Endocrine society - biological sex an imprecise term?

[MuseumofInnocence]

This guidance from the US Endocrine Society on transgender treatment has been discussed before, but an element of it was not discussed (I think).

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/102/11/3869/4157558

In the guidance, there is this little nugget

"Biological sex, biological male or female: These terms refer to physical aspects of maleness and femaleness. As these may not be in line with each other (e.g., a person with XY chromosomes may have female-appearing genitalia), the terms biological sex and biological male or female are imprecise and should be avoided. "

How can this make any sense? Female XY cases are very rare, yet in most cases, if I were to visit an endocrinologist and say "my little girl has started growing a beard and I'm concerned", would an endocrinologist really find it imprecise to say "actually your child is biologically male as he has testes and he has started puberty"?

Furthermore, isn't the whole concept of transgender not possible without the concept of biological sex?

The terms are eminently precise. The exceedingly rare intersex conditions where one gets it wrong (as the one described) just mean a miniscule Rate of false positives or false negatives (depending what you look at). There is hardly a more precise term, except that ‚biological‘ is an unnecessary qualifier. A body’s sex is always biological.

'Biological' sex is a redundant term anyways since there's no other form of sex.

What's the difference between a 'biological woman' and a 'woman'? Or a 'biological man' and a 'man'?

There are rare intersex conditions that make it difficult to determine at a glance but there's still the presence or absence of a Y chromosome and this determines your sex.

Are they confusing phenotype (the expression of genes) with gender (made up stuff)?

Quotation from article in the OP - "the terms biological sex and biological male or female are imprecise and should be avoided".

Why does the US Endocrine Society think that precision would improve if biology is replaced by the very much less precise "gender"? Their opinion seems political, not factual/logical.

Does the US Endocrine Society supply testosterone to male transgender people to help them become allegedly female? Does that society supply oestrogen to female transgender people to help them become allegedly male?

No, of course not, because biology not gender will not allow testosterone to feminise male bodies, and because biology not gender will not allow oestrogen to masculinise female bodies.

AspieAndProud wrote - "'Biological' sex is a redundant term anyways since there's no other form of sex."

We now also have the legal fiction of legal sex. So, e.g. a biologically male person can be legally female.

But vesuvia, shouldn‘t the term - for accuracy‘s sake - then be ‚fictionally female‘?

"because biology not gender will not allow testosterone to feminise male bodies, and because biology not gender will not allow oestrogen to masculinise female bodies."

I should add that biology does this in an extremely precise way, even if biologists may not yet know all the details.

deepwatersolo wrote - "shouldn‘t the term - for accuracy‘s sake - then be ‚fictionally female‘?"

We can only hope that lawyers would prefer accuracy, but I've not yet seen a legal document that states "fictionally female".

Damn. But it would be the accurate thing to do....

Perhaps the alleged precision pedants at the US Endocrine Society could have a word with the legal fiction lawyers?

I'm a little bit concerned that the Endocrine Society doesn't seem to understand very much about the biological basis of sex.

For profit medicine - there's a lot of things you can avoid seeing if your continued income stream depends on it.

We now also have the legal fiction of legal sex. So, e.g. a biologically male person can be legally female.

They're scientists (apparently) rather than lawyers so I'd expect them to see things in biological terms.

Being an adoptive parent makes someone a legal parent rather than a biological parent. If I was referred to the Endochrine Society for HRT I'd expect them to be referring to biological parents if they asked if there was a family history of my condition.

WTAF
How does the Endocrine Society propose we talk about bodies and reproductive biology ? How many types of gametes are there?
This is idiotic, quite frankly. What words do they propose we use instead to refer to the absolute VAST MAJORITY of people who are clearly of one sex or the other?
Because I promise you that uterus-ovary-cervix-vagina-bearing-people-with-higher-oestrogen-levels-than-about-50%-of-the-population is not going to catch on.

The Society of Endocrinology in the UK completely avoids transgender issues on its website and policy statements.

Of course the Endocrinology Society would love to replace biological sex with gender - that gives their study of hormones and in turn the profit from selling artificial hormones to people more validity.

Thank god for the UK endocrinology society

If biological sex is imprecise on the basis that it is utterly unabiguous and entirely binary for only 99.9% of us and that isn't good enough I look forward to their announcement that the pancreas doesn't produce insulin, the thyroid doesn't produce thyroxine, the pituitary doesn't produce growth hormone because exceptions mean the rule obviously doesn't exist after all and we should immediately stop referring to a general rule and just treat via feelings. How much insulin shall we use today? Point to the spot on the spectrum here...

Also, for that matter, if sex is imprecise, what the fuckety fuck is gender supposed to be? I'm dying to hear the more precise definition of the genders, endocrine society.

deepwatersolo wrote - "shouldn‘t the term - for accuracy‘s sake - then be ‚fictionally female‘?"

That's got my vote from here on. Because I'm legally female, but not fictionally female.