What do people, including bioscientists, mean when we say “sex is a social construct?” That’s weird, right? Sex is about biology, isn’t it? Sometimes people hear “social construct” and think “random thing totally unrelated to anything else that we can just change willy-nilly.” That’s the “Blank Slate” position, and it’s a strawman. It is not what people actually mean when we say “sex is socially constructed.” We mean something way cooler and more legitimate.
“Sex” is a human word for the observation that many different things are somewhat correlated. Some things tend to appear together: more muscle mass, testosterone, testicles, Y chromosomes, SCOTUS seats, jail sentences, body hair, height, shorter life expectancy… all correlated. Because we see all of those things more or less tend to go together, and people like finding & naming patterns, we group people into categories–male and female–then call that categorization sex.
Importantly, though, sex is not any of the physical things in a body (chromosomes, hormones, gonads, hair, muscle mass…), nor is it any of the social things in a life (outfits, jobs, interests, actions…). Sex is our name for the correlations among them. It’s a human idea. So “sex is a social construct” in the sense that sex is an idea people discussed together (social) and built up (constructed). Of course we constructed sex using observations of “real things” in the world, gonads and so on. Being socially constructed doesn’t deny that.
So why emphasize that sex is a social construct at all? Why point out the gap between the “reality” of bodies and our human description of those bodies? Well, because our human description “sex” oversimplifies things, and sometimes those oversimplifications are wrong and/or harmful.
When we construct sex, we make a bunch of choices about what things to count as part of it. In 1900, education correlated very strongly with gonads. We saw much talk about how intelligence was part of sex, same as ovaries. Education, it was said, could even cause ovaries to shrivel! We hear that less now that women earn more college degrees than men. 30 years later, we found some chemicals that seemed correlated with other things in sex. So we added them to the rest in our idea of sex, calling them “male and female hormone.” Some scientists were very displeased to later discover “female hormone” in urine from horse penises. Penises and estrogen weren’t supposed to go together! We called it “female hormone” exactly because we were sure it was correlated with *not* having a penis. Still today, some propose estrogen to treat covid because women have lower covid morbidity & sex says “estrogen=woman.” The biological correlations and differences we think of as part of sex change with time and social context. Women now run much closer to men’s speeds than they once did (changing access to sport), scholars use sex differences in height as a measure of “son preference” (changing access to nutrition).
There are many examples like these, indeed a whole vibrant field of STS scholarship about it. And there is an even bigger, more vibrant field of biological research on variations in sex, i.e. the ways that lumping many different things into a two-category idea is wrong. Some of this is research on intersex conditions (e.g. a Y chromosome does not guarantee development of testicles), but much of it is boring normal science on physical and developmental pathways showing levels of, timing of, and complex interactions among things in sex matter. Of course, if this were just academics talking among ourselves, I wouldn’t be tweeting, blogging, or writing a dissertation about it.
Where things go really awry is when people start making prescriptive claims about how society should be based on their understanding of sex. Sadly, we are in the midst of intense public and legislative battles over sex. For example: HRT is increasingly difficult for trans people to access, but it remains easily available for people like Joe Rogan. Why? For trans people, HRT is technology to change and defy the expected correlations of sex. For Joe, taking testosterone confirms them.
Here we make the mistake of confusing sex, our human idea summarizing how the world works, our mental model, for not just the truth of the world, but also the morally correct way of being. We mistake the descriptive truth of a loose correlation, “having between 264 and 916 ng/dL Testosterone often correlates with having Y chromosomes, a penis, a beard, etc…” for the moral assertion that, “Testosterone must be below 5 nmol/L if you were not born with a penis.”
When we say that sex is socially constructed, we are trying to remind people of this. To remind them that our ideas about what things do and should go together are just that: human ideas. They are sometimes wrong about what does, in fact, go together. And they are sometimes immoral when they make claims about what should go together (e.g. women in engineering). If we remember that sex is a human claim about the world, then we have the tools to change it, to make it more accurate, more ethical.
This understanding also changes how we talk about sex. Sex can’t cause things biologically. It can’t be the source of differences. It is our name for the patterns we observe. Sometimes it’s a useful proxy for them. But it can also prevent us from looking into actual mechanisms. Similarly, “being male” or “being female” can’t cause things either. Those are names for our socially constructed categories of sex. As recent calls for precise language note, they mostly obscure the biological and social mechanisms of phenomena.
Some will be quick to object that “sex is about reproduction and gametes.” Yes, it is! “Sex” is also the word for fucking, even when it doesn’t make babies, as in “to have sex.” But the social conversations aren’t about either of those meanings of sex. Nobody runs around with calipers measuring gamete size to determine access to sports, bathrooms, healthcare, education, employment, etc. Moreover, those conversations aren’t about banning infertile people. No one says newborn boys should not have an “M” on their birth certificate because they do not have gametes yet (sperm). Nobody is trying to take away the “F” on a woman’s driver’s license or ban her from bathrooms after menopause or a hysterectomy (1 in 9 women get hysterectomies). Reproduction is not really the point. Instead, people make guesses about sex based on myriad correlated things like face structure, breast tissue, voice pitch, hair length, clothing choice, etc. That is, they’re using sex the way I describe in this post, not as reproduction. (Although there are a ton of fun facts in sexual reproduction of other species where it works way differently than humans. Sex is complicated even in reproduction only land. If we are actually interested in biology, not just in brandishing it to support our social agendas, sex is way more fascinating and messy than we give it credit for.)
