230 Comments

I can’t believe that in 2023 after all the advances human beings have made that there is actually anyone who doesn’t that biological sex is real and immutable. Everything over the past few years has become so surreal. Thank you Colin for your clear, concise and unwavering position. It’s absolutely ludicrous that the vast majority of humans on this planet have to put up with this idiotic garbage.

Expand full comment

"who doesn’t [ know ] that biological sex is real and immutable"

I suspect everyone knows it, but belief is as much about tribal loyalties as it is a statement of what one knows. Jehovah's Witnesses believe the world will end shortly -- but they still take out life insurance. Christian Scientists believe faith can heal them -- but they still get medical insurance. The woke believe sex is a social construction -- but, pregnant and going for the ultrasound, they'll still ask 'boy or girl?' They believe what strokes their righteousness, what they know is a different question.

Expand full comment

What's YOUR definition for "male" and "female"?

If you go with the XX=female and XY=male then you MIGHT be able to claim "immutable". But if you go with the Kindergarten Cop versions -- boys have penises and girls have vaginas -- then more of a stretch: "Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act Now! Offer ends soon!" 🙄

And if you go with the standard biological definitions -- those promulgated in reputable biological journals -- by which to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types then likewise a stretch -- transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs.

Expand full comment

This is inaccurate. The universally accepted 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 for the human sexes are that the 𝐗 or 𝐘 chromosome of the spermatozoan that "wins the race" determines the individual's sex upon fusion.

If the spermatozoan carries a 𝐗 chromosome then the zygote is 𝐗𝐗 and the zygote is 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞.

If the spermatozoan carries a 𝐘 chromosome then the zygote is 𝐗𝐘 and the zygote is 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞.

This determines the sex of the individual for the entirety of its lifetime. It is 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 or 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 from that moment to death. The functional state (or even the absence) of gonads (testes in a 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞, ovaries in a 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞) is irrelevant to the sex of the individual. Other considerations, such as developmental defects, the growth period before puberty, sterility from disease or removal, surgically or traumatically, of the gonads have nothing to do with determination or definition of sex. Nor, in the 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞, does the loss of gonadal function at menopause change her sex; she remains 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞.

Morphology of the genitalia or secondary sexual characteristics such as breasts in women or facial hair in men, are also irrelevant. For example there is condition known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome in which a 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 appears to be morphologically 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 yet is male. This may go undiscovered until at puberty the 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞-appearing 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 does not menstruate.

All fetuses begin morphologically 𝐟𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 but in 𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞 fetuses the release of the "𝐦𝐚𝐥𝐞-ifying" hormone androgen stimulates progression to a male phenotype; the clitoris becomes a penis, there are neurological and somatic changes, developmental changes both before and after birth.

This is the 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 of the human sexes.

There is no other.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 16, 2023·edited Sep 16, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

What a pile of horse feathers; IYEUO.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 17, 2023·edited Sep 17, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

"universality" 🤣😂🤣 Whot a thigh-slapper. 🙄 :rolleyes: ROTFL

You explicitly made it refer to humans only. All you're doing is peddling folk-biology.

Wikipedia: "Folk taxonomies are generated from social knowledge and are used in everyday speech. They are distinguished from scientific taxonomies that claim to be disembedded from social relations and thus more objective and universal."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy

That's what universal means in that context.

Let me know when you're able to actually "table" some credible sources. Won't be holding my breath ...

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 14, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Thanks for saving me the trouble. I was about to type all that in. People can convince themselves of anything. We thought Orwell was exaggerating with the '2+2=5' stuff, but he wasn't.

Expand full comment

It's irrelevant and a case of egregious scientific illiteracy. Being charitable.

The standard biological definitions STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither thereby being sexless. Which includes about a third of us at any one time. Includes the prepubescent, menopausees, most intersex, vasectomees, and transwomen who cut their nuts off -- i.e., eunuchs.

You might actually try reading those definitions. And then try convincing the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, along with the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, that they're peddling "2+2=5 stuff": 🙄

https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female

https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)

https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)

Do keep us all posted on how you fare in that task ...

Expand full comment

I don't think you are interested in rational discussion. You seem to be some sort of troll. No honest person, not even the most devout wokie, would claim that an old lady is not a woman due to the fact that her ovaries are no longer FUNCTIONAL. I'll be ignoring you from now on unless you say something worth responding to.

