This use of the anomalous and extremely rare disorders of sexual development by the tweeter is reprehensible gaslighting. (Gaslight being the 1943 film with Ingrid Bergman, where her husband convinces her she's going mad because he does exactly what this "teacher" does, starting when the lights come on every evening) I know from hearing pseudo-science terms emitted by my former husband and his "sexologist" groomers in 1995, that the entire field is littered with fake, meaningless terms, such as "true life test, heterosexual transsexual, homosexual transsexual" &etc, until the cows come home. Who cares what clownfish do? Their patterns prove nothing for humans. It is the same story for history--they clomp around the ancient world, finding "transgendered" historic figures. The "sexologist" who diagnosed my ex in the initial 1993 appointment literally wrote in a sworn affidavit that "transsexualism" has existed since antiquity. The Romans were all running around in those robes, after all. Here's a moment of zen: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gh7WEon3AaE
This” science teacher” needs to be fired .. maybe she can get a nice job being a DEI advisor somewhere! She shows her bias at one point very clearly .. actually, beginning with clownfish , etc . As a former biology teacher , I cringe at what now passes for science!
Science has definitely fallen on hard times of late. Though one might argue -- below -- that Colin is contributing to that sad state of affairs with his own rather unscientific definitions:
But more broadly, the issue seems to be a general scientific illiteracy that makes the population into an easy mark for various scientific & philosophical charlatans, grifters, and political opportunists. Carl Sagan credibly argued that the crux of the matter is a general unwillingness or lack of ability to "distinguish between what feels good and what's true":
"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
Far too many people are far too quick to turn the sexes -- "male" and "female" -- into "immutable identities" -- they ain't -- instead of recognizing them as labels for quite transitory reproductive abilities.
Transitory reproductive abilities? As a former biology teacher , I still believe that science should trump
ideology ! There are two sexes, male and female ! Using abnormalities as proof that there may be three or more sexes ( and of course confusing sex with gender) is not simply disingenuous.
The lying that has now taken front seat to uphold the trans ideology is not just unscientific but also dangerously authoritarian!
Even those pushing these lies know that they have nothing to stand on , which is why anyone criticizing or catching them on these lies is called a “transphobe “or worse.
We have come to an era of McCarthyism or perhaps we are in the midst of another Chinese cultural revolution. People who value truth must stand up to this very dangerous ideology.
Are the prepubescent able to reproduce? That's what I mean, what credible biologists and biological journals mean by "transitory".
You might actually try reading my Binarists post.
While there are, by definition, two sexes, that does NOT mean that, by the standard biological definitions, every member of every anisogamous species -- including the human one -- actually HAS a sex.
Transsexualism is a 19th-century phenomenon, but that doesn't mean that people suffering from gender or body dysphoria don't deserve treatment or compassion. Other mental illnesses, such as depression, are also modern phenomena. When humanity began to move in mass into massive civilizations, there was a complex sociological and societal side to this.
We don't know how far back cross-sex ideation goes, and how meaningful any statements, such as Queen Elizabeth 1's conjectures about her situation as female monarch from the 1500s. As Dr. Stephen B. Levine, a formerly affirming psychiatrist, has stated in many expert witness testimonies, the "transgender" identity is neither constant nor immutable. No one is suggesting we disregard the trauma and distress of the body dissociation involved in cross-sex ideation. The medical malpractice of treating it with irreversible surgeries and damaging wrong sex hormones is the fault of the mental health field. My ex-husband was beaten and treated unconscionably badly by both his (possibly autistic) father and his irresponsible mother. The fact is, that the feeling of inauthenticity all too commonly returns after the drastic surgeries. There are too many detransitioners who say their problems actually stemmed from trauma, grief, sexual abuse and other outside factors. When there are other physical conditions, disorders of sexual development, there is no reason to lump this cohort in with physically healthy individuals who ideate into an opposite sex persona. This entire enterprise is putting a generation of children at risk. We have to think of them, rather than ourselves. It is the only ethical and moral path.
