The gender identity scam is so bizarre that the mind reels when confronting it. At first I thought anything so stupid would disappear on its own. Now many of us realize it persists as part of a plan to disassemble society and rebuild it as a totalitarian dystopia that benefits the wealthiest people on the planet who want us to own nothing, eat bugs, and enjoy it. The gender identity cult is the enemy of human identity and civilization. If we can be forced to abolish something as fundamental as the sex binary we can be made to believe any preposterous idea and commit any atrocity.

Expand full comment

Yep. Intersex conditions are the exception that proves the rule. Trying to argue otherwise it’s like saying that conjoined twins are proof that the number of heads/arms/legs/pick your body part that humans are born with is on a spectrum.

Expand full comment

The use of intersex people in gender identity arguments requires a desperate denial of what they are: they are developmental defects. They don’t challenge “binary” formulations of sex. They are mistakes, and those people afflicted with them are unfortunate.

It’s frightening the extent to which educated people have accepted the strident demands of “trans” activists. Some states have laws requiring employers and teachers to capitulate to the affectation of special pronouns and magic names. Online forums bend to every “trans” whim.

And now this cult is turning violent.

Expand full comment

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", Theodosius Dobzhansky. I think most arguments get lost on this issue because people focus on sociology, philosophy or even physiology. When we talk about sex we are mainly talking about biology, and when we talk about biology we must always consider "the light of evolution". Only the combination of male and female gametes can produce viable progeny in a "natural" environment. You can identify however you want, but if you want to have offspring, you have no option: you have to find someone of the opposite sex. And that's all what sex is about.

Expand full comment

Very, very good article! I don't think you went far enough, though-- the death of women's rights as a consequence of this garbage ideology needs must be documented and shouted from every rooftop.

Expand full comment

If they don't produce gametes, they simply have a birth defect. A profound birth defect. If they didn't have that particular birth defect, they would undoubtedly be male or female. We are most certainly not going to turn our whole society inside out just to benefit an infinitesimally small number of unfortunate individuals with profound birth defects.

Expand full comment

Someone once asked me "how do you define sex and why should I care" I defined sex as one's ability either currently, in the past (meaning you are old and can no longer produce gametes) or in the future (meaning you are young and have not undergone puberty) to produce gametes in the future. I was told my classification system "changed" over time (which drove me nuts) and was irrelevant since we could just ask someone their gender.

I disagree with most people who follow this blog, but I will say the insistence by some that sex is either not binary or irrelevant iterates me to no end.

Expand full comment

Do intersex people also only produce on gamete? I can see where they'd have external development that was a mix. But do these rare cases still only produce one gamete or the other? I didn't see that explained. Genuinely curious.

Expand full comment

My understanding is that most intersex people are tragically sterile.

The removes them from any useful consideration re sex.

The biological purpose of sex is for procreation. If you're a sterile intersex individual, that is a tragedy, not a new sex.

Expand full comment

Take a look at this idiotic article from yesterday's WaPo. This intersex-proves-the-"gender"-spectrum screed was written by the Barnard English professor and former Kardashian show regular, Mr. "Jennifer" Finney Boylan, who famously traded hairstyle and makeup tips with all the newtranny friends of "Caitlyn" Jenner.




Expand full comment

Thank you very much for your work-- it is saving my sanity! But thought that you should know that this was published today in the San Francisco Chronicle: https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/male-female-binary-sex-18087147.php

Expand full comment

Who is the author of the essay?

Expand full comment

While I appreciate your clear and impassioned defense of the sex binary, I am unsettled by the lack of empathy for, or even acknowledgement of, the lives of trans people. This is the first of your work I have read so I apologize if you have expressed your sympathies elsewhere.

In this piece, I hear you saying that it is not your job as a scientist to comment on the policies that flow from scientific data but, science and scientists have had a huge hand in the translation and imposition of the sex binary into the ruthless and dehumanizing gender-binary policies that have endangered and continue to endanger actual human lives. At this stage of the game, I think it is incumbent upon scientists to recognize that trans people, activists and allies are fighting for not only the human rights but also the literal lives of trans people. Whatever sloppiness or confusion might exist in the narratives they are creating, it can hardly be deemed worse than what has been done over the last few centuries by scientists in both conscious and unconscious service of patriarchy.

Expand full comment

I thought we were on the honor policy for gender now? :D

Expand full comment

Colin: Are sex categories in humans empirically real, immutable and binary, or are they mere “social constructs”?

You might try getting a bit of philosophy under your belt before "trans-gressing" -- so to speak -- on territory that is more the bailiwick of philosophers. At least those worth their salt, and who are, sadly, few and far between.

But of particular note, a useful guidepost, is the SEP article on natural kinds:

"Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings."


Though they subsequently go off into the weeds, but they elucidate an important, and relevant, principle that most people -- including most biologists and philosophers -- haven't a flaming clue about.

In any case, the point is that your rather idiosyncratic definitions for the sexes -- i.e., "gonads of past, present, or future functionality" -- are, in fact, "socially constructed", are anything but "natural kinds". They "reflect the interests and actions of humans" -- you in particular.

While there is some merit and utilitarian value in those definitions of yours -- notably that they reflect the ad hoc definitions of "folk biology" -- they hardly qualify as gospel truth. Particularly as I rather doubt they were inscribed in the stone tablets -- labelled A through Z as the First Dictionary -- that Moses supposedly brought down from Mt Sinai.

But what DOES qualify as a "natural kind" is the brute fact that "those individuals, of literally millions of species including the human one, who actually produce small or large gametes CAN reproduce, and that those who produce neither CAN'T".

Though it is a bit murky, as the SEP article acknowledges, as to what clearly differentiates between natural and "un-natural" kinds. There are, probably, millions of such natural kinds. But what does seem to do that differentiating is the labelling: humans ASSERT the equivalence between the label and the, more or less, natural kind. Asserting the equivalence between the "definiendum" ("that which is to be defined") and expression which does the defining, known as the "definiens":


But the point, the bottom line, is that there are many different "equivalencies" that we can "assert". Though in that fact is the further point that ALL such equivalencies are "socially constructed".

However, the conclusion is that not all definitions, not all equivalents are created equal -- "2+2=5" is clearly such an assertion but it does not comport with the axioms of arithmetic. Similarly, "gonads of past, present, or future functionality" -- your rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definitions -- does not at all comport with definitions published in reputable biological journals like the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:


Expand full comment