Across the phylogeny of Homo sapiens, the distribution of sex, orientation, and gender among individuals has probably never been in flux; apart from the increasing prevalence (and concomitant deleterious effects) of hormone-affecting environmental toxins, all has most likely been ever thus. However, the most recent times have seen a rise in controversy, and even hostility, among those of strong opinion regarding these features’ distribution among the members of our species. Although certain of these developments have served to increase the personal happiness of those individuals who, in particular, do not conform to so-called “traditional” sex, orientation, and gender categories, other recent developments have impinged on individuals’ psychological well-being, and have sown new forms of social, ideological, and political discord as well. These latter developments are a genuine disgrace. Let’s try to tease apart sex, orientation, and gender, and figure out how to replace ideological fervor with science, opinion with dispassionate objectivity. As we’ll see, the issue that is most troublesome is gender, in particular the unmotivated ideological certainties of those who either fully reject or fully embrace gender as a scientific reality.

Sex, orientation, gender

Employing a computer metaphor, we can think of biological sex as hardware, as a hard-wired, built-in physical attribute: male ([potential] sperm producers) and female ([potential] egg producers). For all intents and purposes, sex is binary; it is exceedingly rare for an individual to be born intersex (and such individuals are rarely fertile as either male or female, and never fertile as both male and female).

Orientation has two endpoints, heterosexual and homosexual, and is on a gradient though weighted scale. Orientation is bimodal in distribution—typically, one is either heterosexual or homosexual; most are heterosexual—though a reasonably-sized minority of people fall somewhere in-between, on the bisexual spectrum. Extending our computer metaphor, we can think of orientation as firmware, as a largely fixed systemic property that is not physically marked. On rare occasion, sexual orientation may vary over the course of a lifetime, but even in such cases, it is highly doubtful that this variation is a consequence of one’s intrinsic make-up, but rather, is a consequence of extrinsic factors, in particular, the process of “coming out”, which is not a change in orientation, but rather, is a psychological acceptance of one’s in-born homosexual or bisexual nature.

Gender, according to its recent usage, concerns whether a person feels like a man or a woman, or boy or girl, “on the inside”, and is heavily bimodal in its distribution, far more so than orientation. We might think of gender as software. Unlike sex and orientation, there are, as of this writing, no empirically verifiable (physical, behavioral) markers of gender. Rather, one's gender is based on self-report, and is often (though by no means exclusively) outwardly suggested by superficial trappings, for example, culturally-normative male or female clothing and body decorations, physical changes brought on by hormone treatments, and sometimes elective plastic surgery. Such socially-directed markers may serve to encode and signal aspects of the inner identity of individuals, that is, whether they feel they are men or women (or boys or girls) “on the inside”. For these people, the more-accurate term “transgender” has come to largely replace the scientifically inaccurate term “trans-sexual” (since one cannot change his or her sex), though some still prefer the latter. Some individuals report that their gender is changeable—for some, binarily; for others, gradiently.

These three variables—sex, orientation, gender—are differently correlated. Sex and gender are extremely highly correlated: almost all males are men, and almost all females are women, though a very small minority of males may be women, and a very small minority of females may be men. A still smaller number identify along the gradient. Sex and orientation are quite highly correlated: most males and most females are heterosexual, though a sizable minority of males and females are homosexual, or bisexual. Orientation and gender are poorly correlated: homosexuals and heterosexuals identify as the “other” gender (or a gradient thereof) at more or less comparable levels (that is, extremely rarely), though transgenders may be slightly more likely to be homosexual, or expand their orientation as a consequence of hormone treatments.

The notion of Gender is currently the source of some confusion. In the history of English, for example, the word “gender” was originally (and still is) used in the domain of linguistics. Many languages have markers that divide their nouns into different categories, sometimes based on semantic properties of the object, but oftentimes not. While many languages have a profusion of genders (for example, the Bantu languages of Central and Southern Africa; the Sinitic languages of East Asia), many others have only three, or even two (and some may have none). Many two-gendered languages are divided along “animate” and “inanimate’; such gender systems clearly wed gender to semantics. Others use the terms “masculine” and “feminine” (sometimes, also, a third, "neuter"), although assignation to one or another category is usually semantically arbitrary: there is, typically, no inherent property of an object or concept that determines whether it is linguistically masculine or feminine (or neuter) gender. Rather, the terms “masculine” and “feminine” here are just arbitrary markers, and bear little or no relation to men or women, males or females.

In English, grammatical gender is only present in the pronoun system (along with a small set of inanimate noun classes; for example, transportation vehicles often take the feminine), and it is here, in both English and certain other languages with (often more pervasive) masculine-feminine gender systems, that there is currently confusion, disagreement, and even some utterly distasteful hostility. As the word “sex” became ambiguous between denoting the male-female distinction and, later, the procreative/recreational activity, it has fallen out of favor in some circles when referring to the former, and the word “gender” stepped in to replace it, “sex” being used primarily for (sexual) activity itself. Most recently though, the term “gender” has been cleaved from the male-female system and deployed for a new one, that of how one feels “on the inside”—as a man (boy) or as a woman (girl)—ostensibly independent of sex. This new usage, in a state of linguistic flux, is now somewhat controversial psychologically, socially, politically, and yes, scientifically. But despite its scientifically unsettled status, there is little reason for controversy elsewhere.