Feminine, masculine and androgynous are societal concepts, differing according to time and environment, upbringing and family expectations. I find them meaningless. I recall getting a short haircut in 1985, when I wanted a different look as a modern dancer, for the auditions. I got some really odd comments about my sexual orientation from sexist dudes, despite my habit of wearing size 4 handmade vintage dresses from the 1930s and 1940s. We should spend our time on healing in nature, moving for physical and emotional wellbeing and unhook ourselves from narcissistic, superficial Hollywood imagery, which tells us not to age. I never thought I'd be proud and happy about my crows feet and old lady wrinkles, but I am. I do not see myself as a post-menopausal "masculinized old hag" but rather as a woman, age 66, coming into her female wisdom, as my mother and grandmothers did. There are so many children without adequate food, medical care or emotional support in this world. The trans movement has no idea the neglect they promote through their selfish promotion of Western surgeries as the "cure" for what ails humankind. They are a Disney parody. I know whereof I speak. My husband of 15 years imagined himself as a princess. And he is. He's the "princess" of his tech company, with all the pearl necklaces to match. He wanted me to be his acolyte in this ritual and I refused.
Ute: "Who cares what clownfish do? Their patterns prove nothing for humans."
Often not really the point of raising the issue of clownfish. It is often more to do with the question of the biological definitions for the sexes. You, and too many others, seem to think that there should be one definition for the sexes for literally millions of other anisogamous species, and an entirely different and quite antithetical one for humans. Egregious special pleading at best.
Science more or less "works" because of universalizing principles, of finding common elements across wide spectra of physiology and psychology.
By definition, by the definitions of mainstream biology, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
Again, I object to your targeting me. I am a mother, a daughter, a sister and an aunt. I never said that I think there should be one definition for male and female. I was born with female organs. I became pregnant through heterosexual sex with my husband, carried my children in healthy pregnancies and labored for 12 hours the first time and 5 hours the second time, giving birth to 2 sons. Please stop directing your ire at me Steersman. I do not deserve it, and I cannot find anyone else here who disagrees. Here, for your edification, is my video on protecting the children's interests, when their father says he's actually you, the mother.
Think you're being a bit "over dramatic" there Ute. I'm not "targeting" you -- I've even bitten my tongue several times in reading your comments .... 😉🙂. I think you're to be commended for drawing attention to the issue of transwidows, and the rather serious pathologies surrounding "self-identification" and related behaviours.
It's just that there were only 2 or 3 comments posted here when I posted mine, and you made a statement about clownfish that is rather too common, too dismissive of its relevance to the issue of what exactly it means to have a sex. Largely the point of this post of Colin's in particular.
Though I think he's part of the problem in not realizing that his own definitions for the sexes are rather "idiosyncratic", quite unscientific, and egregiously antithetical to those published in reputable biological journals -- as opposed to the letter section of the UK Times where he was peddling his own versions:
The crux of the matter is that he says that one doesn't actually have to be able to reproduce to qualify as a member of the sex categories. Which, one might reasonably argue, is "not even wrong" -- totally clueless about the fundamental, underlying principle.
The famous biologist Dobzhansky said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". A reasonable corollary might be that nothing in evolution makes sense except in light of reproduction: no reproduction, no evolution.
But part and parcel of Colin's quite unscientific definitions is that they basically turn each sex into a spectrum of three: gonads of past, present, or future functionality. Which seems rather "problematic" for any number of reasons.
Appreciate your succinct and clear rebuttal! That thread uses just enough (misapplied) science to make it appear rational. However the long rant about non-human species, including the zillion-sexed fungi, is the first tip-off. Why bring those up at all if you know the issue is H. sapiens? To set the stage for dropping a few tidbits about DSDs without providing any context or the necessary further descriptions. Gah!
Thanks Colin. I appreciate that you have to balance what and when to provide for paying subscribers vs making it free. If too much is free, people won't pay to subscribe. I bet there are many paying subscribers like me who want to get these papers out in the public square as much as possible and will continue to subscribe no matter what.
Exactly. It is actually a major issue for me because I want content like this to reach as many eyes as possible, but I also rely on subscribers to allow me to do this full time. So I think I have settled on a good compromise that I am comfortable with morally, which is to make my personal posts available to supporters only for the first two weeks before making them public. I would never want this content permanently behind a paywall, and so this feels like a happy middle-ground. I truly appreciate your support!
