Can anyone with a biologist background explain this tweet to me

[BluesandClues]

This tweet seems to get trotted out a lot by people on Twitter suggested that biologically sex is more complicated than first thought.

I will admit to be sceptical, but I’ve not seen it refuted.

twitter.com/RebeccaRHelm/status/1207834357639139328?s=20&t=nSijAQNWTv2y4WzrjikNbQ

Wow, that got garbled. I guess the way I wrote it was interpreted as a tag by the software. I'll try again:

Sex refers to your reproductive class. Female - large gametes (in humans, ova); male - small gametes (in humans, sperm).

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how "complicated sex" fits into our understanding of evolution by means of natiural selection.

I'm pretty sure that thread has been discussed before but even IF sex was “more complicated” that binary (it isn’t) it means nothing in relation to trans people because they are all completely binary in their sex.

I think the big problem with her line of reasoning is that she hasn’t put prevalence numbers for any of those variations. The differences she talks about are going to be tiny numbers relative to very large numbers of very typical XX and XY people. In all likelihood the numbers of trans-identified people is vastly larger than those with chromosomal differences relating to sex.

what I am willing to consider though is that environmental concerns with increased pollution and endocrine disrupters might play a part in all of this, but I don’t have any facts in this area.

It's appropriation of people with differences of sexual development.

It's blindsiding everyone with science that's got nothing to do with identity or gender dysphoria or any of the other reasons why people transition.

If you look at the quote tweets of this tweet there's a good one pointing this out.

(I've reported my other post as I don't think it will stand unfortunately)

This is a thread that pulls apart a similar article that uses differences of sexual development and differing hormonal conditions to argue the case for trans identity, which again, it has nothing to do with.

twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1280971658719789060?s=21&t=r9ZiVZmwNuKuRjFww0VIUw

It seems to ne that this is conflating two issues: how you get to be the sex you are and how many sexes there are. It is that second issue which is the material point. Despite the complexities, all human reproduction involves eggs and sperm. You either produce one or the other. Not both. Not something other than eggs or sperm. Some people produce neither for a varity of reasons, none of which affect which sex they are. In a miniscule number of cases, I believe, developmental disorders make it difficult to determine sex. But there are still only two sexes.

Surely if we followed the Twitter biologists logic we could offer all trans identifying individuals a chromosome analysis, which are readily available and easily affordable, and make that a requirement of a GRC.

Or, alternatively the pro trans lobby could stop using DSD which are unrelated to their cause as a tool against GC women and logic.

One more biologist responding. (Uni prof) Didn't read the whole linked thread because my eyes glazed over. She's making the argument that because there are developmental disorders, such as, say, being born without a leg, therefore how many legs humans have is complicated. She goes on to elaborate that as little as a toe could be lacking and to wonder whether that should make a big difference when counting legs. And so on.

It's also true that there's nothing to refute. At least as far as I read, the conditions she describes exist. They're also irrelevant.

To begin with, the fact of developmental disorders doesn't change the ordinary process whereby humans have two legs. Or a given sex.

To go on with, none of that has anything to do with the trans issue. The argument there is that sex does not matter. It is your innate gender that gives you your sexuality.

The whole argument is that biology is irrelevant. So what is the use of arguing abstruse biological points? Unless the hope is to confuse enough nonbiologists into conceding.

And the innate gender identity is also not a biological thing. It is not found in the brain, or the heart or the appendix. It's one of these ineffable essences like a soul. Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It could. It might not. That's something for you and your god to work out. Ever since we discovered how much better it works to separate beliefs and state, other people are not compelled to support deeply held feelings.

Surely the only way to prove the Twitter biologist's reasoning is to conduct a large-scale study into people who identify as trans and people who do not, and see whether there is a significant difference in their genetic make-up.

Otherwise this is all just supposition, which is not scientific.

To me, all this talk of biology being complicated comes across as the trans lobby saying 'how can you possibly understand something that makes us so special and interesting, and frankly, better than you boring, binary people, so just take our word for it, shut up and stop going on about women's rights and single sex spaces.

I want a standing ovation emoticon for this.

that the tiny few transwomen there are threaten us, in our toilets, changing rooms, and in our sports, because we're so fragile as natal women, and those possessing (or who once possessed) penises and testicles, are so powerful.

Maybe it's not just specifically the tiny few transwomen that women feel threatened by, but the whole idea that any man can claim to be a woman, and use those spaces, and that is not a tiny, few number. And what difference is there between a man who feels like a woman, and a man who feels like a man? Any man in female spaces represents a potential threat, or a potential reason for a woman to feel that her privacy and dignity has been eroded. It doesn't matter how few.

