Sensible comments by Colin Wright on why sex is binary

[anyolddinosaur]

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-026-03452-y?fbclid=IwY2xjawQ2_XJleHRuA2FlbQIxMABzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeCtwVM1alTsQwLo4lSYYsbybHbUn4oV63HTD7-Xx7B1A2yvohyCBN5f_BCgA_aem_AGSs8M7pYRTnUv8qKZEkrA

I look forward to more scientifically rigorous discussions of this nature on similarly challenging subjects; perhaps "the sun is hot" or "zebras have stripes".

I loved his comment that if objective truth is merely one of many culturally constructed positions competing with other subjectivities of equivalent coherence, why not jump off a building flapping your wings?

Material reality coming for all the anti-scientific thinking post structuralists.

Please can we have a balloon debate on the matter.

Colin's response certainly doesn't cast a favourable light on the thing he's responding to. It kind of reads as a response to your average twitter attempt at blinding with scientific-sounding terms.

I like that Copernicus is in the references.

Handy article by Colin Wright - well worth a read.

www.realityslaststand.com/p/understanding-the-sex-binary

I’ve never heard of Colin Wright before but I enjoyed his writing. Particularly while biology can and should inform policy, policy preferences should never be used to dictate biology.

His initial article is linked below, he was responding to a letter criticising that https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20individuals%20are%20categorized%20as,there%20are%20only%20two%20sexes.

Loved this bit

“Traits are labeled ‘male-typical’ or ‘female-typical’ because they correlate with males and females already identified independently—ultimately by reference to gametes.” In other words, the polythetic view collapses in on itself because it depends on the very classificatory foundation—male and female as functional reproductive classes rooted in gametes—it seeks to replace.

Precisely. And "Dana" Mahr has a vested interest in doing the latter.

Exactly.

If there are not two and only two distinct sex categories, defined by reference to gametes, transgenderism ceases to exist because there is nothing to transition to or from. In arguing against a rigid biological definition of sex, genderists are actually attempting to define transgenderism out of existence.

I'm surprised they can't see this logical incoherence, but perhaps I shouldn't be, since genderism doesn't generally rely on logic.

Reminds me of my favourite Frasier joke when Frasier says to Niles "Copernicus called, and you are not the center of the universe"

Sums up the GC position IMHO

This is not a long read and is clear and concise in (mostly) accessible language - should be widely shared- should be very useful

This is excellent. Clear and concise, with a kind, polite tone which very slightly suggests calmly explaining to a small child that they are talking nonsense.

I actually know no more about him than you can learn from the articles - he's from the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA and his other publications seem to focus on spiders. Seems to be an actual scientist.

Many thanks for this. I've been aware of Colin Wright on Twitter/X for many years. I think he was a research biologist hoping to forge an academic career but he put his head above the parapet on the issue of sex and gender and got the predictable response, so he gave up on academia. I have the impression that he is, in US terms, somewhat right of centre politically, but his main focus in anything I've seen of his is trying to hold the line on biology. A brave position in recent years, but he seems to have tough skin and a strong spine. As the references in that article make clear, he's collaborated with Dr Emma Hilton, from Manchester University. I assume he has therefore had some influence on the recent changes in sporting policies.