Only for they gave inadequate context. Biological sex and genome expression is much more complicated than m/f but that discussion is not really in the scope of the thread.
I would suggest reading “Bodies that matter, on the discursive limits of Sex” from Judith Butler.
Pointing out how intersex people don’t fit into the constructed binary is easy to dismiss, sex essentialists just call those people defective men and women.
(Which gets into how if you can’t have kids or you can but you don’t look a certain way you’re “defective”, which is a value judgement and doesn’t have some universal or biological basis)
I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.
I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
Only for they gave inadequate context. Biological sex and genome expression is much more complicated than m/f but that discussion is not really in the scope of the thread.
I would suggest reading “Bodies that matter, on the discursive limits of Sex” from Judith Butler.
Pointing out how intersex people don’t fit into the constructed binary is easy to dismiss, sex essentialists just call those people defective men and women.
(Which gets into how if you can’t have kids or you can but you don’t look a certain way you’re “defective”, which is a value judgement and doesn’t have some universal or biological basis)
I would disagree on them calling them defective. This is unnecessarily confrontational.
I would rather say the neglige their existence while using the simplest useful model. They should consider if a better model might be more appropriate.
That is only one or the reasons it is wrong to call them defective. They arent defective.
Reading comprehension. I did not say so.