Others will be quick to agree with my explanation here, but insist we use the word “gender,” not “sex.” That distinction comes from the old and very valuable feminist argument that many things in social life should not be tied to biology (careers, education, housework, etc.) People arguing for the social construction of sex agree with that. But we also go further and point out that scientists’ (and the public’s) understanding of biology behind sex is socially constructed, just like gender is socially constructed. Here’s where the large body of STS (science and technology studies) research comes in handy.
Some have objected to my use of “correlation” here, saying that there are real causal relationships involved. Yes, absolutely: correlations can happen when things are causally related. Anyone who has ever been on HRT can attest that injecting certain chemicals can have dramatic effects on bodies, for example. The causal processes involved in relating the various components of sex together are long and involve many complex interactions. Good research on the biology of sex explores that and helps us revise and refine our concept of sex (i.e. it is a good and necessary part of the social construction of sex).
This blog post is adapted from a… mildly popular… twitter thread. It has been translated into German, Russian (twice), Spanish, Japanese, French, and I am told possibly other languages.
13 thoughts on “sex as a social construct”
Clear, concise writing using language even the layperson can comprehend. You stayed on point and addressed the meat of the topic succinctly. Enough to persuade your audience, so you’ll go far in your field and I foresee your PhD in the very near future!
Deliberately or not, the strategy you adopt here is pulling a fast one. Focus on the concrete questions in the following explanation.
*Do you think science is the ultimate authority on the facts?* Or do you think that what it produces must be submitted for approval by some ethical judgement? One is led to expect the former not the latter, since you begin by assuring us that you completely grant the reality of objective facts:
> (You:) “people hear ‘social construct’ and think ‘random thing totally unrelated to anything else that we can just change willy-nilly’. […] it’s a strawman. It is not what people actually mean when we say ‘sex is socially constructed’. We mean something way cooler and more legitimate.”
*In which case, what words do we use to talk about the objective facts that science produces?* There must be some, otherwise we will have fallen back into the subordination posed above. And here is the sleight of hand embedded later: you then take away the words for talking about the objective facts:
> (You:) “Others will be quick to agree with my explanation here, but insist we use the word ‘gender’, not ‘sex’. […] But we also go further and point out that scientists’ (and the public’s) understanding of biology behind sex is socially constructed, just like gender is socially constructed.”
If we have no way to talk about the objective facts, independent of non-objective influence, then there are no *objective* facts. (That is not legitimate, even if some people think it is ‘cool’.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
What “objective facts” do you want to talk about?
What is the advantage in saying that it is a social construction, instead of biology, that of the 37 trillion cells in a almost every human body each one has 23 pairs of chromosomes coded XX or XY?
> Do you think science is the ultimate authority on the facts?
Science is not an authority on the facts. It is as flawed and limited as we are in a point of time and space. And it also reflects our social biases. Plenty of what we, as scientists, knew as a “fact” one century ago, has been either corrected or completely discarded. Even our knowledge has change so much in 30 years. Science used to say that women were not as smart as men, now we now that is not true, that is not, actually, a fact, and that it was a mere reflection of the social biases of the time. Science is not a beacon of reality, it is the way we, as humans, try to explain our surroundings based on our current understanding of it.
I welcome the clarity of your writing, and your thoughts are interesting. However, unless I’ve missed it, you don’t address the point that it is one particular sex that is overwhelmingly the victim of discrimination, violence and sexual assault.
Dear Dan Hirschman, and Jeff,
By not publishing any dissenting opinion on this website or not allowing twitter replies to your twitter thread, you take no objective approach on this website. Both f you are twisting knowledge production with a biased opinion in favor of SJWs so that everyone can feel better about themselves & no one’s feelings are hurt.
This is not science Dan. This is not sociology. And, Dan, you are no expert on sex/gender enough to “vet” and “judge” ideas in this baldly silly opinion before publishing it. You are falling into traps of your socially constructed echo chamber on twitter. Please be professional and do better. This opinion is a joke.
If you are sincere and actually believe in science, open this to a debate and invite other scientists to publish their responses to this opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet you commented here and provided nothing constructive.
You have stated your perspective quite well. Consider: if sex is a social construct, that doesn’t really mean anything, because by your own explanation nearly everything is a social construct. Murder, for example, would only be a social construct describing a certain type of death. Furthermore the left seems intent on using this characterization to justify replacing one social construct with another social construct–here I mean Gender. If social constructs have no inherent value then the new one doesn’t have any either. The kindest thing I can say is that it’s going to damage the majority of us who were being served very well by the previous concept in order to rescue a tiny fraction–some of whom may be better served by the new concepts, but some of whom will be absolutely ruined by them.