Any scientists/academics who can explain the rationale behind the idea of ‘sex is a social construct’?

[4ammusings]

Just that really. I am trying to understand where this idea has come from and how the science supposedly backs it up (as declared by many trans activists). I understand that intersex people do exist and there are certain conditions that cause sex ambiguity, therefore technically sex isn’t strictly binary in all circumstances. However, from my understanding, most people still fall into the categories of male or female, based on their chromosomes.

I have a family member who is a biologist yet strongly believes sex is non-binary and merely assigned at birth. I can’t understand how she reconciles her biological knowledge with this seemingly ideological concept which appears (to me anyway) to have no real basis in science. I also can’t discuss this with her as she is so aggressively part of the TWAW brigade that the topic is not up for reasonable or respectful discussion.

Am I missing something here? Happy to be proved wrong, and she undoubtedly does have more biological knowledge than me. I just haven’t heard any convincing scientific evidence to date to actually back this claim up and am wondering if any scientists could please weigh in? Just to clarify, I understand the argument that gender is a social construct, but am talking specifically here about biological sex (just so the two aren’t conflated).

I was amused by this earlier in the week.
twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1419655285174644749/photo/1
Naturally Lavery waves the hand and waffles about 'pretty much any clinician.' And I don''t really understand the reference to Sarah Hawkes, though I'm assuming that the Lancet is pretty much captured. But I'd thought Hawkes came to prominence last year arguing that Covid, and all other health data, needed to be sex-specific? Anyway...

"The really daft thing of this, is that male and female are some of the most clear-cut binary concepts in the natural world"

Quite. The endocrinologists (or dodgy GP) don't need a sorting hat to determine which hormones need to be prescribed .

@YetAnotherSpartacus

It makes more sense to say that 'race' is a social construct.

Thinking of sex being a social construct (and using that language) we could say that how we understand what it means to be a man or a woman and how we then enact practices that inscribe this identity is socially constructed. This would make sense because it is clearly about social being and identity. But, clearly, they have done something different.

I think that what gets lost in postmodern ideas about social construction is how power operates and who has the power to do the constructing.

We know that this is men, of course.

It is interesting that at this point in time the view that race is something decided by an individual sense of identity is distasteful in progressive circles. I would have thought that if we as a society are reconfiguring how we understand categories of things and people this would not be confined to just one categorisation system.

So what is the end point for people who insist biological sex is a social construct: will they come for categories like race when they feel the political mood is more accommodating? Or is the only category that needs to be reconfigured the old sex and gender binary?

You can’t discuss it with her because she is unable to come up with a convincing argument that actually proves her point. That’s the only reason it can’t be discussed.

Just like you can’t convince (or even discuss with) people that the Emperor is naked - even though everyone with eyes can see it - when they’re so invested in believing that he has on a natty new outfit.

Exactly this. If she really had a coherent argument, as a biologist, she'd be able to tell you what it was and win any argument. She doesn't, it's pure ideology.

technically sex isn’t strictly binary in all circumstances

Gravity isn't strictly Newtonian in all circumstances. In particular circumstances it behaves in ways that seem extraordinary to us. So, when we lead our lives, construct our buildings, fly our aircraft, do we say we must focus on the edge cases of the extraordinary non-Newtonian gravity?

When someone learns another IT-based tool at work, to what extent to they need to incorporate quantum physics, on which computer chips are based, into their day to day use?

There are many things that exist but, in a particular context, are insignificant. One thing trans activists love to do is to elevate the insignificant into the fundamental.

"I would have thought that if we as a society are reconfiguring how we understand categories of things and people this would not be confined to just one categorisation system.

So what is the end point for people who insist biological sex is a social construct: will they come for categories like race when they feel the political mood is more accommodating? Or is the only category that needs to be reconfigured the old sex and gender binary?"

I think that pervasive and unconscious misogyny has never been more evidence than with this issue.

Can you imagine how the 'left wing progressives' calling woman bigots would respond to a group of white people telling black people how they should or shouldn't think or feel about an issue affecting them, or a group neurotypical people doing the same to people with autism.

The crux of it is that there is not widespread acceptance that woman are a marginalised group. This probably stems from not being a minority group. However, the horrendous treatment of black people when they have not been a minority group goes to show it is all about power and not number.

OP, your family member sounds like she needs an anonymous gift of Helen Joyce's Trans to help her clarify things in her mind....

OP, I'm a molecular biologist and your relative is captured. Maybe ask her to blink twice if she needs help escaping?

