"Biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components" - Discuss

[dunBle]

To save further derailment of the Sandie Peggie tribunal threads with people debating Tandora's statements on the above theme, I've started this thread to point them to instead.

I went so far as to offer Tandora a selection of possible, non-outing replies to the question of 'What involvement in what research?'

No response as yet.

I'll just repost as I realised that I lost the quote from @Tandora that I was replying to, so Tandora would not have been tagged:

I don't expect a list of your publications - of course I don't.

But a tad more detail would be helpful.

'I am a (post-)doctoral research scientist working on the impact of sex hormones on the brain/ the development of the reproductive system/ the causes of DSDs.'

'I am a researcher in the social sciences with an interest in sex and gender who has read widely in the related biological science, to the point of discussion/ collaboration with a group of biologists.'

'I am a bench scientist working for a large research group investigating endocrine abnormalities and spend my days with 100s of pipettes.'

'I work in research for a pharmacy company that produces medications used by trans patients.' (See above for the variants on 'work in research'. I'm sure pharma companies do a LOT of market research in this expanding field.)

'I am a departmental secretary in a uni, attached to a research group investigating this area.'

'I volunteer part-time for Mermaids and because I got biology A-level I read the science and write documents for them.'

Any one of these could be true without your initial statement being dishonest (except perhaps the last one, which is in the borderlands). So you can see why we're all a bit curious. This is an international forum, there are 1000s of universities world-wide, there is ample opportunity to be obscure about personal details ('I am from India' when you were born there but work in the US; 'I have young DC' when you really mean that they're 12 and 11; '...for some years...' which can be anything from 2 or 3 to entire lifetime).

I'd be kinder to you if you hadn't been so incredibly rude and condescending to the paediatrician poster on the Tribunal thread, but you rather lost me there.

I read your post on P6.

I think you got Wittgenstein on Private Language roughly right -- Even the private linguist (in PI258) can make no sense of his/her claim to experience S because there can be no criterion of correctness for what 'S' means. And, indeed, this is relevant much in the way you claim.

However, I think it a mistake to say, as you seem to, that it's possible some people have a gender identity. "That's not to deny," you say, "that some people do experience themselves as having a gender identity." That allows too much to the peddlers of myth.

Of course in a way, some people may 'experience themselves as having ...' ... all sorts of things: immortal souls, guardian angels, Cartesian egos ... whatever -- but only in the sense that they may (wrongly, if Wittgenstein is to be believed) think, or believe they have a guardian angel or immortal soul etc.

Rather than conceding in this way, I think, it would be better to ask the believer in gender identity to offer a criterion for deciding the question of existence.

The philosopher Alex Byrne (no Wittgensteinian he) concluded years ago, "... If there is some kind of “gender identity” that is universal in humans, and which causes dysphoria when mismatched with sex, it remains elusive. No one has yet found a way of detecting its presence ..." (https://medium.com/arc-digital/what-is-gender-identity-10ce0da71999)

Byrne's implied challenge: 'find a way of detecting the presence of gender identity (or admit there is no such thing),' has yet to be met. Wittgenstein and PLA go some way to explaining why not; but the lack of a criterion here speaks for itself, I suspect.

In any case, let's be clear about this: there is no such thing as gender identity.

So Tandora has still not clarified, then. How predictable

"obsessive online debate" is rather a derogatory and insulting way to describe people having discussions.

But maybe one group of posters are allowed to insult others while another group of posters are not.

Thank you @emeg. That is very interesting. I think that perhaps my concession wasn't as big as you indicate, because I did caveat it at the end with something about the experience of gender identity not providing any actual grounds for objective truths relating to sex - or even gender, I guess.

Clearly many people do experience themselves as having a gender identity. For example, a sense of cohering with the gender stereotypes associated with a sex that is not their own. It's just that that experience is not the criterion for any of the claims relating to gender/sex that proponents of gender identity want it to be.

But my caveat to that effect was rushed and inadequate. I should read the article that you cite. I must admit that my life as a philosopher was several decades ago and I have been literally afraid of glancing about what philosophers say on the issue, for fear of the same combination of noisy stupidity and silenced reflection that we see elsewhere.

MyAmpleSheep · Today 01:36:
"If you want trans-identifying men to be accepted into women's services and associations do the heavy lifting and campaign to change laws. Don't do it by trying to redefine the words used in existing laws in order to slip your agenda through by the back door."

Well, you can't win this way either. In Germany they have campaigned and got the law changed and are now working towards inserting gender identity in every law where sex* was used before, starting with the Constitution article 3. Making gender identity a protected characteristic in direct collision with the rights of women or homosexual people.

*There is only one word in German for sex AND gender, but historically it is clear which was meant.

It's even more harmful to 100% of women (original female sense) to take away our right to define ourselves as different to men (original male sense ) in practical ways simply because significantly less than 0.1% of those women may have an XY DSD.

