"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.

If you did work in this field, surely you would know that it is spelled karyotype?

I'm wondering about this too.

But none of these specific examples of DSD mean the person is trans. What evidence do you have that a person with normal sexual development ( ie the vast majority) can be a different sex than is evidenced by their biology?

Given all this improvement in the understanding of the biological markers of sex, i am really interested in any research into this amongst trans people without any DSD . Is there any?

Another non bioloh9cal but related question i have for you is whether you think someones sex has any impact on their experience of the world and if so how strong is that impact and does it vary depending on their biological sex?

My personal view on the latter question is that sex has a massive impact on your life experience. Throughout history, himan females have been treated more poorly than tmales, surely you wouldn't disagree with that?

I am very sympathetic to the argument that in an ideal world, your sex would be an irrelevant fact and have some sympathy for non binary people, who it seems to me are just trying to live this philosophy. Unfortunately the way the world is set up and the reality of how the majority of human males treat the majority of human females across the world, this is just impractical

How do you square the almost irrefutable fact that your sex has such large impact on how you experience the world and yet a fundamental argument of trans people is that this distinction or category does not exist or is meaningless because of their feelings about their bodies

Again we are back to my question of, what evidence do you have that a person with normal sexual development ( ie the vast majority) can be a different sex than is evidenced by their biology?

Are you talking about trans people or people with DSDs?

the claim that human fetuses are by default female is still bollocks

this was the scientific orthodoxy/ understanding until recently when we realised it’s not that simple.

Repeating this claim doesn't make it true or tell us what these new understandings are.

If your response to a parent trying to secure same-sex intimate care for their severely disabled daughter is “Well of course, biological sex is a multidimensional variable with various components”, you may want to have a word with yourself.

If it isn’t, then acknowledge you’re just trying to muddy the waters.

We now understand that the female reproductive system requires active genetic and molecular signalling to develop "correctly". This won't just happen by default in response to the absence of masculinising genetic and molecular signalling (which is what we previously thought until quite recently).

So go on. You said you’re an expert in this field so I’m sure you can name them.

Great idea. And after they've stopped doing that, and male violence against women and girls no longer exists, we can have a debate about whether single sex spaces are still needed. Not before.

Isn't that an argument against the "fetuses are by default female"?

I’m not a scientist or medic so what Tandora says about the science of how sex is determined may be true.

What I do know and do have knowledge and experience of is that fact that it is irrelevant to any of the court cases at all because law should, in theory, be clear and easily understood by all. It should make sense.

We have a fundamental understanding of what men and women are. It’s part of our social development as a species. The specific social signals for each of these may ebb and flow with time, but underneath we all know, and have know since we climbed out of the trees, that the males have the dangly bits and the females grow the babies.

Social history and development of law will show you clearly how risky the dangly bits males are to the child bearing females.

So actually, I can’t argue about your science, but it doesn’t matter as it’s irrelevant. The law matters on a broader scale. It matters what is reasonable to most people. It’s not reasonable for most law to apply based on science based determinism. (There are some exceptions, aren’t there always. For example, sports sex testing to determine applicability, as medical testing is part of protocol is one I can think of)

In day to day living what matters is the sociological understanding of sex. That’s just society. it’s just humanity.

DSDs happen where there is a variation in the typical developmental pathway, such that people’s bodies develop characteristics that combine some elements of one pathway and some elements of the other.

Ok I would sort of understand if you are advocating a “third sex” or non binary for this group.
But that would also mean without a DSD you would agree people are either female or male. Which clearly is what “trans” is, the born in the wrong body argument. Or are you saying trans people all have a DSD ?

None of this takes away from biological females having spaces that are just for other biological females.

This is absolutely the million dollar question.

How can a male with absolutely unremarkable XY chromosomes who was born with male sexual anatomy and went through normal male puberty be a woman?

Thank you for your thoughtful and respectful question. I'll try to break them down into different parts.

First of all, I totally agree that sex matters and impacts on experience; I do not think it's irrelevant at all. But sex is complex - it is on just one thing it has multiple components and variations that all have important impacts on experience.

Given all this improvement in the understanding of the biological markers of sex, i am really interested in any research into this amongst trans people without any DSD . Is there any?

Yes, although scientific conventions wouldn't put it in exactly these terms. Sex development is layered and complex and there are minority variations. These minority variations are driven by different balances in genetic and molecular signalling, as well as how environmental factors impact on genes.

The balancing of the production and reception of sex hormones also have profound organisational effects on the brain, which underly neurodevelopment.

It is often assumed that the development of 'gender identity' (which is simply the sense/ knowledge of one's own sex) is an entirely social and simple process which (somewhat paradoxically) directly follows from what 'sex' you are observed to be at birth/ what genitals or karyotype you have. But this is far far too simplistic. As with all areas of science that relate to understanding the complex, adaptive systems of the brain there is a long way to go in our understanding (this doesn't just apply to transness it applies to all areas of neurodevelopment - ASD, ADHD, etc etc), but there is emerging evidence that transness and gender dysphoria are underpinned by variations in sex hormone signalling genes and prenatal hormone balancing. In fact if you think about it, it's foolish to believe otherwise. The brain after all - the physical structures of which underpin cognition - is part of the body and for a very long time now scientists have understood the very powerful impact that sex hormones have on the brain.

