Why do people use human abnormalities to prove sex isn’t binary?

[madeupnameagain]

I am really at a loss why people use human birth abnormalities to prove that sex isn’t binary.

It’s no different than declaring that humans can have one or more heads because very rarely humans are born as part of co-joined twins.

How can people rationally use DSD’s to prove sex isn’t binary?

Sex is determined by chromosomes. Nothing more

Dysfunctional or malformed exterior genitalia is no indicator of sex, any more than someone being born with dysfunctional or malformed arms or legs is an indicator of someone not a human.

Also, primates know what sex they are and young primates copy the behaviour of adults of their own sex. So there must be something internal which means they instinctively know their sex. From this I guess it’s possible to hypothesize that for ( human) individuals with gender incongruence from a young age, that they have a variance that causes them to believe they are the opposite sex, or, alternatively, causes them to model the behaviour of the opposite sex which perhaps leads them to conclude they are the opposite sex.

This could perhaps lead to the body image issues found in the research referred to above.

Sex is determined by gametes. Biologically, that’s the only primary sex characteristic. All others are secondary sex characteristics.

What I’m talking about is that there is some evidence that exposure to additional levels of male sex hormones due to conditions such as CAH during genetically female (XX) foetal development does affect how all sorts of things develop, including the brain. If untreated later on then it will impact muscle development too as well as lots of other things, hence the challenge around high level sport. It’s just not always straightforwardly about sex chromosomes-this condition is caused by genetic deficiencies in the pathway by which hormones are synthesised in the body, so that levels of androgens (eg testosterone) are much higher than those usually found in a female during antenatal development. The hormone disruption can cause lots of other problems as well, not just issues around sex and gender.

Any attempt at making DSD occurrence equivalent to “demonstration that transpeople exist in nature” is beyond stupid on the very logic employed by the trans proponents of “sex is not determined biologically “.

In fact the existence of DSD indicates that sex or genetics actually does make you something (of a certain sex) not, as they would have it, that genetics/biology has no role in determining sex.

its the fact that anomalies can occur that demonstrates that sex is determined biologically.

Any insistence that the existence of chromosomal variance disproves that genetics (biology) has no role to play in determining sex or “gender” is so flawed by their own reasoning it’s laughable.

assertions that the way to understand being trans is not via “false” reliance on biology but yet relying on biological anomaly as indicating “something” that supports the contention that being trans is inherently natural (just not biological) removes the justification for claims to having a requirement for “lived experience” to understand being trans.

Obviously it is in fact one of the other - if biology were to be primary (as we know it is) then on their logic genetic variability on sex chromosomes would mean everyone with a genetic sex chromosome anomaly would be trans and they are not.

The trans argument nodding to DSD (but people are not always born xy/xx!) is based on something they think is clever - switching nomenclature into primary position over physical determination (an equivalent in philosophy is the argument of “solipsism “). Usually we think x exists and we call it y but when we add p, t and Q we add x with p “description”. They are saying x doesn’t exist (biological woman) BECAUSE p, t and q has been observed. But p, t and Q don’t exist separately to x - they are characteristics that sometimes occur and in nature. None of p, t and Q are observable other than occurring in nature and they don’t pre-exist X or cause into being some further entity “B” - which has only every been described but not observed in nature.

And, of course, if someone has no language or understanding of language then their argument fails on another hurdle because evidently something- something physical- pre-exists naming or there wouldn’t be something to name.

One cannot call a tree a tree were there to be no physical entity to refer to. Suggesting that “female” or “male” is not linked to biological reality acts as if naming were utterly devoid of a relationship to anything other than words attaching to words - as opposed to sexed actual objects being ascribed names by consensus.

There is nothing remotely logical about the arguments they use against biology (or language for that matter).

These are still females with atypically high testosterone though.

There is normal variance in hormone levels in boys and girls and this does affect behaviour of individuals. A large chunk of human personality is genetically determined.