Plenty of things work perfectly well with a broad rule and some special cases. XY individuals who appear female at birth and throughout their lives is a reasonable special case within the definition of female. Visibly male people unproblematically identified as male at birth who claim to be nevertheless female for undetectable reasons are not.

you're wasting your time on here - there are some who love wallowing in ignorance - they have GCSE Biology! - and others who are working very hard to undermine any scientific knowledge - they are the ones who link to right wing youtube videos, talk about mainstream organisations being 'captured', and spend a great deal of energy attacking women who disagree with them. The Supreme Court judgement hasn't made them happy and they are continually looking to stoke outrage.
When, in the real world, the friends you used to have won't talk to you - instead of coming on here to be lovebombed maybe have a read of some scientific articles to see why they're saying you're a bigot - google scholar could be your friend as well.

@Tandora

A framework that holds true for 99.x% of humanity cannot be said to be "nonsense".

Oooh then maybe you can name these other sexes and describe the gametes and role in reproduction. I can see @Tandora is struggling with that so maybe you can help?

Did someone send out the twatsignal today?

Id be interested to know how pp think we should “legislate for the nuances” whilst maintaining the legislation for 99% of the population

as this would likely require some sort of certification, proof of chromosomes, hormones levels etc. probably from everyone. Which is exactly the argument that’s seen as oppressive.

there’s not a cats in hell chance we concede the legislation for all women based on less than 1% of the population with a dsd

and here again, this is nothing to do with trans identity.

@Tandora

i don’t think that anyone on here really disputes that DSDs exist, just that they are such exceptional cases that they don’t really make a difference to the general rules that hold for almost all people according to sex.

It would be unusual for anyone to get past puberty in a developed country and not know that they are intersex, whereas people who like to rely on Tandora’s types of statements generally act as if no one can ever know what sex they are: yes they can. I’ve menstruated, had two kids and breastfed. For most people, it is very very clear.

The fact that sex can be unclear in a tiny minority of cases also doesn’t really justify that men should be in women’s spaces, unless what is being said is that we should just abolish all attempts to categorise based on sex and just refer to “masculine presenting” or “feminine presenting” people. Going to be very inefficient and confusing to decide who gets a smear test though!

What happens when how a person feels about themself depends on others making adjustments that are detrimental to their own health, development and justice?

I still have not had anyone explain to me why a trans women's belief that she is just like me in the mind overrides my belief that he is not, nor why being just like me in the mind overrides my experience of him as male in the body, nor why an agender person of female body like myself should be expected to share intimate spaces or social language with a person with whom I have neither sex nor gender in common simply on his say-so?

Neuroscientist Sammy on Twitter has a pinned thread of discussions around brain, sex, gender and gender identity.

https://x.com/neurosgs/status/1551155044267032577?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

very useful.

the nhs now uses NIPT tests so the vast majority of children born in the last 5 years are screened for dsds at 14 weeks gestation

But, again, nobody is taking away your right to define yourself! That is simply a projection. It is exactly the other way around - posters with certain ideological ideas about sex / gender are taking away the right of minority others to define themselves , and denying the knowledge, expertise and practice of the doctors/ scientists who provide healthcare to them.

Insisting that women with CAIS are “male” , in contradiction of medical knowledge/ practice, the physical health of the person in question, their psychological wellbeing, their social relationships and the law.
All because of some dogmatic insistence that all people must be labelled using words that signify some theoretical notion that their body was “supposed” or “intended” to be other than it actually is (intended by who exactly? God?) (but they were supposed to be able to produce small gametes don’t you know!)

Insisting that trans people are not who they know/say they are, despite zero insight into the lived experiences of trans people or transness as a biopsychological, neurodevelopmental experience.

On the other hand, nobody is saying anything at all about who you are. You are accepted , your body is accepted, normalised, for exactly what it is. Yes as a female you are subject to certain discriminatory ideas/ stereotypes prescribed by patriarchy , but no one is doubting the reality of your body or your identity.

@WarriorN I really dont want to join the cess pit that is X. Is there a thread unroll somewhere? Some of us want science not opinion.

If women’s bodies are accepted and normalised why are women like SP being punished by their employers for asking for the basic right to have sex segregated spaces where they can shower, dress, use the toilet?

Wood for trees

We can research until the cows come home.

Human beings require a male and a female of the species to produce human babies.

No amount of hormonally induced brain masturbation will change that. Or transform one type into the other.

It doesn't imply that the only human endeavour is to procreate. But no healthy male will ever transform into a healthy female.

Dr Upton has a dick. He was born a "healthy" male (dont start with multiverse definition of healthy). He is not CAIS and never will be.

The existence of CAIS doesn't make him biologically female after he has applied hormones a magic potion .

Still waiting for the relevance to women’s rights and ‘what is trans’, though.

Eh?

It’s been an interesting spin to see the evolutionary fact that males and females exist for procreation as “religious.”

@Tandora you are back!

In the spirit of increasing my understanding of your position, where do our views diverge on the above?

Do you feel DSDs are actually really common?

Do you disagree that the overwhelming majority of trans people have perfectly healthy bodies?

Help me out here

@Tandora if I have penis in vagina sex am I a lesbian?