Gender is culturally-defined ... but so is sex
Bowler Hat Science from Matthew R Francis
"I was born a girl, I grew up a girl, I studied as a girl and I fought like a girl. Those who attacked me? Of course, they were enemies of glory. But, without them, my victory would not have been so satisfying." - Imane Khelif
With the a wave of executive orders from Donald Trump starting his second term in office — after attempting to overthrow the government once, encouraging the assassination of his own Vice President, committing multiple criminal acts, and too many other things to list here — it feels like this week is a flood of horrors. I could write a newsletter entry for each one of those (particularly the attacks on diversity and inclusion in federal agencies, which has already impacted NASA), but I’m going to focus on one executive order (EO), the one that instructs the federal government to “protect women” from “gender ideology”. In other words, the order that weaponizes science against trans, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, traditional genders other than male and female, intersex, and frankly anyone who doesn’t fit neatly into white patriarchal ideas of “men and women”.
Usual disclaimer: I’m a cisgender man and a theoretical physicist. However, I’m qualified to speak on this issue not just as someone versed in the history and philosophy of science, but (as Stephen Jay Gould writes) as a human being and someone vested in the liberation of humanity.
Against Prooftexting Science
The language of the EO claims the mantle of science by defining male and female in terms of the gametes we produce: sperm or eggs. (The order also claims these gametes are present “at conception” which … is not true, but that’s another issue.) This is in fact a scientific way to define sex from a reproductive point of view, but it’s also an incredibly reductive — even offensive — way to do so. Specifically, the EO is designed to say gender isn’t real, only “biological sex” is, for the purpose of invalidating the identity of trans, nonbinary, gender-nonconforming, traditional genders other than male and female, and other people, and using a gloss of science to do so.
If you want to know more about why the EO definition of sex is scientifically incoherent, as well as its connection to the right-wing Christian view of “life beginning at conception”, I recommend this Mother Jones essay that interviews my friend and colleague Kate Clancy. Suffice to say there is not a single scientific definition of “sex” for humans, much less the rest of the living world.
Instead of rehashing all of that, I wanted to dig into the concept of “prooftexting” as it applies to science. For those unfamiliar, “prooftexting” is a practice in Christianity of finding particular passages in the Bible that support your particular viewpoint. If you’re conservative and want to hate gay people, enslave Black people, condemn abortion, declare divine sanction of female inferiority, or any number of other things, you can find plenty of Bible verses to bolster your political biases; if you’re progressive, you can find passages that erase gender differences, call for justice for the poor and downtrodden, and so forth.
Scientific prooftexting is finding particular scientific sanction of your biases. I’d say many of us, including myself, are sometimes guilty of this practice! It’s a natural human inclination to look for support for our positions in trusted authority. However, it’s risky to counter one form of prooftexting with another: anyone who says “it’s just science!” when speaking about sex runs the risk of being undercut because this issue is complicated and frankly science doesn’t actually tell us anything about what it means to be a particular sex in society.
At its worst, science prooftexting reduces us to gametes and/or genitals. The Trump EO does this and claims science supports him, but you also see actual bona fide biologists like Richard Dawkins make similar arguments (not to mention a certain anti-trans science journalist), showing that prooftext bigotry is not limited to politicians. Less nefariously, science prooftexting can lead us to examples from non-human species like clownfish that spontaneously change sex depending on environment. (As others have noted, in the Pixar film Finding Nemo, Marlin would have changed from male to female after the death of his mate because that’s what clownfish do in the real world.)
But the complexity of what science really says about sex means that prooftexting is not adequate to describe the world … much less the glorious, messy, diverse, chaotic things that are human sex, gender, and sexuality. As with Christian prooftexting, scientific prooftexting is a post-hoc way to find the answers you already believe are true, and open to attack where reality is more complicated. And of course, the Trump administration — like all fascist programs — is not concerned with silly things like reality anyway. They invoke science because it’s politically convenient and keeps the anti-trans bigots on their side.
Co-Construction of Sex and Gender
So if the scientific definition of sex is messy and inadequate to describe human experience, what do we do instead? After all, when I say I’m a man, that means something other than my chromosomes (which I don’t know!), my genitalia (which … rude), or my gametes (I don’t have kids and don’t plan to ever have kids, so I ain’t ever checked my sperm). Apart from the anti-trans crowd, we don’t demand others show us what’s in their underwear before we decide what sex they are, nor should we. We definitely question the motives of people who demand to examine the genitals of children before they’re allowed to play sports or use the bathroom at school.
Many more reasonable people assert that “sex is biological, gender is cultural” (I’m pretty sure I’ve done that in the past) as a way to separate the raw genetic, hormonal, and developmental aspects of sex from the way we express ourselves culturally. As Judith Butler writes in their essential 2024 book Who’s Afraid of Gender?, one goal of the anti-trans movement in general is the elimination of gender as a reasonable category, insisting that nobody can be anything other than their “biological sex”, which is immutable and determined from before birth.
However, Butler also points out that sex itself is not independent of culture. What a man or a woman or anyone beyond those two categories is depends on a combination of biology and culture, a process they describe as co-construction. Science can help us with that process by (again) showing us how messy, non-binary, and flexible sex is, but science cannot tell us who we are: what being male or female or anything else actually means. For that we need our humanity.
Biological essentialism — particularly the idea that our sex determines much of what’s important about us, from reproduction to mathematical ability to athletic ability — is a very convenient thing for enforcing conformity. Anti-trans bigots love to equate penises with violence and manhood with aggression, because then they can claim they are “protecting real women” by violently suppressing the existence of trans women — and ultimately suppressing the public existence of cisgender women to “keep them safe”. Science can help us undercut that position, but it won’t convince anyone who is invested in it. After all, if you believe gender isn’t real, sex determines everything, and there’s only one correct way to perform masculinity, mere science won’t change your mind.
However, science is an important part of co-construction, so long as we don’t dip into prooftexting. The Trump administration in its first term showed that it wanted to dictate what science says, and despite its current claim that science supports bigotry, this is the real point. They will suppress scientists when those scientists’ findings contradict them, as the Nazis and Soviets did before them, and promote scientists whose bigotries map onto their own. The act of resistance — of humanity — requires all the tools we have, including science.
Back on Bluesky (and also KITTENS)
After about a month without any social media whatsoever, I decided to open a Bluesky account again. Thankfully with the way Bluesky works, I could use the exact handle I had previously, so I’m easily found and nobody else can pretend to be me. (The short version of why I returned: I missed interacting with my friends, colleagues, and other fun people more than I hated dealing with the other nonsense on social media. We’ll see if that balance continues to hold.)
Bowlerhattishly thine,
Matthew
Support me: