@religion-is-a-mental-illness / religion-is-a-mental-illness.tumblr.com
So... now sex and gender are the same?
🤔
This person is literally asking for 23andme to lie for someone's comfort. In which case, why do 23andme at all? Just declare yourself the descendant - hell, the reincarnation - of Cleopatra or Ceasar or Joan of Ark or Alexandar the Great and be done with it.
🤦♂️🤦♀️
Reality has an anti-woke bias.
By: Colin Wright
Published: Feb 8, 2024
Biology is under siege from activists trying to undermine our long-established, universal understanding of what constitutes male and female organisms. These are not merely cloistered academic debates; this ideologically motivated pseudoscience is having a profound impact on society. It affects the existence of female-only spaces such as bathrooms, dressing rooms, rape shelters, and jails/prisons, as well as the safety and fairness of female-only sports leagues and events. It also shapes the debate over “gender-affirming care,” which seeks to alter the bodies of sex-nonconforming children so that their physical features align with their self-proclaimed “gender identity.”
Biological science, however, is firmly on the side of the sex realists. The setbacks this side has experienced in recent years owe not to the weakness of its arguments but to the climate of fear pervading academia, which silences dissent. Those who challenge gender ideology’s prevailing narrative—namely, that biological sex is a social construct or exists on a spectrum—are often targeted, harassed, and publicly branded as “transphobic” bigots. Proponents of gender ideology understand that the biggest threat to their movement is open and honest debate. This is why, for the past five years, I have dedicated myself to educating the public on this topic, and openly engaging with gender ideologues whenever possible.
Last month, such an opportunity presented itself. Ian Copeland, who describes himself as a “Ph.D.-level geneticist,” though he has not published any peer-reviewed scientific work, announced that he would host an event on X Spaces to defend the view that “sex is not binary.” Copeland made this announcement after posting various misleading statements about sex biology on X. For instance, he asserted that “Sex (like all traits) is not binary” and that “All traits are on a spectrum.” He seemed to think that a BBC Earth article discussing the sex-changing abilities of a species of fish, the Asian sheepshead wrasse (Semicossyphus reticulatus), supported his claims. He also stated that “sex is a genotype classification,” arguing that the existence of sex chromosome aneuploidies (atypical combinations of sex chromosomes other than XX and XY) proves the nonbinary nature of biological sex.
The X Spaces event, titled “Bring the Facts: Sex Is Not Binary, Sorry to Burst Your Bubble . . . ,” was scheduled for January 19 at 3:45 p.m. I joined the moment that it opened to request a speaking slot, ensuring I was not far back in the queue. My promptness paid off: I was the first to address Copeland’s deep misunderstandings about the biology of sex.
My primary goal in public debates like these is not necessarily to convince my opponents of their error, though such an outcome would be welcome. Rather, my aim is to demonstrate to the audience what honest truth-seeking sounds like by presenting my arguments as honestly, clearly, and calmly as possible. I believe that observing the stark contrast between a genuine academic and a radical activist can be a powerful means of persuading the openminded.
I began the debate by explaining the biological perspective on why “sex is binary,” and what this phrase signifies. In essence, “sex is binary” refers to there being only two sexes, which are defined by the type of gamete an organism has the function to produce. Males have the function of producing sperm, and females, ova. Sex ambiguity (that is, “intersex” conditions) does not constitute a third sex, as these conditions do not lead to the production of a third type of gamete.
Copeland did not dispute any of this. Yet he insisted that “genetic sex” is not binary, citing the existence of other sex chromosome compositions beyond XX (female) and XY (male), such as X0 (Turner syndrome), XXX (Triple X syndrome), XXY (Klinefelter syndrome), XYY (Jakobs syndrome), and so on. He claimed that if an organism’s “genetic sex” is defined by their sex-chromosome composition, then there must be more than two sexes.
This argument, seemingly logical on its face, stems from a common yet fundamental misunderstanding of what sex is and what geneticists mean by “genetic sex.”
