Defining the (almost) impossible: sex, gender and sexualityA very common conception held by many who do not identify as queer is the idea that sex and gender are synonymous and defined by what genitals a person has and that sexuality is what sex/gender a person is attracted to. All three (sex, gender and sexuality) are set on rigid binaries with very little opportunity for identities to emerge between the two extremes. These binaries – male/female, masculine/feminine, and heterosexual/homosexual – exist to organize and potentially even oppress aspects of humankind. Within queer communities, many see differences between the three, although creating a concrete and distinct definition of each term seems to be more or less impossible, as different theorists bring new complexities to the task of defining the three. In addition to these complexities, those who identify between the extremes of binaries or exist beyond the constraints of these binaries must collectively agree on definitions for these to have real weight. The need for distinctions is beginning to make its way into the queer movement with the emergence of transgender and non-binary people loudly creating identities within and extending beyond these supposedly separate binary classifications of sex, gender, and sexuality. And, although identity creation shows the mechanisms of power in place and the need to categorize those who do not fit into the rigid dichotomy, the creation of these identities allows such individuals to create community and support. The distinctions, therefore, demonstrate the need to define and distinguish between terms. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Queer theorists continue to analyze, define, challenge, and reformulate what is meant by sex, gender, and sexuality. Both Gayle Rubin's “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality” and Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet work to understand and explain what is meant by the notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. Continuous evaluation of these concepts is necessary to attempt true understanding of such abstract concepts, as much as possible given the evolution of power and different social contexts. The theories laid out in Sedgwick's Epistemology of the Closet closely mirror what many queer-identified communities are beginning to believe about sex, gender, and sexuality as related but distinctive categories of identification, as sexuality is an extension of gender , which is itself an extension Rubin's "Thinking Sex" expands, contrasts and expands on the previous perspective given in his work "The Traffic in Women", in which he draws the conclusion that sex is the biological basis upon which it is imposed gender socially constructed, which allows biologically based traits to be incorporated into the gender binary: femininity includes maternal and caring traits while masculinity concerns more difficult activities such as hunting and defense. In that essay, Rubin defines “the concept of the sex/gender system… as a 'set of arrangements through which a society transforms biological sexuality into products of human activity'” (Rubin 32). Rubin does not distinguish between lust and gender, and treats “both as modes of the same underlying social process” (32) – that is, the process by which sex and gender preferences create sexual desire, or sexuality, and classifies sexuality based on sex. activity in which an individual takes part. In “Thinking Sex,” Rubin challenges his previous distinction by arguing that it is “essential to analytically separate gender and sexuality formore accurately reflect their separate social existence" (33). In saying this, Rubin acknowledges the social differences between gender and sexuality, while not constraining the distinction between gender and sex. Through Rubin's work, distinctions between gender and sexuality are drawn by challenging the previous idea that sexuality is a derivative of gender and by placing a distinction between the theory of gender inequality and the theory of sexual oppression. Rubin rightly challenges the idea that feminism “is or should be the privileged place of a theory of sexuality” (32), and instead clarifies that feminism operates within the place of oppression by gender Allowing feminism to take on the pretext of fighting sexual oppression, the distinction between gender and, as it says Rubin, "erotic desire" (32) is lost. At the heart of Rubin's argument is a theory of the definition of the notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. Through Rubin's "Thinking Sex", sexuality is a political system of power built on the gender and sex of a person's sexual partners and acts, gender is a political system that differentiates between men and women based on feminism, and the sex is a biological vision. of the differences between men and women. Sedgwick's Closet Epistemology challenges and reconstructs notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. It begins with simple definitions of sex and gender and emphasizes the distinctions between the two: sex is chromosomal and refers to the arrangement of chromosomes in an XX alignment or an XY alignment while gender is a socially constructed "dichotomized social production and reproduction" . of male and female identities and behaviors” (Sedgwick 27). Sex therefore determines a person's physical characteristics, such as hair growth and genitalia, while gender refers to social expectations and alignment with male or female behaviors, when considered according to a strict binary. Sedgwick challenges these definitions, rightly arguing that the term “sex” is a term that “extends indefinitely beyond chromosomal sex” (28). By defining sex only by chromosomes, the rest of the body remains undefined. Genital activity and reproduction are more closely linked to the biological aspects of sex than to the social constructs of gender, and therefore narrowing the definition of sex to chromosomal alignment alone challenges the supposedly simplistic definition. Sedgwick also criticizes these definitions through his nonce taxonomies, a set of other possible bases for sexuality. The list of nonce taxonomies includes several provisions of sex as an act in order to criticize the idea that sexuality is simply the distinction of which gender or sex is preferred. Nonce taxonomies “hold the unexplained potential to disrupt many forms of available thinking about sexuality” (25) by highlighting clear differences in thoughts and preferences regarding sex and sexuality within people of the same demographic. For example, “some people spend a lot of time thinking about sex, others not much” (25). This seemingly obvious and trivial fact could potentially be the basis of sexuality, rather than the characteristics of one's preferred partner. While sex exists as a biological, essential, and individually immanent concept, gender exists as the opposite: a culturally constructed theory that depends on the supposedly opposing characteristics of the male/female dichotomy. This dichotomy, although separate from the homosexual/heterosexual dichotomy of sexuality and the male/female dichotomy of sex, forms the basis of these other binary systems. Sedgwick is committed to the idea that “without a concept of gender there could be…no.