“Then discussion devolves into ways to figure out the answer to the root question, which doesn’t apply anymore because of more modern science.”

I meant that modern science can help us determine fertility in other ways, making the discussion of surgical methods moot. The question of fertility still applies.

This question will reveal my ignorance, but are you suggesting that a radical reevaluation of gender might reveal mitzvot we don’t yet have?

It seems to me the different halachic standards for males and females were based on (a) a patriarchal system and (b) whether people could reasonably be expected to fulfill any given mitzvah from a physical and practical perspective.

I’m going to say the patriarchal system category is moot — gender-role divisions are already dissolving in much of Judaism, with women taking on roles and practices that were traditionally reserved for men and with same-sex marriage gaining ground.

So what remains is the division based on what’s reasonable to expect.

From a cursory reading of the “Tumtum and Androgynous” paper you linked to, I think rabbis were trying to figure out if individuals were “really male” or “really female” in a fumbling attempt to decide which subset of obligations each individual could physically meet, since it would be unfair to require the impossible. It’s unfortunate that they felt the need to frame their thoughts in a gender dichotomy, but I’m not convinced that the goal was to divide people into two sharp categories.

For example, in the case of brit milah, the root question seems to be something like, “Is this person physically capable of having a brit?” Instead of directly answering that question, the answers go, “This person is more like a man; therefore, yes” and “This person is more like a woman; therefore, no.” The gender framing is dumb, but I think the conclusion would turn out the same.

And in the case of yibum and chalitza, the root question seems to be whether the person could father children. If so, the person is obligated; if not, that requirement would undermine the laws’ purpose. Then discussion devolves into ways to figure out the answer to the root question, which doesn’t apply anymore because of more modern science. My point, again, is that the categories seem to be “reasonable” and “unreasonable,” yet framed in an unnecessary “male” vs. “female” context.

So unless you’re proposing to find new mitzvot, which would be awesome, I don’t see why the solution couldn’t mainly involve going one step back to the root questions instead several steps back to the root source material. Please help me understand?