3 ms·
> Biologically speaking, individuals that don't produce gametes, don't have a sex. So you agree that it's not a binary trait: masculine, feminine and none is t
by lagadu 5y ago
> Biologically speaking, individuals that don't produce gametes, don't have a sex.
So you agree that it's not a binary trait: masculine, feminine and none is ternary. If people can come in those three flavours then we're beyond a binary.
That said I'm fine with that definition but it does imply that we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other.
Thank you for the thorough answer!
- esarbe 5y ago> So you agree that it's not a binary trait: Ha, here's the question: Is the lack of a trait one of its expressions? Is 'none' a reproductive strategy or is it the absence of one? I guess ones view on the "binary" nature of sex very much depends on that. > [..] we're excluding people who can't have children due to reproductive system defects as not having a sex despite having a gender, which further puts the two concepts apart from each other. I think that is a very interesting question and debate. I broadly agree that this would be the implication, although I can see why many people would be uncomfortable with that. I think it would be good for the discussion of topics like the one in the original post if people had a clearer understanding that sex and gender - albeit related - are distinct concepts.
- likeclockwork 5y agoCalling asexual reproductive capability a sex is like calling atheism a religious belief.