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.
Yes absolutely. The elites are trying to create a totalitarian dystopia to end all dystopias. And "transgenderism" is the handy bridge to their true goal, "transhumanism." Blackrock the behemoth that shoves ESG and CEI down the throats of all companies has a division, Blackrock Neurotech that's going gangbusters on developing brain computer interfaces that can control the behavior of human beings.
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.
"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.
There's a great Louie CK bit where he talks up LGBT+ stuff for a minute, before adding "buuut..." And, paraphrasing, that every last exciting LGB person came about from two boring old straight people fucking. That's all it's been, all the way back to the beginning, is a man and a woman doing it. So don't get too excited about your special identity, basically.
(It's a much funnier bit than I'm conveying here.)
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.
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.
No. I'm not going to waste my time reading a glossary in any academic journal whether it's peer-reviewed or not. As most savvy people now realize, peer review is meaningless when the authors and editors have all been captured by "transgender" brainwashing scam.
Human beings come in two sexes and only two sexes, male and female. Sex is determined at the moment of conception, and it is immutable. A man is an adult human male. A woman is an adult human female. That's all you and I need to know.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish applying wallpaper to the walls of my bathroom. Adios.
🤣🙄 "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up", amirite? 🙄
You seriously "think" that the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction has been "captured by the transgender brainwashing scam"? Think you've disappeared up your own fundament -- being charitable -- although there's a lot of that goin' round these days.
But you really haven't specified EXACTLY what it is that qualifies ALL members of ALL anisogamous species as either male or female. You might try getting your head out of your arse and read something about the fundamental principles that undergird the creation of definitions:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
Keep going, you're convincing us all. Maybe, though I don't know of what. You need to expatiate on your ideas a bit.
I think you may have missed the point of the comment you attack:
"If they didn't have that particular birth defect" (they don't produce gametes), "they would undoubtedly be male or female. "
But they do have that defect, don't produce gametes, so they may be not male or female. Might that not be "sexLESS"?
Since the original piece dismissed such people as an irrelevant tiny minority of accidents, you might do better to pursue the line that biological sex may change over time, as most people become sexLESS if they live long enough.
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.
The standard biological definitions -- those promulgated in reputable biological journals -- have absolutely diddly-squat to do with "past or future ability to produce gametes":
> The biological purpose of sex is for procreation ...
Indeed. That IS what it means to have a sex, to have "reproductive function", to be able to reproduce:
"2 Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
The question is HOW we should define the categories "male" and "female". And, as indicated in the above definition, they ARE categories, they're NOT any sort of "immutable identity".
And as categories, there is the question of what are the "membership dues". For the sexes, most reputable biological journals DEFINE those categories such that functional gonads are what are called the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership -- no tickee, no washee.
For example, see the definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of this Journal article -- which is worth reading in its entirety, at least the Abstract and Introduction, though the balance gets into some generally unnecessary technical details:
But you might also take a gander at the Wikipedia article on definitions, particularly the bit about those "necessary and sufficient conditions":
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
For example, the "property" than a person "needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term 'teenager' " is to be 13 to 19. Likewise with the categories "male" and "female".
See my "What is a woman?" for some further details 🙂. There are a few somewhat convoluted principles involved, but they're really not all that difficult to grasp, at least if one starts off with something in the way of an open mind:
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.
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.
It's the crux of the matter, it is part and parcel of the question of what it takes to qualify any person -- or any member of any anisogamous species -- as either male or female.
You too might give some thought to the principles undergirding the creation of definitions. As described in this Wikipedia article:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
What, exactly, are the properties that any person -- any member of any anisogamous species -- MUST "have in order to be counted as referents of the terms 'male' and 'female'"?
By the standard biological definitions, those properties are functional gonads. Which excludes many of the intersex, and all prepubescent children:
See the the Glossary definitions in the linked article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
I rather doubt he's sufficiently "intellectually honest" to do so since, by the standard biological definitions, those intersex who produce neither sperm nor ova are sexLESS.
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.
People who reject their natal sex do not need "gender affirmation" from their doctors or the rest of society. What they do need is psychotherapy to get them to accept the biological reality. of their sexed bodies.
And we most certainly do not need any more "gender" brainwashing by the "trans" activists or their deluded followers.
If gender is fluid, it would be immoral to alter a child’s body with chemicals or surgery in the knowledge they may later feel they are a different gender.
