Really dim science question....

[RadicalStitch]

Yesterday my 13 year old daughter had a PSHE lesson on reproduction.

A girl asked whether it's true that all babies are female and then some turn in to male. The teacher (who is actually a science teacher) said yes.
I explained to dd that this is untrue and that the biological sex of a baby is determined at conception, but before I alert the school to this, I'm wondering what the teacher'S angle could possibly have been. Maybe she was talking about external genitalia 'appearing' female in early scans...... struggling to make sense of.
(Note Gendered Intelligence have been in to talk to SLT. Could this be something to do with this?)

It’ll be this...

factmyth.com/factoids/all-mammals-start-as-female/

Brilliant! Thank you! I can sound like I know what I am talking about now.

It’s a pretty common misconception (appropriate word!).

Are you going to pursue it with the teacher? I’d be inclined to let it go. It’s more of an oversimplification than totally wrong.

Plus this is interesting

geneticliteracyproject.org/2017

Well, the development of both, male and female embryos, start out the same way and sexual differentiation kickes in after some weeks when the respective genes which have been in the embryo‘s DNA from the start are switched on.

It is a bit like saying all human embryos are tadpoles first. Or rather: every house starts out as a Castle. ‚‘cause embryos aren‘t fully formed females either, which this ‚all embryos are female’ suggests. It misrepresents the issue because the DNA, the ‚building plan‘ for male/female is there from the beginning. And none of it is yet fully formed. The ,building‘ of the embryos is just similar at first and then differentiates into a male or female organism.

I thin I'll let it go because I don't want to look too militant wrt transgenderism.....
thank you!

If the teacher is not a biology specialist I wouldn't read too much into the error. I once worked with a science teacher who admitted to not having a clue about the biology she had to teach to years 7-9. She was a physicist who hadn't studied biology above GCSE herself.

It’s not on the a level syllabus so even if they are a biology teacher, they might not have ever studied this.

The link purple gives explains it well. Embryos start off looking the same, but they aren’t the same.

The TRA movement is very good at getting these ‘sort of but actually no’ science ‘facts’ accepted.

I actually would challenge it, in a very polite way.

Strictly, it would be more correct to say they start as hermaphrodites.

But, the default is "female looking" because males need one gene to develop.
But fully functional females only develop with XX. One X only doesn't cut it.

At a very basic level embryos start with internal sexual organs, females remain like that and in males they descend outside the body. She's sort of right but our chromosomes predestine the outcome (except when the process goes a bit wrong of course)

At a very basic level embryos start with internal sexual organs, females remain like that and in males they descend outside the body.

That's not how it works.
Embryos start with two tubes. One that leads to male organs and the other to female organs.
Depending on the genetic information, one or the other set develops.
health.howstuffworks.com/pregnancy-and-parenting/pregnancy/conception/human-reproduction1.htm

I think it matters. Because if it was true (it isn't), it seems to lend inappropriate credibility to gender ideology.

Not on the syllabus ? By A level?
That's concerning. No wonder is so easy to fob people of with invented biology and clownfish these days.

Am sure I did gametes, basic genetics and embryo development by Olevel equivalent back in the dark ages.

There’s plenty of difficult content relating to genetics dandelion. Just not embryo development. No need for concern.

It is a bit like saying all human embryos are tadpoles first. Or rather: every house starts out as a Castle. ‚‘cause embryos aren‘t fully formed females either, which this ‚all embryos are female’ suggests. It misrepresents the issue because the DNA, the ‚building plan‘ for male/female is there from the beginning. And none of it is yet fully formed. The ,building‘ of the embryos is just similar at first and then differentiates into a male or female organism

Yes good explanation. Whether its going to be for a bungalow or skyscraper. The blueprints are completely different all along the building sites just appear similar for the first few weeks.

There is a period of embryonic development where many mammalian embryos look similar. No one is arguing a human is a fox though...

Today 14:05 PurpleDaisies

There’s plenty of difficult content relating to genetics dandelion. Just not embryo development. No need for concern

Indeed can be terribly difficult.
But giving basic, easy to understand and simplified information to teenage students is certainly better than giving completely incorrect information .

Its why that clownfish nonsense just won't go away.

I'd raise it (gently) with the school. The lesson obviously confused your child otherwise you wouldn't have needed to discuss it.

I would raise it too. You can pitch it as concern for what’s in the curriculum rather than ‘teacher got it wrong.’

Just ‘x came home saying embryos change sex. Is that what the curriculum says? I know it sounds pedantic and I’m sure she was misunderstanding but in the light of all the transgender misinformation that humans can change sex I think it’s worth emphasising that they can’t and don’t. Etc

I would be worried about a science teacher that said this (assuming OP's daughter reported correctly, which she may not have of course)
I get that sexual differentiation of the embryo may not be on the syllabus- though I'm sure it was when I was at school- but surely a science teacher would know that sex is determined at conception- and therefore any appearances to the contrary are NOT indicating 'changing sex'.

I think Bowlofbabelfish's approach is good- non confrontational.