Put plainly, “genetic sex” is a misnomer. While the term is frequently used in medical and scientific papers, government health websites, medical centers, and even by popular human-ancestry companies like 23andMe, “genetic sex” is not a distinct type of sex at all; it is a convenient term or shorthand to denote that a person or cell contains the sex chromosomes that typically cause a male or female to develop. For a geneticist, knowing this about a cell or cell culture might be useful if he is investigating sex differences or wants to control for cellular sex differences as a potential confound in an experiment. Medical professionals often describe sex in multifaceted terms because examining a person’s chromosomes, hormones, genitals, and gonads, and their alignment, aids in diagnosing potential issues along this biological chain. For example, if you’re a male suddenly stricken with abnormally low testosterone, this may be indicative of hypothalamic or pituitary abnormalities, or even testicular cancer. Conversely, abnormally high testosterone in females may by indicative of ovarian cysts. The use of terms like “genetic sex,” “hormonal sex,” and “genital sex,” is driven by practicality, not because they represent legitimate, separate types of sex.
“Genetic sex” is not an alternative type of sex. “Sex” refers only to the type of gamete an organism has the function to produce. This becomes obvious when we look at other animals, such as turtles, that do not use chromosomes to guide their sex development. The sex of green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) is determined by temperature. Eggs incubated below 27.7°C develop into males, and eggs incubated above 31°C develop into females.
Discussing humans as having a “genetic sex” that’s equivalent to their sex based on gametes is as illogical as referring to turtles as having a “temperature sex” distinct from their actual sex. We may use terms like “male temperatures” for those under 28°C and “female temperatures” for those over 31°C as shorthand for “temperatures that typically lead to male or female development,” but there’s nothing inherently “male” or “female” about these temperatures. A turtle’s sex is ultimately defined by the gamete it has the function to produce, not the temperature of its early days in the egg. For instance, if a female turtle popped out of an incubator set below 28°C, we wouldn’t say that she has a female “gametic sex” and a male “temperature sex.” She would simply be female, and the researchers would likely be intrigued to learn how she developed at a temperature typically associated with male development.
In a similar vein is the Blue Groper (Achoerodus viridis), a fish species characterized by blue males and brown females. In the field, it may be useful for researchers to use color as a quick and accurate proxy when recording a fish’s sex. But it would be incorrect to claim that Blue Gropers have a “color sex,” as there is nothing inherently “male” about being blue or “female” about being brown. Being male or female causes color dimorphism in Blue Gropers, not the other way around.
Chromosomes in humans and color in fish can serve as operational definitions of sex, but they are neither the essence of sex nor an alternative type of sex. The association of Y chromosomes with human males and the link between color and sex in Blue Gropers are known precisely because sex is a trait distinct from chromosomes or color.
The philosopher of science Paul E. Griffiths makes the same point in a 2021 paper titled “What Are Biological Sexes?”
Biologists know which chromosome pairs are “male” or “female” because they know which animals are male or female, using the gametic definition. . . . The same problem defeats any attempt to define sex in terms of phenotypic characters. . . . Something gets to be a “male” or “female” characteristic in a particular species because it is common in males or females in that species: sexual characteristics are defined by sexes, not the other way around. Like chromosomal definitions of sex, phenotypic definitions are not really “definitions”—they are operational criteria for sex determination underpinned by the gametic definition of sex and valid only for one species or group of species.
This is the fundamental point that Copeland and many others who use the term “genetic sex” fail to grasp. “Genetic sex” is nonsensical because it requires the primacy of the gametic definition of sex.
Despite my efforts to guide Copeland through this logical reasoning, he ultimately refused to acknowledge it. His only defense was that certain medical bodies use the term “genetic sex,” so it must be legitimate. However, this is simply an argument from authority. Furthermore, the popularity of a term is irrelevant to the truth. My reference to Griffiths above is not to counter Copeland’s authority with another authority; that’s not how science operates. Anyone can find a peer-reviewed scientific paper, or a Ph.D. holder, to support his desired beliefs. Instead, we must make arguments and cite sources rooted in evidence and that make the most logical sense.
The prevalence of the term “genetic sex” among scientists, medical organizations, and in genetics textbooks does not establish its validity as a type of sex on par with the gametic definition. I hope this helps put the “genetic sex” myth to rest.
