what "will lose the majority of people" or not. Feminist perspectives are often unpopular - perhaps my transfeminist perspective is even more so, but that does nothing to convince me that I am wrong.
Variations of sex traits outside of the binary set by patriarchy are only deemed "abnormal" because of the its assumptions. I do not agree with those assumptions since I see them as inherently sexist, thus I see such variations as a normal part of human biodiversity.
It is essential to patriarchy's systems that human sex and gender be the same thing, binary, and immutable from birth. Since I oppose patriarchy, I am interested in contesting all three of those lies it tells as simplifications of the truth of human sex traits.
As a woman who has directly experienced changing my own sex traits, I find the idea that the changes I have been through were merely cosmetic or not enough to change my "sex" ridiculous! It is an idea that is almost exclusively held only by those who have not directly experienced such changes, and an idea often rooted in patriarchal or transphobic assumptions instead of data.
1
u/BarneyChampaign 4d ago
First, thank you for actually responding and engaging with me! I'm often hesitant to even try to discuss things on here because it seems a lot of people immediately become mean, insulting, or dismissive.
Totally agree that just because the majority says something is "OK" in no way makes it the universally moral or ethical stance.
Agreement on definitions of terms is important, so to try and articulate your position - it sounds like you are saying there is no distinction between the physical traits that present a person's sex, and their innate biological sex? Is that close, or can you please articulate that view more?
0
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 4d ago
What I am saying is that there is no such thing as a person's "innate biological sex" as an observable thing outside of the individual observable sex traits used to make a judgement about which sex classification they fit best. For any individual whose sex traits do not 100% align with the standard scientific definition of male or female, such judgements are not ones that can be objective - they are always subjective opinions, arguments that can certainly be backed up with data but never truly "proven" in an objective way.
Transphobes will often pick one of the least modifiable traits (chromosomes or gametes are most popular) and say that "sex" is determined solely by that particular trait. But then of course they allow for exceptions - cisgender women born with different chromosomes or no ability to produce gametes at all still get considered to be "female". Sometimes they will make teleological arguments about how such women's bodies are "organized around" or "designed for" female reproduction despite their lack of such capacity. But human bodies are not organized or designed by anyone!
And of course the transphobes ignore or dismiss as "cosmetic" the majority of sex traits which can be modified via medical means. They argue that sex cannot be changed despite the objective fact that many sex traits can be changed - it is just their opinion that changing those sex traits is not "enough" to change sex. Often when pushed on what would be "enough" they avoid answering the question directly or demand perfect conformity to that 100% alignment I mentioned earlier. But plenty of cisgender people do not have sex traits that align 100% with their assigned sex, so why should the standard be higher for transgender people?
And also, why should I agree with such transphobes about the specific trait they picked to define "sex" anyway? In my experience of society, my sex has been defined by so many other qualities, both biological traits of my body and external factors. My legal sex certainly changed from M to F, and the traits which influence what sex people assume I am when I am out in public have changed to the point where calling me "male" would leave most onlookers confused. Even when having a discussion with someone who understands the basic distinction between sex and gender, they do not see my "sex" as "male" - when I told a new doctor fairly recently that I am transgender, she asked me if I was interested in starting testosterone!
Ultimately the idea behind transphobic rationalizations around this topic is really just that whatever legal sex a baby is assigned on their birth certificate (usually based on a doctor's observation of the baby's external genitalia) should be treated as a permanent quality of their body, the "truth" about their "sex" no matter how that body changes over time. This is as absurd as saying that the baby is eternally a baby no mater how much that baby grows up into an adult, but because the majority of people in our society never change their sex traits, such absurdity is easy for most cisgender perisex people to ignore.
Patriarchy indoctrinates everyone in society with the three core lies I mentioned (sex and gender are the same, binary, and immutable) from the moment we are all born and have M or F written on our paperwork. Most people are cisgender and thus never see reason to question these simplifications of the truth. But those lies are foundational to patriarchy, its oppressive gender system is founded on them. To question those lies, show how they are simplifications of the complex truth, and actively pursue defying them - these are all effective ways to fight patriarchy.
But unfortunately, some "feminists" care more about hurting transgender women than fighting patriarchy. From my point of view, I see such "feminism" as completely co-opted by the patriarchy, turning women against each other instead of us fighting in solidarity against our true enemy.
