This strategy to claim sex is non-binary is just a word game -- they are saying the word "sex" should mean some a non-binary phenomenon instead of a binary phenomenon (gametes), which they acknowledge is real. The underlying facts aren't in dispute, just what the word "sex" refers to, like what the meaning of "planet" should be. They need to convince us that this new paradigm is a better way to talk. Considering that sexual reproduction is the thing we're talking about, there's just no way.
It seems to me, as a complete outsider to the academic and "learned society" world infested with the postmodernist "sex is a spectrum" crowd, that their methodology is an application of a four-year old's framework for telling the difference between boys and girls. Boys wear pants and have shorter hair, and girls wear dresses and have long hair. Boys like nasty, dirty things like frogs, and girls are repulsed by them, which gives boys endless opportunities to have fun grossing out their sisters.
The serious question is for sociologists. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 did such mouth breathing nonsense get traction among the people who, of all people, should know better? It's happened before, I know. Hysterectomies being accepted as a remedy for "female hysteria" and lobotomies, for assorted mental conditions must be the most tragic examples. But then, Semmelweiss faced opposition to his insistence on physicians' washing their hands; Koch's Postulates were slow to be widely accepted. Sokal was criticized for his delightful parody. Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose suffered for the "Grievance Studies" series, not the editors and peer reviewers who were responsible for the publications.
This is a strong scientific critique and what strikes me, from a symbiocratic perspective, is that the deeper issue isn’t just biological accuracy. It’s what this cultural move is actually for.
If we begin dissolving the sex binary in public discourse, what are we achieving? Are we becoming more coherent as a society? More capable of coordination? More aligned with reality? If the answer is no, then whose interests are truly being served by redefining foundational categories?
In any complex organism, including a society, certain binaries exist because they’re functional. They anchor meaning, stabilize communication, and allow the system to coordinate itself. The sex binary is one of those structural anchors. You can certainly create social and moral frameworks that protect and honor people whose identities or experiences differ from the binary. But that doesn’t require destroying the underlying biological map.
Symbiocracy says that healthy systems can integrate difference without dissolving definition. The goal should be to build a framework that accommodates human variation while preserving the categories that keep the collective mind coherent.
When we blow up core definitions without replacing them with something equally stable, the result isn’t liberation, it’s fragmentation. And fragmentation is precisely what we’re already struggling with as a culture.
So the real question is:
Does abandoning the sex binary increase the coherence of the societal organism, or reduce it?
If it reduces coherence, then we’re not moving toward inclusion — we’re moving toward disorientation.
And a disoriented society cannot think clearly, govern compassionately, or protect anyone.
I'll warrant that most of these "sex-spectrum" proponents don't have a problem making a binary choice when it comes to who they want to date.
This strategy to claim sex is non-binary is just a word game -- they are saying the word "sex" should mean some a non-binary phenomenon instead of a binary phenomenon (gametes), which they acknowledge is real. The underlying facts aren't in dispute, just what the word "sex" refers to, like what the meaning of "planet" should be. They need to convince us that this new paradigm is a better way to talk. Considering that sexual reproduction is the thing we're talking about, there's just no way.
"... the binary they claim to challenge is the same one they rely on to interpret their data."
Simplicity. Perfection. TRUTH.
And In the end I had to laugh!
It seems to me, as a complete outsider to the academic and "learned society" world infested with the postmodernist "sex is a spectrum" crowd, that their methodology is an application of a four-year old's framework for telling the difference between boys and girls. Boys wear pants and have shorter hair, and girls wear dresses and have long hair. Boys like nasty, dirty things like frogs, and girls are repulsed by them, which gives boys endless opportunities to have fun grossing out their sisters.
The serious question is for sociologists. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘰𝘯 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 did such mouth breathing nonsense get traction among the people who, of all people, should know better? It's happened before, I know. Hysterectomies being accepted as a remedy for "female hysteria" and lobotomies, for assorted mental conditions must be the most tragic examples. But then, Semmelweiss faced opposition to his insistence on physicians' washing their hands; Koch's Postulates were slow to be widely accepted. Sokal was criticized for his delightful parody. Boghossian, Lindsay, and Pluckrose suffered for the "Grievance Studies" series, not the editors and peer reviewers who were responsible for the publications.
This is a strong scientific critique and what strikes me, from a symbiocratic perspective, is that the deeper issue isn’t just biological accuracy. It’s what this cultural move is actually for.
If we begin dissolving the sex binary in public discourse, what are we achieving? Are we becoming more coherent as a society? More capable of coordination? More aligned with reality? If the answer is no, then whose interests are truly being served by redefining foundational categories?
In any complex organism, including a society, certain binaries exist because they’re functional. They anchor meaning, stabilize communication, and allow the system to coordinate itself. The sex binary is one of those structural anchors. You can certainly create social and moral frameworks that protect and honor people whose identities or experiences differ from the binary. But that doesn’t require destroying the underlying biological map.
Symbiocracy says that healthy systems can integrate difference without dissolving definition. The goal should be to build a framework that accommodates human variation while preserving the categories that keep the collective mind coherent.
When we blow up core definitions without replacing them with something equally stable, the result isn’t liberation, it’s fragmentation. And fragmentation is precisely what we’re already struggling with as a culture.
So the real question is:
Does abandoning the sex binary increase the coherence of the societal organism, or reduce it?
If it reduces coherence, then we’re not moving toward inclusion — we’re moving toward disorientation.
And a disoriented society cannot think clearly, govern compassionately, or protect anyone.
What definition of sex is being used to try and disprove the binary template?🤔😳
The one I have seen most often is based on differences of secondary sexual characteristics.
??? Hmmmm…Can you expound on THAT specific definition?
The idea that secondary sexual characteristics are equally as important as chromosomes.
Hmmmm, copy. What definition of sex (as a verb and noun) are we left with then?
As far as I can make out, none.
And THAT is so concerning to me.😔