It is sad that some people who are educated will go along with an ideology that doesn’t reflect basic reality. It would be interesting to find out the motives . They must know that they are not being honest. So why do they perpetuate the falsehood of the gender cult?
"Transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming cisgender people, or those who may be cisgender but perceived to fall into these groups, may be at risk of social exclusion, health inequality, harassment and violence in society due to the employment of simplistic models and biological essentialism."
Policies that promote gender affirmation also promote social exclusion. By robbing kids of their right to puberty, proponents of gender affirmation are promoting a severe intervention with no evidence of benefit. Affected persons are prevented from social opportunties and life long health that is typically associated with natural puberty. Adults and kids who are tricked into harmful gender medical interventions do not benefit socially, per Cass.
There is no evidence gender medical interventions help the circumstances and symptoms that gender industry says it does. ergo, affected persons recieve unequal medical treatment via gender interventions, of which affirmation of gender ID promoted by letter writers is a main componet.
Its also not true there is any evidence people who ID as opposite gender suffer unequal harassment, crime incidents or the like. all data indicating such are self reports that arent backed by official reports. actual crime stats show people who ID as transgender suffer lower rates of crime and harassment than other groups, when factors such as socio ecomomic behavior and country of residence are taken into account
wow good points!!! Including"Adults and kids who are tricked into harmful gender medical interventions do not benefit socially, per Cass." Could we go further to say these treatments are an added burden to the whole health care system and possibly drain resources from the general public's health care opportunities?
Regarding "differences of sex development". This is a euphemism which obscures the fact that they are in fact diseases of sexual development like Turner syndrome.
"Finally, the authors accuse defenders of sex realism of engaging in “biological essentialism,” an antiquated concept that biologists now consider pseudoscience. "
Isn't this a very dangerous arguments for the signers to invoke given the belief within gender world of something called "gender identity"?
I don’t disagree with the point that sex - the English word - should always be based on chromosomes. Gender - the English word - refers to presentation. That’s where an article like this needs to start. If you did, 90% of the article is just details on how those words play out. That was what the Uk Supreme Court decision was - clarification of what the word sex refers to.
If we can agree on the words, we can have more meaningful discussions.
No science exists to change a person sex - ie their chromosomes. They are what they are.
The question then is how should society structure laws around sex and gender. It would be impossible to define gender on a birth certificate. Of course it would have to be based on sex. But the real question is why sex is recorded on both certificates or for that matter ids or passports? Very few get to see a persons sex. Everyone can decided a persons gender based on their culture and how a person presents.
If we can agree on this definition of the words, we can have rationale discussions on how sex and gender play out. Including whether a person and especially a young person can change how their bodies look from a gender perspective. It also includes whether a person should have to be exposed to genitals of the opposite sex. Regardless of the gender they identify with. Also whether a sports should be based on gender or sex (for me it should be sex).
Repeating my initial point. The first step is to agree on what the words refer to. I agree with the UK courts and Trumps definition of sex (even though Trump uses the word gender. The actual ruling uses the word sex)
Gender reveal parties are really sex reveal parties.
The second very important point is that a malicious man posing as a woman to get access to woman’s private spaces has nothing to do with a person who has gender dysphoria and is trying to mitigate by presenting as a gender different than their sex.
I don't think you are correct that the conversation stops there. The main idea for the suggestion for definitions you provide, biological classification versus psychological/sociological is close to what Colin has written before, but the signed letter is very intentionally against that. Also, as a correction, as Colin's posts have taught me and others, the chromosomes are not really the definition of sex, it is the gamete production aspect. So while chromosomes are a good way of trying to classify sex (e.g., they are evidence of sex) they are not what define sex. Good point that gender reveal parties are really sex reveal parties.
What you are saying is not correct. I have been reading this substack and watching a few of Colin's videos for a long time. Trying to define sex based on the chromosomes falls into the same trap that the other people are in: it is trying to define sex in a way that is not the correct biological definition.
There are more than just XY and XX and there are even people who have more than one chromosomes set in the same body. The post you are commenting on already notes that not all species are defined by XY and XX and that sex can change over lifetime in some species.
