Male or Female… or: Dissolving The Biological Sex Binary
How Science AND Art Can be Used to Explain Biological Sex
Firstly, here are two terms I will use A LOT:
Sex— (noun) the biological and physiological characteristics used to traditionally define male and female
Gender— (noun) the socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society considers traditionally appropriate for men and women
If you’re still a little confused, no worries! Here’s a video that breaks down sex and gender identity even further.
—-
Fashion is a reflection of our societal state, evolving and changing in conjunction. It is not uncommon for fashion and politics to cross paths. From political graphic t-shirts to modern cultural clothing, fashion is more than looking good; it’s about the statement that it makes to wear it.
—-
Currently, one of the biggest waves in fashion is the dissolution of gender norms. Fashion is at the forefront of expressing gender on a wide spectrum, with women and men’s trends crossing aisles, and androgenity all the rage. While gender is starting to be comprehended in a spectrum format, sex has historically been interpreted as binary, often because of incorrect analyses of scientific observations of nature. Even with the progress made for the rights of transgender and gender non-conforming individuals, sex remains a misunderstood concept. Just as fashion has aided in the expression and understanding of the gender spectrum, art of all forms is the key to solving myths about the binary construction of sex. The challenge is allowing science and art to coexist while maintaining science’s objective integrity and the creativity of art.
—-
At the root of this misunderstanding is our government. While scientific facts tell us that sex is impossible to define as binary, politicians and government keep pushing to reshape facts to say otherwise. In “The battle over trans rights is about power, not science”, doctoral candidate in history Beans Velocci challenges the understanding of sex in binary terms, specifically for the use of government. According to Velocci, “(s)cience is a smokescreen for the current administration’s utter contempt for trans and intersex people and its investment in maintaining stark differences between men and women”. Not only has science been morphed to make incorrect claims about the order of nature, it has also been done so to specifically strengthen political agendas. For example, in the late 1700s, anatomists looked at the difference between skull and pelvis sizes between men and women as justification for why women should not contribute to society as voters, but rather just as mothers.
Scientific facts like these have long been reported as biased support for politics. In “Necessary Edges: Arts, Empathy, and Education”, famed cellist Yo-Yo Ma depicts the importance of collaboration between science and art, critical thinking and empathetic reasoning. According to Ma, “purposefully seek(ing) to bolster the integrative feedback loops of our dual neural pathways could provide a new energy for creativity in our weary civilization” (258). In order to get the most out of scientific research, both neural pathways, critical thinking, and empathetic thinking, need to be involved. The assumption that anatomical differences between men and women can be used to validate discrimination is a clear example of failing to use empathetic reasoning, and this pattern has been continuous over time. As a young woman in today’s society, I still see this reasoning being used toward the discrimination of women. Most of the time, this reasoning is bred from lack of empathy and understanding, and therefore not putting both neural pathways to use. Science has failed to prove a clear difference between two separate sexes, yet somehow it is ignored.
—-
Even though science contradicts itself on the issue of sex, society still continues to present it as a binary concept. There is a wide range of intersex traits that make up different forms of human biology, which alone is proof that sex doesn’t follow a simple binary. The issue isn’t trying to understand sex, it is forcing it to fit in the box that the government deems as “correct”. Not much of the natural world fits a binary, so why should we assume that sex does?
As Velocci writes, This isn’t a scientific debate in which ‘bad science’ can be fought with ‘good science’. It is about power, and it reflects a long history of hiding violent and exclusionary policy behind claims about the natural order of things”. The scientific evidence for understanding sex has been found, it is just a matter of changing how we approach piecing it together that will give us true results. By approaching these observations with the goal of proving a binary in mind, the science becomes invalid. In “The Future of Science…Is Art”, Jonah Lehrer argues that art is crucial to the development of science, using Niels Bohr’s electron model as a historical example. Bohr was inspired by Picasso and cubist art, ultimately leading to the basis of his model. Lehrer writes that “the allure of cubism was that it shattered the certainty of the object”. Just as art was used to help define the uncertainty of electrons, it can be used to identify the uncertainty of sex. Science often focuses on using specified and precise terminology to describe a phenomena. However, some things are naturally unpredictable and uncertain. Taking a step back from what is currently deemed as true is what leads to the discovery of more truths that we didn’t even realized existed. Art can help society accept that even in terms of science, sex is uncertain.
—-
Just as society has put a solid line between what it means to be male and female, a similar distinction exists between science and art. An unspoken rule exists that keeps creativity separate from facts, and it is often not acknowledged that creativity is what leads to the development of fact. Understanding the science of sex starts with letting go of the rigid ideals that we have accepted as a false truth. Other binaries, such as our two party political system, could also benefit from this practice. Accepting that not everything will follow the strict rules of today’s science is what will allow for the evolution of our understanding of the world and each other.
