Forbes: "Biological Sex is a Myth"

[EddyF]

Hmmm. Not sure if I can link the complete article or if it is against the rules. But in short...

Many who oppose transgender rights believe that gender is determined solely by biological sex. But, biological sex isn’t as straightforward as they likely think, and there is no one parameter that makes a person biologically male or female. In fact, many conditions make assigning a biological sex quite difficult.

Despite the complexities, biological sex is often discussed as if it were obvious how to assign male or female sex. In addition to today’s Supreme Court ruling, last Friday, Trump eliminated transgender individuals’ civil rights in health care and Roger Severino, the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services said of the bill that “We're going back to the plain meaning of those terms [male and female], which is based on biological sex.” Earlier this month, Harry Potter author, J.K. Rowling, was labeled anti-trans for making a distinction between biological women and transgender women. And, in April, Idaho became the first state to require that athletes competing in girls’ and women’s sports be biologically female. None explained exactly how they would assign biological sex in ambiguous cases.

Rowlings comments were in response to an article which referred to, “the menstrual health and hygiene needs of girls, women and all people who menstruate.” She tweeted , “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?’ After facing criticism for suggesting that transgender women were not women, Rowling followed up, “If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.”

www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth-of-biological-sex/#62f8193076b9

Forbes?

THE Forbes? I haven't clicked on the link. Have they lost ALL respectability?

It's a wonder how humans have ever managed to reproduce, really, isn't it.

Yeah, no surprise really, National Geogrphic did the same thing more than a year ago now.

It's really disturbing because I think it's a huge part of why so many regular people seem convinced by the "science" of gender. As a layperson, if you can't trust NG to be fair and up to date, who can you trust?

many conditions make assigning a biological sex quite difficult.

And yet no one seems to have that much difficulty knowing whether someone is male or female 🤔

Well that's crazy...sex isn't assigned, it pretty obvious at birth, who is a boy and which is a girl. (Occasional anomalies aside)

There are indeed many DSD conditions but they affect a tiny number of people. There is no third sex.

People with DSD have asked repeatedly not to be used as a ‘gotcha’ in trans discussions and yet here we still are

Many who oppose transgender rights believe that gender is determined solely by biological sex

I support transgender rights. I also support women's rights.
I doubt 'many' people on a feminism board believe gender is solely determined by biological sex.

But, biological sex isn’t as straightforward as they likely think

How likely do you think it is that I only have a rudimentary understanding of biological sex? Just curious.

They really are in a state of panic now that they realise no-one has swallowed the identity bullshit.

Expect more flailing on the way down.

It's actually quite fun watching it.

Follow the money. Somebody benefits from this insanity and it isn't women.

🤦‍♀️

Almost anyone can write for Forbes - they effectively turned themselves into HuffPost.

theoutline.com/post/2563/how-brands-secretly-buy-their-way-into-forbes-fast-company-and-huffpost-stories?zd=1&zi=ptnyt2ma

None explained exactly how they would assign biological sex in ambiguous cases.
Biological sex can be ambiguous for people with DSD like Caster Semenya.
Biological sex is not ambiguous for trans people like Caitlyn Jenner.

FFS Forbes.

As a layperson, if you can't trust NG to be fair and up to date, who can you trust?
I wouldn't expect National Geographic to be fair, I would just expect it to recycle whatever the standard clichés and received wisdom of the US are. ("a piece covering apartheid-era South Africa in 1962... barely mentions any problems" - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43384747 )

Send snarky letters. I will be.

I can't beleive "respectable" media is going all-in on "sex doesn't exist." It feels like some kind of USSR-era psy-ops to demoralize the population.

@transdimensional

As a layperson, if you can't trust NG to be fair and up to date, who can you trust? I wouldn't expect National Geographic to be fair, I would just expect it to recycle whatever the standard clichés and received wisdom of the US are. ("a piece covering apartheid-era South Africa in 1962... barely mentions any problems" - www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43384747 )

Yeah - but they have a great reputation.

Why would the existence of a tiny number of people with DSDs that make it difficult to determine those individuals’ sex mean that we cannot tell what sex everyone else is? What difference does it make that the biological processes which together create reproductive sex systems are complex? Of course it is complex! Why cannot common sense/medical consensus be used to determine the sex of someone with the type of DSD that makes it impossible to determine based on the usual parameters?

Agh! Who is writing this stuff?

Many who oppose transgender rights believe that gender is determined solely by biological sex.

Perhaps the religious right in America think this. GC feminists just think gender is bollocks. The clue is in the name. Gender critical.

Despite the complexities, biological sex is often discussed as if it were obvious how to assign male or female sex.

Except in a very few rare cases, it is obvious. If it weren't periods would be much more of a shock.

None explained exactly how they would assign biological sex in ambiguous cases.

JK Rowling did not comment on intersex conditions, because they are not relevant to any of her comments. The existence of intersex conditions has never prevented discrimination against women on the basis of sex.

