a lot of people would protest. There are of course more than two colors. For example “red, green, blue” are already three. Okay so maybe the statement was an exaggeration. How about “only 5 colors” (Red, Yellow, Green, Blue, Violet)? Some people might start to agree with that statement. Other people might list a few more. At some point words for more colors will run out. Yet some people would still disagree with the statement: “there are only x colors”. Even though we only have a finite number of words for them.
Why? because colors are wavelengths on the electromagnetic spectrum, therefore an infinite number of colors exist. We do not have an infinite amount of words for colors though. So how can we talk about colors, if we do not even have words to describe most of them? We are a bit fuzzy about it. “Red” is not one particular wavelength but rather a range. But not a range with clearly defined edges. More of a “redness” distribution over the wavelength were wavelengths farther away from a “red” core are “less red” than wavelengths closer to this “ideal red”.
So are (words for) colors really a finite set of fuzzy intervals on the electromagnetic spectrum? No, we still have not captured the full complexity of the topic. As our eyes only have three light receptors, we can not actually see every wavelength. Instead we infer the correct wavelength from all three receptors. Which means we can cheat them with only three lights - computer monitors (This is not Yellow).
Okay but now we captured all the complexity, right? No. Our brains also try to correct for lighting, which is how the internet debate in 2015 whether a dress was #whiteandgold or #blackandblue came to be (The dress).
Color is subjective and objective
At this point no one would argue that our usage of color names is really objective. There are so many tricks of the human perception in the chain that colors could very well be called subjective. Yet few would take someone seriously who calls their blue shirt green if no one else sees it that way. People with colors between blue and green might get away with defining their shirts color. But if their shirt looks “obviously blue” you will have a hard time convincing people to call it green.
Our perception is similar enough, that we treat colors as something objective even though it arguably is not. I would go so far as to claim, that you would be disregarded as an unhelpful pedant if you called a mix of red/green which appears as yellow on a screen “red-green” instead of “yellow”. The real question is: is that a bad thing?
My answer would be that it depends on context. If you are not in the context of physics or light engineering, insisting on more objective description of color is probably anything but helpful. And our “subjective” take on “objective colors” works, as human perception is similar enough to be a good basis for communication.
Colors in the way we use them, are not meant to describe an objective reality but rather an experience. But in order to communicate our experience to someone else, we need to use words in the same way. So you can not simply redefine colors for yourself. Because at that point no one knows what is meant by those words anymore without a lengthy definition process beforehand. This is the reason we might be annoyed at people trying to redefine the color of their shirt. It makes the communication of our experience to someone else more cumbersome.
Applying the analogy
I would guess that this notion of “sure, it is not really objective, but it is pretty clear what is mean by that” is the reason why some people claim
There are only two sexes. Sure XX and XY are not the only chromosome pairs that exist in the world, and sure we do not really care about the underlying chromosomes (wavelengths) but rather the appearance of people (perceived colors). But we still insist on this subjective/objective mess of only two sexes (a finite set of subjective but very objective colors) because that simplifies the communication of experiences. So we ridicule you for trying to redefine your apparent sex (apparent shirt color)
And I sympathize with this notion to some degree. Although I want to stop before the the last sentence - I would rather change my vocabulary if someone insists, than to actively hurt someone’s feelings for no reason, even if I think it is a bit silly.
And when it is not immediately obvious (a shirt between blue and green) the person would be asked to define the “correct” color (sex) anyway.
The Sex and Gender distinction
The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person’s sex (the anatomy of an individual’s reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from that person’s gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one’s own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). - Wikipedia
As we can see from this definition, the line between sex and gender is not between chromosomes and outward appearance, but between (chromosomes and outward appearance - sex) and (behavior and roles - gender).
Trying to translate this back into our analogy, “colorgender” would be something like:
- cold, bland, work - grey
- warm, love, warning - red
- etc.
Now is there a need for the word “colorgender”? Well I don’t really have any uses for it. So I do not think that such a distinction between color and colorgender needs to exist. And since this word does in fact not exist, most people seem to agree with me. And I feel similarly about sex and gender. Especially since a list of genders is basically just a list of boxes to put people into. No wonder that people make up new boxes all the time!
In that sense genders only really help to reinforce these stereotypes/boxes. So I do not really see a good reason to make this distinction. Which is not made ex ante anyway:
In ordinary speech, sex and gender are often used interchangeably. - Wikipedia
And languages like German do not even have two different words to make the distinction.
Spanning the arch to Pronouns
The reason people are clashing so bad over pronouns is that they operate with a very different set of assumptions.
In one camp you have people using Gender and Sex interchangeably and using this “subjective/objective” binary classification. From this set of assumptions it seems quite obvious that there only need to be two pronouns - maybe a third, neutral one. From this perspective introducing new pronouns seems absolutely superfluous and only serves to complicate communication.
In the other camp you have people who make a Sex and Gender distinction, where Gender represents boxes of stereotypes. As pronouns are associated with genders, from this perspective the unwillingness to allow for more than two pronouns represents the unwillingness to let people out of theses boxes (gender roles).
In some sense it is quite ironic: “progressives” created boxes with the term “gender” (roles/identity) and blame “conservatives” for being intolerant due to their unwillingness to roll with new boxes (new genders) which are a way for people to escape their previously created boxes.
It is definitely up there in the list of unnecessary controversies.