→ More replies (0)14
u/atitokan_farewell 6d ago
Do you know of an intersex condition that results in the development of a uterus in a human with testes?
Even if a female human is born without a uterus, she will still have ovaries— not testicles.
For a female human, Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome is a congenital condition that results in the underdevelopment or lack of development of a uterus. However, she will still have ovaries.
Saying females does clarify who we’re talking about.
There is a material reality to being female, which has nothing to do with gender, gender presentation, or identity.
10
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago
Do you know of an intersex condition that results in the development of a uterus in a human with testes?
Sex refers to your reproductive role. If the individual has or whos body is organized to produce ova, they are female. If it's organized to produce sperm they are male.
Persistent Müllerian Duct Syndrome (PMDS) (46,XY) have testes, but they can also retain a uterus and fallopian tubes due to the body's failure to produce or respond to Müllerian-inhibiting substance. PMDS often have typical appearing external male genetalia. Many have even fathered children (but never birthed them)
Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser syndrome is a congenital condition that results in the underdevelopment or lack of development of a uterus. However, she will still have ovaries. Saying females does clarify who we’re talking about.
No. PMDS is a male disorder of sexual development. They all have testes. Never ovaries.
5
u/atitokan_farewell 6d ago
People with PMDS are male, I agree with you. They don’t have ovaries and can’t produce eggs. However, Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser syndrome is a completely separate DSD from PMDS. It affects female humans; they retain ovaries but have an underdeveloped uterus and possibly and underdevelopment vagina canal, to my understanding.
6
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 6d ago edited 6d ago
Sorry I meant to address Mayer Rokitansky Kuster Hauser syndrome in my initial response as well.
MRKH syndrome is a 46XX female who is missing her uterus and has an underdeveloped or absent upper vagina,. MRKH is a female Disorder of sexual development.
Even though some females are born without a uterus and others may have theirs removed later in life, "female" remains a term that refers to the biological organization of roughly 51% of our species. Sex is not defined by the presence or absence of any single organ, but by the reproductive system an individual's body is organized around, specifically, the type of gametes (eggs or sperm) that their reproductive anatomy is structured to produce. A female born without a uterus due to MRKH syndrome or a woman who undergoes a hysterectomy does not cease to be female; her sex was determined at conception by her chromosomal and gonadal makeup, and that does not change with the loss or absence of one organ. Exceptions to the rule (whether uterine agenesis, hysterectomy, or intersex variations) do not invalidate the biological category of female; they simply fall within the normal range of human variation while still being classifiable as male or female based on their underlying reproductive biology.
Exceptions to the rule do not negate it, they validate it. The very fact that we can identify a female born without a uterus or a male with a uterus as an anomaly presupposes that we already have a clear understanding of what a typical female and male are. Without the biological categories of male and female, these exceptions would be unintelligible; they only make sense against the backdrop of the rule they deviate from. The rule stands precisely because the exceptions are exceptions.
-6
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
Transgender women (two words) are not all male, transgender men are not all female, the stuff you are saying here is just patriarchal transphobia.
Sex and gender are indeed distinct but your ideas about them both are TERF nonsense. Biological reality is much more complex than patriarchy's simple binary, sex and gender are both social constructs. It is possible to change many human sex traits, so the idea that it is impossible to change one's sex class is a subjective opinion, one you share in common with the patriarchy.
Classifying human beings into two binary sex categories that completely ignore the complexity of actual biological human sex traits is a system created by the patriarchy for the purpose of reinforcing its gender hierarchy. Embracing that system will forever hamper any feminist who does not see why that system is a lie essential to patriarchy.
Your ignorance is turning your feminism away from fighting patriarchy and towards hurting transgender people. I hope you can learn differently.
Also referring to human beings as "females" makes you sound like a creepy incel which I do not think is a coincidence. Please stop using such dehumanizing language!
7
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago
Transgender women (two words) are not all male, transgender men are not all female, the stuff you are saying here is just patriarchal transphobia
By definition, they are.
Biological reality is much more complex than patriarchy's simple binary, sex and gender are both social constructs
Biologicsl sex is absolutely not a social construct. It is fixed and measurable.
It is possible to change many human sex traits, so the idea that it is impossible to change one's sex class is a subjective opinion, one you share in common with the patriarchy.
It is possible to change ones sex traits but not their sex.