The statement 'There are female people with high testosterone levels', needs to be carefully considered though. And this is not aimed at you Anotherdayanothernamechanging but at the fact that we see this sentence all too often and it means several different things. And significantly different things that can be rather misleading.

For instance, a female person with self-induced high testosterone is different, of course, to those who have naturally high testosterone. And this artificial increase causes damage and harm to female bodies.

Then, a female person with naturally high testosterone at is at the typical male level may be gravely ill and should seek medical advice immediately. This could, for instance be caused by a tumour.

Because a female person that has a naturally high testosterone within the healthy female range of testosterone does not over lap the boundaries of what is considered the typical healthy male range of testosterone.

I will post the graph more clearly later in the day when I am on my desktop, but this link will take you to the post with the levels discussed and the graph that was produced after someone pulled the information together and overlaid it with information about Semenya's testosterone suppression level and the suppression level that was allowed in many sports at the time for those male people with transgender identities to suppress their testosterone.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5142027-save-female-sports-evidence-thread?reply=137533669&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share

Then there is this information as well:

This is from a PCOS advocate on twitter.

PCOS raises female testosterone to up to 5.5 nmol/L (and above 4 can cause serious issues).

5-ARD raised Caster's testosterone to 21 nmol/L.

twitter.com/NathanielHart72/status/1550916276490477568?s=20&t=E8muLvV5kUEpbPeemz8zwQ

Plus there is this:

twitter.com/seaningle/status/1537480540068225031?s=20&t=E8muLvV5kUEpbPeemz8zwQ

Sean Ingle (Guardian sports journalist) mentioned this
The latest scientific publications clearly demonstrate that the return of markers of endurance capacity to "female level" occurs within six to eight months under low blood testosterone, while the awaited adaptations in muscle mass and muscle strength/power take much longer (two years minimum according to a recent study). Given the important role played by muscle strength and power in cycling performance, the UCI has decided to increase the transition period on low testosterone from 12 to 24 months. In addition, the UCI has decided to lower the maximum permitted plasma testosterone level (currently 5 mol/L) to 2.5 mol/L. This value corresponds to the maximum testosterone level found in 99.99% of the female population.

Plus this discusses the ranges

^https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/sms.14581^

The International Olympic Committee framework on fairness, inclusion and nondiscrimination on the basis of gender identity and sex variations does not protect fairness for female athletes

“In adulthood, circulating testosterone concentrations do not come close to overlapping between females (0.1–1.7 nmol/L) and males (7.7–29.4 nmol/L).”

plus that Hoovlet post with handy charts in the tweet

https://x.com/hoovlet/status/1819017510005407984

“Confirmed. No overlap in T levels between healthy men and women, and rarely in people with atypical levels”.

“Below I'll include some info from my book on T and sex diffs. First is an illustration of the combined data from a meta-analysis of studies on a healthy population (by David Handelsman), and another on T levels in ppl with medical conditions/DSDs (by Richard Clark). I've also included my text description of the data. The original illustration is from Doriane Coleman's excellent Sex in Sport article (link is in the graphic). She let me adapt it for my book but hers is clearer!”

It is really important to be clear what is meant by a statement about a female person having 'high testosterone'.

For the life of me, I cannot understand the connection between those individuals with physical DSDs and any arguments about gender, which is a social construct.

Even if we agreed on variations in sexual development, how does this relate to fully intact males (either boys or adults) accessing single sex spaces designed and dedicated for the use of girls and women?

If there really instances of male people having female brains or personalities why would the medical solution be get a boob job and change your pronouns?

When you say "determined", are we talking definitionally or developmentally?

If you mean the latter, something can go wrong which means the phenotype won't match the chromosomes (yes, I know this would be a DSD and is rare, and absolutely not the same as being trans, but I just mean there are other factors at play such as the SRY gene).

And specialists can still determine the sex of that person. They may have the phenotype that has developed due to their condition, but they are still able to be categorised as one sex or the other for the purposes of medical treatment and for the purposes of sex class.

