Please help shed light on sex/gender debate in science

[YahdahYahdayYoo]

I have a PhD in biology but left research in my 20s and haven't kept up with the research since. Unfortunately, I've been spending the last day or two down a rabbit hole of discovery and depression. My once much beloved sphere has been shredded by DEI. We all knew Scientific American has been captured since that special issue a few years ago. It turns out now Cell and Nature are on to it declaring 'biological sex' difficult and not inclusive.

From Cell this year!
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1036931

Nature 2015
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
Yet if biologists continue to show that sex is a spectrum, then society and state will have to grapple with the consequences, and work out where and how to draw the line. Many transgender and intersex activists dream of a world where a person's sex or gender is irrelevant. Although some governments are moving in this direction, Greenberg is pessimistic about the prospects of realizing this dream — in the United States, at least. “I think to get rid of gender markers altogether or to allow a third, indeterminate marker, is going to be difficult.”

Cell 2024
https://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(24)00122-3
The history of sex research: Is “sex” a useful category?

Answer: no

However, this article is later cited by a scientist whose career has focused on sex differences. The author does suitable head bowing to the DEI lobby but comes out strongly in favour of biological sex given the atrocious history of overlooking the female sex category in scientific and medical research.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01205-2

I simply cannot believe we're in a place where sex is a spectrum and 'we can't know what sex someone is' has become cannon knowledge. Thank goodness for Richard Dawkins. That man might have been bolshy and annoying over his crusade against religion but we need all his oratory skills and insights to fight this plague. I really had no idea this has spread so far and so deep and so high (and I've been following this board for years - GI is a gift that keeps on giving 🙄).

Can someone explain where/why biologists went wrong because I missed this one

No idea why but here is the teaching slide

New theory. Perhaps this question doesn’t refer to humans, but organisms more generally? Would that make more sense?

Is that a clownfish in the background ? 🤔

That makes no sense, there's no other type of gamete than sperm and egg. It's binary even in hermaphrodites.

I'm intrigued by what the "¹" on "Usually" is referencing to explain this.

there are 10 kinds of people who understand binary....

The other options were rejected because some of them change over a lifetime. Well, gametes do equally. Women stop producing gametes after a certain point in middle age for example.

It's the sort of question that doesn't bare close analysis. It's the multi choice that throws what wants to be a complex questions into a gotcha. At university, people should be asked to (and able to) write in long form and use justifications. But that takes time to mark so gotcha it is.

I did ask DC about this. Something to do with single cell organisms I think. I know nothing about biology, will ask again. (I googled it - isogamy maybe?). About to go down an internet wormhole reading about bdelloid rotifers which I have certainly never heard of before in my 53 years. Learn something new every day.

Oh that makes sense then, but seems quite misleading to put this caveat in a slide that discusses gonads.

I love the expression " bdelloid rotifer". It is swathed in mystery...

I went down the rabbit hole as well, and found out that they reproduce asexually - through cloning. They have, says National Geographic, abstained from sex for 80 million years. There are no males, only females says NatGeog.

This begs the question of what "female" means. If they are asexual, then surely they are not female. Using the terms "female" and "daughter" for them is metaphorical to the point of confusion.

I struggled with this article, but at least it has a glossary. As I understand it they’re not sure whether there were ever males or not, and are trying to figure out what’s going on by finding patterns in DNA.

https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/S0168-9525(24)00028-3.pdf

Seems they can survive regular dessication and large doses of radiation and they seem to have been snatching bits of genetic material from other organisms. Their sex is not the most interesting thing about them!

(apologies for de-rail)

Single celled organisms don't have gametes.

If it's about all organisms rather than specifically humans, they probably mean mushrooms. Mushroom mating systems are weird.

Genetic studies of bdelloid rotifers suggest that they do have male as well as female versions - it's just that we haven't found the males yet. They possibly only appear occasionally, with asexual reproduction being the primary means of reproduction. A bit like aphids.

Sperm.
Egg.

No speg.

Daphnia seem to reproduce roughly similarly to aphids - females asexually produce a clone army during the growing season, but when the going gets tough then some of their eggs develop into males.

Although aphids are cooler with their generations inside generations.

(Gratuitous picture of Daphnia from my pond).

PS. I have tried to find some bdelloid rotifers to look at under the microscope by soaking moss in rainwater, but all I found were a couple of nematodes that slithered away too quickly to be photographed.

Oh my, a fellow microscope geek 🤓. Great photo!

