Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

1,600 Scientists Just Signed A Letter Opposing A Legal Definition Of A Gender Binary

220 replies

Bonions · 02/11/2018 15:12

Ffs

www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/scientists-vs-gender-binary

I tried to choose the worst bits but couldn’t as it’s all pretty awful

An open letter that denounces attempts to define gender as a binary trait based on anatomy or genetic tests has gathered signatures from more than 1,600 scientists.

The letter, which includes the signatures of eight Nobel laureates, was written in response to a memo drafted in spring of 2017 by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to the New York Times. The memo reportedly urged government agencies to adopt a legal definition of sex “on a biological basis that is clear, grounded in science, objective and administrable,” according to the Times.

The memo also reportedly stated that any disputes over a person’s sex would be clarified using genetic testing, a claim that scientists say is unscientific and unethical.

The Trump administration has not confirmed the memo or issued any statement — or proposed regulation — that adopts the views in the memo.

The report incited much debate on Twitter, and today more than 50 companies, including Apple, Google, and Facebook, released a letter condemning it. It also prompted 22 scientists to put together an opposition letter, addressed to “our elected representatives.”

“This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity,” the scientists wrote. “Though scientists are just beginning to understand the biological basis of gender identity, it is clear that many factors, known and unknown, mediate the complex links between identity, genes, and anatomy.”

The letter stressed that both biological sex and gender fall on a spectrum. Roughly 1 in every 2,000 babies in the US are born with what are called intersex traits: anatomy, hormone levels, or chromosomes that fall somewhere between what’s typically defined as male or female. An estimated 1.4 million adults in the US identify as transgender, meaning their gender identity does not correspond to the gender they were assigned at birth.

“As a geneticist and as someone who studies reproduction on a biological level, I can safely say that their scientific reasons are simply not based in science,” Mollie Manier, an assistant professor of biology at George Washington University and one of the coauthors of the letter, told BuzzFeed News. “The science on gender is very much still in development, but more importantly, the lived experiences of transgender and intersex people should not be co-opted by a genetic test.”

Others pointed out that genes and chromosomes alone can’t predict someone’s sex or gender.

“The relationship between someone’s genotype, or their DNA, and their phenotype, or their traits, is very complicated, and sex and gender are no exception,” said Russell Neches, a postdoc studying the evolution of genomes at the Joint Genome Institute at Lawrence Berkeley Labs. “These are human beings we're talking about, so it's not enough to have a concept of sex and gender that only works for the majority.”

For transgender scientists, the letter was personal.

“As a trans woman and as a scientist, it’s inherently an attack on my humanity, my ability to exist in the world, and to safely navigate certain spaces,” said Mika Tosca, an assistant professor of climate science at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. “It was really important that we gather as many scientists as we could to say that so scientists ourselves were not complicit in promoting this wholly flawed nonscientific effort.”

The letter also emphasized the dangers of any policy forcing medical professionals to stray from recognizing an individual’s self-identified gender. “Our best available evidence shows that affirmation of gender identity is paramount to the survival, health, and livelihood of transgender and intersex people,” the letter states.

OP posts:
merrymouse · 03/11/2018 08:06

Unfortunately sexism is very deeply ingrained, and apparently invisible to 1600 scientists who can't see how harmful their vague concepts of sex and gender are to women.

On one hand liberal Pope Francis believes that women shouldn't be priests because the twelve apostles were men - and that is fine because we should all exercise religious tolerance.

On the other providing a limited number of services and opportunities for women because they are actually physically different to men is intolerant towards trans women.

Somehow it's always women who have to do the tolerating.

merrymouse · 03/11/2018 08:08

Our best available evidence shows that affirmation of gender identity is paramount to the survival, health, and livelihood of transgender and intersex people

But pretty bad for all those people who have bodies that are expected to produce babies and couldn't vote on equal terms with men until 1928, regardless of their identity.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 03/11/2018 08:11

this is so bonkers because it contradicts my direct experience

once you've grown an actual human inside your actual female body, and seen the process of observing and recording the sex of that little human, the idea that we can't ever really be sure about the sex of individuals is cuckoo

larrygrylls · 03/11/2018 08:16

Isn’t the debate on a scientific level about genotypes and phenotypes? The chromosomes allow certain chemical substances (hormones) to be produced which then cause certain skeletal, muscular and behavioural components.

If you can introduce chemicals to produce a female phenotype (a big and arguable if), then surely the sex becomes female, regardless of the Y chromosome, as it has been effectively switched off.

