I find Wilchins chapter on "Can Sex Have Opposites" extremely confusing. I have always associated gender and sex as two different things- sex is biological and gender is a type of expression. While reading this chapter Wilchins doesn't once make that distinction. I greatly appreciate the arguments they make I would rather see the binary of sex as one thing and gender as another.
Which makes my confusion deepen because I then have my hatred of binaries pop up which I believe was Wilchins goal. Sex as a biological idea and gender as a way of expressing social norms associated with sex makes discussing the two so much easier.Â
What is sex then? If it's not the biology then what does it encompass? I like to believe it is all things gendered, whether that be biological or socially constructed. And by biological I mean the idea that a penis is male and a vagina is female, which isn't that something humans have labeled with language over the many years?Â
wvuwgstfeministtheories I still cannot post as a user and decided to tag you. again.Â