Been a while since I read it, but seem to recollect that those responsible basically didn't want there to be any single trait that defined ALL women, that was common to and characteristic of all women, presumably or possibly because they were horrified at the prospect of not qualifying as such.
And Eva, and too many of the "gender-critical" crowd, are more or less in the same boat, only in refusing to accept that there's some single traits that define all males, and all females -- i.e., "produces small gametes", and "produces large gametes", respectively. Presumably or apparently because they are likewise horrified at "not making the cut".
As something of an amusing case in point, consider this tweet from Zach Elliott -- something of a fraud, grifter, political opportunist, and scientific illiterate -- who, as you may know, has had a guest post or two over at Reality's Last Stand:
ZE: "Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes."
Since when do "morally problematic claims" get to trump brute facts and solid scientific terminology? But seems he's deleted it; fortunately I had taken a screenshot:
Basically the problem, in both cases, is making the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences" instead of recognizing them as labels for transitory reproductive abilities.
EK: “... deconstruct the concept of sex itself ... right down to the idea of whole and indivisible sexed bodies ....”
You certainly do cover a lot of ground. And it’s certainly useful to know the history, uses and misuses, and ramifications of the term “sex characteristics”. However, while you do have some valid criticisms of those “deconstructionists”, methinks that both you and they have some profound -- and quite unscientific if not risibly wooish -- “misunderstandings” about what it means to be male and female in the first place.
For starters, you might note that, while “deconstruction” has, reasonably, acquired some pejorative connotations, its original meaning – “a taking to pieces” (circa 1865; https://www.etymonline.com/word/deconstruct) – is largely what biology has done with the sexes. It has examined the phenomenon of reproduction across literally millions of species, “taken to pieces” the process in each of those species, and found the common elements in all of them, thus rendering them all down into some bare bone “essences” of what it takes to qualify as “male” and as “female”. Which are “produces small gametes”, and “produces large gametes”, respectively. Something which even Trump’s EO on “restoring biological truth in government” has more or less championed:
So you may wish to try rectifying those “deficiencies” by reading a couple of articles by a philosopher of science, Paul Griffiths, in Aeon magazine – for something of a popularization – and in a PhilPapers Archive article for a deeper analysis:
And if you wanted get down a bit deeper into the biological bedrock, you might take a gander at this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, the Glossary definitions in particular, on “Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes”:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
To any biologist worth their salt – few and far between these days, particularly among the woke and even among the gender-critical crowd – that is ALL that “male” and “female” MEAN. The criteria of “produces large or small gametes” qualify as the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. Which means, no gametes, no sex.
On the other hand, you clearly have a rather wooish conception about what are the defining criteria to qualify as male and female with your, “The sex of your body is no more able to be carved away than your heart could beat or lungs draw air independently”. Kind of a “precious bodily fluids” sort of argument.
But it seems you either have to accept that, biologically speaking, there are clear, specific, readily quantifiable, and quite objective requirements to qualify for a sex category membership card – which many people don’t meet -- or you peddle some subjective, unquantifiable, and mythic “essence” – as you’re basically doing with that claptrap -- that has absolutely no justification or corroboration in any reputable biological journal, encyclopedia, or dictionary.
Which brings me to the “theme” of your essay, your discussion of “sex characteristics” where you go off the rails in a rather spectacular fashion. Although your “deconstructionist” targets do likewise, even if to the other side of the road. But for some examples, from your quotes, they say:
• ... born with physical, hormonal or genetic features that are neither wholly female nor wholly male; or a combination of female and male; or neither female nor male;
• ... born with physical sex characteristics that do not fit the normative definitions for male or female bodies;
• Not everyone is born with bodily sex characteristics that are wholly female or male, according to the norms in society;
• Some people have innate variations of sex characteristics and their bodies don’t conform with medical and social norms for female or male bodies;
Where they go off the rails is in suggesting if not endorsing the view that various “sex characteristics” – presumably or putatively those relevant to the process of sexual reproduction – such as various “physical, hormonal, or genetic” features are, in themselves, either male or female. But “male” and “female” denote “ONLY” “produces large or small gametes”. All, or many, of those “sex characteristics” are simply “secondary sexual traits” that are generally typical of one sex or the other, but not unique to either.
But where you too go off the rails on that same score is in rather cluelessly failing to differentiate between various traits – i.e., various “sex characteristics” – that are, likewise, typical of one sex or the other while not being unique to either. For examples, likewise relevant to those “deconstructionists” above, consider that breasts are typical of human females, but not unique to them – for example, consider gynecomastia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia]. “breasts” aren’t thereby “female” in themselves since they're not producing any ova, they’re only physical traits typical of females.