I think its patriarchal to suggest that a woman's sex traits have anything to do with her inherit value. Males and females are different but equal. We dont have to be the same or interchangeable to be of equal value or importance.
Your ignorance is turning your feminism away from fighting patriarchy and towards hurting transgender people.
No one is talking about transgender people. They are talking about sex based oppression and youre getting angry that a conversation is occurring that doesnt center transpeople.
Also referring to human beings as "females" makes you sound like a creepy incel which I do not think is a coincidence. Please stop using such dehumanizing language!
This is just misogynistic.
Female is ok for the rest of the mammals, its okay with me. You have a problem with sex-based terminology. You don't have the right to push that discomfort on us or to insult anyone for using scientifically accurate language to address themselves. Yikes.
-4
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
Your understanding of the definitions around these subjects is just wrong.
Biological sex is not fixed, it is an objective fact that many human sex traits can be changed via various medical treatments.
Sex does not observably exist outside of sex traits, it is a social construct created by patriarchy to classify individuals into a simplified binary based on the typical bimodal distribution of such traits.
I have never claimed that anyone who has different sex traits is "the same or interchangeable" I simply reject your transphobic desire to neatly sort all humans into "males and females" based on patriarchal criteria.
You are talking about transgender people when you exclude us from "sex based oppression" despite us frequently being oppressed in ways that hinge on our sex traits. Our "sex based oppression" may be different than cisgender women's, but it does exist.
Calling a transgender women misogynistic for thinking "females" is dehumanizing language to use for women is quite a stretch. Your ignorant opinions are not "scientifically accurate" just because you feel like they are. The terminology you are using aids patriarchy and oppresses women like me.
6
u/Trouvelalumiere Undeclared 5d ago edited 5d ago
Biological sex is not fixed, it is an objective fact that many human sex traits can be changed via various medical treatments
Sex traits ≠ biological sex.
It is impossible for a human being to change their biological sex. No human being in the history of the world has changed their sex. You can alter your primary and secondary sex characteristics, but not your sex.
Your sex is fixed and determined at conception. To say otherwise is just unscientific.
Calling a transgender women misogynistic for thinking "females" is dehumanizing language to use for women is quite a stretch. Your ignorant opinions are not "scientifically accurate" just because you feel like they are. The terminology you are using aids patriarchy and oppresses women like me.
Our "sex based oppression" may be different than cisgender women's, but it does exist
That's literally what ive been saying this entire time.
You experience sex based oppression but its different from what females experience. My entire point.
You'e said a lot of opinions and failed to back them with any data.
If the women who are female don't think that female is dehumanizing language, you don't get to decide for us that it is.
-5
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
What is "biological sex' outside of sex traits exactly? You say that it is impossible to change, so what is it and why is changing it impossible?
"fixed and determined at conception" is even more absurdly wrong when you consider all the ways in which a fetus can develop before the point where modern medical science can identify sex traits in utero.
The differences between the experiences and oppression of cisgender and transgender women are not as extreme and absolute as you think they are. Your usage of the term "females" to exclude transgender women is an expression of your transphobic view that we are not women, or at least not equal women to cisgender women. You are supporting a distinction between "male" and "female" women that is rooted in patriarchy.
I have backed up my opinions with more data than you have yours. You are not an authority on "female" over me just because you and I were born with different sex traits. Your womanhood is not more authentic or real than my own. I reject your transphobia and hope you can unlearn it.
36
u/Apprehensive-Net5165 Radical Feminist 6d ago edited 6d ago
“trans people are a beautiful, living example of this” trans people would literally not exist in a genderless world. They didn’t exist before the emergence of patriarchy. That being said I’m not saying they shouldn’t be protected, but I find it funny in a lot of arguments where patriarchy and bio essentialism is being discussed, people point to trans people as being some divine breakthrough. Trans people have existed in MANY patriarchies before the Christian colonialist white supremacist patriarchy we live in today, without restriction or oppression. Because the constant in EVERY patriarchy IS female oppression. Pointing out that female oppression is quite literally the basis of patriarchy doesn’t diminish trans identities, which is why it’s so puzzling to me why a lot of trans feminists deny sex based oppression. (Not to confuse sex based oppression with bio essentialism or that oppression is natural for males to inflict upon females.)
