If I have all the biological parts to define me as a male of the human species, can I identify as a woman? If I say "I identify as a woman" what does that even mean? And are gender and biological sex the same thing? And is biological sex even binary?
These are questions that arise because of a relatively new set of philosophies that argue that sex and gender are different. However, this ideology suffers from a number of reasoning flaws that undermine its ideas. This article is an introduction to a few of those problems. The primary misunderstanding that gender ideologists have on this topic is that the words sex and gender are just words. And words are things we use to communicate and describe ideas. We get to choose the definitions of words. And words are only useful if they have clear definitions explaining what they mean. So let’s dig into why gender ideologists get this wrong.
When people say gender they usually mean biological sex.
Gender theorists claim that gender and sex are different. However, this argument misunderstands how language works. I would argue that (at least historically) most people mean biological sex when they say the word gender. A person who says my gender is male means they are biological male from a reproductive standpoint.
So why do we have two synonymous words gender and sex. I would suspect this arises from the fact that the word sex also refers to the act of having sex. Discussing sex can be taboo and thus people likely use the word gender to mean biological sex thereby avoiding the taboo word sex. People can define words however we like. So long as enough people use the same definition of a word, that definition will be valid. Thus, defining gender as biological sex is a completely reasonably definition that appears to be in common usage.
However, gender ideologists argue that using gender as a synonym for sex is wrong and that sex and gender are different. Gender ideologists are incorrect when they say this because they do not understand language. There is no such thing as a wrong definition of words if the definition is commonly used. As stated above, people define words. And if some people use gender to mean biological sex, then they are correct in doing so. If other people use gender to mean something other than biological sex then they can also use that definition. This is common in language--words often have more than one meaning.
However, if I say gender means biological sex and someone says: "no, sex and gender are different." That person is objectively wrong. That person fails to understand that I am simply using a different definition of gender than they are. Neither definition of gender is wrong. But it is incorrect for them to claim my definition is wrong.
Imagine if I say "I heard a dog bark." And someone responds to me "You are wrong, dogs can't bark, bark is a tree covering." We all recognize that the person who argues "dogs can't bark" is incorrect. Bark has two meanings and both meanings are correct. Likewise, if I say gender and biological sex are the same thing I am correct. I am also correct if I say biological sex and gender are different. However, if someone says "you are wrong, biological sex and gender are different" that person is incorrect in the same way a person who says "dogs can't bark, bark is a tree covering" is incorrect. Gender is commonly used to mean biological sex and thus this is a correct definition of gender.
Should we describe sex as binary?
This brings us into the important part of the argument. If some people argue that sex and gender are different things, then what do they mean when they say gender or gender identity? Before we get into that, let's define what people mean when they talk about biological sex. Sex is very easy to define: humans reproduce through sexual reproduction and humans grow in two different reproductive pathways. The words we use to describe these two separate reproductive pathways are male and female. When we talk about sex our whole goal is to communicate which reproductive category a human falls into. And there are only two reproductive categories.
Again, the whole point of the words male and female is to communicate which reproductive category a person is. And this is useful in many contexts. We can use the word woman any time we are referring to someone who gives birth, has periods, has breasts, etc. We can use male when we refer to someone who has sperm etc. Defining sex as binary is a very useful concept for communicating because humans reproduce in a binary manner and there are significant differences between males and females of the human species. Having words referring to sex as a binary means we don’t need to invent new words like “birthing person” or “person who has a period.” We can just use the word “woman” to describe people who give birth and have periods.
However, some people argue that treating biological sex as binary is incorrect because sex is complicated and there are intersex people who blur the boundary between male and female. These people are absolutely correct that sex is more complicated than male female, but incorrect in their argument that we should discard the concepts of male and female due to intersex people.