And there are probably dozens if not hundreds of similar types of “sex characteristics”. For example, “adult human females” typically have XX chromosomes, and “adult human males” typically have XY chromosomes. And there are probably another dozen karyotypes that are possible, though most are infertile and thereby sexless. But some human females have XY chromosomes while being fertile, able to produce ova – ergo, females but with an atypical chromosome “sex characteristic”:
Similarly, there are many “men” with XX chromosomes – another atypical chromosome “sex characteristic” – although they’re likewise infertile and technically sexless, neither male nor female:
Griffiths’ PhilPapers article goes into some additional detail on that phenomenon, but this bit seems a useful point of reference that you might want to try paying close attention to:
PG: “Like chromosomes, the phenotypic characteristics of an organism [e.g., genitalia, chromosomes, hormones] can only be labelled as ‘male’ or ‘female’ if there is ALREADY a definition of sex. There is nothing particularly ‘male’ about being blue as opposed to brown, but colour is a good way to judge sex in Blue Groper [fish]. Incubating the egg is a reliable criterion for identifying biologically female primates. But in pipefish and seahorse species the male incubates the eggs in his brood pouch (Vincent et al 1992).”
As he emphasizes, you can’t possibly say which traits are typical of males and which ones are typical of females if you haven’t FIRST specified what it takes to qualify as either. Try keeping in mind the difference between traits that define a category – being 13 to 19 for “teenager”, producing large gametes for “female” – and those traits that are merely typical of, but not unique to, those categories, i.e., those “sex characteristics” in the latter case.
You may also wish to take a gander at my post on the analogous difference between accidental and essential properties:
Beautiful, powerful essay.
I kinda think she's gone off the rails and into the weeds -- and in a rather spectacular fashion. More a part of the problem than of the solution. See: https://www.evakurilova.com/p/beware-the-phrase-sex-characteristics/comment/122141522
In some ways she reminds me of a post of yours laying the blame, not without justification, for "gender ideology" at the feet of anthropology:
"Nobody Puts Baby in the Corner; Judith Butler didn’t invent gender ideology, anthropologists did"; https://kathleenlowrey.substack.com/p/nobody-puts-baby-in-the-corner
Been a while since I read it, but seem to recollect that those responsible basically didn't want there to be any single trait that defined ALL women, that was common to and characteristic of all women, presumably or possibly because they were horrified at the prospect of not qualifying as such.
And Eva, and too many of the "gender-critical" crowd, are more or less in the same boat, only in refusing to accept that there's some single traits that define all males, and all females -- i.e., "produces small gametes", and "produces large gametes", respectively. Presumably or apparently because they are likewise horrified at "not making the cut".
As something of an amusing case in point, consider this tweet from Zach Elliott -- something of a fraud, grifter, political opportunist, and scientific illiterate -- who, as you may know, has had a guest post or two over at Reality's Last Stand:
ZE: "Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes."
https://x.com/zaelefty/status/1592711689438662656
Since when do "morally problematic claims" get to trump brute facts and solid scientific terminology? But seems he's deleted it; fortunately I had taken a screenshot:
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb5c0b08b-7cb6-4d45-a273-41ea40b223d0_593x248.jpeg
Basically the problem, in both cases, is making the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences" instead of recognizing them as labels for transitory reproductive abilities.
EK: “... deconstruct the concept of sex itself ... right down to the idea of whole and indivisible sexed bodies ....”
You certainly do cover a lot of ground. And it’s certainly useful to know the history, uses and misuses, and ramifications of the term “sex characteristics”. However, while you do have some valid criticisms of those “deconstructionists”, methinks that both you and they have some profound -- and quite unscientific if not risibly wooish -- “misunderstandings” about what it means to be male and female in the first place.