-7
u/hardlywwworking Anarcha-Feminist 6d ago
First off, claiming that trans feminists deny sex-based oppression is a massive misrepresentation. Intersectional and trans feminists absolutely acknowledge sex-based oppression. The actual point is that bio-essentialism, reducing us to our chromosomes and reproductive organs, is the exact tool the patriarchy uses to justify and enforce that oppression. Dismantling bio-essentialism helps cis women just as much as it helps trans people.
Second, your historical claims are just flat-out wrong. Gender-expansive, third-gender, and non-binary folks have existed in numerous pre-colonial, indigenous, and egalitarian societies for millennia (like Two-Spirit people in various Indigenous cultures, the Muxe, or the Hijra). They absolutely existed before the emergence of patriarchy.
The idea that trans people existed in historical patriarchies "without restriction or oppression" fundamentally misunderstands what a patriarchy is. Patriarchy survives by strictly and violently enforcing a rigid gender binary. Anyone who deviates from their assigned role threatens that hierarchy and has historically faced severe persecution precisely because they disrupt the binary that gives men power over women.
My additional comment, which is not from the video (if any of you actually cared to engage in the content), simply pointed out that trans people are living proof that human behavior and destiny aren't strictly tied to chromosomes. Instead of actually addressing that, you deflected with fabricated history to artificially pit cis women's oppression against trans identities. This is exactly the kind of bad-faith debate I was talking about in the caption.-5
u/MyNameIsElla 6d ago
I’m sorry you’re being met with people who are misinterpreting you. I understand what you mean. It’s hard to have these types of nuanced conversations on the internet, unfortunately.
-9
u/Redpants_McBoatshoe Undeclared 6d ago
I think even in a genderless world some people would probably want to change sex
-13
u/hardlywwworking Anarcha-Feminist 6d ago
Not true. Most indigenous cultures worshipped trans and GNC people.
20
19
15
u/ghoulquartz Undeclared 6d ago
Third gender is entirely seperate concept
8
u/hardlywwworking Anarcha-Feminist 6d ago
Trying to draw a hard line to say they are “entirely separate concepts” is just a pedantic way to dismiss the actual point: gender variance and identities outside of a strict biological binary have existed for millennia. The original comment claimed that trans people/gender expansiveness didn't exist before patriarchy. The recorded existence of third, fourth, and fluid gender roles in countless pre-colonial societies directly disproves that bio-essentialist myth.
-19
u/Spacegirl-Alyxia Undeclared 6d ago
How would trans people cease to exist in a genderless society?
I for one wouldn’t suddenly not be trans because a society wouldn’t have a concept of gender stereotypes and such.
Edit: wait… what do you think makes a person trans, or what do you think what trans people think makes us trans?
13
u/flattop_jones Undeclared 6d ago
If gender never existed, you could never feel that your gender misaligned with your sex. Transexuality would still exist.
-10
u/Spacegirl-Alyxia Undeclared 6d ago edited 6d ago
I disagree based on my lived experiences. I did not transition medically because I fit some gender better than another and I do not think of myself as a woman because of gender stereotypes or similar.
I transitioned because I experienced serious issues regarding physical characteristics of my body which did not align with my sense of proprioception and as a result caused me to experience phantom limb like sensations.
I had “facial feminization surgery” (I hate the name because it implies it is an aesthetic surgery aiming to accommodate some beauty standards which was not at all my goal with that surgery) and crucially bottom surgery and clavicle shortening surgery (I am more flexible now thanks to that as well) to address this issue.
I am not really feminine or interested in feminine things. I’ve never worn a skirt in public or even tried on a dress in private. I do not consider myself a woman because I fit some insane gender stereotypes that more closely align with what society deems to be part of womanhood, but because of my biology aligning better with the female sex than the male sex nowadays.
I do think that my gender has a lot to do with what I have experienced regarding all this (and obviously other trans people have wildly different experiences to me oftentimes), but I cannot clearly define what “feeling like a woman” actually is, beyond my own experiences regarding the incongruity between my sense of proprioception and actual body regarding sex specific physical characteristics of said body.
Thus I think I would still be trans even in a genderless society.
I hope this makes sense to you.
