January 08, 2025 06:33 EDT
Check out our comment feature!
- Subscribe
- Past Issues
- RSS
- Translate
- English
- العربية
- Afrikaans
- беларуская мова
- български
- català
- 中文（简体）
- 中文（繁體）
- Hrvatski
- Česky
- Dansk
- eesti keel
- Nederlands
- Suomi
- Français
- Deutsch
- Ελληνική
- हिन्दी
- Magyar
- Gaeilge
- Indonesia
- íslenska
- Italiano
- 日本語
- ភាសាខ្មែរ
- 한국어
- македонски јазик
- بهاس ملايو
- Malti
- Norsk
- Polski
- Português
- Português – Portugal
- Română
- Русский
- Español
- Kiswahili
- Svenska
- עברית
- Lietuvių
- latviešu
- slovenčina
- slovenščina
- српски
- தமிழ்
- ภาษาไทย
- Türkçe
- Filipino
- украї́нська
- Tiếng Việt
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Dear FO° Reader, In my over 50 years of existence on this planet, I have accumulated a wealth of friendships. Perhaps I have been able to do so because I value them immensely. They make my life richer through experiences and discoveries I would not make on my own. Friendships, both close and not-so-close, make me realize how we are all interconnected. They also make me see the world through different eyes and grow as a person. There are many types of friendships. Backyard friendships, school friendships, troublemaking friendships, healing friendships, supportive friendships, distant resonance friendships and neighborly friendships are just a few that come to my mind. The common qualities for all friendships are a shared openness, a certain kindness and even care for one another. Among friends, if someone prefers a nickname rather than their given name, or say, a little more or a little less physical distance (space), we can adjust accordingly. Some friends call almost daily, others might call once a year. So why all the fuss with pronouns? I don’t mind using “progressive” pronouns; I believe it’s part of that kindness, a very small gesture to please and favor the possibility for a neighborly, constructive or even healing connection. What is bothering some people so much? Why do they go to extreme lengths to insist that there can only be two pronouns and are strictly binded with biological sex? Because there are two sexes and that’s it. To these people, to say or hint otherwise seems like an unbearable offense.  Pietro della Vecchia, 1650, Tiresias transformed into a woman.
Of course, in human society and today’s civilization, human understanding of sex and gender is also shaped by culture, language and identity. So allow me an analogy to distinguish sex from gender. Let’s remember that first class in linguistics, when we finally understood that the signs for “apple” are scribbles on a paper, we have to apply our eyesight, mind and language comprehension to relate it to the fruit that’s supposed to keep the doctor away. Sex and gender are similarly connected and disconnected. “A” read by an English speaker sounds very much differently than “a” read by an Italian, or even a Hungarian. And this doesn’t bother anyone. Written words have a strange and almost magical connection with thoughts, spoken words and emotions. Biological sex, gender and the semiotics of identity In biology, sexual reproduction often relies on two gamete types: male (small, mobile sperm) and female (larger, immobile eggs). Chromosomal composition, such as XX for females and XY for males, typically determines sex in humans. However, biological reality is far more complex than this binary model suggests. Intersex individuals, for instance, are born with traits — chromosomal, hormonal or anatomical — that do not fit neatly into male or female categories. Variations like XXY or XO chromosomes, ambiguous genitalia or atypical hormone profiles highlight the diversity within human biology. Beyond humans, nature reveals even more diversity: Clownfish can change sexes, and some plants and invertebrates are hermaphroditic, possessing both male and female reproductive organs. Of course, humans have developed a way more complex cultural and social “world” or reality. The traditional idea of “two sexes” is a useful generalization but fails to capture the full complexity of life. Estimates suggest intersex traits occur in 0.07% to 1.7% of births, though cultural norms, medical definitions and reporting practices influence these numbers. In some societies, the pressure to assign a binary sex at birth can lead to surgical or hormonal interventions, often at the expense of acknowledging the natural diversity in sex characteristics.  Is Transphobia Becoming the Bitterest Bigotry in Modern Society?
To understand the relationship between biological sex and gender, a linguistic analogy is helpful. In semiotics, a word like “apple” is a signifier, representing an idealized, generalized concept of the fruit. This abstraction ignores whether the apple is red, green, GMO or pink on the inside. Similarly, “sex” is a biological signifier, representing a generalized categorization based on gametes or chromosomes. “Gender,” however, functions more like the cultural and social interpretations of that signifier. Just as different languages and cultures attach varying meanings to the same written word, gender reflects diverse, dynamic expressions of identity beyond the binary framework. This analogy shows that sex and gender are interconnected yet distinct. As such, we should be able to understand sex and gender with the same openness and flexibility. Recognizing this complexity, rather than clinging to rigid binaries, allows us to embrace the dynamic and diverse nature of human experience. Also, let’s not forget that sex may not always have been understood as binary. Notably, Thomas W. Laqueur, in his work Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (1990), suggests that until 1800, it was understood as a single continuum with variations. During the Renaissance, anatomical illustrations depicted women’s genitals as inverted male genitals. Since Aristotle, according to Laqueur, sex was not considered fundamentally different but rather a series of levels of perfection, with the male being seen as the most perfect. This perspective shifted only after the French Revolution when the two-sex model came to “light.” In the two-sex model though, these experts wanted to create a link between biological sex and theoretical gender and anything transgressing these boundaries was seen as being abnormal. Although it was thought in the one-sex model that feminine men may lactate and that "almost all the men have a great quantity of milk in their breasts", the notion of interconvertibility of fluids among men and women was thrown out the window in the two-sex model. Sex became related to physical facts and the uterus became a justification for the status of women. Gender roles became institutionalized and what was meant to be male or female was based on what the experts thought was natural. Multiple and dynamic identitiesLet me suggest that fixation on gender duality or non-duality seems detrimental to human serenity in either direction. Lack of flexibility is what gets us in trouble — always. Reality is dynamic and complex. We tend to fear ambiguity, we want simple and clear. But that’s usually possible only in math and in the imaginary world of ideas. Or in what some call extreme-leaning ideologies in either direction, by the way. Why impose harsh dogmas that shun ambiguity when a little kindness can help all of us navigate both uncertainty and ambiguity? How can we hope for a different future if we don’t leave space for it? It is well known that most extremist and rigid ideologies are strange nostalgic constructions of a past that never was. So as a society, we could rise higher and create a more accepting and loving world, we can embrace the Hegelian principle of moving beyond oppositions toward integration and unity. This requires recognizing the truths in both traditional and progressive views, practicing empathy and building systems that honor the complexity of human experience. By celebrating diversity while focusing on shared values, we can transform tension into a catalyst for growth and harmony. Respectfully, Roberta Campani Communications and Outreach [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.] |
||
|
We are an independent nonprofit organization. We do not have a paywall or ads. We believe news
must
be free for everyone from Detroit to Dakar. Yet servers, images, newsletters, web developers and
editors cost money.
So, please become a recurring donor to keep Fair Observer free, fair and independent. 
|
||
|
||
| About Publish with FO° FAQ Privacy Policy Terms of Use Contact |
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs
on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This
doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost
money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a
sustaining member.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Comment