By: Zach Elliott
Published: Jun 9, 2023
Few people could have predicted that contemporary society would become embroiled in polarizing debates over basic biological concepts concerning sex. Are males and females real and natural categories, or are they social constructs? If sexes are real, do they conform to a binary or a spectrum? Somehow such inquiries have recently ignited fierce controversies, abruptly ending an age-old consensus. While these debates are almost entirely a result of new fashionable ideologies rooted in Queer Theory, a discipline that views categorization as inherently oppressive, confusion about the science of sex is not entirely relegated to one side of the political divide.
One of the most persistent and widespread misunderstanding of biological sex, especially among those rightfully striving to uphold the distinction between males and females as discrete categories, is the oversimplified belief that XX chromosomes unequivocally denote a female, and XY chromosomes is what it means to be male. The End. No ifs or buts.
This exact viewpoint was recently put forth in an article titled “Let’s talk about sex – accurately” by a retired medical professional who goes by the pseudonym “La Scapigliata” on Twitter. Despite the title of her article, she inaccurately posits the perplexing notion that individuals with complete female reproductive systems must be deemed male should they happen to possess a Y chromosome, and conversely, that individuals with complete male reproductive systems must be considered female should they happen to lack a Y chromosome.
While it is commendable that La Scapigliata recognizes the real harm in gender activists’ attempts to strip sex of all tangible meaning, it is crucial that the biological facts be correctly represented.
* * *
All biological systems have structure and function.¹ Eyes are specialized tissues that produce sight. Hearts are specialized tissues that pump blood. And the nervous system is a complex network of specialized cells that send and receive signals throughout the body. The same applies to the male and female sexes, which also have specific structures and a specific function. The male sex is the reproductive anatomy that produces sperm, and the female sex is the reproductive anatomy that produces eggs.² The development of all these systems is determined by genetics.
In embryonic development, genes orchestrate the progression of these systems towards their specific functions; this process extends to sexual development. For most mammals, the presence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome governs male development.³ The SRY gene triggers a cascade of genetic events that differentiates the gonads into testes, the factories for sperm production. From there, the male internal and external genital systems develop. Therefore, barring genetic mutations, if an embryo is conceived with a Y chromosome, it develops as a male; no Y chromosome, it develops as a female.⁴
When it comes to defining sex, many people on all sides of the sex and gender debate mistakenly conflate chromosomes with sex. Some use chromosomes to argue that sex is not binary, and others use chromosomes to argue that sex is binary. But using chromosomes to argue either case results in absurd conclusions.
For example, some argue that sex is not binary because there are atypical sex chromosome combinations beyond XX and XY. They label people with atypical combinations like X, XXY, XYY, or XXX as neither male nor female. This argument, however, ignores the fact that despite these chromosomal irregularities, embryos still develop distinctly male or female systems built around either sperm or egg production. Here, an overemphasis on chromosomes obscures the primacy of structure and function.
On the other hand, others argue that sex IS binary because all embryos with a Y chromosome are male, and all embryos without a Y chromosome are female, no exceptions. In doing so, they mislabel individuals with certain genetic disorders, assigning them a sex contradictory to their clear physical development. This too is incorrect because embryos with fully developed male systems are labeled as female, and embryos with fully developed female systems are labeled as male. Like the first argument, this view also erroneously places chromosomes as the sole determiner, neglecting structure and function.
There are two primary reasons why the chromosomal definition of sex is flawed, which I will outline below.
First, many species do not have the X-Y chromosomal system, and yet males and females are still produced. Across the plant and animal kingdom, nature has evolved many mechanisms for developing individual organisms into males or females.⁵
For instance, birds use Z and W chromosomes, where the females develop with ZW and the males develop with ZZ.⁶ Reptiles, however, don’t have sex chromosomes and rely instead on environmental factors such as temperature for sex determination. A specific temperature range triggers male development, whereas a different range promotes female development.⁷
Evolution continues to refine these mechanisms, offering fascinating examples like the two species of rat that have lost their Y chromosome entirely. In these species, sex determination hinges on the dosage of a single gene, which directs embryonic development down either the male or female path.⁸
This diversity in sex determination mechanisms illuminates a key understanding: sex is not defined by chromosomes or the temperatures at which they develop. Instead, it is distinguished by the anatomical capacity to produce either sperm or eggs.