"I could implant a womb and ovaries in a a person with XY and give them hormones" yes, and if you did so with ovaries then you would have changed their sex. ( I in fact pointed this out in another comment, unrelated to yours)
"But the bottom line is that the chromosomes are the legal definers"
They are currently not the legal definers, but I agree that they should be one of the main bases we use for attempting to assess sex, in addition to just visual inspection.
There is a biological definition, it is not commonly emphasized to high schoolers. Perhaps it should be. The distinction between determining, defining, or assessing ends up being important here. Colin has written posts about the definitions, earlier.
This statement should not be regarded as true:
"Anything that can be changed is gender"
But it is true that a purely cosmetic surgery would not change sex.
"Using the terms without including your definition just confuses the issue."
The author defined sex in an earlier substack piece or two. If you feel that the piece would have been improved if it linked to one of earlier pieces, which had the definition of sex, that makes sense.
Additionally, if you feel that I should have linked the earlier piece rather than me just repeatedly saying they defined it earlier, that is reasonable.
This substack started with just a few posts, but I guess there are many now.
Also, that article does not talk about the various definition of sex and gender. Its mostly a polarized opinion piece against trans ideology. That does not help in getting us to a rational discussion.
BTW: the olympic boxing organization as a result of the Imane Khelif debacle has defined sex as chromosomes. That's what they'll be testing for. My guess is that the simplicity of doing a chromosome test will bind the word sex in this context to chromosomes.
> The first is that binary sex categorization is too “simplistic” because some people are born with differences of sex development
Animals of class Mammalia have four limbs.
No! No! Too simplistic! There are 43.6 known genetic abnormalities in mammals that might give them a Diverse number of limbs!! Being a mammal is being on a Spectrum between having no limbs to having ... well I dunno, what's the max? ... AND having Diverse sizes and shapes and functionalities of limbs. My friend Glenn has three stumps and one good, strong arm -- he being a thalidomide baby. So we can't just call Glenn a mammal can we? That would be making his Diversity invisible. Glenn is a trans-mammal. Isn't that wonderful?
Ooops, sorry, did I say 'abnormality'? There are no abnormalities! We celebrate thalidomide and should start taking it again since it increases Diversity. And people with no legs should be celebrated when they enter foot races and be given prizes Equitably.
What’s so odd is biology not only describes the sex binary in virtually all complex multicellular organisms, but biology accurately describes “trans” as a behavior deeply rooted in evolutionary biology and ethology.
It is part of a repertoire of anti-social animal behaviors like lying, thievery and sex mimicry - sex mimicry being so powerful even plants evolved to use it.
In animals, these behaviors occur along with a huge variety of behaviors that are prosocial - dominance hierarchy, grooming, communication, tool use, shelter, planning, problem-solving, exploration, hoarding, fight-or-flight.
That’s what is so sadly humorous about the letter, not only do they have it wrong on sex, they also have been completely snookered into defending another biologically rooted mimicry behavior and are totally unaware of it.
It’s as though scientists would claim there’s a new type of primate intermediate between gorilla and human which can shed skin and dance after seeing gorilla suits in film and encountering people claiming to be gorillas.
I feel as though, every so often, human beings go through a period of mass madness, in which many of us accept and even advocate for things that are not only factually incorrect but outright harmful. The Salem witch trials, the Lavender Scare, Satanic panic, multiple-personality disorder, recovered memories...all examples of Americans losing our minds over bullshit. So this gender woo-woo isn't anything shocking in terms of what humans will believe and fight for. Disappointing, sure, but not shocking.
Sorry to ramble but digging down, all this nonsense rests on the assumption that society must revolve around freaks, perverts, Victims, the mentally ill and minorities of whatever kind. I say that society should revolve around normal people. I say that if you are an outlier of some kind, society should take reasonable steps to accommodate you where possible, practical, affordable and at no serious inconvenience to normal people. Wheelchair accessible bathrooms, good. Mandatory seating in restaurants for people who weigh 600 lbs, unreasonable.
Men in women's change rooms? The test, the decision point, is not Identity, or how we define gender or any of the stuff that Colin so patiently debunks over and over again. It's much simpler than that: the vast majority of women do not want to see persons with penises in their changing rooms. It's that simple. Nothing more need be said.