Hello @YahdahYahdayYoo, I work in the life sciences in a Russell Group university and my jaw dropped when I saw that issue of Cell as well. (Cell and its associated publications are American, originating in Boston, and is associated with prestigious institutions like MIT and Harvard. I imagine these places are pretty captured, which explains that edition. Nature is UK/ European.)

I work mainly in cell biology/ biochemistry, and by and large sex and gender isn’t an issue in the work I do, as e.g. mitosis (cell division) happens in pretty much the same way whether you are male, female, intersex, human, zebra fish or fruit fly.

The issue of sex and gender really becomes important with things like clinical trials and population studies. Historically, female inclusion in clinical trials in particular has been overlooked, which is why the SAGER guidelines were brought in. Cell have now updated their policy for their own journals when reporting data where sex and gender is relevant.

Here are their guidelines for collecting and reporting these kinds of studies:

"For instance, when asking about gender and sex, researchers can use a two-step process: (1) ask for gender identity allowing for multiple options and (2) if relevant to the research question, ask for “sex assigned at birth,” which is preferred over “biological sex,” “birth sex,” or “natal sex.” With work involving cells and model organisms, authors are advised to use the term “sex”."

Which leads to daft statements like:

“instead of using the category “women” as a proxy variable, the more precise variable of uterine presence/absence increases accuracy in estimating incidence of uterine cancer in human populations”

(a quote from one of the articles in that issue.)

I’ve been checking to see if the articles in that issue are archived and the only one I can see is the one you mentioned: The history of sex research: Is “sex” a useful category? (by someone called “Beans” Velocci, which I suspect is not the name they were given at birth). Sadly I can’t seem to archive the article Rigorous science demands support of transgender scientists. It is on the one hand a very comprehensive overview of current thinking within the transgender community, and on the other, a load of paranoid, narcissistic bollocks.

It is on the one hand a very comprehensive overview of current thinking within the transgender community, and on the other, a load of paranoid, narcissistic bollocks.

I suspect those may, in fact, be the same hand.

We generally overrate people's knowledge on the subject.

Last week a colleague at work started talking about Anneliese Dodds not knowing what a woman is, women don't have penises etc. I was a bit surprised and said "But X, you have pronouns in your bio". She looked puzzled and said "What does that have to do with it?"

I do think we tend to assume a consistency in people which just isn't there.

It’s truly terrifying that that appears in a textbook.

Almost all people with a DSD are male or female, they just have some traits that may be ambiguous.

Sex is recognised, not assigned. Though I love the idea of a Hogwarts-style sorting hat ….

Whoever wrote that is mightily confused. Esp with the sexual orientation bit about which 'gender' one is attracted to. Sexual orientation is about sex, not gender.

The 'assigned at birth' phrase is very clever. It implies this is a somewhat whimsical decision like the sorting hat. But of course, to a true believer any reference to JKRs work would be 'problematic' no doubt.
Plus they don't say how the 1 in 100 was arrived at. It may be one of those inflated figures including people with polycystic ovaries or minute differences in urethral exit points.

@AlexaAdventuress yeah, I think "sex at birth" is probably the clearest practical wording (despite the fact sex exists orior to birth). It leaves the door open for mistaken registration in the case of DSDs, but doesn't allow for the pretence that a doctor is merely guessing.

On the rare occasions that the genitalia are ambiguous at birth, medical staff tend to be very careful NOT to "assign a gender" until the sex of the baby has been confirmed by appropriate tests. I've known one instance in which a mistake was made. The mistake was understandable and picked up at the 6 week check, and even then it was horribly traumatic for the parents of the baby, but the specialist paediatric team were firm that it was in the child's best interest to be raised according to the chromosomal sex.

I think there's a fundamental barrier to discussion here that will mean that consensus is hard to find.
Ultimately, if you define sex strictly by gamete production then it is a binary.
However, if you define sex by physiology and morphology or anatomy then there is variation beyond the binary

Neither of those definitions are impacted by gender/gender identity, they are both just different scientific approaches. This argument would still (and does still!) exist outside of the trans debate.

Just wanted to raise this, as its too often reduced to "if you're XX you're a woman because you make ova" and that's just not universally accepted by all scientists, particularly developmental neurobiologists.

Just wanted to raise this, as its too often reduced to "if you're XX you're a woman because you make ova" and that's just not universally accepted by all scientists, particularly developmental neurobiologists.

How do these developmental neurobiologists square this with evolution?