Sex is more complicated than a binary of male and female. Not every human cleanly falls into a definition of male or female. Intersex people are real. However, this blurriness in definition is a common problem with all words that describe groups. Some people fall somewhere in between tall and short. But, that doesn't mean the words tall and short are useless. They are still helpful terms to describe height. Or look at how we define the word chair. If you go out in the world you can find objects that are on the edge of looking like a chair and you may have a debate on whether that object is a chair or something else. But, we don’t discard the word chair because some objects look almost like a chair but we can’t decide if it is a chair or not.
You can do this with every word that describes a group. Each word describing a group will have a blurry boundary where it is unclear if something fits in as part of that group. Language requires some level of imprecision. Every object in the world is different in some way. For example go outside and look at every tree around you. You will quickly notice huge numbers of differences: different shape, size, number of branches, color etc. As each tree is different, should we create a different word to describe each tree? The answer is obviously no because human brains can’t remember enough words to create a separate word for every object in the world.
We cannot have infinite words to describe every object, thus we must create imperfect words that describe groups to allow us to communicate. Every word that describes a group is always describing a group of dissimilar things based on their similarities. The reason that we create words for groups of things is to allow us to communicate with other people. If I say “look at that tree” a person who is listening to me will understand what I’m talking about even though the concept of a tree is imperfect and there may be some plants that blur the boundary between a bush and a tree.
So when people say that sex is binary, they are absolutely right from a communication and definition standpoint. Sex is defined as binary because it specifically refers to a binary process of reproduction. It is irrelevant that there are exceptions who do not cleanly fit that binary, because that is a feature of all words that describe groups. The whole purpose of defining sex as binary is to communicate which reproductive category a person falls into. And, we have other words like intersex that we can use to describe the small number of people who do not fall into that binary. So our language here is sensible and works to allow us to communicate the concept of biological sex with clarity. And our current words adequately take into account the existence of intersex people.
When, gender theorists argue that the existence of intersex people negates the binary of male/female they misunderstand how language works. Their complaint applies equally to any other word that describes a group. Do we discard the words tall and short because there are people who are in the middle? Obviously no. Likewise, we should not discard the concepts of male and female because intersex people exist.
What is gender identity?
Now that we discussed whether it is reasonable to describe sex as binary, let’s look at the concept of gender identity. Some gender theorists appear to argue that the fact that intersex people exist and the fact that gender roles are created by cultures (i.e. gender is a social construct) means that anyone can define their own gender based on their feelings. This is a huge leap of logic. The fact that intersex people are real does not mean that we should completely redefine gender as a feeling. Imagine if we did this for any other word that described a group. There are animals that do not clearly fit within the definition of a single species. Does that mean we can now identify as whatever species we wish based on how we feel? Do we have a species identity? This leap of logic simply does not make sense.
There is a further issue here, if gender is a feeling I have about myself (and gender does not refer to biological sex) then what is gender? Those people who argue that sex and gender are different need to define what they mean by gender. To be clear, I am going to refer to this concept as gender identity. If gender identity differs from biological sex, the question then is: what is gender identity?
3.1 Can we have height identity?
Before we get into that, let's go through a thought experiment. People can be either tall or short. Tall and short are descriptive terms relating to height. However, there are some people who are in between tall and short. Thus, could a short person claim that they "identify" as tall? After all, being tall or short isn't binary and there are many people who fall somewhere between tall and short. So can a short person have a height identity of being tall? Let's take this further. Let's imagine that someone is 5 feet tall. However, that person says they have a height identity of 6 foot. What does it mean for them to claim they have a height identity?
We all recognize the absurdity of allowing a short person to "identify" as being tall. Height is not something we get to choose based on our feelings. Height is an objective fact about our bodies. Our feelings about our own height are totally irrelevant to our actual height. And there is no such thing as a height identity. Height is simply not the sort of thing that we have an identity of.
We could play this same philosophical game with any other trait humans possess: can an overweight person identify as skinny (weight identity)? Can a white person identify as black (race identity)? Can a red head identify as blonde (hair color identity)? Can an unattractive person identify as beautiful (attractiveness identity)? Can a person with pimples identify as having clear skin (pimple identity)? The answer to all of these questions is no. Our feelings about our bodies are irrelevant to the words we use to describe the physical reality of our bodies.
