it's easy to feel like a failure

I just finished a Psychology of Women class that attempted to interrogate the naturalization of "sex" and "body." I came out feeling confused--is it my teaching method that allow too much ambiguity or is the content itself is just so contested? My argument was simple--that sex is often used to end all conversations into biological determinism, but sex is in fact as social as the now acceptable understanding of gender as a social category. Not that it is not material--but the meanings of our physiology and biology were not "naturally produced" but were assigned by us--even genes or chromosomes, they are social things that interact with the environment and are much more complicated than indicators of "male" or "female."  We read narratives on intersexed experiences to think about the consequences of compulsory biological binary. I think the students got it. But we are still struggle through--as one student asked at the end of the class asked: "so do you think genitals determine our gender or hormones?" "do you think intersexed people should just go into the world confused about their gender?" Many students responded and argue against it. But it's easy to feel like a failure, like nothing you said was communicated across the table. I am trying to think I am not the one who is "providing" the content of knowledge, but really, to pass on critical analytical tools to the students. It is always not about what "the issue" is--that whether the differences between "men" and "women" are a result of nature or nurture--but why we are asking this question? Why we have such compulsion to rectify the category of gender as if it is true, and the only truth? It is indeed a political position we are taking we are asking such question--as the ones with legitimate science and statistics were the architects of our social experiences. Okay I need a drink.