And yes, I think females are physically less powerful than men with or without penis and testicles. They also have different needs and are entitled to separate spaces, particularly given the power men have in society more generally. There's no shame in acknowledging that women and men are different physically and in terms of how they have been socialised.

The whole argument is that biology is irrelevant. So what is the use of arguing abstruse biological points? Unless the hope is to confuse enough nonbiologists into conceding.

Bizarrely, I think some of them are trying to use this 'biology is complicated' argument as a way of showing that biology is irrelevant. So to them, the point of arguing this is to show that if you can't define specifically what makes someone female or male with a single, universal test/criterion, then therefore it doesn't exist as a concept, and therefore sex is something you can decide for yourself. I know, the logic doesn't work, but that is the logic they seem to be using. And it's incredibly hard to refute because it's such bad logic - but the scientific ways of refuting it don't then address their logic issue, so they don't accept them. it's immensely frustrating. I see it shared on FB etc all the time, mostly with people claiming that 'we don't actually know for sure what sex everyone is because it's so complicated, how can you say it's chromosomes or hormones or genitals or whatever, so therefore be kind and let people identify how they like, science isn't good enough for this yet and we need to listen to people instead'

Trans rights advocates: If you really think about it, there's no difference at all between men & women.

Also trans rights advocates: Of course I intend to keep up HRT for the next sixty years. And I'm getting Facial Harmonization Surgery in a month, eeek!!!!!!!

It's not precisely about women being threatened. It's about having the right to have boundaries around your private body. If female swimmers are not allowed to use their own locker rooms without surety of the absence of a biological male, then their right to set boundaries around their nakedness is being crossed. That is problematic.

16? Bloody hell, that must have been awful. Was the karyotyping done as part of the investigations as to why they kept happening? And if you don't mind my asking, what does the t(3;8)(q25.3;q13) bit mean?

Trans rights advocates: If you really think about it, there's no difference at all between men & women.

If that's what they think then they are denying the existence of trans people. If there is no difference between men and women then there can be no trans people because there is nothing to transition from or to because we're all the same. Transgenderism requires there to be a clear distinction between the sexes.

what does the t(3;8)(q25.3;q13) bit mean?

Unhelpfully, I'm going to say that the t refers to translocation of material. A translocation happens when a chromosome breaks and the (usually two) fragmented pieces re-attach to different chromosomes.

q tells you the whereabouts of something of interest. p means it's on the short arm of a chromosome (which has a centromere and 2 arms) and q that it's on the long arm of a chromosome and tells you something about its position (the higher the number, the further away it is from the centre).

medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/howgeneswork/genelocation/

NB: I know nothing about the genetics of VSD. I'm more familiar with translocations in cancer where t(3;8)(q26;q24) would mean there's a (reciprocal) translocation between chromosomes 3 and 8, and breakpoints identified at bands 3q26 and 8q24.

It's the International System for Human Cytogenetic Nomenclature (ISCN). Crudely, the form t(A;B)(p1;q2) indicates a translocation between chromosome A and chromosome B (or 3 and 8 in the quoted example). The information in the second set of brackets tells you the precise or neighbourhood position within the chromosome for chromosomes A and B respectively—so, repeating myself, p is the short arm of the chromosome (not used in the quoted example), and q is the long arm (used in the example), and the numbers after p or q more properly locate the regions, bands and sub-bands you see when you've stained the chromosome with a staining dye.

PS: I've a feeling that this won't really help.

We are in the strange - some would say outright perverse - situation of people arguing, ferociously, that the tiny few transwomen there are threaten us, in our toilets, changing rooms, and in our sports, because we're so fragile as natal women, and those possessing (or who once possessed) penises and testicles, are so powerful.

We're protesting at the wholesale attempt to completely re-define what it is to be a woman, with absolutely no agreement or consultation with us. By men - people whose entire sex is privileged and oppresses women - structurally speaking.

"Noting about us without us"

Transwomen have to be allowed into women spaces because they are unsafe in male spaces, so we are told, but women are mocked as "fragile" if they say that they don't feel safe in toilets and changing rooms with men around. It's weird.

It really isn't complicated (those who trot that message out are attempting to be elitist by saying "I know more than you simpletons").

How many toes does a human have?
The simple answer is 10. 5 on each foot.
But the woke, TRA answer would be like
"Well it's not that simple, you see there's this and there's that, and there's people with body dysmorphia who don't believe they should have 10 toes and we should respect that opinion which differs to biological fact. It's discrimination to design footwear based on the fact that people have 5 toes on each foot."

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus
PS: I've a feeling that this won't really help.

Actually, it did. Thank you for taking the time to explain.

Round and around and around we go . . .