Calling Them "Sex Reveal Parties" Might Lead To Some Unexpected Guests

“There is an urge to be good. To be seen to be good. To be seen. Badness, invisibility, things as they are in reality […]—these are out of fashion.”

So begins Zadie Smith’s, Now More Than Ever. A short story about a dystopian future where citizens live in fear of doing or saying something “beyond the pale.”

Anybody who does so (and as with all authoritarian dystopias, it’s surprisingly easy), faces a degree of social ostracisation only a few rungs up the ladder from death. So they’re willing to say almost anything, to avoid this fate. 

In my article, What Happens If Trans Women Aren’t Women?, I asked how it became “beyond the pale” to admit that trans women are, in fact, trans women. I asked why there’s such insistence on appropriating a category that’s already taken. I asked why is it hateful to admit that the “trans” in trans identities means something.

Jared was willing to say almost anything, no matter how stupid, to avoid acknowledging things as they are in reality. 

(If you’re wondering why my tone in this conversation is uncharacteristically combative from the start, it’s because this is the same Jared from this conversation.)

---

Jared:

I agree with this, and yet you’re asking the very question you dismiss as trivial. While I agree there is some distinction between being assigned a gender at birth, vs identifying as a gender, the part where your argument falls apart is in thinking you can tell someone’s gender by looking, or that this information is relevant to you in any way. The question of sincerity about their gender expression isn’t yours to consider. What matters is behavior. There is no argument you can make where it’s appropriate to question someone’s gender identity. None. You can question their behavior when it’s out of line, but policing appearance is a fucking terrible idea.

If you want to make the argument that men will fake being trans women to get into women’s prisons, what does this tell you about our prison system? Are they to be considered worse people for trying to avoid abuse? Or are you arguing they will have better luck at sexual predation? Cuz then I’d argue why is sexual predation possible in our prison system? Isn’t this something we could largely avoid? Starting with decriminalizing all drugs? I digress. Point is you’re punishing the wrong group. It is sexual predators who are the issue.

In any event, the answer is not to restrict more venues based on the kind of genitalia one may possess. We have to be sensible about how we restrict freedom, and find other solutions to uphold the social contract than discrimination based on demographic attributes irrelevant to the perceived danger. The danger isn’t posed by a gap in the law. Trans women are just as likely as cis women to use a public facility in a manner consistent with its common use. So there’s no upside for anyone in making laws aimed at restricting trans folks specifically from anywhere solely because they’re trans.

---

Steve QJ:

“While I agree there is some distinction between being assigned a gender at birth, vs identifying as a gender”

There is no such thing as "being assigned a gender at birth." Even the nonsensical language of "assigned male at birth" affirms this. Male is a biological sex, not a gender. As is female. We categorise every single sexually dimorphic species on Earth this way. Even the parts of some plants in fact.

Sex is not assigned it's observed. And it's done trivially easily in 99.98% of cases. As I pointed out last time we spoke, most children can make the distinction by the time they're three months old.

And gender is not assigned at all. There is nothing a doctor does at birth that forces a male or female child to conform to gender stereotypes. There is societal pressure on that child to conform of course. We might even agree that this should change (and is changing). But to pretend that anybody is "assigned" a gender at birth is asinine.

And yes, there are plenty of arguments I can make that it's appropriate to question someone's gender identity. You just won't accept any of them because you don't give a shit about women's safety, comfort or boundaries. But if there was a man standing in a women's changing room, or worse, a changing room with young girls, I think it's WHOLLY F**KING APPROPRIATE to question him. So would any decent, responsible human being.

And yes, you can ask why sexual predation is possible (I guess I'd start with the fact that some extremely creepy men don't give a shit about women's safety, comfort or boundaries), but that doesn't help address the fact that it is. If you have an idea that will make it impossible, fantastic! Let's talk! As soon as your genius solution is implemented, as soon as it's no longer possible for men to rape or assault women (or just be creepy and make them uncomfortable), I'll fully support the abolition of single sex spaces.

However, if you think that solution is to "decriminalise all drugs," I think you need to take less drugs.

Lastly, as I've already explained ad nauseam to you, the laws aren't aimed at restricting trans folks. They never were. They are aimed at keeping males out of female spaces. This isn't some new thing. Societies and cultures all over the world have acknowledged the need to segregate males and females in certain situations for thousands of years.

