while all of this is fascinating, i think the user was replying off a gut instinct to the interpreted rejection of biological drivers factoring in to sex. hearing "biological sex is a social construct" doesn't read the same as "biological sex as an enforced standard is a social construct that prefers the binary of male and female," because that is ultimately the point being made; not that genes themselves don't matter, which is what people like the poster hear/see when flat statements without context are made.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't disagree. But also genes are not a suitable criteria for the post context (r*pe survivors receiving support) so the distinction is moot here imo

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 4 points 3 days ago

ah sure, i get ya.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

My point is that 'sex' is a label applied to traits, whether genetic or in more obvious ways but it is not a useful label and honestly very transphobic.

If anyone or anymany ever called me a sex I didn't agree with them I was then I would simply tell them I am not and not to come near me again with that unscientific bullshit that they likely do not understand anyway.

Sex is not really useful in most places, not even in the medical field, it does not really tell you anything useful about a person nor their genetic or other bodily makeup. It's better to be specific about what you want to know if it truly is relevant to you, which the only places that would be the case are the medical field or if you're dating someone or somemany. All other places most likely do not need to know 'sex' nor most traits either not sports, nor these charities, nor anything else. Some might need to know gender, but not very many actually do, sports can be based on things like weight classes etc. Charities like this really only have to care about gender, so really this is kind of bullshit