Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993). The Five Sexes. In The Sciences (pp. 20–25).

New York: New York Academy of

Sciences.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). The Five Sexes, Revisited. In The Sciences (pp. 18–23). New York: New York Academy
of Sciences.

In "The Five Sexes" and "The Five Sexes, Revisited," Fausto-Sterling argues that the traditional
sex categories, male and female, are inadequate. Explain Fausto- Sterling's reasoning, providing a
clear explanation as to why she maintains two sexes are not enough. Do you agree with Fausto-
Sterling's conclusion? If yes, expand on what you take to be the most compelling argument for why
we should expand traditional sex categories. If no, provide what you take to be the most compelling
criticism against Fausto-Sterling.

In Fausto-Sterling’s The Five Sexes and The Five Sexes, Revisited, she suggests that “sex is a
vast, infinitely malleable continuum that defies the constraints of even five categories” once explaining
the variability of hermaphroditism. (Fausto-Sterling, 1993, p. 21). A hermaphrodite is defined as having
both ovaries and testis and pseudohermaphrodites are defined as having a chromosomal makeup that does
not match the genitalia of their body. Under the category of pseudohermaphrodites, Fausto-Sterling
includes mermaphrodites, who have testis and some aspects of female genitalia and secondary sex
characteristics, but no ovaries, and fermaphrodites as having ovaries and some male genitalia and
secondary sex characteristics, but no testis. (Fausto-Sterling, 1993). The definitions alone suggest the
variability of the makeup of humans, regardless of whether they fit into the binary or not. Society today
heavily relies on sex categories to regulate the distribution of power and employment opportunities, as
they bring meaning to “being available for, or exempt from, draft registration, as well as being subject, in
various ways, to a number of laws governing marriage, the family and human intimacy.” (Fausto-Sterling,
1993, pp. 22-3). Fausto-Sterling’s most compelling argument is that the categories perpetuate inequality,
and the mere malicious intent behind the categories creates the necessity of revaluating them. Today’s
society is filled with judgement towards intersexuals and those who don’t fit the binary, but a
sophisticated analysis of being ‘different’ would achieve an all-inclusive society that does not
discriminate based on sexuality. The two-sex system fails to encompass the spectrum of human sexuality,
as today the boundaries separating male and female are becoming harder and harder to define because of
the variability between sex-phenotype and gender presentation. (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). Fausto-Sterling
does not want to abandon the already established sex categories, but instead expand the categories to be
more inclusive and accurate of biological diversity in humans. Societal constructs rely on sex-categories
to carve nature into a specific way, with descriptions of ‘real women’ and ‘real men,’ but it fails to
provide a clear definition for what it means to be either male or female. The patriarchal system keeps
power structures in place, and to change that would entail sharing power. Fausto-Sterling comments on
the societal gender-binary and it's gender expectations, “There are and will continue to be highly
masculine people out there; it’s just that some of them are women. And some of the most feminine people
I know happen to be men.” (Fausto-Sterling, 2000, p. 23). Not all cultures around the world are stuck in
the same binary that western societies are, western societies fail in recognizing the gender diversity that is
evident through science and gender-identification. Gender categories are not the objective truth, there are
more than two-sexes, but because society is so engrained in the binary, nobody questions the gender
norms. The dependency on sex-categories does not welcome an open-minded equal society. Any change
towards one would not be spontaneous, it would take time and necessitate the expansion of the categories
that dictate everyday life.