Second, genetic disorders can result in a sex opposite of what one would expect from the chromosomes. Three case studies help illustrate this fact:
1. XX male syndrome: This condition, occurring in 1 out of 20,000 births, produces males with XX chromosomes. It arises due to the translocation of the SRY gene (a male sex-determining region located on the Y chromosome) onto an X chromosome during cell division in the father's reproductive cells. The fetus, as a result, is conceived with an XX [SRY] chromosomal composition. The presence of SRY initiates a cascade of gene activation that prompts male development: the differentiation of gonads into testes followed by the formation of male internal and external genitalia.⁹
Despite their inability to produce mature sperm—a function that requires the AZF region from the Y chromosome—XX males are classified as male because they develop the phenotype associated with sperm production, a trait determined genetically. LaScap, however, argues that these unambiguous males must be considered females solely because of the absence of the Y chromosome. This ignores anatomy, physiology, and even genetics.
2. XXY SRY-negative female: This case involves a woman with XXY chromosomes who developed a complete female reproductive system, ovulated, gestated, and gave birth.¹⁰ At conception, the lack of an SRY gene on the Y chromosome and the presence of two X chromosomes allowed genes like WNT4 and RSPO1 to differentiate the gonads into ovaries.¹¹ The lack of testes and the subsequent lack of anti-Mullerian hormone and testicular testosterone then allowed for full development of female internal and external genitalia (oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina, and vulva).
This woman is female, despite the presence of the Y chromosome, because she developed the phenotype that produces large gametes (determined by genetics). LaScap acknowledges this person has a “complete female phenotype” who is also “fertile as a female,” yet refers to her as a “biological male.”¹² This is a clear contradiction in terms.
3. XY CBX2 negative female: This case involves a girl with a normal female reproductive system (ovaries, Fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and vagina). Her case is unique in the medical literature because she has XY chromosomes with no mosaicism and an SRY gene! But why didn’t she develop as a male?
Clinicians discovered she was missing a gene known as CBX2, which suppresses ovarian development and helps SRY do its job.¹³ A mutation in this gene during the XY zygote stage incapacitates SRY, allowing for the development of ovaries instead of testes, and the formation of a female reproductive system: Fallopian tubes, cervix, uterus, and vagina. Despite the presence of a Y chromosome with an SRY gene, this girl is classified as female because she developed the phenotype associated with egg production, as determined genetically. This intriguing genetic phenomenon has been replicated in mouse studies.
As we can see from the cases above, claiming that Y = male and no Y = female, without exceptions, creates a host of logical absurdities. Consider this: if we categorize an XX male as female solely based on the absence of a Y chromosome, it would imply that some females possess testes, Wolffian structures, and a penis. If we define the pregnant XXY female or the XY female as males purely by the presence of the Y chromosome, one must conclude that some males can have ovaries, a uterus, cervix, vagina, and a vulva, produce eggs, and bear children.
In both scenarios, the reliance on chromosomes as the sole determinant of sex, ignoring the genetically determined phenotype related to gamete type, leads to illogical and contradictory conclusions. After all, how can a male develop a full female reproductive system and produce eggs? Likewise, how could a female develop a full male reproductive system and produce sperm? This is as paradoxical as saying that a piece of gold is iron and vice versa. However, gold is never iron and iron is never gold. Likewise, males can never produce eggs and give birth, and females can never produce sperm and impregnate. These reproductive capabilities are distinctly separate and exclusive to each sex.
* * *
The claim that chromosomes solely define biological sex is both misleading and has large and wide-ranging implications.
Activists who argue that males can be females and females can be males would love to use this reasoning to deconstruct the definition of sex for sociopolitical ends. Moreover, individuals with atypical development might find themselves inaccurately categorized: individuals with fully developed male bodies could be placed in female spaces and vice versa. This potential misclassification could profoundly affect medical treatment. For instance, a person with a fully developed female reproductive system might be inappropriately treated as a male by medical professionals, and the reverse could also occur. Such an oversimplified view, which reduces one’s sex to the mere presence or absence of a Y chromosome and ignores their structure and function, can cause critical sex-based differences in anatomy and physiology, determined by genetics, to be overlooked.