Keep on doing this work! You certainly answered all the gobbledegook very well, but it must have given you a headache to have to do so! Truth , in her view is” transphobic”! What a world! Sort of like the Middle Ages!
Her combination of half-right biology and pure gobbledygook is impressive. I liked the implicit invocation of the gender-soul at the end.
Speaking of gender-souls...
Colin, as a biologist, can you tell me how the gender-soul communicates with the body? Is it sort of like how Descartes thought the pineal gland was where the soul lived, or am I being too simple-minded? And does the soul only communicate with the body or is it also vice-effing-versa?
A lot of the comments you said were true I learned in an introductory genetics class 25 years ago. Then, the one page devoted to what makes someone or something male or female had nothing to do with ideology, and interesting examples in different species were just a way of seeing how vast the world was.
1) The various issues in the variety of animal species have little to do with human sexuality. Spending a lot of time discussing fruit-fly sexuality is not helpful in human sexuality.
2) Humans with DSD, intersex, etc are errors of development. They have nothing to do with human sexuality. They are not different sexes, they are simply errors of the creation-of-human process or the developmental process.
The overriding point is that although there may be some challenge in finding an entirely biological definition of gender, it is not insurmountable. And it is difficult to arrive at an entirely physical definition for just about anything. How about, if you have the sry gene you are male, else female. Simple, and should cover all cases. Way easier than defining White Person, and yet that one is taken as immutable. And here is a word for them: "biophobes". Slightly redefined from dictionary definition. Why are they so afraid of a little biology?? Hmmmm?? "I am no bigot, but you are a biophobic boob." How is that for come back.
This use of the anomalous and extremely rare disorders of sexual development by the tweeter is reprehensible gaslighting. (Gaslight being the 1943 film with Ingrid Bergman, where her husband convinces her she's going mad because he does exactly what this "teacher" does, starting when the lights come on every evening) I know from hearing pseudo-science terms emitted by my former husband and his "sexologist" groomers in 1995, that the entire field is littered with fake, meaningless terms, such as "true life test, heterosexual transsexual, homosexual transsexual" &etc, until the cows come home. Who cares what clownfish do? Their patterns prove nothing for humans. It is the same story for history--they clomp around the ancient world, finding "transgendered" historic figures. The "sexologist" who diagnosed my ex in the initial 1993 appointment literally wrote in a sworn affidavit that "transsexualism" has existed since antiquity. The Romans were all running around in those robes, after all. Here's a moment of zen: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gh7WEon3AaE
This” science teacher” needs to be fired .. maybe she can get a nice job being a DEI advisor somewhere! She shows her bias at one point very clearly .. actually, beginning with clownfish , etc . As a former biology teacher , I cringe at what now passes for science!
Science has definitely fallen on hard times of late. Though one might argue -- below -- that Colin is contributing to that sad state of affairs with his own rather unscientific definitions:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
But more broadly, the issue seems to be a general scientific illiteracy that makes the population into an easy mark for various scientific & philosophical charlatans, grifters, and political opportunists. Carl Sagan credibly argued that the crux of the matter is a general unwillingness or lack of ability to "distinguish between what feels good and what's true":
"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#The_Demon-Haunted_World_:_Science_as_a_Candle_in_the_Dark_(1995)
Far too many people are far too quick to turn the sexes -- "male" and "female" -- into "immutable identities" -- they ain't -- instead of recognizing them as labels for quite transitory reproductive abilities.
Transitory reproductive abilities? As a former biology teacher , I still believe that science should trump
ideology ! There are two sexes, male and female ! Using abnormalities as proof that there may be three or more sexes ( and of course confusing sex with gender) is not simply disingenuous.
The lying that has now taken front seat to uphold the trans ideology is not just unscientific but also dangerously authoritarian!
Even those pushing these lies know that they have nothing to stand on , which is why anyone criticizing or catching them on these lies is called a “transphobe “or worse.
We have come to an era of McCarthyism or perhaps we are in the midst of another Chinese cultural revolution. People who value truth must stand up to this very dangerous ideology.