There's so much more detail I could provide, but this is the explanation in brief.

So is that a no on naming the other sexes then?

I can accept that for a tiny fraction of a percent, sex may be ambiguous, and it is good to set up society to have a "not really either" option rather than a strict male/female binary - although most Disorders of Sexual Development aren't remotely ambiguous. I am also happy to accept that in many kinds of situations, it's ok for particular individuals to opt in to the "not really either" category even if there is nothing ambiguous about their chromosomes or sexual development.

None of this makes it remotely acceptable or appropriate for someone whose biology, chromosomes, hormonal responses and reproductive capacity have from birth been fully aligned with one sex, to redefine themselves as the opposite sex based on their personal beliefs. It is of course entirely reasonable and acceptable for them to claim the "gender" associated with the opposite sex if they wish to, but gender and sex are different phenomena and they retain their actual physical sex regardless of their gender, and the number of individuals for whom "actual physical sex" is more complex than M/F is vanishingly small although non-zero.

It's reasonable and appropriate for society to expect and require third spaces for things like toilets and changing rooms so that no one feels distressed at being forced into the category that is correct for their actual sex on a daily basis. It is reasonable for sports to be generally expected to have a "female only" and an "open to all" category (rather than men and women) so that the female only category can be protected for only those who are definitely and unambiguously female and anyone who isn't is welcome and included in the "open" category. It is not reasonable or appropriate for prisons and hospitals to be expected to maintain a 3rd category rather than categories aligned with the two sexes. Anyone who questions why these kinds of establishment need to be separated by sex is either too naive for their opinion to be worthwhile, or is actively and malevolently trying to create opportunities for women to be abused. It is reasonable and appropriate for anyone who is not female but who does not wish to be categorised as male to be held in a separate facility within the nale estate.

The fact that for a very small number of individuals, sex is complex and not readily resolvable into male or female, must not be used as a tool to destroy the protections that are needed for the benefit of the overwhelming majority. There are ways to compassionately adapt our structures for such exceptions without allowing infinite exceptions that make it impossible to have any protections at all

How weird. You can look them up, Some of the most common are Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) and Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS). While CAH is the most frequent overall, AIS is the most common XY DSD. Other notable DSDs include Turner Syndrome, mixed gonadal dysgenesis, and specific conditions like hypospadias and cryptorchidism.

So what's the plan?

We do this research, find a scientific justification for how a male person with a regular XY karyotype and standard male sexual anatomy who went through normal male puberty is actually a new and recently discovered category of female, and then we find some way of testing all trans people and identifying those special females to the rest of the population so that they (and not any ordinary XY males with male sexual anatomy who went through male puberty) can be allowed into female only spaces and compete in female sports?

Because it kind of seems like where you're at right now is, "I have a scientific theory that there is another way to be female, which relates to brain sex, meaning that an XY male with male sexual anatomy who went through male puberty, but because this theory isn't yet proven and even when we prove it we face the problem of knowing who these people are, it's best to just allow any male who says he is a woman into women's spaces on a trust basis. Even though the reason men aren't allowed into women's spaces is because they are at high risk of harming women and so can't be trusted."

This is pure waffle, it's all just "wow, isn't this complicated" with some buzz words thrown in.
Your brain, no matter how it develops is not a sexual characteristics. You need to show us a different gamete besides eggs and sperm, then I might start considering you've got a point.

to redefine themselves as the opposite sex based on their personal beliefs

But this is a massively reductive and misleading understanding of what it is to be trans. THIS is the crux of the problem with this 'debate'.

Before we start having reasonable conversations about policy, we must fix the very basics which is that people simply don't understand what being trans is.

They think it's something trivial, chosen, conscious, 'a belief', a pretence, fabricated, etc etc etc. This is all completely false and unscientific. It is also harmful from a justice perspective.

Umm… they’re not other sexes. They’re DSD. People with DSD are still either male or female.

Why is "what it means to be trans" apparently a subject of such burning importance to society but "what it means to be a woman" a transphobic dog whistle?

I would have thought that what it means to be a woman was more relevant to society as a whole than what it means to be trans.

You are not listening, I didn't say they are "other sexes". What does that even mean?

Somebody said
"None of these rare genetic disorders change the fact that there are only 2 sex developmental pathways that humans beings can go down and they are mutually exclusive."

I responded:

It literally means exactly this. It’s completely absurd and baffling to say otherwise.

DSDs happen where there is a variation in the typical developmental pathway, such that people’s bodies develop characteristics that combine some elements of one pathway and some elements of the other.

This is literally true. It doesn't matter what you want to name x or y, it is a simple description of the realities of sex development.

This is both really interesting and totally irrelevant to women’s rights.