Let’s take a quick look at the abstract of a scholarly paper entitled Sex, Biological Functions and Social Norms: A Simple Constructivist Theory of Sex by Asa Carlson
Feminist theory needs a constructivist account of biological sex for at least two reasons.
Notice the post-modernists have targeted “biological sex.”
The first is that as long as female and male are the only two sexes that are taken for granted, being cisgender, heterosexual, and preferably a parent will be the norm, and being intersexed, transgender, bi- or homosexual, infertile or voluntarily childless will be deemed failure.
Is Carlson leading with her chin here? For just who is it that “deems” such a state as “failure.” That’s quite the loaded term. For example, most babies are born with sight. But rarely, a child will be born blind. Does anyone truly deem the baby a “failure?”
The second is the fact that, usually, sex and gender come together in the way that is expected, i.e. the fact that most females are women and most males are men needs to be explained.
Whoa. Needs to be explained? Sexual dimorphism and reproduction are already fairly well understood by the scientific community. And it’s not something that is unique and unusual among the human species.
This paper provides a constructivist theory of sex, which is that the sex categories depend on norms of reproduction. I argue that, because the sex categories are defined according to the two functions or causal roles in reproduction, and biological function is a teleological concept involving purposes, goals, and values, female and male are normative categories. As there are no norms or values in nature, normative categories are social constructions; hence, female and male are not natural but social categories.
When you have a perspective that uses words to “argue” that “female and male are not natural categories,” you have an anti-science perspective. Imagine this perspective gaining more and more traction in academia over the next several years. Would it be terribly surprising to read about some biology professor being accused of microaggressions for using the terms “male” and “female” in a Bio101 course? Not really. Give it time. Especially since the “March for Science” geniuses have invited this mindset into the lab.