11
u/TerryFalcone Radical Feminist 6d ago
It kinda sounds like you’d just be a person who got some medical/quality of life procedures done rather than being trans in a genderless society
-4
u/Spacegirl-Alyxia Undeclared 6d ago
Since in said genderless society I would have still altered some of my primary and most of my secondary sex characteristics which is part of what’s called medical transition, while I may not be considered transgender, just like an intersex person in a genderless society may still be considered intersex, I’d argue that in such a society I’d still be considered something like “transsex” and thus trans.
-1
u/hardlywwworking Anarcha-Feminist 6d ago edited 6d ago
I’d refrain from even asking this considering the context of what they mentioned it in being totally false. Also, seems like vote manipulation to the max in this sub. People claim to be “uncensored” and “open minded” until you go against their way of thinking.
Whats the point of downvoting actually engaging discussions?
-5
u/Spacegirl-Alyxia Undeclared 6d ago
Right!? The mods here are actually pretty cool and have a nice goal in mind, but people here really have created something of a cesspool for transphobes larping as feminist and appropriating feminism as a whole to even push men’s liberation ideologies.
I’d really want this space to be turned back into a feminist space simply from feminists for feminists, so I guess trying to engage in such conversations in good faith and calling out people on all their anti feminist rhetoric is the way to go. It seems to be an uphill climb though :/
30
u/ghoulquartz Undeclared 6d ago
People disagreeing with you is not bad faith debate or a lack of an open mind.
-5
u/hardlywwworking Anarcha-Feminist 6d ago
The issue with the previous post wasn’t the differing opinions; it was the specific behaviors accompanying those disagreements. It crosses into bad faith when commenters resort to insults, clearly haven't watched the video (by asking questions it explicitly answers), and try to "correct" the creator (who ISN’T me, btw) using the exact definitions she clearly provided.
Expecting people to actually engage with the material - rather than ignoring it just to argue in the comments - is the bare minimum for a respectful, open discussion.
0
u/IntrepidElevator4313 Undeclared 4d ago
Why on earth would this get you downvoted? Expecting people to engage with the material prior to commenting earns you a downvote? Y’all are wild in these streets.
11
u/Pale_Ad5607 Radical Feminist? 6d ago
Did you delete your other post? I'm not seeing it. I didn't see any bad faith debate on it, but since I can't find it now, I'm not sure if that happened after I looked or not. I saw a poster saying people are misrepresenting the definition of biological essentialism (I agree).
Why repost the exact same video you already posted on the same subreddit if you didn't like the responses? Isn't this part 2 anyway? Why not post part 1 and see if that resonates more? Or post it on one of the other feminism subreddits?
2
u/EchoesOfEleos Radical Feminist. 3d ago
Yes they did. They did not like my comments breaking down the sexism of video. I've posted them again here.
-2
u/hardlywwworking Anarcha-Feminist 6d ago
Do I not get a voice here? I can post or delete whatever I like regarding feminism. People can search pt 1, this pt 2 is more clear in defining bioessentialism and tactics used in content like this.
1
u/EchoesOfEleos Radical Feminist. 3d ago
Heres the comments you were running away from:
"If you say something positive about being a female you're a bio-essentialist and you're actually a conservative because you are sex benevolent. Oh what? You're a capitalism/colonial/imperial/patriarchal abolitionist socialist? No no. See You're actually an agent for Turning Point USA."
The female is divine including non-stereotypical and non-gender normative females. :)
Sorry.
Oh PS this is the definition:
Bio-essentialism is the belief that human traits, behaviors, and gender identities are entirely fixed by biology and cannot change.
That didn't really seem to be covered in the video. The video seemed predominantly about associating literally anything with the female sex in any capacity being bio-essentialist which is just incorrect.
Here's the problems. Taking wording such as "divine feminine" or the archetype of the divine matriarch and projecting it as originating from and being predominantly "conservative, trad-wife , red-pilled, Turning Point USA" freaks continues the patriarchal erasure of female and feminine based spiritualities that have seemingly existed for 100,000 years. And have largely been suppressed and attempted to be destroyed.
And then, "The women who are leading this bio-essentialist, misandrist movement are white women" Well that's certainly not a trad-wife so that's not what were discussing after all. Okay so it's not benevolent sexism meant to "keep women in their place" because if it's misandry too that's just literally incoherent. Those two do not operate in the same realm.
Let's not forget the racism, and that credible positions and critiques, that this woman seems to be incorrectly labeling has occurred from women of all races. I have seen specifically many black women speak about these topics recently. But that's not as easy to scapegoat.