"Transitory reproductive abilities?"
Are the prepubescent able to reproduce? That's what I mean, what credible biologists and biological journals mean by "transitory".
You might actually try reading my Binarists post.
While there are, by definition, two sexes, that does NOT mean that, by the standard biological definitions, every member of every anisogamous species -- including the human one -- actually HAS a sex.
Transsexualism is a 19th-century phenomenon, but that doesn't mean that people suffering from gender or body dysphoria don't deserve treatment or compassion. Other mental illnesses, such as depression, are also modern phenomena. When humanity began to move in mass into massive civilizations, there was a complex sociological and societal side to this.
We don't know how far back cross-sex ideation goes, and how meaningful any statements, such as Queen Elizabeth 1's conjectures about her situation as female monarch from the 1500s. As Dr. Stephen B. Levine, a formerly affirming psychiatrist, has stated in many expert witness testimonies, the "transgender" identity is neither constant nor immutable. No one is suggesting we disregard the trauma and distress of the body dissociation involved in cross-sex ideation. The medical malpractice of treating it with irreversible surgeries and damaging wrong sex hormones is the fault of the mental health field. My ex-husband was beaten and treated unconscionably badly by both his (possibly autistic) father and his irresponsible mother. The fact is, that the feeling of inauthenticity all too commonly returns after the drastic surgeries. There are too many detransitioners who say their problems actually stemmed from trauma, grief, sexual abuse and other outside factors. When there are other physical conditions, disorders of sexual development, there is no reason to lump this cohort in with physically healthy individuals who ideate into an opposite sex persona. This entire enterprise is putting a generation of children at risk. We have to think of them, rather than ourselves. It is the only ethical and moral path.
Children claiming to be "born in the wrong body" or there's a gender identity are 19th century creations. Androgyny is as old as the Greeks.
Feminine, masculine and androgynous are societal concepts, differing according to time and environment, upbringing and family expectations. I find them meaningless. I recall getting a short haircut in 1985, when I wanted a different look as a modern dancer, for the auditions. I got some really odd comments about my sexual orientation from sexist dudes, despite my habit of wearing size 4 handmade vintage dresses from the 1930s and 1940s. We should spend our time on healing in nature, moving for physical and emotional wellbeing and unhook ourselves from narcissistic, superficial Hollywood imagery, which tells us not to age. I never thought I'd be proud and happy about my crows feet and old lady wrinkles, but I am. I do not see myself as a post-menopausal "masculinized old hag" but rather as a woman, age 66, coming into her female wisdom, as my mother and grandmothers did. There are so many children without adequate food, medical care or emotional support in this world. The trans movement has no idea the neglect they promote through their selfish promotion of Western surgeries as the "cure" for what ails humankind. They are a Disney parody. I know whereof I speak. My husband of 15 years imagined himself as a princess. And he is. He's the "princess" of his tech company, with all the pearl necklaces to match. He wanted me to be his acolyte in this ritual and I refused.
Ute: "Who cares what clownfish do? Their patterns prove nothing for humans."
Often not really the point of raising the issue of clownfish. It is often more to do with the question of the biological definitions for the sexes. You, and too many others, seem to think that there should be one definition for the sexes for literally millions of other anisogamous species, and an entirely different and quite antithetical one for humans. Egregious special pleading at best.
Science more or less "works" because of universalizing principles, of finding common elements across wide spectra of physiology and psychology.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/12539/chapter/11
By definition, by the definitions of mainstream biology, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Again, I object to your targeting me. I am a mother, a daughter, a sister and an aunt. I never said that I think there should be one definition for male and female. I was born with female organs. I became pregnant through heterosexual sex with my husband, carried my children in healthy pregnancies and labored for 12 hours the first time and 5 hours the second time, giving birth to 2 sons. Please stop directing your ire at me Steersman. I do not deserve it, and I cannot find anyone else here who disagrees. Here, for your edification, is my video on protecting the children's interests, when their father says he's actually you, the mother.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT9bs0hB7zI&t=1s
Think you're being a bit "over dramatic" there Ute. I'm not "targeting" you -- I've even bitten my tongue several times in reading your comments .... 😉🙂. I think you're to be commended for drawing attention to the issue of transwidows, and the rather serious pathologies surrounding "self-identification" and related behaviours.
