Not to fall into the trap of nitpicking the accuracy of...¶

Not to fall into the trap of nitpicking the accuracy of fascism, but this still literally doesn't actually narrow anything down. They didn't define what "belonging to the sex that..." actually means. "Sex" is an assemblage of traits, many of which are change during transition. https://t.co/fXYv9QUBJm They obviously wanted to phrase it in such a way that avoids contesting with "Well I don't produce sperm cells, because I don't have testicles," or "I literally never produced eggs, I was born without them," etc. They also couldn't use chromosomes, because you can't exactly karyotype in a middle school locker room.

They want "male" to be a coherent definition that relies on but does not actually require sperm. But they fail to do that, because they use "sex" in the definition of "sex." Again, pointing this out has nothing to do with trying to "own" the fascists -- they don't care, and will literally just discriminate and oppress at their leisure. Try taking this spurious definition to court when you get fired for non-conformity, see how they react. The actual reason I bring it up is to point out to people who already ideologically disagree with this, the fact that it's not just gender, but sex itself that is socially constructed. There is no coherent "biological sex" that doesn't resort to this same circular reasoning. "Male sex" is the sex of someone who has certain biological features that generally line up with other people assigned "male sex." Those features -- hormonal profile, bone structure, genital conformation, body mass, hair growth, etc. -- are chosen through our sex-based lens. They are fuzzy and exist on a spectrum: you can be considered "biologically male" with negligible body/facial hair, low muscle mass, a wide pelvis, low testosterone, no testicles, etc. Any combination of those factors, or even ALL of them, could apply to any "male." Although the collection of various amorphous traits we associate with "sex" tend to correlate with each other, they aren't rigidly linked. A tall, husky-voiced, muscular woman with breasts, a vagina, and a smooth face is totally "normal" and "acceptable." And of course, when we factor in people who deliberately change these traits, the entire illusion of "natural sex" starts to crumble. Your conditions during development, from conception even all the way into adulthood, are not deterministic, and they don't construct One Sex. The fact that these traits are "biological" is just a veneer applied to a social construction; these are the traits society chooses to care about, to the degree of sorting everyone into one of two categories (or more, depending on the society). In the same way that certain other biological traits get chosen as a proxy for the social construction of race -- and then others are not. Why skin color and not hair color? Why genitals and not handedness? The reason for which specific traits are used as these social proxies are not random per se -- they map loosely onto socially relevant traits (or rather, traits that were more relevant at the time of their construction).

They are used to regiment class dynamics. This is the real reason fascists have trans people in their crosshairs. Through the simple act of deliberately altering both our biological and social traits, we incidentally demonstrate that these -- and therefore other -- constructions are facile.

That, to hegemony, is death.