And as I've also said, societies change. The point I'm making isn't that trans women shouldn't ever be accepted in female spaces, I'm saying that there needs to be a method of defining "woman" that doesn't allow me (and especially you) to become one simply by saying so.

---

---

Jared:

You’re not a serious person. I can’t believe anyone with your ability to write coherently is so inept at making a point 

I guess you’re not familiar with the trend of gender reveal parties? They don’t call them sex reveal parties, though they might drive up attendance beyond those who are obligated to attend if they did. . 

More importantly, you don’t seem to be up to speed on the latest genetic research regarding sex (meaning like the last 50 years). It’s a complex question because there are genetic factors, chromosomal factors, fetal development, hormonal factors. An XY chromosome doesn’t necessarily mean male, nor does a penis. Do even a little research before calling someone stupid. It’ll save you lots of internalized anger.

Finally, I have two kids. Not sure if you have any. When they ask you to put sex of your kid, it’s not medically possible to know, but you’ll get it right most of the time. When you put boy or girl, you are assigning a gender because your kid will be segregated by this factor and this is how a gender identity is encouraged to align with biological characteristics that we label as male or female. Gender and sex were considered interchangeable terms once, and clearly our evolutionary pattern suggests they were all one thing at one point. Just like shitting, pissing, and childbirth used to come out the same hole. We evolved. Give it a try sometime.

---

Steve QJ:

“I guess you’re not familiar with the trend of gender reveal parties? They don’t call them sex reveal parties, though they might drive up attendance beyond those who are obligated to attend if they did.”

Yes, exactly. They're called "gender reveal parties" because most people still haven't stopped using the words "gender" and "sex" synonymously, and because, as you say, calling them "sex reveal parties" would probably lead to some unexpected leather-clad guests.

But when an actual doctor is sat with the mother using an ultrasound and asks "do you want to know the baby's sex?" it's because sex is what is being observed, not "assigned." The fact that some laypeople use a term incorrectly does not make your argument valid.

And yes, of course, your entire argument hinges on desperately clinging to extraordinarily rare edge cases which a) is like saying that because some people are born with one arm there's no way to tell how many arms somebody has, and b) have nothing to do with trans identities.

Trans people are not the same as intersex people.

As for “our evolutionary pattern [suggesting] they were all one thing at one point,” think about it this way.

All mammals exhibit some degree of "gendered behaviour." Because biological sex does have an impact on behaviour. To this extent, gender is not a social construct but a biological reality. But, of course, humans are far more complex than other mammals. So we've developed all kinds of other societal norms that are learned. We think of these as gendered but they're not, they're social constructs. Things like wearing dresses or makeup or playing "rough and tumble" games.

All we've done in recent years is tease apart these concepts and realise that there's no reason why a male can't wear a dress or makeup if he wants to. I think that's a good thing. BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE HIIM A FEMALE!!! Sex is immutable. Gender is, when you get right down to it, a personality.

---

Jared:

No it isn’t. There are species of fish that can switch sex if the female population gets too low. Trees can switch back and forth between sexes. We have all kinds of genetic traits lying dormant in our genomes. You keep claiming impossible that which I can observe with my own eyes. 

There are at least seven different methods of procreation among microbes, for gods sake. Nothing is genetics is ever immutable. Evolution couldn’t happen without mutation. It would be weird if we didn’t have more than two sexes. And we do. Clearly we have more than two genders as well. Spectrums abound, and binary systems are entirely subjective constructs. Jesus where do you get your information from?

---

Steve QJ:

“There are species of fish that can switch sex if the female population gets too low.”

Oh, Jesus, the clownfish argument? Really Jared? You’re really scraping the bottom of the stupid argument barrel now😅

There are species of lizard that can grow back their limbs if they're cut off. Shall I cut off your arm and see if it works on you? Is it possible that humans are not f**king clownfish? Do I really need to explain, in our conversation about women and men, that when I say sex is immutable I mean it’s immutable in humans?

Humans are not microbes. Humans are not lizards. Humans are not fish. But please, share your information! I'm only aware of two sexes. Male and female. Please do tell me what the third is called. I will give you a million Bitcoin if you answer this question directly with something you can back up with some kind of research.