Expand full comment

2-3 years ago I went to a used book store and bought dictionaries from 2015 for each of my kids (so it would be within both their lifetimes). I also took the 1990’s encyclopedia Brittanica from from my parents and got a printed 2020 world book. Since about April of 2020 I’ve purchased well over 1,000 actual books. The rate of change is crazy and physical copies memorialize it.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

What's "real and immutable" is that members of many species produce either large gametes or small gametes. And that those who do so CAN reproduce and that those who don't CAN'T.

But the actual definitions themselves for the sexes are rather subjective, and tend to change in the face of new information -- gametes weren't discovered until the late 1800s yet are now central to the more reputable definitions on the books. But, for example, "female" used to mean "she who suckles":

https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841

If you wanted to stick with that definition then one might argue that Jenner & his ilk could qualify. Though one might wonder whether milk marketing boards would deem the result unfit for human consumption or not.

But far too many people are unclear on the difference between, on the one hand, words and various category definitions, and, on the other hand, what those words actually refer to. The dichotomy between map and territory -- something which Eva Kurilova elaborated on in some detail in an oldish post here on RLS:

EK: "René Magritte’s 1929 painting, The Treachery of Images, served as a harbinger of postmodernism. Underneath an image of a pipe, Magritte wrote, 'Ceci n’est pas une pipe [This is not a pipe],' highlighting the fact that words do not necessarily reflect their referents and that language is not interchangeable with reality."

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/who-or-what-is-to-blame-for-gender

Though I think she's a bit too quick to throw stones at postmodernism, to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Expand full comment

I think post modernism is responsible for many of the ills of our society, especially gender ideology

Expand full comment

More a case of the MISUSE of postmodernism that is responsible for that. Some fairly credible principles therein:

Wikipedia: "Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse characterized by skepticism toward the 'grand narratives' of modernism; rejection of epistemic (scientific) certainty or the stability of meaning; and sensitivity to the role of ideology in maintaining political power. Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism, with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

And:

Wikipedia: "In philosophy of perception and epistemology, naïve realism (also known as direct realism, perceptual realism, or common sense realism) is the idea that the senses provide us with direct awareness of objects as they really are ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

See my Note in response to a post by Shannon Thrace of Speaking the Ineffable, as well as a few related comments there:

https://substack.com/@humanuseofhumanbeings/note/c-39996123

https://shannonthrace.substack.com/p/what-is-postmodernism/comment/39996127

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 16, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

🙄 :roll-eyes: 🙄

The analogy is with "eats pizza" ...

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023

"Eats pizza" is third person present simple; third person present continuous would be "is eating pizza"...

Expand full comment

"I know whereof I speak."

🤣🙄 :rolleyes: 🙄

"How to form the simple present

In the simple present, most regular verbs use the root form, except in the third-person singular (which ends in s).

Third-person singular: He/she/it writes. (Note the s.)"

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/

Expand full comment

I'm sorry you have to use your knowledge and time testifying in court to try and get us out of the perverted Alice in Wonderland clown show.

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Actually, I think it's time well spent. As Colin has previously said, "It is essential that scientists find the courage to defend the principles of rationalism and empiricism in the court of law as well as in the court of public opinion to help guide medicine, and our society, back to reality." https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-on-trial?publication_id=225618&post_id=137024079&isFreemail=true&r=mzsp6

Expand full comment

It is time we’ll spent, but it’s still a sad state of affairs that it’s come to this.

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Indeed it is.

Expand full comment
Sep 14, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

I wouldn't be surprised if you give this testimony before the Supreme Court in the near future~

Expand full comment
author

I hope I can! I really enjoyed doing it. And it's really easy; all I have to do is tell the truth.

Expand full comment
Sep 14, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

I very much hope you do! After all, at her confirmation hearing, when asked to define a “woman”, Ketanji Brown Jackson said she wasn’t able to do so because “I’m not a biologist” -- thereby implying a belief that biologists are the only people qualified to make that determination. Give ‘em hell, Colin!

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023

I'm actually sympathetic to Jackson on this score. The question she was asked at her confirmation hearing was a trap, not a sincere request for knowledge, and she (very reasonably) decided the best way to deal with a trap was to avoid stepping in it. There was no actual answer she could give that wouldn't have made her the top news item for the next two hours.

Polls seem to indicate most Americans really aren't on board with "sex as spectrum" thing, possibly because they (very reasonably) don't understand what that means. However, if you spend too much time on Twitter* you'd think EVERYONE believes that a woman is whatever you think a woman is. I wish that universities, politicians, publishers, and pretty much everyone else would ignore what the Twitterati say. The signal-to-noise ratio there is just, uh, suboptimal.