Thank you for writing so clearly (and objectively). The thing that irritates me the most about this whole thing is when people say “aaahh my aunt had an oophorectomy; are you saying she’s not female anymore?”. I don’t know whether it’s stupidity or dishonesty. I do think there has been an exercise in mass gaslighting, so maybe it is dishonesty.
I will note it is likely possible already to transplant ovaries and uteruses, and testicles and even prostates. So I suspect we can already change someone's sex by the gamete definition, but I do not advocate that humans do that.
I suspect the definition would be “but for [disorder/removal/transplant/etc] this body is of a class that would produce [large immobile/small motile] gametes”. I think it’s sufficiently future proof - it can withstand those who have had their gonads removed already.
Yes, Colin did address part of that in an earlier post. That if someone could not produce the gametes due to a disorder, their sex was still as you described it. However, I would say that if someone literally swapped out the entire reproductive system, not just cosmetic, I do think we would have to consider that a real sex change. Though again, I don't advocate that. And, it still would not be fair for someone who went through male puberty to then compete against natural women.
It is sad that some people who are educated will go along with an ideology that doesn’t reflect basic reality. It would be interesting to find out the motives . They must know that they are not being honest. So why do they perpetuate the falsehood of the gender cult?
Thank you for this very clear statement if the facts.
"Transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming cisgender people, or those who may be cisgender but perceived to fall into these groups, may be at risk of social exclusion, health inequality, harassment and violence in society due to the employment of simplistic models and biological essentialism."
Policies that promote gender affirmation also promote social exclusion. By robbing kids of their right to puberty, proponents of gender affirmation are promoting a severe intervention with no evidence of benefit. Affected persons are prevented from social opportunties and life long health that is typically associated with natural puberty. Adults and kids who are tricked into harmful gender medical interventions do not benefit socially, per Cass.
There is no evidence gender medical interventions help the circumstances and symptoms that gender industry says it does. ergo, affected persons recieve unequal medical treatment via gender interventions, of which affirmation of gender ID promoted by letter writers is a main componet.
Its also not true there is any evidence people who ID as opposite gender suffer unequal harassment, crime incidents or the like. all data indicating such are self reports that arent backed by official reports. actual crime stats show people who ID as transgender suffer lower rates of crime and harassment than other groups, when factors such as socio ecomomic behavior and country of residence are taken into account
wow good points!!! Including"Adults and kids who are tricked into harmful gender medical interventions do not benefit socially, per Cass." Could we go further to say these treatments are an added burden to the whole health care system and possibly drain resources from the general public's health care opportunities?
Humoring lunacy, is not an adaptive trait,
These lemings spiral their way into oblivion while others pickup the pieces left in their wake.
This too will pass, one hopes they are defamed and dispensed with at a more rapid pace then nature often allows
Thank you Reality's Last Stand for keeping us informed.
No problem!
“That might be true if human beings were amoebas.”
Good one!
Regarding "differences of sex development". This is a euphemism which obscures the fact that they are in fact diseases of sexual development like Turner syndrome.
"Finally, the authors accuse defenders of sex realism of engaging in “biological essentialism,” an antiquated concept that biologists now consider pseudoscience. "
Isn't this a very dangerous arguments for the signers to invoke given the belief within gender world of something called "gender identity"?
And one wonders what will be the next "antiquated concept" to be dangerously warped by these fools?
I don’t disagree with the point that sex - the English word - should always be based on chromosomes. Gender - the English word - refers to presentation. That’s where an article like this needs to start. If you did, 90% of the article is just details on how those words play out. That was what the Uk Supreme Court decision was - clarification of what the word sex refers to.
If we can agree on the words, we can have more meaningful discussions.
No science exists to change a person sex - ie their chromosomes. They are what they are.
The question then is how should society structure laws around sex and gender. It would be impossible to define gender on a birth certificate. Of course it would have to be based on sex. But the real question is why sex is recorded on both certificates or for that matter ids or passports? Very few get to see a persons sex. Everyone can decided a persons gender based on their culture and how a person presents.
