Current Affairs Free Speech

[verreauxi]

You didn't bother looking clearly. Took me me a five second Google search, and if I could bother to search journals and so on I'd find much more authoritative examples too.

Is sex a spectrum? Or is sex binary? | Fair Play For Women

Are there more than two sexes? Is sex a spectrum? Where do intersex people fit in? Here's what biologists say...

fairplayforwomen.com

All that is 100% factual. What you are answering is actually a completely unrelated separate question - can people be identified as having various sex traits by different metrics. By making that mistake, you are denying biological reality.

I'm familiar with Colin Wright, a spider biologist; I did in fact say "clinical/academic" studies (i.e., peer reviewed research in the primary literature), not an opinion piece by a seemingly controversial policy group (I never heard of them, so that's what I read about them on wikipedia). And that article makes a lot of claims that aren't relevant to my own claim. I have no interest in the binary debate, I'm merely pointing out, as I always have, that sex can be defined on multiple biological levels; this is supported by the clinical literature. Gender identity doesn't have anything to do with my claim. I don't think sex is a spectrum and I'm not claiming there are [edit: three sexes] (though I'm sympathetic to the views of intersex people), but the existence of intersex people speaks to the multiple ways in which sex can be defined: anatomically, chromosomally, gonadally, etc.,--along those lines, I'm always confused by the very anti-scientific view that a rarity of an event somehow makes it not count (e.g., their nod to intersex people). I don't think sex is a social construct either.

Also, I'm puzzled by their claim about secondary sexual traits: things like possession of a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, testes, external genitalia, etc., are not secondary sexual traits, as secondary sexual traits are defined by things that emerge at puberty and none of the things I've listed would be classified as such.

Maybe I am answering a completely different question, and we are talking past each other. But I'm certainly not denying biological reality as a scientist who has studied evolutionary biology for 25+ years.

 

[Brett Angell Delight]

@verreauxi @Tubey

Ultimately some people bear certain tools that play differing parts in procreation. We’ve assigned names/genders to those people as time has gone on.

What we’re REALLY talking about here is compassion. People don’t lightly declare to the world that their true gender is not that which they’ve been assigned at birth. When they do, what on earth does it cost us to take them at their word??

No amount of science in the world can tell me that I’d have to shout my son down if he one day tells me that he is, in fact, my daughter. As a species we made up the definition of gender. As a species we can redefine it as many times as it required to make everyone feel like they belong and - and this is crucial - to stop people feeling it’s a hill they literally have to die on.

 

[Tubey]

I'm familiar with Colin Wright, a spider biologist; I did in fact say "clinical/academic" studies (i.e., peer reviewed research in the primary literature), not an opinion piece by a seemingly controversial policy group (I never heard of them, so that's what I read about them on wikipedia). And that article makes a lot of claims that aren't relevant to my own claim. I have no interest in the binary debate, I'm merely pointing out, as I always have, that sex can be defined on multiple biological levels; this is supported by the clinical literature. Gender identity doesn't have anything to do with my claim. I don't think sex is a spectrum and I'm not claiming there are [edit: three sexes] (though I'm sympathetic to the views of intersex people), but the existence of intersex people speaks to the multiple ways in which sex can be defined: anatomically, chromosomally, gonadally, etc.,--along those lines, I'm always confused by the very anti-scientific view that a rarity of an event somehow makes it not count (e.g., their nod to intersex people). I don't think sex is a social construct either.

Also, I'm puzzled by their claim about secondary sexual traits: things like possession of a uterus, fallopian tubes, ovaries, testes, external genitalia, etc., are not secondary sexual traits, as secondary sexual traits are defined by things that emerge at puberty and none of the things I've listed would be classified as such.

Maybe I am answering a completely different question, and we are talking past each other. But I'm certainly not denying biological reality as a scientist who has studied evolutionary biology for 25+ years.

They mean secondary to core biological sex.

I honestly believe you've gone too far down the rabbit hole to see the woods for the trees with this one. No one is saying what you say isn't true; I'm just saying that what you are saying has no influence when discussing whether sex at a biological, chromosomal level is binary or not.