Of course this debate would be against self ID.

Gncq · 03/11/2018 08:17

The way I see it, I'm GC through and through, I actually agree with a lot of the letter. A lot of it is quite reasonable.

The open letter says that any attempt to define gender based on a person’s anatomy at birth or their genes is not grounded in science
I agree. Because gender is socially constructed and can have a flexible relationship to someone's anatomy or genes.

Though scientists are just beginning to understand the biological basis of gender identity, it is clear that many factors, known and unknown, mediate the complex links between identity, genes, and anatomy
This is a reasonable claim seeing as gender is basically a personality and how your personality links to your genes and anatomy is interesting and complex.

The letter goes on to explain that no scientific test can unambiguously determine gender
Well, that's true. Sex however can be tested for if needed.

And to be fair I am against compulsive DNA testing for all people which Trump has suggested should be introduced.
That's fucked.

Unfortunately the rest of the letter is word salad and these scientists must have held their nose to sign it in protest against Trump.

merrymouse · 03/11/2018 08:25

If you can introduce chemicals to produce a female phenotype (a big and arguable if)

Unless you can change a human's physical make up so that they can transform from being sperm producing to producing eggs and bearing children it's all hypothetical.

larrygrylls · 03/11/2018 08:42

Merry,

But that is your definition of sex, not the only one used in biology. The best I can get by google and a variety of reputable sites is sex is determined by a combination of chromosomes, hormones and external genitalia.

Once you define it solely by reproductive capacity, you can ask whether a sterile woman is a woman.

I think it is more nuanced. However, I agree that it also about a lot more than ‘feelz’.

nellodee · 03/11/2018 08:46

I do wonder why SRY is called SRY if its not the Sex-determining Region of the Y-chromosome.

Igneococcus · 03/11/2018 09:02

I'd like a proper evolutionist looking into this. I can't find any way in which non-binary sex would work in evolution. Not sure I'm expressing this right.I have a bad migraine hangover and brain isn't working yet.

merrymouse · 03/11/2018 09:07

But that is your definition of sex, not the only one used in biology.

What are the other definitions that don't somehow relate to reproduction?

A woman who can't have children still has female reproductive organs. An organ that doesn't work is still an organ.

Take away reproductive differences and their consequences and you are just talking about tall/short/thin/fat/angry/calm humans.

DancelikeEmmaGoldman · 03/11/2018 09:15

Once you define it solely by reproductive capacity, you can ask whether a sterile woman is a woman.

Of course you can’t. Sexual dimorphism in humans is an analysis of the biological classes which enable human reproduction. Individual cases do not negate the truth of the class analysis.

A woman who is unable to conceive is still of the class of humans who produce large gametes.

The thalidomide tragedy produced many children with missing limbs. The fact that children are born missing a leg, doesn’t negate the fact that humans are two-legged.

About one in five million men is born with two penises. That doesn’t mean human males have more than one penis.

Sex is not determined by external genitalia. External genitalia is determined by sex.

terryleather · 03/11/2018 09:18

Once you define it solely by reproductive capacity, you can ask whether a sterile woman is a woman

It is solely defined by reproductive capacity, unless you have an agenda.

Female is of the class that has the potential to produce ova. So a sterile woman (to use your word) would still be of that class along with a post menopausal woman.

Males are never of the class who produce ova, no matter how they identify.

There are two sex classes needed to reproduce. There are intersex conditions but they are not a third sex and do not produce a third gamete, indeed having an intersex condition/DSD most probably means infertility so not great for reproduction.

What class of humans have a third gamete? Why would there need to be one?

You may feel it's "more nuanced" but I'd class that as fake news.

larrygrylls · 03/11/2018 09:24

Terry,

Why don’t you google chromosomal sex and endocrinological sex then.

I have no agenda at all (as opposed to most on here) and agree that the epidemic of trans is mostly psychological and/or manipulative.

However why on these boards is the idea of phenotype ignored?

LangCleg · 03/11/2018 09:29

Once you define it solely by reproductive capacity, you can ask whether a sterile woman is a woman.

Absolute bollocks. Sex is defined by membership of one of two classes of reproductive potential. And a few people have developmental disorders of those classes. There are still only two classes.

Why?

Because reproduction is what sex is for. The only reason it exists.

You've forgotten how babies are made, Larry. Which is a common problem in men and AWA. Never mind. You're not alone. There are quite a few bears of little brain out there. Including, it seems, Nobel winners of the west. The Chinese must be pissing themselves laughing, watching us and preparing for world domination. Because not knowing how babies are made is really fiddling while Rome burns stuff.