Because of this, it’s best we maintain the distinction between chromosomes and sex. Males and females are not defined as the presence or absence of the Y chromosome. Like all other biological systems, the sexes are defined by their structure and function: the reproductive anatomy that produces sperm or eggs.
--
References 1. Michael, J. (2021). What do we mean when we talk about “structure/function” relationships? Adv Physiol Educ, 45, 880-885. 2. Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. (2014). Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of two sexes. Molecular Human Reproduction, 20(12). 3. Kashimada, K., Koopman, P. (2010). Sry, the master switch in mammalian sex determination. Development, 137. 4. Rey, R., Josso, N., Racine, C. (2020). Sexual differentiation. In: Endotext. South Dartmouth, MDText, Inc. 5. Bachtrog, D., Mank, J.E., Peichel, C.L., Kirkpatrick, M., Otto, S.P., Ashman, T.L., et al. (2014). Sex determination: Why so many ways of doing it? PLoS Biol, 12(7). 6. Ioannidis, J., et al. (2021). Primary sex determination in birds depends on DMRT1 dosage, but gonadal sex does not determine adult secondary sex characteristics. PNAS, 118(10). 7. Cornejo-Paramo, P., et al. (2020). Sex determination systems in reptiles are related to ambient temperature but not to the level of climatic fluctuation. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 20(103). 8. Kuroiwa. A., Handa, S., Nishiyama, C. et al. (2011). Additional copies of CBX2 in the genomes of males of mammals lacking SRY, the Amami spiny rat (Tokudaia osimensis) and the Tokunoshima spiny rat (Tokudaia tokunoshimensis). Chromosome Res, 19, 635–644. 9. Adrião, M., et al. (2020). 46:XX male disorder of sexual development. Clinical Pediatric Endocrinology, 29(1), 43-45. 10. Hu, L., et al. (2019). A 47,XXY pregnant woman without the SRY gene. Sex Development, 13, 83-86. 11. Biason-Lauber, A. (2012). WNT4, RSPO1, and FOXL2 in sex development. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 30(5). 12. https://twitter.com/lascapigliata8/status/1660365150891778048 13. Biason-Lauber, A., et al. (2009). Ovaries and female phenotype in a girl with 46,XY karyotype and mutations in the CBX2 gene. Am J Human Gen, 84, 658-663.
==
Flat Earthers make more sense than these people.
The entire notion of chromosomes defining sex is absurd.
We knew what sex was for hundreds of thousands of years before we even figured out chromosomes existed. The human species would not have survived if we had not.
Which is also why they can't answer the question: what is it that makes XX female and XY male? How do you know the XXs are the females and the XYs are the males? The answer is straightforward: you already have to know what female and male are in order to figure out that XX and XY chromosomes (normally) map onto them.
The only reason we can detect DSDs and intersex conditions at all is because we already know what sex is.
By: Colin Wright
Published: Dec 8, 2020
In discussions about intersex conditions it is common to hear the claim that intersex people make up 1-2 percent of the population and is therefore “as common as red hair.” There appear to be two main goals when forwarding this claim—one laudable, the other insidious. The laudable goal is to normalize the existence of intersex people and thereby help facilitate the societal acceptance of a marginalized community who may experience social ostracism and who have often been victims of medically unnecessary “corrective” cosmetic surgeries as infants. The insidious goal is to plant seeds of doubt in our collective understanding of biological sex and suggest that the categories “male” and “female” may be social constructs or exist on a “spectrum.”
This “intersex is as common as red hair” claim is frequently voiced by leading human rights and LGBTQ+ organizations, Left-wing activists, popular online magazines, and even scientists.
“According to experts, around 1.7% of the population is born with intersex traits - comparable to the number of people born with red hair.” — Amnesty International
“Worldwide, up to 1.7% of people have intersex traits, roughly the same proportion of the population who have red hair.” — The Guardian
“An estimated 98-99 percent of humans are either blond or brunette. Despite this, we have accepted—rather than denying, hiding, or attempting to eliminate—the existence of redheads, who, interestingly, make up the same percentage of the population as intersex people (1-2 percent).” — Hida Viloria and Dr. Maria Nieto in The Spectrum of Sex: The Science of Male, Female, and Intersex (page 24)
Where does this 1.7 percent figure originate?