For example, as I said the other week, I have no doubt people can be born into the wrong body and be cognitively completely the opposite sex to that they were born into. But nevertheless they remain the sex they were born into - there's nothing they can do about it. Its hard wired.

I'm also not denying your expertise - I simply believe you are expertly answering the wrong question.

 

[Tubey]

@verreauxi @Tubey

Ultimately some people bear certain tools that play differing parts in procreation. We’ve assigned names/genders to those people as time has gone on.

What we’re REALLY talking about here is compassion. People don’t lightly declare to the world that their true gender is not that which they’ve been assigned at birth. When they do, what on earth does it cost us to take them at their word??

No amount of science in the world can tell me that I’d have to shout my son down if he one day tells me that he is, in fact, my daughter. As a species we made up the definition of gender. As a species we can redefine it as many times as it required to make everyone feel like they belong and - and this is crucial - to stop people feeling it’s a hill they literally have to die on.

That's exactly it. Totally get it. But scientifically, compassion doesn't override fact. I don't think anything is gained by lying.

If my son/daughter identified as the opposite sex, I'd have no issues, I'd support them 100%. But if they asked me if they're actually the opposite sex, I'd have to tell them the truth, because morally I can't lie to them. I'd tell them societally they can identify as whatever they like and expect to be respected for it in every way possible by any reasonable human, but... yeah, biology is hard coded.

 

[verreauxi]

They mean secondary to core biological sex.

I honestly believe you've gone too far down the rabbit hole to see the woods for the trees with this one. No one is saying what you say isn't true; I'm just saying that what you are saying has no influence when discussing whether sex at a biological, chromosomal level is binary or not.

For example, as I said the other week, I have no doubt people can be born into the wrong body and be cognitively completely the opposite sex to that they were born into. But nevertheless they remain the sex they were born into - there's nothing they can do about it. Its hard wired.

I'm also not denying your expertise - I simply believe you are expertly answering the wrong question.

They need to get their terms correct, particularly Colin, who is an evolutionary biologist and should know what "secondary sexual trait" means, but that's a minor point.

As to your claim that sex can be binary at the chromosomal level (XX or XY) is fine (defining female and male, respectively); I only aim to claim that sex can be defined at other biological levels as well (anatomical, hormonal, gonadal) and typically (99.5% of the time or so??) the "maleness" at the chromosomal level aligns with "maleness" as defined at the gonadal, hormonal, anatomical level (and same for females). But sometimes it doesn't so this is why it is important to clarify definitions of sex at multiple biological levels, even if the SRY-gene on the Y chromosome is considered the "master switch."

I don't think my claim that defining sex on multiple biological levels is "going down the rabbit hole" since my claim is easy to verify even if some folks deny the biological existence of XY dysgensis or other phenomena where different definitions of male/female are not always aligned.

 

[Tubey]

They need to get their terms correct, particularly Colin, who is an evolutionary biologist and should know what "secondary sexual trait" means, but that's a minor point.

As to your claim that sex can be binary at the chromosomal level (XX or XY) is fine (defining female and male, respectively); I only aim to claim that sex can be defined at other biological levels as well (anatomical, hormonal, gonadal) and typically (99.5% of the time or so??) the "maleness" at the chromosomal level aligns with "maleness" as defined at the gonadal, hormonal, anatomical level (and same for females). But sometimes it doesn't so this is why it is important to clarify definitions of sex at multiple biological levels, even if the SRY-gene on the Y chromosome is considered the "master switch."

I don't think my claim that defining sex on multiple biological levels is "going down the rabbit hole" since my claim is easy to verify even if some folks deny the biological existence of XY dysgensis or other phenomena where different definitions of male/female are not always aligned.

We actually agree then; your definitions are simply different to mine in that you place more emphasis on (sorry but easiest way to say it) 'secondary' aspects; I don't. I'm solely talking about the literal definition of sex. The base, fundamental level.

As I say, you are right, but wrong in regards to the actual question - is sex binary. It is. Can millions of things act as a variant after the fact? Yes. But sex remains fundamentally binary.

 

[coollino]

I might just hang out in the litter thread tonight.

 

[verreauxi]

We actually agree then; your definitions are simply different to mine in that you place more emphasis on (sorry but easiest way to say it) 'secondary' aspects; I don't. I'm solely talking about the literal definition of sex. The base, fundamental level.