*Ooops, sorry, I mean X. I think I just deadnamed X. :-)

Expand full comment

Respectfully, I disagree with the word “trap”, and I think she could (and should) have responded with three simple words: Adult human female. Whether that would have caused the usual deranged screaming from the “activists” (lobbyists) is not important; at some point, the nations of the west need to stop governing according to the whims of the activists. Not doing so is destroying us.

Expand full comment

Whether the question was a trap or not is beside the point. She should have answered it.

I take it you read the transcripts above. Question after question of Dr. Wright by Mr. Gonzales-Pagan was a trap. And he did answer all the ones he could answer.

That question asked of Jackson was as basic a question as can be asked in biology, at the level of 7 times 7. So why did she need to be a biologist to answer? Because she knows who her backers were......

Expand full comment

A Supreme Court confirmation hearing is not expert testimony in a civil trial, and different approaches are called for.

Expand full comment
Sep 17, 2023·edited Sep 17, 2023

Thank you. She still could have answered it. And if she doesn't know what a man or a woman is, How will she be able to adjudicate questions of discrimination?

Expand full comment
Comment removed
Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

> Biden crime family, oh please.

Yes, the labtop from hell basically shows this. You sound like you've been drinking too much kool-aid yourself. But then your motive is obvious. You're desperate to avoid addressing your ideology's role in promoting all this.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I don't dispute what you say about Medium, but I still have an article there on this topic, with a link to a video. Does the fact that I haven't been kicked off mean I was inadequately provocative?

Hopefully, the next one will correct that!

https://medium.com/@liamk-11753/blue-oranges-the-trans-bamboozle-86e225cdc536

Expand full comment

I'm seeing that in my actually quite realistic ideation. I especially want you to address the justice who says she not a biologist, so she cannot define the female sex.

More truth, and look at my nature shorts for insects as well, recently a praying mantis. This truth is the gaslighting, the sitting my couch in my new digs, showing off his womanface and fancy accessories (I still use a canvas bag for a purse, but he favored Coach and Luis Vuitton, since not paying child support affords them)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuYMWwIa0oY&t=317s

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 14, 2023·edited Sep 14, 2023Liked by Colin Wright
Comment removed
Expand full comment

Well, given the composition of the current supreme court, not necessarily.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

I don't disagree about the court being corrupt, but it's also strongly conservative. Trans maximalists had best be very, very careful about the battles they undertake in court. If one of these cases ends up before SCOTUS, a precedent could be set that might last for decades, and I doubt it will be a precedent that the Jack Turbans and Chase Strangios of the world will approve.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

While pharmacological companies are making money of it, the primary driver of the gender nonsense is ideological. Something you're desperate to avoid admitting since you had been one of those pushing the ideology in question.

Expand full comment

An excellent resource. A suggestion: The next time someone challenges your expertise on the biological nature of sex because you haven't published peer reviewed research on that specific question, respond with something like the following: That sex is determined by gametes is taken to be a postulate among biologists today. Few publish on what is taken to be settled science. For the same reason, you won't find many mathematicians publishing papers on the Pythagorean Theorem because it is widely accepted as a proven axiom of mathematics and Euclidean geometry.

Expand full comment

To piggyback on this, also mention that thousands (tens of thousands? millions?) of articles have been published by biologists on a wide range of biological/medical topics...all of which treat the binary nature of sex as an obvious given. I also wonder if Richard Dawkins can be persuaded to join the ranks of principled biology expert witnesses now that he's become aware of the madness.

Expand full comment

Sorry to be pedantic here but we don't want to give trans cult any ammunition. Pythagorean theorem is not an axiom. It's a theorem with a proof. An axiom on the other hand is a statement that is assumed to be truth without proof.

Expand full comment

Several axioms in number theory are like that. I don't think there is proof of the infinitude of primes but even a Ph.D.-less math major like me can intuit most confidently that they must be infinite.

Expand full comment

I would make it even more straight forward - mathematicians don’t publish their finding in journals that 2+2=4. This is something even a small child or toddler can simply observe. Sex is simply observed. There is no need to write scientific papers about a widely observed phenomenon with no exceptions.

Expand full comment

As we can see, trying deliberately to confuse sex with gender in people's minds is much more difficult in a courtroom than in the media.

Expand full comment
Sep 14, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Unbelievable that thousands of years of observation by generation after generation has to be testified to in court. Are we headed for a new dark age or are we in one? Of what possible use is it to deny reality?

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Oh my gosh, reading this essay was like watching "Inherit the Wind", which is among my favorite movies. That means you get to decide who plays you in the film version.