For starters, you might note that, while “deconstruction” has, reasonably, acquired some pejorative connotations, its original meaning – “a taking to pieces” (circa 1865; https://www.etymonline.com/word/deconstruct) – is largely what biology has done with the sexes. It has examined the phenomenon of reproduction across literally millions of species, “taken to pieces” the process in each of those species, and found the common elements in all of them, thus rendering them all down into some bare bone “essences” of what it takes to qualify as “male” and as “female”. Which are “produces small gametes”, and “produces large gametes”, respectively. Something which even Trump’s EO on “restoring biological truth in government” has more or less championed:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/
So you may wish to try rectifying those “deficiencies” by reading a couple of articles by a philosopher of science, Paul Griffiths, in Aeon magazine – for something of a popularization – and in a PhilPapers Archive article for a deeper analysis:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
And if you wanted get down a bit deeper into the biological bedrock, you might take a gander at this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, the Glossary definitions in particular, on “Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes”:
https://web.archive.org/web/20221214064356/https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990?login=false
From that Glossary:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
To any biologist worth their salt – few and far between these days, particularly among the woke and even among the gender-critical crowd – that is ALL that “male” and “female” MEAN. The criteria of “produces large or small gametes” qualify as the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. Which means, no gametes, no sex.
On the other hand, you clearly have a rather wooish conception about what are the defining criteria to qualify as male and female with your, “The sex of your body is no more able to be carved away than your heart could beat or lungs draw air independently”. Kind of a “precious bodily fluids” sort of argument.
But it seems you either have to accept that, biologically speaking, there are clear, specific, readily quantifiable, and quite objective requirements to qualify for a sex category membership card – which many people don’t meet -- or you peddle some subjective, unquantifiable, and mythic “essence” – as you’re basically doing with that claptrap -- that has absolutely no justification or corroboration in any reputable biological journal, encyclopedia, or dictionary.
Which brings me to the “theme” of your essay, your discussion of “sex characteristics” where you go off the rails in a rather spectacular fashion. Although your “deconstructionist” targets do likewise, even if to the other side of the road. But for some examples, from your quotes, they say:
• ... born with physical, hormonal or genetic features that are neither wholly female nor wholly male; or a combination of female and male; or neither female nor male;
• ... born with physical sex characteristics that do not fit the normative definitions for male or female bodies;
• Not everyone is born with bodily sex characteristics that are wholly female or male, according to the norms in society;
• Some people have innate variations of sex characteristics and their bodies don’t conform with medical and social norms for female or male bodies;
Where they go off the rails is in suggesting if not endorsing the view that various “sex characteristics” – presumably or putatively those relevant to the process of sexual reproduction – such as various “physical, hormonal, or genetic” features are, in themselves, either male or female. But “male” and “female” denote “ONLY” “produces large or small gametes”. All, or many, of those “sex characteristics” are simply “secondary sexual traits” that are generally typical of one sex or the other, but not unique to either.
But where you too go off the rails on that same score is in rather cluelessly failing to differentiate between various traits – i.e., various “sex characteristics” – that are, likewise, typical of one sex or the other while not being unique to either. For examples, likewise relevant to those “deconstructionists” above, consider that breasts are typical of human females, but not unique to them – for example, consider gynecomastia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia]. “breasts” aren’t thereby “female” in themselves since they're not producing any ova, they’re only physical traits typical of females.
And there are probably dozens if not hundreds of similar types of “sex characteristics”. For example, “adult human females” typically have XX chromosomes, and “adult human males” typically have XY chromosomes. And there are probably another dozen karyotypes that are possible, though most are infertile and thereby sexless. But some human females have XY chromosomes while being fertile, able to produce ova – ergo, females but with an atypical chromosome “sex characteristic”:
“Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development”; https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/93/1/182/2598461
Similarly, there are many “men” with XX chromosomes – another atypical chromosome “sex characteristic” – although they’re likewise infertile and technically sexless, neither male nor female:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
Griffiths’ PhilPapers article goes into some additional detail on that phenomenon, but this bit seems a useful point of reference that you might want to try paying close attention to:
PG: “Like chromosomes, the phenotypic characteristics of an organism [e.g., genitalia, chromosomes, hormones] can only be labelled as ‘male’ or ‘female’ if there is ALREADY a definition of sex. There is nothing particularly ‘male’ about being blue as opposed to brown, but colour is a good way to judge sex in Blue Groper [fish]. Incubating the egg is a reliable criterion for identifying biologically female primates. But in pipefish and seahorse species the male incubates the eggs in his brood pouch (Vincent et al 1992).”
As he emphasizes, you can’t possibly say which traits are typical of males and which ones are typical of females if you haven’t FIRST specified what it takes to qualify as either. Try keeping in mind the difference between traits that define a category – being 13 to 19 for “teenager”, producing large gametes for “female” – and those traits that are merely typical of, but not unique to, those categories, i.e., those “sex characteristics” in the latter case.
You may also wish to take a gander at my post on the analogous difference between accidental and essential properties:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/accidental-and-essential-properties