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?

The comparison between intersex variations (DSDs) and rare developmental anomalies like conjoined twins oversimplifies the issue and misses the biological and social relevance of sex diversity.

Intersex people (those with Differences of Sex Development) aren't just “abnormalities” they are natural variations in human sex characteristics. While not the statistical majority, intersex individuals occur at similar rates to people born with red hair or green eyes estimates range from 1 in 1,500 to 1 in 2,000 for some types, with broader definitions suggesting up to 1.7% of the population.

The argument isn’t that most people aren’t male or female. Rather, it’s that sex isn’t strictly binary because biology doesn't adhere to neat binary categories. Chromosomes (XX, XY, XXY, XO, etc.), hormones, gonads, and genitalia don’t always align in a binary way. Some people are born with ambiguous or mixed characteristics that don’t fit neatly into "male" or "female."

In contrast to something like having two heads, intersex traits impact how we define, classify, and legislate sex especially in medicine, sports, legal documentation, and human rights. If the binary model doesn’t account for all real human variation, then the model is incomplete, not the people.

To say “sex is not binary” is not to say “male and female don’t exist.” It’s to say that not everyone fits neatly into those two categories, and biology acknowledges that.

I hope this helps 😁

Not all people with DSD are intersex.

The falsely claimed statistic of 1.7% includes ALL DSD many of which biological sex is in fact clear. In actual fact the percentage of people that have phenotypes inconsistent with their chromosomal sex is 0.018%.

So please name these other sexes, the gametes they produce and their role in reproduction. Otherwise all we have is male and female with some chromosome abnormalities. Proving sex is indeed binary.

Sex is binary.

There are only male people and female people when it comes to reproduction roles. There are only two types of gametes used in sexual reproduction.

“The comparison between intersex variations (DSDs) and rare developmental anomalies like conjoined twins oversimplifies the issue and misses the biological and social relevance of sex diversity.”

I don’t believe the comparison ‘misses’ anything. Because it is not as complicated as you seem to think. For the purposes of accessing female single sex provisions, there are a group of people in the world who have bodies formed around a male reproductive role but their bodies never produce or cannot utilise testosterone. There are specific and unique accommodations needed for them in society. For instance, one sub-group of this small group may in the future be excluded from female sports categories.

This is not complicated to understand at all. Activists have tried to make it ‘complicated’ and have tried to politically leverage the medical conditions of a group of people to destabilise the established science around the categorisation of human sex.

And I would suggest you revisit your on sources of information because your 1.7% figure tells us you are getting misinformation that includes many people who should not be included in that figure. Perhaps you should get better informed.

To state “If the binary model doesn’t account for all real human variation, then the model is incomplete, not the people,” seems like a mischaracterisation of the current reality. We already have a model that has the flexibility to meet the needs of those very rare people. Are you trying to say the current system is strictly ‘binary’ or that feminists are trying to force a ‘binary’ that excludes the needs of this rare group? Because that would be false.

Or did you include it as an emotional placeholder? One where you indulge in the oversimplification that you warn against others using?

Also no feminist stating that male people should not have access to female single sex provisions believes people are saying that ”male and female don’t exist”. This is such an oversimplification that it can be considered a straw man.

On the other hand, “It’s to say that not everyone fits neatly into those two categories”, is untrue because with modern technology medical specialists can indeed reliably sort humans into two sex classes. Which is relevant for medical purposes and for the people themselves to know and understand their own body to make informed and relevant decisions.

I hope this helps 😁

Sex is binary. There are many body variations within those two sexes.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red

Maybe this will help. I believe the real figure is 0.018%.

The higher figure is false and fed by Fausto -Sterling of the joke (her admission) five sexes theory. It includes people with unambiguous sex categorisation.

Here are some resources that are easy to access and have the reference material they use clearly listed.

https://theparadoxinstitute.org/watch

Because they confuse determination and definition and they don't consider why we bother to define sex in animals and plants.

Absolutely this. @TheBoldSeal , your post is a classic example of the confused thinking and arguments that have to be made to believe sex is not binary.

Your argument completely ignores first principles. The first principle here is ‘what does sex describe/ define/ denote?’ The answer is the role the individual’s sex class plays in sexual reproduction. There are only two roles in sexual reproduction. The role of the male and the role of the female. You would have to identify individuals with a ( natural) distinct role in human reproduction outside that of male and female even begin to substantiate your claim that sex Is not binary.

You can’t do that because intersex people are not those individuals.

Is it this? Isn’t it more that they refuse to acknowledge the meaningful, fact based definitions of sex that exist, and then fail to replace it with anything evidence based and workable? Much like they did with the word ‘woman’ too.

Intersex people (those with Differences of Sex Development) aren't just “abnormalities” they are natural variations in human sex characteristics.