This statistic was first forwarded by Anne Fausto-Sterling, professor of biology and gender studies at Brown University, in her book “Sexing The Body: Gender Politics And The Construction Of Sexuality”, published in February of 2000, and shortly after in a review paper published a month later in the American Journal of Human Biology titled “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We?” In this review, Fausto-Sterling and her coauthors set out to refute the purported claim that sexual anatomy in humans is “absolutely dimorphic”, i.e. that all humans are either unambiguously male or female in all sex-related traits. They broadly define an intersex person as “an individual who deviates from the Platonic ideal of physical dimorphism at the chromosomal, genital, gonadal, or hormonal levels.”
To arrive at their 1.7% figure, they asked how frequently humans deviate from this Platonic ideal. In the review, their “ideal male” is defined as someone with XY chromosomes, functional testes located in the scrotal sac, a penis between 2.5 and 4.5 cm at birth, and a completely enclosed urethra that opens at the tip. The ideal male must also have testes that produce Mullerian inhibiting factor as well as testosterone and dihydrotestosterone, and juvenile testicular activity must result in a typical masculinizing puberty. Their “ideal female” has two X chromosomes, functional ovaries that result in normal feminizing puberty, intact oviducts attached to a functional uterus, cervix, and vaginal canal. This ideal female must also have labia minora and majora present, and a clitoris that ranges between 0.20cm and 0.85cm in length at birth.
According to these strict criteria, approximately 1.7 percent of individuals can be defined as intersex, though the authors suggest this figure could even be as high as 2.27 percent if the criteria are made even more expansive.
Is this an accurate portrayal of intersex?
Defining an individual as intersex for deviating from their sex’s “Platonic ideal” for any trait stands out as extreme. In a 2002 paper titled “How Common is Intersex? A Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling,” physician and psychologist Leonard Sax pointed out a flaw in Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7 percent statistic; namely, that it included many conditions that cannot be considered intersex in any clinically relevant sense. Indeed, the conditions making up the large majority of Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7 percent figure do not result in any sexual ambiguity whatsoever. In Sax’s words:
Many reviewers are not aware that this [1.7 percent] figure includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as intersex, such as Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. If the term intersex is to retain any meaning, the term should be restricted to those conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female. [emphasis added]
Fausto-Sterling’s central error was to equate any “differences of sexual development” (DSDs) with “intersex.” But while all intersex conditions may be considered DSDs, not all DSDs are necessarily intersex conditions.
The following figure using Fausto-Sterling’s data (created by Twitter user @zeno001) helps visualize this.
Here we can see that the large majority (88 percent) of Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7 percent figure is taken up by one condition: late-onset adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH). These individuals have completely normal male or female genitalia at birth that align with their sex chromosomes. The sex of these individuals is not ambiguous, so to label LOCAH as an intersex condition is a far cry from what most people and clinicians conceptually envision the term to capture.
The next most prevalent DSD on Fausto-Sterling’s list include any chromosomal deviations from classical XX and XY (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, etc.). However, these conditions do not result in ambiguous genitalia and therefore cannot be considered intersex in any clinically relevant sense. (see my previous post about why sex chromosome variants are not their own unique sexes.)
Lastly, vaginal agenesis, the next most common DSD on the list, is not generally considered an intersex condition, as girls with this condition are genotypically XX, possess perfectly normal ovaries, and can become pregnant and birth their own children following vaginoplasty. They are unambiguously female.
When these common DSDs are removed, and intersex conditions are more precisely defined as “conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female,” Fausto-Sterling’s 1.7 percent figure drops dramatically. According to Sax, “Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling's estimate of 1.7%.”
While the prevalence of intersex conditions, defined in Sax’s clinically-relevant sense, is quite low, this by no means justifies any of the mistreatment, whether socially or medically, that many gender activists hope to prevent when they overstate its prevalence. How we treat people, and the rights afforded to them, should not be predicated on their prevalence within a population. And that is the point we should be trying to normalize, rather than false statistics.
