There is something confusing going on with the trans debate. I'm talking about the idea — on both sides of the debate — that what happens in nature (and how it's been defined in science) should form the basis for our political arrangements.
For example, on the anti-trans side, there's the argument that a trans woman has the biology of a man and should therefore (to pick one issue) only be allowed to use participate in men's sports. Society should follow biology.
On the other side, you sometimes get the argument biological sex is a myth – which if you can prove would be useful as it would disrupt the "society should follow biology" model.
One of the points they make is that whatever criteria you use for defining biological sex (sex organs, size of sex cells, chromosomes, hormones) there are exceptions.
For example, women with AIS have XY chromosomes; some women don't have any sex cells; intersex people might have ambiguous sex organs (but be very clear in their identity); and basing things on hormones excludes biological women (e.g. runner Casta Semenya).
And so with this many exceptions and grey areas can we really say sex exists? Hence biological sex "isn't real" etc
But of course categories can still work with grey areas. For example it's hard to define to know when red becomes orange but that doesn't mean that red and orange don't exist. Many phenomena (most?) don't have sharp defining lines.
And on the gender-critical side the consequences of these exceptions are ignored. If the biology isn't a simple binary, "society should follow biology" might not be an ideal way to arrange things.
The fundamental problem with both sides when they go down this line of argument is there's no necessary link between nature and society.
For example, the scientific definition of a father usually about biology, they are (to use Wikipedia's definition) the "male genetic contributor to the creation of the infant".
But in society, if a child calls their step-dad "father" we don't object. In fact we allow adoption where there's no biological link.
There's a scientific definition of father and a political definition of father. And the second doesn't have to follow from the later.
Another example is marriage. It used to be understood as a male-female arrangement, as the way to raise children. Now that connection is broken.
Pronouns, sports, bathrooms, all of these are political questions, that will be worked out by balancing up conflicting interests, compromise and so on. But using nature or science as our guide isn't reliable, useful or necessary.
Originally tweeted by Brendan Miller (@brenkjm) on December 30, 2022.