Go on chaps. Prove that gender is a better way to pick categories for sports or healthcare than sex is.

This is actually one of the places where there is a very small scrap of meat, and I think GC people tend to gloss over it.

Sport is not reproduction. Why should reproductive class matter to sport?

The answer is that, strictly speaking, it doesn't. And we see this in (good) rules handling DSDs.

Sport classification is designed to increase participation. Because of our 2-sexed reproduction system, there are 2 standard phenotypes for humans - the male and female phenotypes.

99%+ of the population have one of these 2 standard phenotypes. Hence 2 classes called "men" and "women" can include 99% of the population, giving meaningful competition to both. Without that split, 50% of the population - the female half - would be excluded - unable to ever win an event at top level, and at lower level an exceptional female athlete would be competing against average males. The 3rd XI football team in a school might have 1 female player - the best girl in the school. No other girl would get to play.

That 2-way split is necessary to include the female 50%. It still doesn't include everyone. We have further splits in some events for weight, making them accessible to more, and we have splits for handicaps, leading to the Paralympics.

When it comes to a very small minority of people with sex-related disorders, their classification may not directly align with their reproductive function. For 99% of people, their phenotype is standard for their reproductive sex, but some do have some variation.

For that very small minority, we need to decide how to classify them, making it fair both for them and for other athletes. It may or may not align with reproductive function - their overall body is what matters. (For some, like Semenya, it's mad that their classification is even controversial. Semenya is reproductively and phenotypically male, aside from some possible genital formation issues, but you don't play sport with your genitals). The IAAF DSD rules make very clear that they're not saying anything about someone's legal status, or identity, or gender. They're ruling on your "sporting sex", which may be different from other classifications.

But trans people are not part of this small minority with non-standard phenotypes. They're normal males and females who might choose to take performance-decreasing or increasing drugs. That choice is up to them, but performance-enhancing drugs rule you out of competitive sport, and performance-decreasing drugs are not a justification to be placed into a lower category. (The same logic barring general doping surely applies - incentivising people to take drugs to increase chance of winning is bad!)

It is notable that many trans-rights advocates get suddenly very rigid about binaries in this area. They won't accept queering concepts like "some men can be mothers, get over it" or "some women compete in men's sport, get over it". Labels suddenly get very important and rigid for them, when convenient. "Some men compete in women's sport, get over it" seems to be accepted though. Weird.

Anyway, the important point is separate male+female categorisation is ALL about inclusion. THAT is the inclusive policy. One simple split includes 3-4 billion people. Undermining that split screws over 3-4 billion people.

Can you imagine how the 'left wing progressives' ... would respond to a group of white people telling black people how they should or shouldn't think or feel about an issue affecting them

Progressives already do this* and don't have a problem with it, in certain circumstances. What's changed is some people recognising the power to be gained in being able to apply identity labels to others and also to deny the others their ability to define their own identities. This wouldn't be much of a problem except for the recent extraordinary change where the cultural elites have declared that this is now the proper way to do things.

• www.salon.com/2015/07/21/dear_white_progressives_stop_telling_black_people_how_to_vote or declarations that if a woman is black she will be a supporter of the gender identity ideology

I think it will happen with race at some point.

Once there’s enough privileged and highly vocal activists demanding acceptance we will start to see a shift. Because there’s still so much racism around it will be white fools who claim souls that align with other races that get to make outrageous claims and as we are already seeing people switching off their brains and agreeing with narratives that confirm unconscious (maybe) stereotypes it won’t take much of a push to suggest a white skinned person is actually black. The same arguments will be used. Spectrums and feelings and social constructs blah blah blah. And yes, Anyone who has been oppressed because of race will be told they have it better, they are the privileged ones. Because some will want in on a category that doesn’t apply to them (shortlists, grants, political office positions etc) and some will have bought into the idea you are what you feel/claim to be not what you appear. After all, you can’t assume someone’s ethnicity just by looking, it would be bigoted and wrong to ask, there have always been people of ambiguous ethnicity etc.

So I do think it will happen and there will be plenty of people denying they ever found this appalling. And anyone who says “hang on! This isn’t right!” will be cancelled.

So, when we lead our lives, construct our buildings, fly our aircraft, do we say we must focus on the edge cases of the extraordinary non-Newtonian gravity?

It is notable how few buildings needed to be reconstructed post-Einstein.

There are many, many buildings from previous centuries still standing.

I don't even think any building codes have been revised.

