Scientific research that questions sex being binary

[Tootingbec]

Hello!

Was in convo with a colleague who mentioned there is now quite a considerable body of scientific knowledge/research that demonstrates that biological sex is a spectrum.

I nodded away and avoided getting into a debate at this stage.

But what is this research? Does anyone who understands genetics and biology on here know if this research is decent? Any good take down from the majority scientific community that you would recommend?

I have a vague memory of someone countering the sex is a spectrum argument with “just because some people are born with an extra finger….”

Help! Want to be able to talk cogently about why the research is wonky

Sex not being "obvious" is not the same as there not being a distinct sex. Anyone who has ever tried sexing quail chicks can assure you of the truth of this.

Chromosome disorders do exist

But if we didn't think sex was binary they wouldn't be offering any support to help people with DSD to be more likely one or the other binary sex would they ?

It wouldn't be a disorder if it was just part of the sex spectrum

But mitogoshi there is no one who can produce both types of gametes (a sperm and an egg) and make a child on their own, like some species can. Even if there was, human sex would still be a binary system, in which two and only two different types of gametes, are the only way to reproduce (leaving aside cloning which isn’t something humans do on their own).

Bs a pp said, biological sex isn’t about a cultural sense of how people feel or like to categorise themselves or each other based on outward appearance. You might as well say sex is a spectrum because there’s a range of different-looking genitals. Biology doesn’t care. You’re either a male who, if you can/could make a gamete, it would be a sperm, or a female, where it will/would be an egg. Maybe that system doesn’t function well or at all, just as some people are partially sighted or blind, or have paralysed legs - but there is no “other” or “in between” apart from male and female.

Bodies are all different, yes - but that doesn’t make sex a spectrum. You might as well say the human senses are a spectrum because people have them to varying degrees. It’s just a meaningless application of the wrong concept.

Gender expression is a spectrum, absolutely - but it’s cultural and not biological.

Xxx = female
xxy = male
xyy = male

These chromosome arrangements do not produce ambiguous individuals, they are not just ‘technically’ male or female and it would be hugely offensive to them to suggest they are, they are definitely male or female. In any case disorders of sexual development do not in anyway alter the sex binary. There is no disorder that produces an in between gamete with a role in sexual reproduction.

It’s true that some people are born with genitals that appear ambiguous or like those of the opposite sex to what they are - and in the past that did lead to confusion as well as various myths and legends about people who are both sexes or can change sex. However no one has ever been known to actually be some third sex, be both sexes or be able to change sex.

if any of these scientific papers were about such a case, that would be news. Instead they are about trying to mess with definitions or argue that some anomalous situations mean there aren’t just two sexes. That’s cultural and political not scientific.

The problem with agreeing or not disputing that sex is a spectrum is that the TRA argument is that each sex is on a spectrum, not just sex more broadly.

Such that, there is a spectrum of the female sex with a biological woman at the far end and trans women somewhere along that spectrum. That’s their argument. To dispute that, you do have to go back to pointing out the obvious that sex is binary.

It’s been interesting seeing this shift by TRAs from gender ideology to sex is a spectrum. When women pushed back against GI on the basis of women’s biological needs and rights, some TRAs pivoted from claiming a gender imperative (based on identifying) to claiming a right to be included in the biology argument (based on sex being on a spectrum).

As @Zita60 said, it’s redefining sex for ideological and political reasons

@AlisonDonut dad's or any men could potentially have female cells from their mum's. I guess the only people with no potential for cells of the opposite sex by this method are women who have only given birth to female children.

@MrsWhattery the scientific America paper does suggest that when certain genes are not working, ovaries can produce sperm and vice versa . Which is really interesting but as several people have said still doesn't change the fact that humans have 2 different gametes which need to combine to form a foetus.
If these genes were damaged in a human which would be extremely rare they would just be producing the wrong gametes all the time and would be infertile so would probably never know.

I think it is useful to remember that the more we learn about genetics, the more complex the regulation of genes is and the more variation there is to what they are capable of doing. They are just either on or off, it is much more like a dimmer switch in terms of the amount of protein which is produced. This subtle variability is also present in the way that cells regulate themselves and how signals are sent round the body so there will always be a level of overlap in the way some biological things work within male and female bodies. However this definitely doesn't change the fact that there are two basic body plans which have different features. But I know I am probably just preaching to the converted and you guys already know this.

