New York Times publishes opinion piece supporting the importance of sex

[Ingenieur]

The New York Times, a bastion of correct thinking, has published an opinion piece, jointly from a philosopher and an evolutionary biologist. It states the critical importance of sex and the dangers of subordinating it to gender, and that the shifts of language have not been organic, rather imposed from the top by institutions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/03/opinion/sex-assigned-at-birth.html

More like this please!

Wow!

Two words: reverse ferret.

The article is not surprising from these authors but I'm impressed that NYT published it.

Authors: Alex Byrne and Carole K. Hooven
Mr. Byrne is a philosopher and the author of “Trouble With Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions.” Ms. Hooven is an evolutionary biologist and the author of “T: The Story of Testosterone, the Hormone That Dominates and Divides Us”

The shift to “sex assigned at birth” may be well intentioned, but it is not progress. We are not against politeness or expressions of solidarity, but “sex assigned at birth” can confuse people and creates doubt about a biological fact when there shouldn’t be any. Nor is the phrase called for because our traditional understanding of sex needs correcting — it doesn’t.
This matters because sex matters. Sex is a fundamental biological feature with significant consequences for our species, so there are costs to encouraging misconceptions about it.
Sex matters for health, safety and social policy and interacts in complicated ways with culture. Women are nearly twice as likely as men to experience harmful side effects from drugs, a problem that may be ameliorated by reducing drug doses for females. Males, meanwhile, are more likely to die from Covid-19 and cancer, and commit the vast majority of homicides and sexual assaults. We aren’t suggesting that “assigned sex” will increase the death toll. However, terminology about important matters should be as clear as possible.

https://archive.is/wGF4S

I've no access to the comments so I've no idea what's happening BTL.

@RethinkingLife

It's a mixed bag BTL, probably 40/60 favouring those who believe in gender ideology. A "healthcare provider" who says new language is useful to express a changing understanding of sex, a few mystical northern-Californians and a pastor all criticising the article without addressing it.

A few people supporting the article, with many familiar topics from Mumsnet.

But much, much less one-sided than you'd fear.

A very good article, thanks.

One example of the comments:

The idiocy around the notion that sex is assigned at birth is multilayered: beyond suggesting arbitrariness it also suggests that categorizing humans et birth as male/female is an act of oppression, which fits well with the general worldview of its proponents who see everything as oppressor/oppressed - they love the binary approach when it fits their agenda but reject it when it doesn’t - now that’s arbitrary, not the fact that someone is born with make or female genitalia. Maybe when we will be unfortunate enough to have trump again as president, one good consequence will be that these people will have to focus on real problems such as voting rights, the rule of law, and reproductive rights.

The times, they are a-changin’…

Wow.

I’d be wondering if Satan was about to ice skate to the office if NYT hadn’t posted something increasingly terfy every few weeks.

Bets on the next one? Interview with JK? 😃

By way of update, I'm nearing the end of the comments, actually it's skewing much more gender critical, probably 60/40 in favour of GC.

Most of the criticisms of the article are the usual be-kinders. But one great comment said this:

*Many commenters here are very muddled in their thoughts about those born with disorders of sexual development (who used to be called "intersex"). Why on earth would it be more important for doctors to know what sex they were assigned at birth (perhaps mistakenly) than their actual sex, which was determined later via DNA and other tests? Why would it be more important to know what sex they were assigned than to know that they have a disorder of sexual development? Indeed, why would the immediate, unreflective judgement of the pediatrician at the birth, perhaps mistaken, be medically important at all?

Those with disorders of sexual development are not served by calling it "sex assigned at birth" at all. It requires them to record an irrelevant mistake made at their birth. They are better off being asked what their sex is (which may have been determined later) and given a space on their medical forms to give details of their disorder.

But those who want to change our language usage here are not seeking precision. They want to use language to engineer social change. Of course language should be inclusive and precise--and we need words to refer to developing social categories. Let's make new words. The problem is with those who want to change the words for sex categories and not allow us to develop new ones, making certain things unsayable. We need a clear words for biological women and men. Women and men will do.*

This won't be happening at the Guardian on Kath Viner's watch!

Is there anyway to gauge the reaction to that post? Are people liking it?

There are already 1100 comments on the article, it seems to be getting a lot of traction.

On the whole, the GC comments have many more "recommends" than otherwise, quite a few have 75 or 80 recommends, compared to the 2 or even none that the GI comments are getting.

