The Blork Test: Clarifying the Binary in the Essentialism vs. Constructivism Debate
In modern discussions around sex, gender, and identity, one of the most persistent philosophical debates is that of essentialism vs. constructivism. Essentialists argue that categories like male and female are biologically grounded and immutable. Constructivists argue that these categories are social inventions, shaped by context and culture. The debate often becomes muddled when variation in expression is interpreted as a flaw in the category itself. Enter: the Blork Analogy.
The Blork Analogy Imagine a fictional species called blorks. The color of a blork is binary: they are either black or white. In this population, 49.5% of blorks are entirely black, and 49.5% are entirely white. The remaining 1%? They are black and white. Importantly, no blork is grey. The color categories are still binary: only black and white exist. However, the expression of color among blorks is bimodal — most individuals cluster into one of two groups, but a small number display characteristics of both. There is no third color; the rare mixed-color blorks do not create a new category, but rather, they express the existing categories simultaneously.
Mapping the Analogy to Sex In humans, biological sex is typically defined by the type of gamete an individual is structured to produce: large (eggs) or small (sperm). This definition is binary: male or female. However, not every individual produces gametes (e.g., infertile people, prepubescent children, or those with certain intersex conditions). Furthermore, some individuals exhibit a mix of sex traits (e.g., external genitalia, hormones, chromosomes) that don’t align neatly with male or female norms. This creates a distribution of sex expression that is bimodal — like the blork population — but the underlying sex category remains binary.
Avoiding the Category Error This is where the blork analogy helps. Just as the existence of black-and-white blorks doesn’t negate the black/white binary, the existence of individuals with atypical sex traits doesn’t negate the male/female binary. A category error occurs when variation within expression is mistaken for evidence of new categories — when, in fact, it reflects variation within an existing framework.
Sex vs. Gender: Another Layer If sex is the tint of the blork, then gender is how the blork is presented, labeled, or socially understood. Some blorks might be painted a different color, fitted with filters, or relabeled entirely. This analogy allows for an expansive view of gender diversity without undermining the integrity of biological sex as a category.
Comparison to Famous Frameworks Wittgenstein’s Family Resemblance: Wittgenstein argued that some categories (like “games”) don’t share a single defining feature but instead show a web of overlapping similarities. This model helps explain fuzziness in categories but lacks a clear distinction between binary category definitions and variance in expression. The blork model keeps the binary intact while accounting for atypical cases.
The Sorites Paradox: This paradox asks when a heap of sand stops being a heap as grains are removed one by one. It questions vague thresholds, but doesn’t offer a mechanism for distinguishing categorical boundaries from modal variance. The blork model, by contrast, preserves strict binary categories while acknowledging expressive complexity.
Bimodal Distributions in Statistics: In biology and psychology, traits often cluster in two peaks (e.g., testosterone levels in men and women), reflecting bimodal distributions. These are useful in understanding variation within binary classes, but they’re not inherently intuitive to lay audiences. The blork analogy brings this concept into an accessible, visualizable metaphor.
Constructivist Frameworks of Gender: Constructivists often use metaphors like performance or spectrum to argue for fluidity in identity. These metaphors are powerful culturally but sometimes obscure the distinction between social construction and biological classification. The blork model complements this by allowing social complexity (e.g., paint or filters) while preserving clarity on the biological binary (e.g., tint).
Conclusion The blork analogy offers a powerful conceptual tool: it clarifies that a binary category can coexist with complex, bimodal expression. It doesn’t diminish the reality of those who exist at the margins, but it does help sharpen our logical tools when discussing categories like sex and gender.
The usual naive pro-trans argument goes like this: “some people are intersex, therefore sex is arbitrary, therefore it is okay for people to identify as whatever they want”.
But if we take sex and gender as two dimensions, then it’s like: “on the sex dimension, most people are at one end, but a few people are in between… and on the gender dimension, traditionally it matches the sex, but some people (importantly: not necessarily those who are in between on the sex dimension) identify as the opposite”.
I guess this would be considered an anti-trans argument these days, because it allows people to express positions such as “I am attracted to the female sex, regardless of gender”, or “I think bathrooms should be separated by sex (without having a strong opinion on intersex people)”.
I agree. Intersex people are like the 1% of blorks. If one of them was mostly white with only a little black and wanted to identify as a white blork, that is a completely different situation than a 100% black blork using that as a justification for being able to identify as a white blork as well.