As I say, you are right, but wrong in regards to the actual question - is sex binary. It is. Can millions of things act as a variant after the fact? Yes. But sex remains fundamentally binary.

Yeah, the evolution of the sex determining system in mammals, no doubt, evolved to have two sexes (binary). For me, though, I would have no problem telling my (hypothetical) child with XY dysgensis that they might be chromosomally male but anatomically female, which to me is more accurate then just saying "You got a Y, you're a dude and that's that" and then having to also explain why they have a vulva.

Edit: I also firmly believe that if someone wanted to identify as male (or female) independent of whatever biological infrastructure they might possess, it's not my battle (despite my expertise in the area) to tell them otherwise.

 

[Brett Angell Delight]

That's exactly it. Totally get it. But scientifically, compassion doesn't override fact. I don't think anything is gained by lying.

If my son/daughter identified as the opposite sex, I'd have no issues, I'd support them 100%. But if they asked me if they're actually the opposite sex, I'd have to tell them the truth, because morally I can't lie to them. I'd tell them societally they can identify as whatever they like and expect to be respected for it in every way possible by any reasonable human, but... yeah, biology is hard coded.

I think we’re conflating sex and gender a bit, but whatever. We clearly share the same outlook as it pertains to our next generation, and that’s what matters.

Thank you for taking the time to talk it out with me.

 

[Tubey]

Yeah, the evolution of the sex determining system in mammals, no doubt, evolved to have two sexes (binary). For me, though, I would have no problem telling my (hypothetical) child with XY dysgensis that they might be chromosomally male but anatomically female, which to me is more accurate then just saying "You got a Y, you're a dude and that's that" and then having to also explain why they have a vulva.

That's fine, wouldn't argue with you on that - I'd do the same.

You'd be telling the truth.

 

[Terrarian]

In the words of Ice-T mid 80's - "Freedom of speech; that's some MF BS, say the wrong thing, they lock your ass up quick". nearly 40years on and what has changed lol, we are easily duped into believing we are actually free.

 

[Prevenger17]

Little Tubes: Hey dad, I'm hanging out with the girls later to watch Bridesmaids.

Tubey: That's great, and I fully support you. But remember, you're biologically a man.

Little Tubes: Yeah, but you know, I'm a woman now.

Tubey: Yes, but biologically and factually, you're a man. But you identify as a woman and I support that.

Little Tubes: You reminding me I'm factually a man in every conversation doesn't feel very supportive.

Tubey: I'm morally compelled to remind you.

 

[tim cahill]

They mean secondary to core biological sex.

I honestly believe you've gone too far down the rabbit hole to see the woods for the trees with this one. No one is saying what you say isn't true; I'm just saying that what you are saying has no influence when discussing whether sex at a biological, chromosomal level is binary or not.

For example, as I said the other week, I have no doubt people can be born into the wrong body and be cognitively completely the opposite sex to that they were born into. But nevertheless they remain the sex they were born into - there's nothing they can do about it. Its hard wired.

I'm also not denying your expertise - I simply believe you are expertly answering the wrong question.

People aren't born into the wrong body. Their bodies are 100% theirs. They might not have chosen that body but we don't do mind/body transplants. How they behave with that body is up to them.

 

[Tubey]

People aren't born into the wrong body. Their bodies are 100% theirs. They might not have chosen that body but we don't do mind/body transplants. How they behave with that body is up to them.

I mean there's a cognitive dissonance between what they're brain says it is and what they're body actually is. They haven't chose that dissonance; it's a developmental 'issue' consisting of a lot of variables, same as being gay isn't a choice.

So cognitively, these people believe the body they were 'given' is 'wrong', as it doesn't match what their brain tells them they should be.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

I mean there's a cognitive dissonance between what they're brain says it is and what they're body actually is. They haven't chose that dissonance; it's a developmental 'issue' consisting of a lot of variables, same as being gay isn't a choice.

So cognitively, these people believe the body they were 'given' is 'wrong', as it doesn't match what their brain tells them they should be.

'their' brains/body.

I mean, if accuracy is important to you like.