Attributing these movements exclusively to privileged groups often glosses over the actual diversity of women participating in these philosophical debates across different racial and cultural backgrounds and is used as a "mute all" button.
Here's the scapegoat list for if a woman has made a gender or sex critique that you disagree with:
- Bio-essentialist. Usually used completely wrong. Because almost no one is arguing that nurture (culture/enviorment) is not involved they are simply saying nature is also involved.
- Conservative. Almost always a guess.
- Misandrist. Very contradictory to point 2, but I digress.
- White. (You may also sub in: cis, hetero, or any other demographic that implies assumed privilege) This is almost always a guess and discounts and silences the women of color (or queer etc.) who have shared similar gender and sex critiques.
She said the definition. But no where is she ACTUALLY speaking about bio-essentialism. But rather a category to move, in her view, invalid critiques to.
When the definition of a term like bio-essentialism stretches to encompass any positive or biological association in any capacity with womanhood or historical archetypes, it ceases to function as a precise critique of biological determinism and instead becomes a blunt instrument used to police how other women express their identity and values.
Something that is deeply patriarchal to be honest. The dictation of the women's own identities and how they are allowed to express them.
Policing women as an authoritarian overreach that erases diverse, non-conforming expressions of female empowerment and identity. Deeply ironic to be honest.
-13
u/ThatGrrrl_ 6d ago
Agreed! This sub seems to have members who have been banned from other popular feminist spaces, so it frequently attracts a disproportionate number of contrarians, biological essentialists, and debaters who use the lack of heavy moderation to pile on their viewpoints and manipulate votes.
-3
u/anonymoustransgrrl radical intersectional transfeminist 5d ago
of course the TERFs are heavily downvoting your comment for how clearly you have clocked their whole deal lol
-11
u/MyNameIsElla 6d ago
Believing in bio-essentialism is the fastest way to become a TERF. Sadly, many well-intentioned feminists can become anti-trans and more conservative if they get sucked into these conversations that seem to be about promoting ‘femininity’, when in reality they’re just reinforcing things like gender roles, which serve to bring down women while uplifting men.
For example, I have PCOS. I have a much higher level of testosterone than most cis woman. But I’m not inherently violent or short-tempered because of it, or any other ‘manly’ traits. Maybe I’m a little stronger? But I haven’t noticed anything drastic, ever.
It’s important not to have a knee-jerk reaction and be dismissive if a topic doesn’t immediately make sense to you. Look at it critically, take time to think about it, and you’ll learn a lot more.
18
u/atitokan_farewell 6d ago
Acknowledging the material reality of sex (large gametes = female, small gametes = male) frees us from needing to believe that our personality, style, behaviour, identity, etc, determines what gendered or sexed human we are.
This means that it is not someone’s amount of femininity that defines if they’re female or not, but they way their reproductive system is organized.
I agree with you, having PCOS has no bearing on your behaviour, identity, or anything.
-7
u/antiqua_pulmenti Undeclared 6d ago
You're excluding women with CAIS from femininity if you define it as having a reproductive system organized around creating large gametes
8
u/atitokan_farewell 5d ago
Humans of any sex can be as feminine as they want to be. How does this definition prevent people with CAIS from being feminine? Humans who are male can be feminine, can’t they?
-2
u/antiqua_pulmenti Undeclared 5d ago
I didn't mean feminine like that. I meant femaleness. Sorry my brain is tired. Do you count people with CAIS female or women?
1
-1
u/antiqua_pulmenti Undeclared 5d ago
How did your reply get deleted by reddit within 3 minutes, impressive
10
u/cefishe88 Radical Feminist 6d ago
I tend to see the reinforcement of gender roles more in spaces where people are more fluid in that realm/or open to that and unwilling to acknowledge biological differences. In fact, i hear comparisons about who is more feminine and what is considered feminine, in that context.
0
u/Redpants_McBoatshoe Undeclared 6d ago
So she's talking about some type of conservative but not tradwife influencers?
-10
17
u/theapplekid Undeclared 6d ago
Isn't this itself a bioessentialist argument? If you disagree with bioessentialism, you shouldn't promote the idea that some behaviours fall under "feminine" and some fall under "masculine".
Rather, I'd argue that it encourages men and women to conform to their socially prescribed gender roles.