Toilets, sports, pronouns

All people, of course, should be free to feel, and to express themselves, however they see fit, provided their expression does not infringe upon the legal protections (free expression, physical safety, etc.) of others. But feelings should never be considered when establishing law or policy. (Still, the humane among us nonetheless exercise the right to hurt feelings with judiciousness, of course.) With respect to the issues under discussion, there are only a few areas in which clear thinking apparently (and unfortunately) requires some explication, fully independent of anyone's feelings.

Regarding toilets, there is a ready solution to any problem arising from the inclusion of gender as a distinct category that divides people. Each public toilet should be for anyone, and completely individual and private. They can be marked “toilet(s)”. Current sex-differentiated multi-stall public toilets can be easily retrofitted in this fashion, with their outside doors removed, their stall doors better secured for privacy, and ideally, a sink in every stall. Stalls that also have urinals should be clearly marked, and all users should exit their stall with the toilet lid closed (the far healthier, more hygienic, and more ergonomically-designed squat toilet has the further benefit of lacking a lid altogether). Signs like “men’s restroom”, “women’s restroom”, and, currently in vogue in some ideological circles, the wholly gratuitous “all gender restroom” for single-stall toilets, can be dumped for good.

Regarding sports, prepubescent “boys'” and “girls'” competitions can remain as is: if a prepubescent male decides to live as a girl, or if a prepubescent female decides to live as a boy, these individuals should be treated as such in childhood sports; the binary is one of gender, not sex. If, once puberty is reached, hormone treatments effecting changes in gender expression are taken, then sex, rather than gender, should be the determining factor: “male” and “female”, rather than gender categories “men” and “women”; the binary is one of sex, not gender. It must also be emphasized that, while allowing adult females in a men's locker room would have little effect on the adult males themselves, allowing adult males in a women's locker room is extremely threatening to women. The misogyny of such a blatant double-standard should be self-evident.

Regarding pronouns, languages' pronoun systems—unlike their noun, verb, and adjective inventories—are extremely resistant to change. In English for example, singular gendered pronouns will, in all likelihood, remain in place for individuals: “he/him/his” and “she/her/hers” ("it/it/its" for neuter); plural pronouns ("they/them/their") will likely be reserved for referring to more than one person. Although some individuals want others to refer to them with “they/them/their”, these individuals have not replaced "I/me/my" with "we/us/our" when referring to themselves—an obvious first step—and so, their expecting others to change their usage without their first changing their own is suggestive of the stubbornness of linguistic inertia. But most fundamentally, this probably won’t happen regardless, because a gender designation marked by a number designation is quite likely unprecedented by nature, and is certainly unprecedented by diktat. No one dictates how language changes; language change is passive and natural. This is not a statement of policy; it is a statement of fact. Since attempts to change the pronoun system will probably fail, then perhaps, in those (typically, secularized and technologized) societies where "masculine"-"feminine" gender nomenclature has become contentious for some, new gender labels can be suggested, say, “Class A” and “Class 1". (Though even these terms will ultimately become loaded and contested; language may change, but prejudice remains).

(Singular “they/them/their” has, over the centuries, crept into use in some contexts. For example, “Someone forgot their keys” may be encountered when (1) the sex and gender of the person is unknown [as when reporting this information to a clerk], and even (2) when the sex [and, presumably, gender] of the person is known [as when teasing or scolding the friend who returns to fetch them]. This second usage is probably a consequence of analogy with the first. But in neither case is the plural [used to mark number] deployed as a mark of gender. Moreover, using plural pronouns with the plural form of “to be” [“we are”; “they are”] to denote a single person is ambiguous and confusing: languages abhor ambiguity and passively evolve such that it is minimized. One might imagine that those who prefer to refer themselves with plural forms could employ the singular form of “to be” [“we am” etc.]. Though this would serve a disambiguating function, it will never take hold, of course.)

As noted, the distribution within our species of the categories sex, orientation, and gender has probably been fixed in the past, and will probably remain fixed into our future (again, apart from the increasing prevalence and deleterious effects of hormone-affecting environmental toxins). The transient nature of this triangle thus derives from how we, in our human societies, choose to face the scientific reality of their distributional stability; ignorance and partisan hostility inevitably thrive when ideologues insert themselves into the domain of scientific inquiry. As I foresee no change in this destructive trend—history, alas, teaches us well—the title of this brief essay is thus less optimistic than it is wishful thinking. Of course, it would be a better world if all people were happy simply by being who they are, regardless of their sex, orientation, or gender, without their feeling the need to force-fit themselves into any society's, or anyone's notions of acceptability except their own, and especially, without their feeling the need for hormone treatments or plastic surgery to modify their natural constitutions. But medicine and technology now afford us these possibilities, and some adults may suspect their personal happiness would increase upon undergoing such procedures. However tentative and imperfect such developments may be, that's progress.