By the way, what's the third gamete?

terryleather · 03/11/2018 09:35

Every one has an agenda larry, even the might voices of male reason, truth and objectivity.

Once again, what's the third gamete and who has it?

FloralBunting · 03/11/2018 09:39

A day after reading yet another load of transactivists telling gay people they weren't allowed to be exclusively attracted to their own sex, or to have their own spaces, I am still reading transactivists complaining that if I don't say transwomen are women I'm 'annihilating' them. My journey away from a socialized compromise position continues.

I don't care what someone thinks their gender is, and it makes no odds where the basis of their gender identity comes from. There are fascinating studies on the brains of religious people reacting differently to non religious people.

It has no bearing whatsoever on whether human are provably, reliably made up of two distinct sexes, and certain things are socially ordered to protect the one sex from the other. That's the only point of relevance I care about in this whole issue.

merrymouse · 03/11/2018 09:44

80% of women born in 1971 had children. Of those who haven't it is reasonable to assume that some wanted children and had treatment for infertility that related to their female reproductive organs, and others deliberately took steps to avoid having children using contraception that related to their female reproductive organs.

Some women will not have had children because they did not have sex with men. However, that will not have stopped them from having periods, going through menopause or suffering from specifically female conditions like endometriosis or ovarian cancer.

Until recently society was organised around the idea that a woman's role was to have children and in many places it still is. When women can't control their fertility they are not allowed to participate in society on equal terms with men. There are no opt outs for lesbians or women who identify as men.

merrymouse · 03/11/2018 09:50

However why on these boards is the idea of phenotype ignored

Why would it be relevant?

NicoAndTheNiners · 03/11/2018 09:50

Well if I was the employer of one of the biologists who thought there was no test available to determine sex I'd seriously worry about their ability to do their job.

AspieAndProud · 03/11/2018 11:19

We need to ditch the word ‘intersex’ and stuck with DSD or ‘disorders of sexual development.’ There’s no intermediary sex, there are ‘disorders’, and man you of them are so mild (eg being born without a foreskin) they have no bearing on sex at all. Half the world removes the foreskin anyway, this is not gender realignment surgery.

AspieAndProud · 03/11/2018 11:20

‘Many of’ not ‘man you’.

merrymouse · 03/11/2018 11:24

You are right Aspie.

AspieAndProud · 03/11/2018 11:37

Why don’t you google chromosomal sex and endocrinological sex then.

These are stages in sexual development, not different definitions of sex, just like puberty is.

Chromosomal sex begins at conception. Endocrinological sex begins when the embryo begins to develop distinctive, visible, sexual characteristics, which are coded for in the chromosomes. And puberty is when the boy or girl begins to produce sperm or ovulate, bits get hairy, boys get muscly and develop a deep voice.

There aren’t six sexes, chromosomal male or female embryos, endochrinological male and female embryos/children, and post-puberty men and women.

There are extremely rare cases of endochrinological expression going awry that can cause a mismatch between chromosomes and phenotype, and thanks to TRAs we now have a vastly grreater number of children having their puberty blocked in order to satisfy the feelz of cross dressing adults who would never take drugs themselves, but these are not a third bloody sex, they are either disorders of sexual development or a cruel experiment on children akin to stitching twins together.

OldCrone · 03/11/2018 12:01

Because reproduction is what sex is for. The only reason it exists.

This is what gets forgotten in so many of these discussions.

Sex is about what sort of reproductive system you are born with, whether or not it is fully functional or complete.

Gender is about what sort of personality you have. And in this day and age it shouldn't be governed by your sex.

Why do genderists insist that our sex should match our personalities?

AspieAndProud · 03/11/2018 12:25

Evolution might have gone another way, and instead of having sexual reproduction we might have insinuated our genes into another organism and hijacked it like viruses do or we might bud off progeny if someone fed us after midnight like in Gremlins. Sex is the system we ended up with.

Our eyes evolved under water. Had they evolved on land they would be ‘designed’ rather differently. Evolution works on what was available for natural selection to shape.

We are animals. Magnificent animals as far as we are concerned (I suspect dolphins would think the same of themselves if they were reflective) but animals all the same.

The whole gender thing seems to be a vestige of human exceptionalism, the idea that humans are a category distinct and above that of other animals.

Which is why we never hear about effeminate silverbacks and how this is a challenge to gorilla gender binaries.

Swipe left for the next trending thread