And yes, I've said over and over and over again that gender is such a spectrum as to be meaningless! Are you a bot? Gender is personality built around varying degrees of stereotypes. There aren't two, there are approximately 8 billion. Which is why it's so asinine to talk about knowing somebody's gender. What does that even mean?! The point, that I think I've written in every single reply pretty much, IS THAT SEX AND GENDER ARE DIFFERENT THINGS!!!!!!!!!

It's hilarious that you said I wasn't a serious person a few replies ago.

---

Jared:

I’m aware we aren’t clownfish. Are you aware that wasn’t my point? Probably. You want to be taken seriously, but you’re not a serious person. With your extreme language and all these absolutes that are anything but absolute. Your punctuation is hilarious. I can practically see you going apoplectic with your indignation. It doesn’t make your arguments any better. 

While I am finally understanding your barriers to enlightenment stem from this absolute certainty that there are only two sexes, it suggests you’re not doing the research you claim to be doing. Are you speaking about chromosomal sex? Hormonal sex? Secondary see characteristics? Reproductive organs? There are daily examples of kids born with ambiguous genitalia, and ambiguous chromosomes. Before you dismiss these people as freaks of nature like you did previously, try to keep in mind that evolution is expressed as genetic mutation, and until these mutations provide a survival benefit they don’t proliferate. It doesn’t mean they are necessarily outliers. This can’t be determined with a single snapshot in time. 

If more primitive organisms than us have multiple methods of reproduction, there are more than two sexes. There is intersex, for example. Humans can be intersex, which is a sex that is neither male nor female. So you’re entirely wrong about this. You want it to be simple. It isn’t, and that is the source of your frustration. You can’t be serious about claiming you can reduce this down to absolute statements about sex when geneticists and doctors and psychiatrists can’t claim the same. Maybe you’re smarter than everyone else, but your arguments still don’t scale to the real world.

---

Steve QJ:

“Humans can be intersex, which is a sex that is neither male nor female.”

Jesus, this really is the greatest hits of every stupid argument I hear online. I'm simply talking about sex. Male or female. Chromosomes, secondary sex characteristics, reproductive organs, these all lead to the same point in almost every single case.

Intersex is not a biological sex. It is a developmental condition that gives some minuscule number of human beings traits of both males and females. Most intersex people are still unambiguously male or female. They just have some kind of variation of karyotype or internal reproductive organs that makes their sex not immediately obvious.

They're not a new sex, they just have a developmental disorder (hence the term Differences in Sexual Development or DSD). Just as some children are born with one arm or conjoined with another child, yet we don't say it's impossible to tell how many arms people have or how many humans are contained in one body.

It's not complicated. It's complicated to you. You just throw out a bunch of terms you clearly don't understand as a smokescreen in the hopes that one of them clouds the issue long enough for you to claim victory. Because you're too uneducated, or perhaps simply too indoctrinated, to understand the things you're talking about.

But even if I granted all the stupidity that has come before this point, even if intersex people truly were a completely new sex, INTERSEX PEOPLE ARE NOT TRANS PEOPLE. You still wouldn't be able to change sex simply by saying you had. There would still be such a thing as a male and a female and trans people would still be one or the other.

Again, the annoying thing is that this doesn't matter. I'm not arguing against calling trans women "she" or their right to present in any way that feels authentic, I'm arguing for an acknowledgement of reality and of the rights of women to safety and privacy and to compete fairly inspirit I know you don't care about any of these things. But as I said in the other reply, I've got better things to do with my time than repeat what to any non-mysoginist is perfectly obvious.

---

There is an urge to be good. We need that urge to function as a society.

But some people get so carried away by the urge to be seen as good—which is not the same thing—that they’ll abandon logic and objectivity, not to mention throw women’s rights under the bus, rather than deal with things as they are in reality.

Neither sex nor gender is “assigned.” Intersex people are not a new, third sex. Even if they were, trans people are in a completely different category to intersex people. And none of this means we can’t treat trans people with the respect and dignity that all people deserve. 

As I said to Jared, societies change to accommodate new ideas. Language adapts to reflect social conventions. This is not only good, but essential. But truth, decency, things as they are in reality, we can’t allow these things to go out of fashion.