Even worse, suicide rate is higher after these barbaric interventions.
We do the mentally-ill no good by butchering them, nor pretending their confusion or delusion is reality.
That you could make such claims without referencing any authority beyond your own bald agency is sad evidence of the climate that puts people at risk. 🐢
That you're this uninformed AND arrogant, should shame you, but I doubt it does.
NIH: Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9)
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:
You are conflating sex and gender, which are VERY different things. Big mistake. "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.
No, I most certainly am NOT conflating sex and gender. And you're just repeating your earlier comment -- though it has some merit. One might suggest a "corollary" to Dobzhansky's "theorem": "nothing makes sense in evolution except in light of reproduction".
But how do you think I'm doing so? As I've argued in my Binarists post -- which you might try reading ... -- the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See the the Glossary definitions in the linked article there in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
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.
Yes absolutely. The elites are trying to create a totalitarian dystopia to end all dystopias. And "transgenderism" is the handy bridge to their true goal, "transhumanism." Blackrock the behemoth that shoves ESG and CEI down the throats of all companies has a division, Blackrock Neurotech that's going gangbusters on developing brain computer interfaces that can control the behavior of human beings.
https://blackrockneurotech.com/
https://www.the11thhourblog.com/
As in 1984 1+1 not equal two, or Betrand Russel: uf a contradiction can be true then anything can be true
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.
"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.
There's a great Louie CK bit where he talks up LGBT+ stuff for a minute, before adding "buuut..." And, paraphrasing, that every last exciting LGB person came about from two boring old straight people fucking. That's all it's been, all the way back to the beginning, is a man and a woman doing it. So don't get too excited about your special identity, basically.
(It's a much funnier bit than I'm conveying here.)
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.
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.
"If they don't produce gametes ..." then they are, by definition, sexLESS.
You might try reading the actual biological definitions in the Glossary of this article in a reputable peer-reviewed biological journal:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
No. I'm not going to waste my time reading a glossary in any academic journal whether it's peer-reviewed or not. As most savvy people now realize, peer review is meaningless when the authors and editors have all been captured by "transgender" brainwashing scam.
Human beings come in two sexes and only two sexes, male and female. Sex is determined at the moment of conception, and it is immutable. A man is an adult human male. A woman is an adult human female. That's all you and I need to know.
And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to finish applying wallpaper to the walls of my bathroom. Adios.
🤣🙄 "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up", amirite? 🙄
You seriously "think" that the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction has been "captured by the transgender brainwashing scam"? Think you've disappeared up your own fundament -- being charitable -- although there's a lot of that goin' round these days.
But you really haven't specified EXACTLY what it is that qualifies ALL members of ALL anisogamous species as either male or female. You might try getting your head out of your arse and read something about the fundamental principles that undergird the creation of definitions:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
What are the properties that an individual MUST have "in order to be counted as a referent of the terms 'male' and 'female'"?
Keep going, you're convincing us all. Maybe, though I don't know of what. You need to expatiate on your ideas a bit.
I think you may have missed the point of the comment you attack:
"If they didn't have that particular birth defect" (they don't produce gametes), "they would undoubtedly be male or female. "
But they do have that defect, don't produce gametes, so they may be not male or female. Might that not be "sexLESS"?
Since the original piece dismissed such people as an irrelevant tiny minority of accidents, you might do better to pursue the line that biological sex may change over time, as most people become sexLESS if they live long enough.
I don’t understand the hostility coming from those posts.
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.
The standard biological definitions -- those promulgated in reputable biological journals -- have absolutely diddly-squat to do with "past or future ability to produce gametes":
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
They are all about actual, current ability to produce gametes; see the Glossary of that article which states:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
A rather profound and far-reaching difference which Colin lacks the intellectual honesty to address.
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.
> The biological purpose of sex is for procreation ...
Indeed. That IS what it means to have a sex, to have "reproductive function", to be able to reproduce:
"2 Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326191905/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
No "reproductive function", no sex. Such individuals -- like the prepubescent and most intersex -- are, in fact, sexLESS.
aging out is absolutely natural, it's not a defect.
Intersex is a tragic accident of nature.
Surprising, but quite true ... 😉🙂
The question is HOW we should define the categories "male" and "female". And, as indicated in the above definition, they ARE categories, they're NOT any sort of "immutable identity".
