Quote:
Originally Posted by BullDog
I was reading something today about the Nikki Araguz case. It wasn't written by a scientist but it did make sense to me. The person was talking about how we tend to exaggerate the role that reproductive organs play in determining biological sex, when it fact they are actually, in many ways, a minor component of the physical body. There is of course reproduction of the species, which is quite important, but in terms of how we relate to our bodies our genitals are not the be all, end all. Then there's the fact that I'm a woman and have a cock whether it's strapped on or not. 
OK the last paragraph may not make a lot of sense, but anyway I think biological sex is more than about what the textbook definitions of male and female are, lol. First of all we all know that intersex does exist. Also, there may be scientific basis for biological sex, but most of what we understand our biological sex and physical bodies to be and mean come from cultural and personal understanding. Most of us are not scientists. |
I agree with what you've said and that there is probably more to biological sex. But I just wanted to make a note on the last bit. There is also a scientific basis for "brain sex" or neurological sex. In the last decade or so it's been found that those born in biologically female bodies who consider themselves male tend to have somatostatin neuron numbers in the brain in the male range (men have double the number that women have), while biologically born males who consider themselves female have numbers in the female range. So there does seem to be a scientific basis in the feeling of maleness or femaleness despite biological sex or being neither one. I think it would be interesting to see further studies, since, as we've all discussed here, the spectrum of identification goes beyond male and female and there are likely answers regarding how we identify in all of our brains.
I think you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to the popularly viewed importance of reproductive organs.
@HowSoonIsNow, I don't think that it is necessarily all that recently that the term butch has expanded or that butch has always necessarily meant masculine lesbian. Just thinking of Stone Butch Blues (as far as I remember, Jess talked about not feeling like a lesbian, not feeling female or male but something else. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, my memory's foggy) and even some of what's been said by prominent butch or tg authors, people around these sites, at conferences like Butch Voices (from what I've had the chance to see of the conference on youtube...would love to go one day) as well who talked about the butch/femme scene in the 50's, 60's, 70's as well as how both older and younger butches see their identity. I can't say out of personal experience, I wasn't there, but that's what I've gathered from hearing and reading what others who were have had to say. Maybe those who did not identify as lesbian were not the majority of the butch population in the past, but from what I gather still present. Just as male id'd butches today are pretty much a minority among those who do identify as butch, but still present.