If we can agree on this definition of the words, we can have rationale discussions on how sex and gender play out. Including whether a person and especially a young person can change how their bodies look from a gender perspective. It also includes whether a person should have to be exposed to genitals of the opposite sex. Regardless of the gender they identify with. Also whether a sports should be based on gender or sex (for me it should be sex).
Repeating my initial point. The first step is to agree on what the words refer to. I agree with the UK courts and Trumps definition of sex (even though Trump uses the word gender. The actual ruling uses the word sex)
Gender reveal parties are really sex reveal parties.
The second very important point is that a malicious man posing as a woman to get access to woman’s private spaces has nothing to do with a person who has gender dysphoria and is trying to mitigate by presenting as a gender different than their sex.
Can we agree to this language?
I don't think you are correct that the conversation stops there. The main idea for the suggestion for definitions you provide, biological classification versus psychological/sociological is close to what Colin has written before, but the signed letter is very intentionally against that. Also, as a correction, as Colin's posts have taught me and others, the chromosomes are not really the definition of sex, it is the gamete production aspect. So while chromosomes are a good way of trying to classify sex (e.g., they are evidence of sex) they are not what define sex. Good point that gender reveal parties are really sex reveal parties.
Chromosomes create the gamete production.
Can't create sperm gametes without XY chromosomes.
Can't create egg gametes without XX chromosomes.
There are XXY and XYY variations and gamete variations but those are rare.
No law is going to focus on gamete production.
But the bottom line is that the chromosomes are the legal definers.
Its also the simplest way to categorize sex.
All the gamete production and other bodily features can be changed.
I could implant a womb and ovaries in a a person with XY and give them hormones.
I could attach testicles to a person with XX and product sperm with the right hormones.
Defining sex as chromosomes makes it absolutely non changeable given today's science.
Your phrase "really the definition of sex" is the problem I'm trying to sort out.
Anything that can be changed is gender. Sex defined as chromosomes cannot be changed.
What you are saying is not correct. I have been reading this substack and watching a few of Colin's videos for a long time. Trying to define sex based on the chromosomes falls into the same trap that the other people are in: it is trying to define sex in a way that is not the correct biological definition.
There are more than just XY and XX and there are even people who have more than one chromosomes set in the same body. The post you are commenting on already notes that not all species are defined by XY and XX and that sex can change over lifetime in some species.
"I could implant a womb and ovaries in a a person with XY and give them hormones" yes, and if you did so with ovaries then you would have changed their sex. ( I in fact pointed this out in another comment, unrelated to yours)
"But the bottom line is that the chromosomes are the legal definers"
They are currently not the legal definers, but I agree that they should be one of the main bases we use for attempting to assess sex, in addition to just visual inspection.
There is a biological definition, it is not commonly emphasized to high schoolers. Perhaps it should be. The distinction between determining, defining, or assessing ends up being important here. Colin has written posts about the definitions, earlier.
This statement should not be regarded as true:
"Anything that can be changed is gender"
But it is true that a purely cosmetic surgery would not change sex.
You're just reinforcing my comment to the author.
There isn't an agreed on definition of sex or gender.
Using the terms without including your definition just confuses the issue.
The author did not define the term sex or gender before they wrote the article.
I agree with this
"Using the terms without including your definition just confuses the issue."
The author defined sex in an earlier substack piece or two. If you feel that the piece would have been improved if it linked to one of earlier pieces, which had the definition of sex, that makes sense.
Additionally, if you feel that I should have linked the earlier piece rather than me just repeatedly saying they defined it earlier, that is reasonable.
This substack started with just a few posts, but I guess there are many now.
Anyway, here is one of the early posts.
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/a-biologist-explains-why-sex-is-binary
Note: there are other posts where he talks about chromosomes and other things.
Also, that article does not talk about the various definition of sex and gender. Its mostly a polarized opinion piece against trans ideology. That does not help in getting us to a rational discussion.
BTW: the olympic boxing organization as a result of the Imane Khelif debacle has defined sex as chromosomes. That's what they'll be testing for. My guess is that the simplicity of doing a chromosome test will bind the word sex in this context to chromosomes.
> The first is that binary sex categorization is too “simplistic” because some people are born with differences of sex development
Animals of class Mammalia have four limbs.