3.2 Some words describe the physical reality of our bodies, not our feelings.
When we use the words male and female with respect to biological sex, we are talking about our physical bodies. Thus, our feelings about our bodies are irrelevant for determining whether we are male or female from a biological perspective. You may have heard the phrase sex assigned at birth. The argument is that being male or female is an identity based on people’s feelings and thus the sex assigned by a doctor may be incorrect.
People who think this way demonstrate their lack of understanding of how words work. As the words male and female refer to the biological reality of sex (in this context), a doctor is not assigning sex. A doctor is viewing the biological reality of the baby’s biological sex. Arguing that sex is assigned at birth is just as ridiculous as arguing that eye color is assigned at birth.
The issue that gender theorists are running into here is that they are confusing themselves between two different definitions of male and female. When doctors say “its a boy!” they are referring to biological sex. The doctor is not referring to gender identity of the baby. There is a name for this type of logical fallacy called equivocation. Equivocation is shifting between two different definitions of the same word. We will get to this issue in a bit. First, let’s ask, does it make sense to say we have a gender identity? Or is gender identity just as silly of a concept as height identity.
3.3 Is gender identity the same as biological sex?
Before looking at gender identity, let’s ask if someone can have a biological sex identity. Let's imagine that a biological male who has all of the male reproductive organs states: "I identify as a biological female." Obviously when he says he "identifies as a biological female" that does not mean his male reproductive organs suddenly changed to become female reproductive organs. Under a definition of sex that is based on physical characteristics of reproductive function, this person is simply wrong. You cannot identify as female because the definition of sex is based on physical characteristics. Sex is not defined as feelings so there is no such thing as biological sex identity. A male identifying as female is no different than a blue eyed person saying they identify as having brown eyes or a 5 foot person identifying as being 6 feet tall. All of these people are making nonsensical statements. Words that refer to our physical bodies are not defined by our feelings. The concept of a biological sex identity is ridiculous.
This means that gender identity must be something different than biological sex. Otherwise gender identity is a nonsense idea. Gender ideologists do state that they define sex and gender as different concepts. This is reasonable because obviously cannot change our biological sex by simply identifying as the other biological sex. When a biological male states that they are a woman they can't possibly mean that they are a biological woman, because they factually are not.
3.4 What is Gender Identity?
But, if gender does not mean sex, then what does it mean? If a biological man says "I identify as a woman" what is he identifying as? When he says woman, he must mean something other than biological sex. But if woman doesn’t mean someone’s biological sex, then what does it mean? It is important to recognize that when we have multiple definitions of the same word, we are likely to run into the fallacy of equivocation mentioned above. Equivocation is where we switch back and forth between different definitions of a word.
Words often have more than one meaning. Open the dictionary and you can quickly find words that have two or more meanings. A great example of this is the word bark which has multiple definitions, two of which I include here:
The sound a dog makes.
A tree covering.
In most cases when someone says bark we can determine which definition they are using fairly easily by the context. If someone says “look at the bark” they mean tree covering and if they say “I heard a bark” they mean the sound a dog makes. But, it isn’t always easy to determine which definition of a word a person is using. This is particularly the case when it comes to the word gender. And this is why we should be concerned about equivocating (switching back and forth between) the two different definitions of gender. But to start, let’s define the two different definitions of sex/gender that people may be using:
Biological Sex: Refers to the reproductive category of a human based on their physical characteristics alone. As humans reproduce in a binary manner there are only two reproductive categories and intersex people:
Male (sex)
Female (sex)
Intersex (a 3rd catchall for people who do not fit cleanly in one of the above definitions)
Gender Identity: this is the term we are trying to discover the definition of. Gender also uses the terms male and female and also has other genders.