(I've similarly never felt any need to consult Butler when choosing a mate, and I think her influence on farming has also been minimal).

Basically this is about faith rather than science. Many biologists believe in a soul, what's her position on that? If you believe in a soul you can only make unscientific claims since you have no evidence but your own faith.

All this everything's a social construct was once an interesting and illuminating idea but is being stretched to absurdity. If man and woman is a social construct then surely so is being human. How does she know she's human? What happens to children reared by wolves, are they wolves if they think they are?

@NecessaryScene

The former group probably has fewer DSDs in it though. Claims of physical "intersex" characteristics are relatively common in people with trans identities to justify the identity. (This was recorded by researchers long before the current trans trend). Real DSDs are very rare, so that group is likely to have a lot of self diagnosis, (including outright fabrication, like Yaniv), I feel.

Trans people self-identifying as having DSDs is a phenomenon. As in this case, even when disproved, it's taken as an indication of something that is non-falsifiable.

"That mask is a potent symbol of her struggle to rip apart preconceived notions of gender and gain recognition of her own gender identity--that biology is not black and white and that shades of gray should be celebrated, not denied.
Xora was raised as a boy and began presenting as a woman when she turned 25. For years, she believed that she had androgen insensitivity syndrome, or AIS, a condition that causes person who is genetically male, with XY chromosomes, to not respond to male hormones. She identified as intersex, and she thought she was lucky to escape to invasive, painful, and often lengthy surgical procedures that other intersex children undergo, a practice that the United Nations has recently denounced as "torture."
Early this year, chromosomal tests showed that Xora was mistakenshe does not have AIS. She says that this only adds to her belief that gender does not exist on a binaryand that neither trans nor intersex people should have the suffer for that."

archive.is/ARGbR

Could children taking puberty blockers be considered to have a medically induced DSD?

Helpful post NecessaryScene.

I agree that sex categories are about inclusiveness and that issues relating to DSDs are and should be separated from those relating to gender identity.

The point about male+female categorisation being all about inclusion is an important one.

Based on the principle of inclusion, surely if some males going to be included in the female category, and decisions are going to relate to testosterone levels and physical intervention to 'level the playing field' it is only inclusive if the rules determining this apply to all males.

Therefore any male suppressing testosterone to the required level should be able to compete in the female category - not just those that think of themselves as women. Unless they open the flood gates so all males who think of themselves as woman can compete, and as long as there are measurable parameters based on biology, how can a defence be made to exclude some males who meet these criteria and not others.

For a scientist, any concept should only be useful in as much as it provides predictive power.

Sex predicts many things very well. If you classify people by sex correctly, you can model things about them far more precisely than if you didn't.

"Gender" predicts very little. In as much as it has predictive value, it's because it's strongly correlated with sex, because 99% of people don't bother to make a distinction, or aren't even aware of the distinction. But anywhere it predicts anything, biological sex would predict it better.

Can anyone think of a counter-example?

Fashion choice is the only thing I can think of. There may be enough people trying to signal their opposite-sex "gender" via fashion that use of makeup, or wearing of dresses (or flannel shirts) may correspond more to "gender" than "sex".

Over recent years I've seen claims that someone being trans means they have an intersex of the brain condition, and them having a conventional "bodily" DSD is neither here nor there. It's actually implicit in the pink brains/blue brains + in the wrong body argument although that's not explicitly linked to it being a "DSD".

I have been waiting for this to enter the mainstream of trans activist argument but it's still uncommon. I do expect to see it become popular at some point though.

Trans people self-identifying as having DSDs is a phenomenon.

Including non-existant conditions, such has being a full hermaphrodite with two sets of genitals. Such claims depend on the surrounding environment, and what people in society currently believe about sex.

There was a good bit related to this in this Helen Joyce interview, talking about Lili Elbe ("The Danish Girl").

And there was a theory of what they called ‘vicarious nasal menstruation.’ They believed that in a woman whose reproductive organs were going wrong, it might affect her nose, and she would menstruate through her nose. That was a well-known idea at the time. So when Elbe went to the clinic and said, ‘I have monthly nosebleeds,’ he was saying something they understood at the time as being a sign that he was really a woman. And now nobody believes in vicarious nasal menstruation, so nobody turns up at gender clinics saying, ‘My nosebleeds follow a monthly cycle.’ I think it’s an absolutely fabulous example of how, since the 1930s, the idea of what it is that makes you ‘really’ a woman has changed and is really, again, quite culturally specific.