==
Most DSDs aren’t even diagnosed until later in life because the individual is correctly identified at birth as unambiguously female or unambiguously male. In such cases, it only becomes relevant later in life when, like other conditions, it affects the onset and progression of puberty and fertility.
Inflating the prevalence of intersex conditions doesn’t bolster any ideological position regarding “gender” or alter the binary of sex. On the contrary, it reinforces the immutability of sex development.
Some claim that rare chromosome combinations prove there are more than two sexes, yet these combinations still result in males and females, not new sexes.
“Chromosomes are the input, and sexes are the result.”
If you think there’s more than two sexes, you’re a creationist.
Saying that someone with a DSD condition is something other than male or female is like saying that someone born without legs is something other than human. You’re not being “inclusive,” you’re just a piece of shit.
By: Heather Heying
Published: Oct 5, 2022
There is an eight-year-old girl who likes to play in streams and look under rocks for squirmy critters. She not only knows how to throw a ball but enjoys doing it. She loves math and logic, and has no interest in dolls or dresses. She will grow up to be a woman. Because that’s what girls do.
There is another eight-year-old girl who likes to give tea parties for her stuffed animals. She likes to dance all the dances, often with other girls who like to do the same thing. She loves to read, and has no interest in trucks or trails. She will also grow up to be a woman. Because, again, that’s what girls do.
One of these girls may want to be an astronaut. The other, a chef. Or a mother. Or a lawyer. An actress. A racecar driver. Are all of these desires equally likely among girls? They are not. Girls are likely to want some things more than others. But guess what: the girls who aren’t girly are still girls. You can tell, in part, by the fact that they grow up to be women. Because that’s what girls do.
Sex isn’t assigned at birth. Sex is observed at birth.
Sometimes, in fact, sex is observed before birth. Most commonly, this happens via ultrasound imaging of the fetus. Less commonly, it is possible to look at the karyotype—a visual representation of fetal chromosomes, organized roughly by size—which has been obtained through the usefully diagnostic but somewhat risky mid-pregnancy procedure known as amniocentesis.
All mammals have “Genetic Sex Determination,” which means that we have chromosomes dedicated to starting us down the path of maleness or femaleness. They are called sex chromosomes, in contrast to the autosomes which comprise most of our genetic makeup, and which do not vary predictably by sex. A tiny number of mammals—the echidnas, and the duck-billed platypus—have several pairs of sex chromosomes. The remaining several thousand of us mammals, however—everything from bats to koalas, kangaroos to whales—all the many thousands of other species of mammals have just one pair of sex chromosomes in each of our cells. Humans are mammals, so we have Genetic Sex Determination. Humans are neither echidnas nor duck-billed platypi, so we have just the one pair of sex chromosomes.
The number of chromosomes in each of our cells varies between species. Ocelots and margays have 18 pairs of chromosomes, for instance, while most other cats have 19 pairs[1]. Most of the great apes, including chimps, have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have only 23. That is: humans have 22 pairs of autosomes, and at that 23rd position: one pair of sex chromosomes.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes in almost all of our cells. Gametes—sex cells—are a notable exception to this[2], however, having only 23 chromosomes each, instead of 23 pairs. If you’re female, your gametes are called eggs; if you’re male, they’re called sperm. If successful (as the vast majority are not), an egg or a sperm will combine with a gamete of the other type and make a new life. As such, so as not to create a new life with double the chromosomes of their parents, gametes have half the chromosomal complement of somatic (body) cells: one copy of chromosome 1, one copy of chromosome 2, etc., all the way down to chromosome 23.
At chromosome 23, females have two nearly identical looking chromosomes, which we call XX. Males, in contrast, have two chromosomes at that 23rd position which are wildly different in size; this we call XY, the diminutive chromosome being the Y.
The gametes of female mammals, therefore—the eggs—all have Xs at that 23rd position. No matter what, a female mammal contributes one of her Xs to her offspring’s genetic make-up.