Sometimes I fucking wish it was so I could have avoided PND, PMDD and ovarian cancer running in my family.

Load of shite.

@DrDavidBanner

Follow the money. Somebody benefits from this insanity and it isn't women.

It isn't women, it isn't children, and it isn't a hell of a lot of men.

The writer says:

Inspired by my prior career developing quantitative trading strategies for Morgan Stanley, I’m now trying to solve women’s issues at work—including the wage gap and sexual harassment.

Yet apparently she has never paused to wonder how, despite the existence of DSDs, women in Saudi Arabia were prevented from driving cars until very recently, and there were still parts of Switzerland where women couldn't vote in the 1990s.

She might as well argue that people don't notice race because some people have vitiligo.

Well then fuck it, why don’t we just get rid of sex and make all spaces for everyone and start teaching prepubescent boys what to expect when they get their period and let women play in the national men’s rugby team? What’s the worst that could happen?

If biological sex is so difficult to determine maybe I should wear the condom and my husband should take birth control pills.

Of course biological sex matters! Are there really people in this world who are so stupid they’re blinded by this joke “science”?

So, according to Forbes: Some individuals are born with ambiguous genitalia and are not clearly male or female in genital appearance at birth. In fact, research indicates that about 2% of the population is born with these ambiguous traits.

They are claiming that 1 in 50 people are born with ambiguous genital. 1 in 50 births, they have trouble deciding whether it's a boy or girl. Does that sound plausible? Not to me.

And according to Boston Children's Hospital ( www.childrenshospital.org/conditions-and-treatments/conditions/a/ambiguous-genitalia ) : "An estimated 1 in 4,500 infants are born with ambiguous genitalia."
1 in 4,500! A very different, and much more credible figure.

Almost anyone can write for Forbes - they effectively turned themselves into HuffPost.

Like many Americans, I don't think she has though much further than:

"Trump and the religious right oppose trans rights - people are saying JK Rowling hates trans people - seems to be referring to some boring piece of UK legislation - can't be bothered to read that - I don't know what she is talking about - I'll just conclude that she has lost her brain".

This piece is an excellent response to those who go down the "biological sex is complicated" route: medium.com/@genderdetective/an-open-letter-to-the-guy-on-twitter-who-wonders-if-biological-sex-is-real-58d2cb4403f5. It gets to the point in a way that clearly highlights the absurdity of this sort of argument. Obviously most people on here don't need yet another explanation, but it's quite useful if you need to make the point to someone struggling to get it. Here's an excerpt:

"But how long have you spent reading up to this point? Five minutes? Ten? If so, the world has fifty more mutilated girls than when you started. Were the men who carried out those mutilations confused about what makes a female body? Did they ponder chromosome parings and standard deviations when they chose who to cut? Or is that kind of nuance a luxury set aside just for educated, progressive, worldly men like you?

Isn’t it odd that sex was never so complicated before? There was nothing ethereal about biology when it came to allocating the right to vote, or own property, or walk down the street at night without fear. We knew perfectly well what made someone female when that female-ness guaranteed a life of subservience and pain. Only when women began to say no did their bodies become a concept.

So many feminists have made this point, over and over again. I see them say it. I know you read it. Did you listen? If not, why? And why do you always respond when I say it? It seems you do know who has a female body, when it comes to deciding which perspective gets ignored.

Sex is such a mystery to you when women want shelters for themselves, meetings for themselves, words for themselves. Pardon me for asking, but is it equally mysterious when you log off Twitter and move over to Pornhub? The true nature of a female body is so complex when you lecture. Does it become simple again when you masturbate? Who does the laundry in your house? Were you somehow able to navigate an inchoate soup of X’s and Y’s to saddle your girlfriend with the dishes? Give yourself some credit — I think you know perfectly well what a female body is. But in case you don’t, here’s a hint:

It’s the only type of body that gets you thrown on the funeral pyre when the husband dies. It’s the only type of body that gets your feet bound and your breasts ironed. It’s the only type made pregnant through rape and burned with acid, the only type expected to sit quietly and listen while we redefine it away, the only type men have spent millennia criticizing and critiquing and buying and selling until we suddenly decided we don’t even know what the fuck we meant this whole time."

Many who oppose transgender rights believe that gender is determined solely by biological sex.

I'm sure that's true. People who are actually anti-trans-people and wish to deny their existence would think this; that current, societally-specific stereotypes of gender, coincide perfectly with sex, so that anyone who wishes to act against their assigned stereotype is 'wrong'.

That's the opposite of feminists, who recognise that 'gender' is subjective at least and quite probably; a load of made-up bollocks actually describing a combination of personality and a person's social relationship with an unequal society and used to oppress pretty much everyone.

So I'd rather focus on describing the total bollocks-osity of gender - and would respectfully suggest to the author, that there's far more mileage and objective evidence for that argument, than for one that sex is, on the whole, not binary.