Interesting. That would be me. But not having the potential to have male cells doesn’t make me anymore female than a woman, who has given birth to a boy. Or a woman, who hasn’t given birth. These arguments really are bizarre, aren’t they?!

Yes. The thing which annoys me the most is that the article has some really interesting science in but they have decided to present it in a way which makes it seem like it is supporting a viewpoint which is irrelevant to the science and actually quite misleading.

Regarding trained medical experts:

FondofBeetles (Emma Hilton) and Robert Winston said that sex is binary.

Adrian Harrop said it's not.

Bit of a no-brainer, that one. (I mean the argument and Adrian Harrop).

Sex is a biological subject, not a purely human (medical) one.

Chimerism just means an individual that arose from an (extremely rare) congenital issue where cell division didnt happen correctly early on in the embryo and so the resulting indibidual (if viable, most result in miscarriage) has a mixture of the 2 (binary) cell types in their body. There are still only 2 tyoes (binary) and if that individual has functioning testes or ovaries (unlikely) they will still only be able to produce one of the 2 types of gametes, egg or sperm (binary).

My friend had a pregnany with chimerism. They thought at first that the baby had trisomy 21 (downs) but it turned out that the non disjunction event had happened in a cell from the cell line destined to form the placenta, not the embryo. So the eventual baby did not have diwns symdrome. That doesnt mean that her son is somewhere on a spectrum between Downs and non Downs. Equally because I have a few male cells floating around in my bloodstream from having 4 sons doesn not make me have a DSD or be on any spectrum. My sex and my reproductive capability is female. Sex is binary. There are only 2 options per cell.

Thank you everyone- I had a minuscule wobble and you have reassured me!

And loving that there are so many scientifically minded women as well as GC women on this site.

Let me know if any of you need input into an argument about comparative French literature any time soon 🙂

Ha! My degree in Molecular Biology and Genetics has proved most useful over the past few years when non scientifically educated TRAs sieized on DSDs as some sort of evidence for trans people actually changing sex, or something ...

A DSD could mean that a baby is “assigned” the wrong sex at birth and then that’s later found to be wrong. More likely in the past. So because that could be a scenario, it’s been extrapolated to supposedly apply to sex being correctly observed at birth and someone later deciding they “feel like” the opposite sex. I’ve seen educational materials and books that say things like “the doctor made a mistake”.

which is bizarre as culturally induced feelings about what sex you are have nothing to do with a mistake being made about your sex. It’s this same weird conflation of sex and “gender” that seems to come and go through all of TRA thought. One moment, what you “feel like’ magically IS your sex, and they got your sex wrong, meaning a hulking bearded bloke belongs on a women’s football team. The next, you’re supposed to be suicidal because your body doesn’t match your identity and if you’re not given opposite-sex hormones and surgery on demand you’ll perish. Suggesting they got your sex right, otherwise why would you need cross-sex hormones?

*Geneticsbunny *thanks, no I didn’t know about that. You’re right it does get more complex the more you know!

the scientific America paper does suggest that when certain genes are not working, ovaries can produce sperm and vice versa

Has this ever happened or is it just a hypothetical scenario?

@Maaate they have made it happen in mice by switching a gene off. No information in the article about whether any humans have been found to have the same gene, not working and therefore the same issue with producing sperm from ovaries or vice versa. However , it is likely that if the same gene was broken in humans, it would have the same effect.

Does that mean the same person could produce both eggs and sperm, which could join and become a baby? Or if you had this condition, would the damaged gene mean only sperm could be producued?

Well that sounds quite natural!

They mistake it (wilfully in many cases, ie TRAs) for personality, or the standard sex-role stereotypes.

@MrsWhattery that was what I was wondering but I don't think so because if a person has the broken gene, they would only ever produce sperm from their ovaries, not ova or vice versa. I don't think it would be possible for both types of sex cells to be present at the same time. There is also an intereting thing with sperm and ova called imprinting, where certain genes are switched off depending on which parent they come from, so I assume that sperm from an xx parent would be inviable and ova from an xy parent would also not be viable.