By comparison, the gametes of male mammals—the sperm—are variable at that 23rd position. For any given male, roughly half of his sperm will contain an X, which, if combined with an egg, will produce a daughter (XX). The other half of his sperm will contain a Y which, if combined with an egg, will produce a son (XY)[3].
The determination of what sex a baby is is usually based on an easy observation at birth, but this isn’t always the case. Intersex people exist, as do people with yet more subtle ambiguities in their phenotypes. The conclusion being imposed on us, far less by trans people than by Trans Rights Activists (TRAs), is that any exceptions to normal function, any fuzziness at categorical borders, proves that we’ve got it all wrong, and that reality is a social construct. It’s not, though. While laws are indeed social constructs, and lawmakers can clearly be captured by ideology, ideological capture does not change the underlying reality. Sex is observed at birth, by looking at primary sex characteristics, or sex can be observed before birth, by looking at primary sex characteristics in utero, or by looking at a karyotype.
All of that is less fundamental than this, however:
Females are individuals who do or did or will or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs. Eggs are large, sessile gametes. Gametes are sex cells. In plants and animals, and most other sexually reproducing organisms, there are two sexes: female and male. Like “adult,” the term female applies across many species. Female is used to distinguish such people from males, who produce small, mobile gametes (e.g. sperm, pollen)[4].
A woman is an adult human female. Girls become women. Girls do not become boys or men any more than they become fairy princesses or dinosaurs. Fantasize all you want—that is the stuff of childhood, and childhood is the stuff of humanity. But do not confuse fantasy with reality, else you may make decisions based on fantasy that will haunt you for the rest of your life. And do not expect the adults who are paying attention to pretend that your fantasy is real life.
Many adults have either abdicated their responsibility, or are actively in on the game, the game being: hurt the children. Those of us who can see this for what it is, though, who know that providing puberty blockers and sex hormones to children and teenagers is dangerous and immoral, and cutting off their healthy tissue is even farther beyond the pale—we need to speak. We need to put aside what differences we may have.
In some circles, we are all painted with a MAGA brush. It’s a quick route to discrediting a person or position, at least among those who are unthinkingly on the trans train. And yet there are many among us, myself included, who are lifelong liberals[5]. Not only aren’t all of us who recognize that biology is real “MAGA Republicans,” we’re not even all Republicans. Imagine that. Some of us are, and some of us aren’t. And yet we’re all human.
We may not agree on reproductive rights, or climate change, or the second amendment—although I often find that the divide between us isn’t as vast as we’ve been led to believe. But disagreement is fine. It’s good, even. We don’t want to be a clone army, all in lockstep, all believing exactly the same things, living exactly the same lives. We see reality—girls become women, and boys become men—and we are adamant that reality not be hidden from view. And when we find that we actually share core values—values like protect the children from harm—we stand together.
--
1 Hsu et al 1963. Karyological studies of nine species of Felidae. The American Naturalist, 97(895): 225-234.
2 Red blood cells are another exception. Humans, like all mammals, have red blood cells which at maturity do not contain nuclei. Red blood cells thus contain no chromosomes (except for what is in the mitochondria. Yes, this is biology, and there is complexity at every turn.)
3 Birds, by the way, do this the other way around. Birds, like mammals, have Genetic Sex Determination (GSD), but unlike mammals, female birds are the heterogametic sex, male birds the homogametic sex. To keep things clear to biologists (but no doubt creating greater confusion among non-biologists), scientists have named the sex chromosomes in birds “W” and “Z” rather than “X” and “Y.” Female mammals are XX, and so are homogametic (homo = same, gametic = marriage (from the Greek)); male mammals are XY, and so are heterogametic (hetero = different). Male birds are ZZ (therefore, homogametic), whereas female birds are WZ (therefore, heterogametic). Thus, it’s mama birds, like papa mammals, whose gametes determine the sex of their offspring.
4 From “I Am a Woman,” which I posted here on March 29, 2022.
5 Not woke. Not reality-denying. But liberal.
Science denial takes many forms, from geodesy and geology, to human biology and human evolutionary development, to virology and epidemiology.
And yet, they somehow never deny the science that empowers them to ramble online like ignorant fools about the conspiracy theories they use to rationalize that denial.