No! No! Too simplistic! There are 43.6 known genetic abnormalities in mammals that might give them a Diverse number of limbs!! Being a mammal is being on a Spectrum between having no limbs to having ... well I dunno, what's the max? ... AND having Diverse sizes and shapes and functionalities of limbs. My friend Glenn has three stumps and one good, strong arm -- he being a thalidomide baby. So we can't just call Glenn a mammal can we? That would be making his Diversity invisible. Glenn is a trans-mammal. Isn't that wonderful?
Ooops, sorry, did I say 'abnormality'? There are no abnormalities! We celebrate thalidomide and should start taking it again since it increases Diversity. And people with no legs should be celebrated when they enter foot races and be given prizes Equitably.
Ooops, sorry did I say 'foot race'? That's ableist. My bad.
What’s so odd is biology not only describes the sex binary in virtually all complex multicellular organisms, but biology accurately describes “trans” as a behavior deeply rooted in evolutionary biology and ethology.
It is part of a repertoire of anti-social animal behaviors like lying, thievery and sex mimicry - sex mimicry being so powerful even plants evolved to use it.
In animals, these behaviors occur along with a huge variety of behaviors that are prosocial - dominance hierarchy, grooming, communication, tool use, shelter, planning, problem-solving, exploration, hoarding, fight-or-flight.
That’s what is so sadly humorous about the letter, not only do they have it wrong on sex, they also have been completely snookered into defending another biologically rooted mimicry behavior and are totally unaware of it.
It’s as though scientists would claim there’s a new type of primate intermediate between gorilla and human which can shed skin and dance after seeing gorilla suits in film and encountering people claiming to be gorillas.
Try Marlene Dietrich in Blond Venus.
https://youtu.be/G5cw0I0R0nQ?si=E-tDHM0pY8zUEFiA
I feel as though, every so often, human beings go through a period of mass madness, in which many of us accept and even advocate for things that are not only factually incorrect but outright harmful. The Salem witch trials, the Lavender Scare, Satanic panic, multiple-personality disorder, recovered memories...all examples of Americans losing our minds over bullshit. So this gender woo-woo isn't anything shocking in terms of what humans will believe and fight for. Disappointing, sure, but not shocking.
Sorry to ramble but digging down, all this nonsense rests on the assumption that society must revolve around freaks, perverts, Victims, the mentally ill and minorities of whatever kind. I say that society should revolve around normal people. I say that if you are an outlier of some kind, society should take reasonable steps to accommodate you where possible, practical, affordable and at no serious inconvenience to normal people. Wheelchair accessible bathrooms, good. Mandatory seating in restaurants for people who weigh 600 lbs, unreasonable.
Men in women's change rooms? The test, the decision point, is not Identity, or how we define gender or any of the stuff that Colin so patiently debunks over and over again. It's much simpler than that: the vast majority of women do not want to see persons with penises in their changing rooms. It's that simple. Nothing more need be said.
Thank you for writing so clearly (and objectively). The thing that irritates me the most about this whole thing is when people say “aaahh my aunt had an oophorectomy; are you saying she’s not female anymore?”. I don’t know whether it’s stupidity or dishonesty. I do think there has been an exercise in mass gaslighting, so maybe it is dishonesty.
I will note it is likely possible already to transplant ovaries and uteruses, and testicles and even prostates. So I suspect we can already change someone's sex by the gamete definition, but I do not advocate that humans do that.
dang!!! As a 71 yr XY male I'd be very interested in a New prostate!! To heck w the sex change foolishness.
I suspect the definition would be “but for [disorder/removal/transplant/etc] this body is of a class that would produce [large immobile/small motile] gametes”. I think it’s sufficiently future proof - it can withstand those who have had their gonads removed already.
Yes, Colin did address part of that in an earlier post. That if someone could not produce the gametes due to a disorder, their sex was still as you described it. However, I would say that if someone literally swapped out the entire reproductive system, not just cosmetic, I do think we would have to consider that a real sex change. Though again, I don't advocate that. And, it still would not be fair for someone who went through male puberty to then compete against natural women.
Yes, I see that - theoretically, anyway.