And as categories, there is the question of what are the "membership dues". For the sexes, most reputable biological journals DEFINE those categories such that functional gonads are what are called the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership -- no tickee, no washee.
For example, see the definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of this Journal article -- which is worth reading in its entirety, at least the Abstract and Introduction, though the balance gets into some generally unnecessary technical details:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
But you might also take a gander at the Wikipedia article on definitions, particularly the bit about those "necessary and sufficient conditions":
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
For example, the "property" than a person "needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term 'teenager' " is to be 13 to 19. Likewise with the categories "male" and "female".
See my "What is a woman?" for some further details 🙂. There are a few somewhat convoluted principles involved, but they're really not all that difficult to grasp, at least if one starts off with something in the way of an open mind:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/01/transgender-biology-brain-science-freedom/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHx-AgbnKv4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIGygFq8U-E
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.
Yes. Intersex people never produce two gametes. Only one.
And if they produce neither? As is the case for many of them.
Are they sexLESS or not? By the standard biological definitions -- not the unscientific schlock that Colin is peddling -- they are, in fact, sexLESS.
See my recent comment and Note for details:
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-15520525
Whether intersex people produce one or the other gametes, or none,mis irrelevant to this issue.
No, it most certainly is NOT "irrelevant".
It's the crux of the matter, it is part and parcel of the question of what it takes to qualify any person -- or any member of any anisogamous species -- as either male or female.
You too might give some thought to the principles undergirding the creation of definitions. As described in this Wikipedia article:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
What, exactly, are the properties that any person -- any member of any anisogamous species -- MUST "have in order to be counted as referents of the terms 'male' and 'female'"?
By the standard biological definitions, those properties are functional gonads. Which excludes many of the intersex, and all prepubescent children:
See the the Glossary definitions in the linked article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
No gametes, no sex. Period.
I had the same thought/question. Genuinely curious as well. I hope Mr. Wright sees this and will offer an answer.
I rather doubt he's sufficiently "intellectually honest" to do so since, by the standard biological definitions, those intersex who produce neither sperm nor ova are sexLESS.
See my recent comment and Note for details:
https://substack.com/profile/21792752-steersman/note/c-15520525
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
Who is the author of the essay?
If you follow the link to The Wall Street Journal -- in the very first sentence -- then you'd see that the author is Colin:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-biologist-explains-why-sex-is-binary-gender-male-female-intersex-medical-supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson-lia-thomas-3d22237e
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.
People who reject their natal sex do not need "gender affirmation" from their doctors or the rest of society. What they do need is psychotherapy to get them to accept the biological reality. of their sexed bodies.
And we most certainly do not need any more "gender" brainwashing by the "trans" activists or their deluded followers.
If gender is fluid, it would be immoral to alter a child’s body with chemicals or surgery in the knowledge they may later feel they are a different gender.
Even worse, suicide rate is higher after these barbaric interventions.
We do the mentally-ill no good by butchering them, nor pretending their confusion or delusion is reality.
That you could make such claims without referencing any authority beyond your own bald agency is sad evidence of the climate that puts people at risk. 🐢
That you're this uninformed AND arrogant, should shame you, but I doubt it does.
NIH: Long-Term Follow-Up of Transsexual Persons Undergoing Sex Reassignment Surgery: Cohort Study in Sweden
The overall mortality for sex-reassigned persons was higher during follow-up (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 1.8–4.3) than for controls of the same birth sex, particularly death from suicide (aHR 19.1; 95% CI 5.8–62.9). Sex-reassigned persons also had an increased risk for suicide attempts (aHR 4.9; 95% CI 2.9–8.5) and psychiatric inpatient care (aHR 2.8; 95% CI 2.0–3.9)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043071/
I thought we were on the honor policy for gender now? :D
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."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
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":
https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm#part4
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:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
You are conflating sex and gender, which are VERY different things. Big mistake. "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.
No, I most certainly am NOT conflating sex and gender. And you're just repeating your earlier comment -- though it has some merit. One might suggest a "corollary" to Dobzhansky's "theorem": "nothing makes sense in evolution except in light of reproduction".
But how do you think I'm doing so? As I've argued in my Binarists post -- which you might try reading ... -- the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See the the Glossary definitions in the linked article there in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Diddly-squat there about gender.
We need to shut the entire "gender" scam down now.