BTW, deftly done on the "delusion" question. Gonzalez-Pagan was trying to get you to say something that could be twisted into "I hate trans people", and you declined to play that game. It really highlights the way trans maximalists have distorted this public discourse about these issues. Someone either thinks sex is a spectrum or they are engaged in trans genocide--there is no other possible position. I sense the tide is turning on this nonsense, but, ye gods it is dismaying.

Expand full comment

"To my understanding, this is the first time a biologist had been summoned to defend reality of male and female as distinct, natural biological groups in a legal setting." Scopes trial stuff my dude.

I love the effort there at the end to make you use the magic pronouns. It's a cult it's a cult it's a cult.

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Excellent job under the gun, Colin!

It's one thing to be an expert in a scientific field, it's completely another to defend that knowledge against hostile (and ignorant) antagonists in a courtroom setting. You did an excellent job. Kudos.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you! I really enjoyed it.

Expand full comment

Incredibly disappointed in the ACLU and Lambda Legal. I had always thought these were really smart people out to defend people's rights...and they can't even get their facts straight. Not even when people tell them over and over and over again. Even when one provides evidence, shows why the counterclaims are wrong. It seems that it is more valuable somehow to "perform" allyship or something, rather than actually telling the truth and helping these young people with gender dysphoria. Which they aren't doing. Lies are not a basis for ethical medical care.

Maybe they should go out and fight for the right of Purdue Pharma to give people opioids (again, something people were told by MDs they needed...).

It's so shocking to me. Either they don't understand or they are, well, malevolent.

Please wake up, ACLU!

Expand full comment
Sep 14, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Same with Planned Parenthood. I terminated a longstanding monthly donation. I don’t know what organizations to support anymore. 😢

Expand full comment

I thought I was safe with supporting "Save the Children". After all, they work to prevent FGM. Turns out, not all genital mutilation is bad in their book. From now on, I might play it safe and just support the Humane society. There are no transgender cats.

Expand full comment
Sep 14, 2023·edited Sep 14, 2023

No transgender cats? Have you asked? 😉

Expand full comment

I did. They all use HISS/PURR pronouns.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 14, 2023·edited Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

"Wedding tackle".... I had to google it. Thanks for enriching my vocabulary, Chris

Expand full comment

Re: what orgs to support: ICONS, Genspect, Transgender Trend, Fair Play for Women, and of course Colin Wright.

Expand full comment

One of the reasons the medical profession can promote these lengthy and brutal surgeries is opioids for the post op period. Some of these patients get hooked on them. That's in addition to an active illegal drug and alcohol culture in the alphabet TQ+++ sphere.

Expand full comment
Sep 14, 2023·edited Sep 14, 2023

Doesn't most of it come down to $$$$$? One way or another, if you offend the gender cult, they will get you socially or financially. ACLU is defending its pocketbook, no matter what they say otherwise. They got a big cash infusion when Trump was elected and don't want it to go away. Big (and some small) donors have bought off what little credibility they had left. Shame on them. And of course, you go, Colin!! 👍👍

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Colin, I am an attorney with decades of trial experience and having read this transcript I can tell you that you were an excellent witness, and also that your attorney did a good job. Your answers were clear, you (mostly) didn't use specialized terms without explaining them, and most importantly you didn't take the bait and offer any remarks outside of your area of expertise. It can be very difficult to educate witnesses on how to only answer the exact questions asked, and then not to venture any further. Bravo!

Expand full comment
author

Thank you Sheryl!

Expand full comment
Sep 14, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Since following the transgender “debate” for the last couple of years, I really like the coin flip analogy— “when you flip a coin, you're either—you get heads or tails and it doesn't come in degrees.”

It’s as simple universal visual as you can get, and and avoids references (and diversions) of seahorses, clownish and...whatever.

And congratulations for literally testifying on behalf of evolution.

Expand full comment

Wow. This is like a TV show where the mean lawyer tries to get the witness to make a mistake and condemn themselves! Didn’t work this time! Bravo!👏👏👏

Expand full comment
Sep 15, 2023Liked by Colin Wright

Thank you, Dr. Colin Wright, for truth in the midst of fantasy.

Love, Indio

Expand full comment

Thank you Colin, great job!

Expand full comment

Thank you Colin for your integrity and courage.

Expand full comment

Generally decent and thorough testimony. But you might want to actually give a bit of thought to the idea that the definitions for the sexes he's touting are anything but what are promulgated in more reputable biological journals and dictionaries:

https://boghossian.substack.com/p/the-science-and-pseudoscience-of/comment/40095175

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

😂

Expand full comment

No, they most certainly don't.

Expand full comment
Removed (Banned)Sep 15, 2023
Comment removed
Expand full comment

:rolleyes: 🙄 IYEUO ...

Expand full comment