By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
sundin13 on 21 June 2020
Edit Thread
KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

Is genitalia the extent of biology? Like I said, boiling biology down to genitalia is overly reductive, as it ignores things such as genetic variations and hormone levels, which also fall under the banner of the biology of sex.

I'm sure we can investigate genetic variations and hormone levels but these require blood tests: you can't assess these things just by looking as far as I know.

Simply looking at what's situated between the legs is far more convenient and pivotal in distinguishing between male or female. I'm sure we can look at other things but our genitals will never not be in the conversation.

I mean, that is largely my point. You can't assess the entirety of biology based simply on phenotypic variation. To do so is "convenient" but it is far from accurate. That is why I don't really like the phrase "biological female". It is a convenient simplification of biology to use that as a synonym for "someone born with a vagina", but we we should still recognize that the two statements do not mean the same thing, despite that convenience.