Trans ideology posits this batshittery, at the most basic level, via a bastardization of Derrida and the deconstruction of language, and a hefty dose of post Saussurian semiotics (looking at the difference between the 'sign' and the signifier).

Not that any of them would be aware of this. Essentially, this branch of post modern philosophy asks reasonably interesting questions about the difference and interaction between the words we use to describe things, and the things themselves. A signpost to Edinburgh has no material effect on Edinburgh, but it does enable me to go in the right direction if I want to get to Edinburgh. But if I don't speak English, and only know a Cyrillic alphabet, the sign is pointless.

The stupidity of trying to apply this method of philosophical and literary query to a material science question is ably illustrated by the inability of the OP's family member becoming defensive and unable to articulate her point.

The whole point of language, and even rarefied ideas like deconstruction, is to communicate. Deconstruction asks some interesting questions about the mechanisms of communication, but the point is not to shut down communication entirely and dissolve all meaning.

But again, this has fuck all to do with biology and material science. To quote someone who had rather a big influence on language - a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

Sex is binary. You could swap the word 'sex' for drubblefop, and the word 'binary' for tingswangler, and say 'Drubblefop is tingswangler', and it would make no difference whatsoever to the observable, repeatable material reality. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for sex in homo sapiens being anything other than an immutable binary system.

And even sensibly applying semiotics here, Edinburgh would still be in the same place even if the sign didn't exist in either English or Russian, but we'd all have a much harder job getting there. So pretending that sex is a social construct might give twatty scientists desperate for funding an intriguing idea to sell to a daft grant org committee, but it will do sod all to address the material issues that are a consequence of sex.

The whole point of language, and even rarefied ideas like deconstruction, is to communicate.

Indeed. Headdesk.

Going to quote Helen Joyce from that interview again. Please, everyone read that interview, or watch one of her other ones. Like me, she's a mathematician, well-versed in how definitions work, and is absolutely fucked off with this idiocy.

I think some of them genuinely are ideologues. It’s amazing how far you can go when you start with a lie, that male can be female. You can end up literally anywhere; you could argue absolutely anything. I mean, that’s a mathematical fact [...]

When I started writing the book, I could imagine that the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ meant something that’s not quite the same as ‘adult human female’ and ‘adult human male.’ But you can’t do that with ‘male’ and ‘female.’ They have really very specific meanings which are by no means just human meanings. When you say that a male person can be female, you can get to literally anything from that, because that’s like ‘zero equals one.’ During the research I was reading philosophy papers, and I remember [in] one paper I got to page 20 or something, and then there was a sentence: “I take it as axiomatic that trans women are women.” I actually shouted out loud, “For fuck’s sake!” How can you do that? That’s just like saying, ‘I take it as axiomatic that zero equals one.’ You’d have to do a lot of work, at the very least, to say that trans women are women. When I started writing the book, I thought that I was going to have to put in an entire appendix on arguments [that] ‘trans women are women’ and why they don’t work. And in the end, I just thought: “You know what, these are so shit.” These people are not debating, they’re not talking about their ideas; they’re just putting it out there. And people aren’t saying anything, because they’re afraid they’ll say something wrong. So unsurprisingly, this is the most pathetically weak, appalling, stupid body of work I’ve ever seen. You know that I’m not an academic philosopher, I’m not a philosopher at all, and I can look at this, and say, “Oh, that’s where you went wrong. That’s where you said zero equals one.”

So the intellectual reason was just how appalling this stuff was. It actually intellectually offended me.

Over recent years I've seen claims that someone being trans means they have an intersex of the brain condition, and them having a conventional "bodily" DSD is neither here nor there. It's actually implicit in the pink brains/blue brains + in the wrong body argument although that's not explicitly linked to it being a "DSD".

There's also an increasing tendency for people to say DSDs/intersex are "non binary" implying that non binary gender identity is the same thing, I think deliberately to muddle the waters so people don't know what's being spoken of.

It's actually implicit in the pink brains/blue brains + in the wrong body argument although that's not explicitly linked to it being a "DSD".

It's also implicit in the "hormone wash in the womb" theory.

While the biological definition of sex is needed to understand the diversity of life, that doesn’t mean it’s the best definition for ensuring fair competition in sport or adequate access to healthcare. We can’t expect sporting codes, medical systems and family law to adopt a definition simply because biologists find it useful

Sporting codes are (used to be) based entirely in the biological definition because the biology informs physical development. Sport is physical, depends on the physical , biological capacity of the body + Talent + training.