Male (gender identity)
Female (gender identity)
Other (gender identity)
Now that we see there are two different definitions here we can be on the lookout for situations where we accidentally switch back and forth between these two definitions. There is simple trick that we can use to avoid falling for the fallacy of equivocation. The way we do this is by choosing a brand new word to represent the same concept. In other words we take the concept of female gender identity and replace it with a different string of letters such as “throse.”
We can switch out the letters that represent a concept because humans invent all words. Thus, we can make new words to represent the exact same concept. This is obvious because different languages have different words that represent the same concepts. Every language will have different words for male and female but these different words represent the exact same concept.
So, to avoid the fallacy of equivocation, let's create new words for gender identity.
Instead of Male gender identity we will use "roser"
Instead of Female gender identity we will use "throse"
Note, that roser is now being used to represent the exact same concept as a "male" gender identity. And the word throse is being used to represent the exact same concept as a female gender identity.
Now with these new words representing the same concepts, let's again go back to the biological male who says that his gender identity is female and rewrite it first using the word woman for gender identity and then with the word throse for gender identity:
Original: “I am a biological male but my gender identity is woman”
Under this original definition it is easy to confuse ourselves. If someone asks “what is a woman” a gender theorist will respond “someone who identifies as a woman.” This of course begs the question of how the gender theorist defines woman. So to avoid this confusion, let’s repeat our same phrase but replacing female gender identity with its new synonym throse.
New Word: "I am a biological male but my gender identity is a throse."
Rewriting this statement using new letters to represent the concept of gender identity instantly requires us to answer the question: what is a throse? Gender ideologists have already told us that gender identity is different than sex so throse must mean something different than being a biological woman. But then what does it mean to be throse?
For words to be useful, they need to have a definition. And they need to communicate some sort of useful information from the speaker to the listener. The problem with gender identity or throse. Is that it does not appear to have a clear definition.
For example, how can I know if my gender identity is throse, roser, or something else? The only way I could know is if there is a clear definition of throse and roser. However, there is no clear definition. If you look at how people use gender identity terms, it seems to refer to a feeling someone has about themself. A person can simply declare themself to be a throse and that is all it takes to be a throse.
This is the difficult question gender ideologists need to answer. What is someone's gender identity? What does it mean to have a gender identity? What does it mean to be throse? It is completely unclear what someone means when they refer to their gender identity because there is no definition of what it means to be throse or roser. If an ideology stops making sense when you create new words to represent the same ideas, that is likely a sign that the ideology was flawed due to the fallacy of equivocation.
If gender identity is simply something someone declares about themself based on whatever feeling they have, then it is a meaningless concept. Until it is given a precise definition so we can all understand what our gender identity is, then it is a meaningless concept.
Also note how the definition of biological sex does not fall apart when we create new words for male and female. Imagine that we replace the words male and female with new words:
Male = Spermper = a human with sperm and has the associated biological parts, etc.
Female = eggper = a human with eggs and has the associated biological parts, etc.
We can still easily identify whether a human is a spermper or eggper because these definitions are based on objective traits of a human's body. I can look at a baby and based on their physical appearance correctly identify them as spermper or eggper nearly every single time with the only exceptions being some rare intersex conditions.
But gender identity instantly falls apart when we create new words to represent the same concept because there is no clear definition of gender identity. The only reason the concept appears to make sense is because people are confusing gender identity with biological sex.
There is nothing wrong with creating new definitions for words. If people want to claim they have a “gender identity” then they of course can do so. However, the burden is on them to first define gender identity, second prove to the rest of us that their definitions make sense, and third show why the concept of gender identity is useful for communicating. Those who claim people have a gender identity need to show the rest of us why this is any different than someone claiming to have a height identity of 6 foot when their real height is 5 foot. Until they do so, we should not take the concept of gender identity seriously.
In my next article, I will go into how the concept of gender identity is used by gender theorists to see if we can tease out a definition for gender identity and see if that definition makes sense.