The Blork Test: Clarifying the Binary in the Essentialism vs. Constructivism Debate
In modern discussions around sex, gender, and identity, one of the most persistent philosophical debates is that of essentialism vs. constructivism. Essentialists argue that categories like male and female are biologically grounded and immutable. Constructivists argue that these categories are social inventions, shaped by context and culture.
The debate often becomes muddled when variation in expression is interpreted as a flaw in the category itself. Enter: the Blork Analogy.
The Blork Analogy
Imagine a fictional species called blorks. The color of a blork is binary: they are either black or white. In this population, 49.5% of blorks are entirely black, and 49.5% are entirely white. The remaining 1%? They are black and white. Importantly, no blork is grey.
The color categories are still binary: only black and white exist. However, the expression of color among blorks is bimodal — most individuals cluster into one of two groups, but a small number display characteristics of both. There is no third color; the rare mixed-color blorks do not create a new category, but rather, they express the existing categories simultaneously.
Mapping the Analogy to Sex
In humans, biological sex is typically defined by the type of gamete an individual is structured to produce: large (eggs) or small (sperm). This definition is binary: male or female. However, not every individual produces gametes (e.g., infertile people, prepubescent children, or those with certain intersex conditions). Furthermore, some individuals exhibit a mix of sex traits (e.g., external genitalia, hormones, chromosomes) that don’t align neatly with male or female norms. This creates a distribution of sex expression that is bimodal — like the blork population — but the underlying sex category remains binary.
Avoiding the Category Error
This is where the blork analogy helps. Just as the existence of black-and-white blorks doesn’t negate the black/white binary, the existence of individuals with atypical sex traits doesn’t negate the male/female binary. A category error occurs when variation within expression is mistaken for evidence of new categories — when, in fact, it reflects variation within an existing framework.
Sex vs. Gender: Another Layer
If sex is the tint of the blork, then gender is how the blork is presented, labeled, or socially understood. Some blorks might be painted a different color, fitted with filters, or relabeled entirely. This analogy allows for an expansive view of gender diversity without undermining the integrity of biological sex as a category.
Comparison to Famous Frameworks
Wittgenstein’s Family Resemblance: Wittgenstein argued that some categories (like “games”) don’t share a single defining feature but instead show a web of overlapping similarities. This model helps explain fuzziness in categories but lacks a clear distinction between binary category definitions and variance in expression. The blork model keeps the binary intact while accounting for atypical cases.
The Sorites Paradox: This paradox asks when a heap of sand stops being a heap as grains are removed one by one. It questions vague thresholds, but doesn’t offer a mechanism for distinguishing categorical boundaries from modal variance. The blork model, by contrast, preserves strict binary categories while acknowledging expressive complexity.
Bimodal Distributions in Statistics: In biology and psychology, traits often cluster in two peaks (e.g., testosterone levels in men and women), reflecting bimodal distributions. These are useful in understanding variation within binary classes, but they’re not inherently intuitive to lay audiences. The blork analogy brings this concept into an accessible, visualizable metaphor.
Constructivist Frameworks of Gender: Constructivists often use metaphors like performance or spectrum to argue for fluidity in identity. These metaphors are powerful culturally but sometimes obscure the distinction between social construction and biological classification. The blork model complements this by allowing social complexity (e.g., paint or filters) while preserving clarity on the biological binary (e.g., tint).
Conclusion
The blork analogy offers a powerful conceptual tool: it clarifies that a binary category can coexist with complex, bimodal expression. It doesn’t diminish the reality of those who exist at the margins, but it does help sharpen our logical tools when discussing categories like sex and gender.
The usual naive pro-trans argument goes like this: “some people are intersex, therefore sex is arbitrary, therefore it is okay for people to identify as whatever they want”.
But if we take sex and gender as two dimensions, then it’s like: “on the sex dimension, most people are at one end, but a few people are in between… and on the gender dimension, traditionally it matches the sex, but some people (importantly: not necessarily those who are in between on the sex dimension) identify as the opposite”.
I guess this would be considered an anti-trans argument these days, because it allows people to express positions such as “I am attracted to the female sex, regardless of gender”, or “I think bathrooms should be separated by sex (without having a strong opinion on intersex people)”.
I agree. Intersex people are like the 1% of blorks. If one of them was mostly white with only a little black and wanted to identify as a white blork, that is a completely different situation than a 100% black blork using that as a justification for being able to identify as a white blork as well.