It's just that there were only 2 or 3 comments posted here when I posted mine, and you made a statement about clownfish that is rather too common, too dismissive of its relevance to the issue of what exactly it means to have a sex. Largely the point of this post of Colin's in particular.
Though I think he's part of the problem in not realizing that his own definitions for the sexes are rather "idiosyncratic", quite unscientific, and egregiously antithetical to those published in reputable biological journals -- as opposed to the letter section of the UK Times where he was peddling his own versions:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Well. Very well indeed.
What part of Colin's definition of sex do you disagree with?
Did you read my Binarists vs Spectrumists post?
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
The crux of the matter is that he says that one doesn't actually have to be able to reproduce to qualify as a member of the sex categories. Which, one might reasonably argue, is "not even wrong" -- totally clueless about the fundamental, underlying principle.
The famous biologist Dobzhansky said "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution". A reasonable corollary might be that nothing in evolution makes sense except in light of reproduction: no reproduction, no evolution.
But part and parcel of Colin's quite unscientific definitions is that they basically turn each sex into a spectrum of three: gonads of past, present, or future functionality. Which seems rather "problematic" for any number of reasons.
See my post for details.
As usual, you are wrong about facts. Wright says "produce gametes". You never seem to comprehend what you read. Your biases blind you.
Groups hang around gender critical spaces are the Pedantic Police and the Petty Mafia.
Appreciate your succinct and clear rebuttal! That thread uses just enough (misapplied) science to make it appear rational. However the long rant about non-human species, including the zillion-sexed fungi, is the first tip-off. Why bring those up at all if you know the issue is H. sapiens? To set the stage for dropping a few tidbits about DSDs without providing any context or the necessary further descriptions. Gah!
Gah is the right response!
Thanks Colin. I appreciate that you have to balance what and when to provide for paying subscribers vs making it free. If too much is free, people won't pay to subscribe. I bet there are many paying subscribers like me who want to get these papers out in the public square as much as possible and will continue to subscribe no matter what.
Exactly. It is actually a major issue for me because I want content like this to reach as many eyes as possible, but I also rely on subscribers to allow me to do this full time. So I think I have settled on a good compromise that I am comfortable with morally, which is to make my personal posts available to supporters only for the first two weeks before making them public. I would never want this content permanently behind a paywall, and so this feels like a happy middle-ground. I truly appreciate your support!
Keep on doing this work! You certainly answered all the gobbledegook very well, but it must have given you a headache to have to do so! Truth , in her view is” transphobic”! What a world! Sort of like the Middle Ages!
Her combination of half-right biology and pure gobbledygook is impressive. I liked the implicit invocation of the gender-soul at the end.
Speaking of gender-souls...
Colin, as a biologist, can you tell me how the gender-soul communicates with the body? Is it sort of like how Descartes thought the pineal gland was where the soul lived, or am I being too simple-minded? And does the soul only communicate with the body or is it also vice-effing-versa?
A lot of the comments you said were true I learned in an introductory genetics class 25 years ago. Then, the one page devoted to what makes someone or something male or female had nothing to do with ideology, and interesting examples in different species were just a way of seeing how vast the world was.
Several responses:
1) The various issues in the variety of animal species have little to do with human sexuality. Spending a lot of time discussing fruit-fly sexuality is not helpful in human sexuality.
2) Humans with DSD, intersex, etc are errors of development. They have nothing to do with human sexuality. They are not different sexes, they are simply errors of the creation-of-human process or the developmental process.
The overriding point is that although there may be some challenge in finding an entirely biological definition of gender, it is not insurmountable. And it is difficult to arrive at an entirely physical definition for just about anything. How about, if you have the sry gene you are male, else female. Simple, and should cover all cases. Way easier than defining White Person, and yet that one is taken as immutable. And here is a word for them: "biophobes". Slightly redefined from dictionary definition. Why are they so afraid of a little biology?? Hmmmm?? "I am no bigot, but you are a biophobic boob." How is that for come back.