iiiiiii have a lot of thoughts about "biological sex." i feel like people are wayyyyy too preoccupied with trying to figure out what other people have in their pants when 1. it's really not that important and 2. it's not that simple anyways. so i decided to talk about it :3 content warning: this post includes use of anatomical terms. if this makes you uncomfortable, please do not read.
first off: how do we define "biological sex"? is it by genitals? because people can have indeterminate external sexual organs. people can have a combination of organs. so then is it by the internal organs? people with external sex organs typically described as female can have internal organs more typically described as male, and vice versa. it is also possible to have no internal sex organs. so then is it determined by chromosomes? many people have chromosomes that differ from those typically prescribed to the categories of "female" or "male"; xxy, xxxy, xyy, etc. people with typically "female" sex organs can have xy chromosomes and vice versa for "male." is it by socialization then? if it is, then why do people focus so much on physical attributes? what about people whose upbringing doesn't align with "female" or "male" socialization? is this theory of socialization even viable?
now that we've established that there is really no basis for accurately describing "biological sex," that it is not a dichotomy, we need to ask: why does it even matter? the only time it would really be relevant is in discussions about healthcare (risks for reproductive cancers, sexual health, transition, etc.), sexual violence, and reproduction. outside of those contexts, it's really irrelevant. it's mostly used as a way to determine which gender roles to prescribe to people. penis + testes = male, vagina + ovaries = female. but that excludes anyone with atypical or indeterminate sex organs and anyone whose gender identity does not align with the physical attributes their body has. people might use the argument that "intersex conditions are rare, so they're the exception" -- the percentage of people with recorded intersex conditions is about the same as the percentage of people with red hair. do we tell redheads they're really blonde? a person can have any combination of sex characteristics and it has no more influence on who they are as a person than their combination of hair and eye colour does.
assigning sex based on gender roles doesn't really work. women are supposed to be dainty, feminine homemakers & mothers; there is only a small subset of women that clearly fit within this category. men are supposed to be strong, masculine providers & fathers; there is only a small subset of men that clearly fit within this category. even cisgender perisex people don't completely fit within these roles. what about women who are tall or muscular or "masculine", or men who are short or slight or "feminine"? what about people who can't have children? what about gay people? what about people whose bodies don't look like what 'men' or 'women' are 'supposed' to look like? does their not fitting into these prescribed social roles mean they are lesser?
i have seen within the last couple years the rise of the terms "amab" and "afab" being used to describe people. it is used a lot both within and outside of the trans community. i hate these terms. there are two reasons for this: 1. people don't use them correctly. they are acronyms for "assigned female/male at birth," which should be used as a past-tense action - "i was assigned x at birth" - but are instead used as an adjective - "i'm a/ab." 2. it is just another way to describe people as 'male' or 'female', 'women' or 'men.' they can be helpful sometimes, i suppose, if it is really necessary to separate people based on their assigned sex (or when being used by intersex people, because their community is from where the term originated) , but i see them being used as alternative for "girl" or "boy" or whatever other gendered descriptor especially by cis people, because cis people get uncomfortable when they can't describe people by their sex, but it also happens a lot within the trans community - and from what i have seen, it happens a lot in a way that excludes trans women or other trans people who were "assigned male at birth." an example of this is "afab-only" spaces - people see trans women as a threat (because of their "amab-ness") and exclude them in the name of "personal comfort" or "safety" when really it is just transmisogyny.
i mentioned previously that one of the only contexts in which biological sex would be relevant is in medical contexts. but just like the categorization of sex, this isn't so clear-cut. when people make public health statements like "afabs need to do breast self-checks!", they are excluding both "afab" people who don't have breast tissue and "amab" people who do. when people talk about pap smears or prostate exams and use "amab" or "afab" or "biologically male/female" to describe the people who need to be concerned about them, they exclude other people who don't fit that ideal, which can lead to people not getting the healthcare they need. there are 'afab' people who don't have cervixes or internal reproductive organs, 'amab' people who don't have prostates, 'afab' people who do have prostate tissue. many people also have endocrine systems different from what they might typically be expected to have based on their physical organs. because of this, it is far more accurate and safe to describe people based on the physical characteristics and organs that they do have in medical contexts. instead of checkboxes labelled "male" and "female," they should say "ovaries", "testes", "breasts," etc. so that doctors can have accurate information about what sort of healthcare a person might need. a person without a cervix does not need to be getting pap smears. a person without a prostate or prostate tissue does not need to be having prostate exams.
"biological sex" is also not an immutable thing! it can be changed! people can change their sex characteristics and organs both through surgery and through hormone replacement therapy. people on testosterone hrt can develop bottom growth and prostate tissue, people on estrogen hrt can develop breasts and experience shrinkage. people can have surgically-created neophalluses and neovaginas, surgically removed breast tissue or surgically enhanced breasts. people with newly testosterone-based endocrine systems have similar risks for most physical illnesses as people who have always had a testosterone-based endocrine system, and vice versa for estrogen-based. many people with visible intersex conditions are surgically altered at birth or in early childhood to better fit the mold of "male" and "female." most internal sex organs like uteruses, ovaries, testicles, etc. can't be acquired, sure, but since we've already established that internal organs aren't the end-all-be-all of "biological sex," that doesn't really have an impact on anything.
"biological sex" is not an innate, immutable thing that we need to describe in order to define people and assign societal gender roles to them. it is not a dichotomy; it is a spectrum along which people can move as they please. sex identifiers are unnecessary, restrictive labels that do more harm than good. describing someone as "male" or "female" does nothing more than guess at what sexual organs they have and reduce them as a person to only that guess. people are more than their theoretical internal or external organs; what's important is the way they want to describe themselves. yet another gender identity win