You might as well argue that somebody born with a hole in their heart has a natural variation in human cardiovascular characteristics. I think perhaps the problem is that you assign too much worth and value to sex, so shrink away from acknowledging disorders, when the thing that gives us value is our humanity.

Well said.

Such a lot of bollocks is spoken in the drive to include men in places they do not belong.

All those people with DSDs recruited to the cause against their will. None of them have any doubt what sex they are.

Depends if you are talking about people who are genuinely confused about why we describe sex as binary, or people who just want to attack women's rights.

It seems to me like arguing that humans don't have 2 arms and 2 legs as a default standard because few people are born with less or more. Standard can be 0.
If that makes sense.

Honestly you are making no sense.

Hair can be many different colours, black, Blonde, grey, red.

Sex can only be male or female, unless you are saying people with DSD’s are a third or fourth sex?

If DSDs were just straightforward variations in human sex characteristics the conditions wouldn't include those which require surgery (to prevent the very high chance of streak gonads becoming cancerous), hormone therapy (to induce puberty and prevent osteoporosis) and wouldn't render most people who have them infertile.

Any variation of sexual development resulting in sterility is evolutionarily redundant.

The confusion is comparing DSD with hair colour. They arent comparable.

DSD are differences/disorders - the body hasnt developed as it should have. Whereas different eye or hair colour or skin tone aren't disorders, they are natural variations that don't effect health.

Comparing the number of people with DSD to hair colour is similar to comparing with the number of people born in Milton keynes- useful to picture the numbers involved, but not relevant for anything else.

We know people have DSD because we know what a healthy reproductive system looks like.

We know every trans identifying man has a male body, and is unlikely to have a dsd because to be a TW the person has to be male, and DSD are rare.

Whereas the eye and natural hair colour of trans will be broadly in line with the eye and hair colour of the population.

Hair colour isn't even a useful way to picture the numbers of people involved as the 1.7% of people with red hair is not distributed evenly.

From archive.is/2024.11.03-091945/philosophersmag.com/the-transgender-rights-issue/

"Trans activists often point to the difficulty in ascertaining sex in those with what are called DSDs, or differences in sexual development (or, perhaps more contentiously, disorders of sexual development), involving congenital conditions in which anatomical, chromosomal, or gonadal sex is atypical, often mistakenly described as intersex conditions, as proof that sex is not binary, exists on a spectrum, and is a social construct in any event. This position fails for at least two reasons. The first reason is that it is unclear why trans activists think that this is a useful argument in the first place. Biologists Emma Hilton and Colin Wright point out that, in 99.98% of cases, we can ascertain sex through observation of genitalia. The miniscule number of remaining cases require further investigation to determine their sex development path. Those who identify as transgender do not, with the possibility of a miniscule fraction of cases, identify as intersex. Rather, they claim that their gender identity trumps their biological sex, which is going to be ascertainable in virtually all cases. The transgender argument is, in essence, that, because sex may be indeterminate in a tiny fraction of cases, we can ignore biological sex that is clearly and indisputably ascertainable in virtually all cases, and in any case in which biological sex is clearly ascertainable, in favor of gender identity. That’s not a very good argument."

On another note, I think this debates underlying issue is what it means for a concept to be binary.

Sex can be binary without needing to account for 100 per cent of cases, and without having to have necessary and sufficient conditions for everyone. It's normative.

Or in other words abnormalities are normal. You get them across biology and other areas.

Two excellent posts @BeLemonNow, as are so many others. And posts that could be on another insufferable thread right now.

But they’d be ignored as it doesn’t suit the key poster’s narrative or belief.

“it’s not a very good argument” is a good summary of the main protagonist’s theories .

Thanks @WarriorN, it's not mine though it's from a philosophy article linked and quoted. I was looking for an explanation of trans biology arguments.

Because they can't tell the difference between a solid argument and bullshit.

It’s just a desperate clutching at straws. Otherwise they have to talk about AGPs, cross dressers, transvestites, fetishes, and predatory men who will, & have, taken the opportunity to self ID into female only spaces.

Also acknowledge social contagion, the huge over representation of vulnerable children & young adults with ASD who suddenly have gender identity issues. Also those with depression, anxiety, disordered eating, self harm, those in foster & long term care, those who’ve experienced pre pubescent trauma, abuse, have a parent on the sex offenders register. All of which have been seen to accompany a sudden claim to be born in the wrong body.

Students desperately trying to fit in in FE, HE, who see trans/non-binary/gender fluid as a way into the society.

Much easier to just claim ‘it’s science, innit?’ & totally misrepresent & use people with a DSD (all of whom are either male or female). It’s disgusting, & just another tool in this hideous ideology.

@WarriorN

I know which thread you’re referring to. Insufferable is exactly the right word.