I can't find that specific comment on my browser, but there are lots of similar ones

@Helleofabore

This one has 105 likes:

Left-of-center centrist here, as I imagine the vast majority of commenters are. I have trans friends. I have friends with trans kids. I am supportive of trans rights. But the tacit demand that we as a society - and women in particular - hedge our sex with “assigned at birth” or the downright offensive “pregnant people” is causing a backlash from natural allies that is actively undercutting shared goals of acceptance of trans people. Please, in the name of making actual progress rather than creating litmus tests (and therefore giving right-wing nut jobs fissures to exploit), stop it. I am a woman. Most of us would appreciate it if a tiny minority of self-appointed morality police would stop trying to infringe upon, confuse, or otherwise qualify that fact.

It's a great comment. Lucid, logical. More of this sort of thing!

It's infuriating that people still refer to dsd's as intersex. Nearly all don't they have medical conditions that are related to their sex. Plus it is deeply upsetting for those with these conditions

But cynically, that suits some folks.

This is sort of my perspective but slightly less kind. Definitely the aggressive push to eradicate the word and category ’woman’ has led to sunlight that acceptance is not enough as it has to be acceptance without question regardless of women’s safety, dignity and privacy. Consequently has led to a lot of backlash. Unfortunately including for the LGB too.

It looks like Meghan Murphy shares your opinion that a reverse-ferret may be incoming.

https://twitter.com/MeghanEMurphy/status/1775588011767419092

I'm not celebrating historical and consistent cowardice and a complete lack of journalistic integrity as a win because the media is shrewd enough to discern the tides are turning.

From the article

The shift to “sex assigned at birth” may be well intentioned, but it is not progress. We are not against politeness or expressions of solidarity, but “sex assigned at birth” can confuse people and creates doubt about a biological fact when there shouldn’t be any. Nor is the phrase called for because our traditional understanding of sex needs correcting — it doesn’t.

Is sanity returning to newspapers at last? Or did this article slip through accidentally?

Call me cynical, but there's an election in the US this year and this is a divisive subject. A bit of back tracking by the left on TI is a way to maybe recoup some lost Democrat votes.

It wouldn't surprise me if we saw the same here from The Guardian as they try to get left leaning GC women back on side.

I think Meghan Murphy is probably right. The NY Times will have noticed a few things:

1. An increasing number of liberal, social democratic European countries deciding to put a stop to prescribing puberty blockers and other harmful interventions to children.
2. A growing body of research evidence to show that children grow out of gender dysphoria
3. A trickle of lawsuits against medical providers who have performed unnecessary surgery on children, which will probably grow to a tsunami.
4. Massive public hostility to gender ideology, as evidenced in opinion polls, thousands of below the line comments and social media posts.

At this point, the NYT is probably thinking: "What happens if we tentatively criticise gender ideology? How will our readers respond?" The response of readers will guide their decision to run more articles like this or to revert to being cheerleaders for gender ideology.

Like Murphy, I can't summon up any feeling other than contempt. They could have been brave and taken a sensible stance against gender ideology earlier. Instead, they chose to demonise people who were bravely fighting on behalf of women and children - see that infamous poster about JK Rowling, for example.

I won't have any time for them until they offer the most grovelling apology to Rowling and all the other courageous feminists who have been fighting this battle long before it was fashionable. And even then, I still wouldn't trust them.

I read Meghan's tweet before I saw this thread - you beat me into posting it!

Keep Prisons Single Sex (USA) also posted this on MM's thread:
NYT has rejected every opinion piece submitted by KPSS over the years. In Feb 2023, we were on their sidewalk for hours with this truck and no reporter reached out.
https://twitter.com/NoXY_USA/status/1775652423261946219

While it's kind of gratifying to see them trying to backtrack, the lack of curiosity about the issue from some of the most respected media heavyweights has been shocking. It's their job to be nosey and ask difficult questions from the start, not to wait till it feels safe before peeping over the parapet.

Ah cross post with @RoyalCorgi - sorry!

I love to see those ferrets reverse.

The US has a bulwark in their first amendment law that should allow the debates to be had openly.

You mean like this article? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex

or this one: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/28/erase-biological-definition-sex-gender-self-identification-trans-transgender-feminist-case

or this one: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/jun/22/by-conflating-gender-and-sex-we-undermine-sporting-competition

or this one: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/feb/03/uk-athletics-trans-women-female-events-law-change

or this one: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2022/mar/21/coe-warns-transgender-athletes-pose-risk-to-integrity-of-womens-sport