Article from American Scientist argues that sex isn’t binary

[WaterThyme]

The article is written by two anthropologists, an associate prof of anatomy and a prof of gender studies and sexuality. I don’t know where to start with its illogicality.

It claims that several factors, gonads, gametes, hormones etc are involved in sex, the definition has evolved and is not binary. Instead of it having developed and become clear.

The article leans on what it calls “intersex” individuals to claim sex isn’t binary.

Lastly, it points to all the different ways sex happens across nature to assert there is no one definition.

It’s all the flaky illogical arguments crammed into one article.

Quaintly, the profile of the anatomy Prof includes one other paper, on the development of the human pelvis. Throughout, it refers to male and female pelvises in a wholly binary way!

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/biology-is-not-binary?fbclid=IwAR1BC-WMEktTSo0Ylov09lkoLu_toV67NnVUe1NU6cU7z_yuGYzRZux7Hro#

also archived: https://archive.ph/qIADd

It looks like a souped-up student blog tbh, I wouldn't get too exercised about it. I agree that it's crap though.

I guess the rest of mammallian nature lost that memo. Can a male dog give birth? No. Can a female cat impregnate a male cat? No.

Only males have the biological potential to impregnate. Only females have the potential to give birth. Anything outside of that is "abnormal" and a deviation, NOT the norm. Jeeze, these people are utterly deluded.

Did they explain what the third gamete was?

It's a form of Lysenkoism:

https://scholar.harvard.edu/kleelerner/publications/lysenkoism-deadly-mix-pseudoscience-and-political-ideology

A couple of decades ago the academy in the US was keen to stick the boot into that kind of anti-science, but now it's all the rage.

It's a funny old world.

It may be a “souped-up student blog” @PermanentTemporary, but the second author is a full professor at Princeton and the rest are associate professors at other US universities. People will take them seriously.

I was appalled at the American Anthropological Association cancelling a session on sex and gender.

See also this:

I got as far as the nonsensical clitoris<--->penis continuum and gave up.

Anyone who doesn't know enough about anatomy to recognise that a clitoris is anatomically different to a penis is an ignorant twonk.

It seems to be arguing that because DSD conditions exist, sex is not binary?

Yes, do they think the urethra runs through the clitoris? And isn’t the clitoris largely internal? Is the penis identical to the clitoris apart from the external parts? How do the clitoris and the penis relate to other parts of the body, for example the prostate?

egg
pegg
speg
sperg
sperm

Egg from woman + sperm from man = embryo then foetus then baby

what happens with every other variation?

Peggman?
Spergman?

Even if all this were true, it wouldn't make someone with a penis, testicles, beard, XY chromosomes etc a woman just because he feels like it, which is the conclusion all this is supposed to lead towards.

Colours aren't binary; that doesn't mean black is white.

Ye gods, the nonsensical pseudoscience of it all makes my brain itch

It’s got all the trans ideology muddled thinking, including the inconsistent meaning of gender to obfuscate whatever argument they think they are making. And they suggest that the prevailing scientific understanding of sex was that, until the late 19th century, there was only one sex - this may possibly have been true among intellectuals, but ordinary people definitely kew that to make a baby you need a woman and a man (and they knew from Old Testament / classical times that semen was in some sense seed).

But once you divorce sex from reproduction, it all makes sense. Once you realise sex is nothing to do with reproduction, except epiphenomenally, and is all to do with chromosomes, cultural influences, genitalia, hormones and cishet white supremacy and the colour of children's toys and clothes, then there is no reason not to define sex as anything you like - or anything at all, whether you like it or not. Sex is club, a friendship group, a way of pleasure, a mark on a passport, an identity or series of identities of differing degrees of marginalisation.

As the article says:

In science, how sex is defined for a particular study is based on what organism is being studied and what question is being asked. The criteria for defining sex will differ in studies of mushrooms, orangutans, and humans. It will also change if the purpose of the study is to look at genetics, or gross anatomy, or hormones, or reproduction, or gender.

Or, you can be, like, totally out of date and unchill and think sex is all about reproduction.

On another note, I see they have provided a reference list, but have not thought it worthwhile to cite the references in direct support of their claims. I suppose it's generic "further reading". They also seem to be working on a loose definition of the term "definition", including "marker", "associated characteristic", and (in "assigned sex at birth") "term I just made up" which doesn't reflect any reality on this planet.

Thats an odd selection of experts for the topic, isn't it?

We know that each of the elements contributing to a person's observed sex, including genes, chromosomes, cells, internal and external structures, hormones, and developmental pathways, fits into the M/F binary. Someone with a complex DSD might have a mixture of elements, but they're all going to be M or F. None of them will be a hitherto undiscovered Quark.

People with complex DSDs are IMHO the only people who should be allowed to choose their own sex, by not operating on them as babies, and letting them develop their gender identity (in the child development sense) as they grow.

So I'm happy for Caster Semenya or a CAIS individual to self-describe as female, but I don't agree with World Athletics allowing Semenya to race against females if she suppresses her testosterone levels, because she already has a man's body and that's irreversible.

All of the above is pure biology and therefore irrelevant to social concepts like gender roles, metaphysical or psychological concepts like gender identity, and political or legal concepts like 'transgender people'.

It's all so unscientific it makes my teeth itch.

Dawkins on these exact issues.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4998668-dawkins-on-intersex-and-sex-is-binary

😁