Just because society may have to make allowances for that specific group to ensure they are protected etc, does not mean that they cannot be classed as being male or female by specialists who use a range of aspects to determine this.

They don't negate the sex binary in the way the activists try to leverage this group to do.

Agree entirely.

I know. I was adding to your post which was on point.

🙂 Glad it was clear I wasn't arguing that DSDs indicate sex is a spectrum, or similar nonsense.

I am surprised that so many of the activists seem to come from within the DSD group. I think some people just get a huge kick out of being "different", hence the signifiers like multicoloured hair and styles of dress. Then they complain when they can't get a job or when they're treated as outsiders by people who's entire personality isn't their identity.

Also I was shocked to read that until very recently NHS Fife classed being intersex as an identity as opposed to a congenital condition. It feels quite dystopian when you can't even trust medical professionals to be rational about medical issues.

*whose entire personality...

It's called grasping at straws and is very offensive.

I have no clue. On another thread I tried to summarise Tandora's biological argument by going through their posts picking out relevant factors and asked them to change any inaccuracy. Someone else also asked if it was correct and Tandora just replied "no".

I could understand if they were busy with other relevant questions but they weren't, they were in some "yes/no" type debate on the usual stuff despite saying they were there to discuss biology!

Yes I am a bit miffed as it took me a while to put it together and I always want to understand someone's argument before discussing it. It was in good faith.

I kinda take from this that there isn't really an overall argument, it's more of "biology is complex, blah blah blah, I am an expert, therefore listen to anything I tell you is correct". Even those with advanced biology understanding seem to have a depressing lack of critical thinking.

Sorry BeLemon.

Some of us have been trying your approach and other approaches for years. You probably have realised this.

There is a degree of disconnectedness to the posts that make engaging frustrating. However, one thing that has improved over the past months is the reduction in abusiveness in the responses from them.

”I kinda take from this that there isn't really an overall argument, it's more of "biology is complex, blah blah blah, I am an expert, therefore listen to anything I tell you is correct". ”

You have nailed it with this.

For biologists there is only one primary sex characteristic - gametes. Everything else is a secondary sex characteristic.

One's sex class reflects one's role (or potential role) in sexual reproduction. I think people who talk of 'sex is a spectrum' have completely divorced the word ' sex' (as in sex class) completely from its actual meaning. One's sexual reproductive role ( or potential role) depends on your gametes.

I mean with that specific person that many of us have been through the same experience.

Because they are really thick

Yes, I get that (and agree with it), but I was referring to the interpretation of the word "determined".

You can say one's sex is determined by your chromosomes, meaning that if you have XX chromosomes you will end up being female (other than in extremely rare cases where a DSD means you have XY chromosomes but are to all intents and purposes female, as in Swyer's Syndrome) because of the developmental processes that take place during gestation.

You can also say that a biologist determines an organism's sex by looking at its gametes.

I not saying either of those is incorrect, simply that they are not the same thing.

People who are really determined that sex is a spectrum will use DSDs to "prove" their argument. They will also say such nonsense as "biological sex is a social construct".

Even if we agreed on variations in sexual development, how does this relate to fully intact males (either boys or adults) accessing single sex spaces designed and dedicated for the use of girls and women?

It doesn't.

@Helleofabore yes someone said this and I should have listened! You are right, I'm relatively new here, although I've never supported transwomen in women's spaces etc (like the majority of the population!). Overall though experience has been fab as I can't be "out" in these views in my day to day life!

I can't recall any evidence supporting links being posted for a very long time, if ever, either despite so many pleas from people. I decided early on, the engagement seems to be about virtue signalling and making accusations.

But hey, if some posters find the information written and never evidenced convincing, I guess those posters are probably well entrenched and not prepared to do the critical thinking as you have suggested. But I read your summary and thought it looked like a good attempt to capture something that lacked clarity and make it meaningful.