If peer review were working, this would have never gotten this far. That's why part of the plan is silencing critics, hence canceled conference talks. It is the very definition of pseudoscience since part of the scientific method is being circumvented
2 are anthropologists. Not particularly qualified to weigh in on biological issues.
1 is in the gender studies field and was examined by Madame Gender Trouble herself. Big X there.
1 is an anatomist. Well, now we're getting warm, though knowing that the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone doesn't mean you know a whole lot about sexual dimorphism. Not having read the paper myself, I wonder if she wasn't included just to give it just a shred of credibility?
Thank you for this thoughtful and well argued essay. As a fellow professor, I agree with you. However, I wonder how long we can continue the debate at this level of analysis. Much of the debate is, I think, fueled by a naïve set of misconceptions about biology that are much more fundamental than those usually discussed. For instance, animals aren’t discrete entities like toasters that can be discussed in isolation. They are sets of physiological processes (which are emergent properties of a particular physical organization) embedded in dynamic environments in which they develop, and in terms of which they have evolved. This is basic physiology. You can’t talk about animals (people included) without understanding these contexts, and understanding that organisms are dynamic integrated sets of systems that are temporarily stable, but not static overtime. I alluded to this point in my last essays both on this Substack, and on mine regarding fish. https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/dont-ask-animals-how-to-fix-your Talking about fish requires understanding that they evolved in an aquatic environment and, therefore, are under a different set of contingencies than terrestrial animals. Without that understanding and explicit conceptualization, talking about fish sex is meaningless. Nobody seems to bring that perspective to the conversation. So, I’m beginning to think it’s futile to debate people who lack this level of biological understanding. Although, I admire those who do. And, to be blunt, I ain’t got nothing in common with mushrooms… what they do really doesn’t make a difference to my love life. Facetiousness aside, I’m also puzzled by the continual debate about “socially constructed“ categories. As you’ve said, all words are socially constructed. Short of divine revelation, we have no alternative but to construct categories to understand the world. Those categories are going to have ambiguities, as you pointed out. Arguing about the ambiguity as if one particular definition is “TRUE“ and all others are false is ridiculous, and can be dismissed out of hand. That, of course, does not mean that changing the definition of a word changes the ‘reality’ toward which it points. A red chair doesn’t become a tomato because I call it a tomato. Again, thank you for a great read. Sincerely, Frederick.
The vast majority of human beings on earth know, without a doubt, that sex is binary. Even those at the Cleveland clinic who have been pressured into using phrases like ‘sex assigned at birth’. The academy grows less and less reputable as such rubbish proliferates. Truth matters.
The biological function of the act of sex is the survival of our species. At that level "having sex" i.e. intercourse, is to create a new human: it is about beginnings, not outcomes. Every person on the plane exists because sex is binary, an egg from a female was fertilised by sperm from a male. Surely this is basic sex ed?
Good article by Alex Byrne, picks out the flaws quite skillfully. the only quibble I have is with this sentence: "Perhaps there are exactly two sexes, but there are some humans who are neither male nor female, or who are both sexes simultaneously." I would say that there are some humans who have ambiguous or mixed organs and anatomies, which makes it difficult to distinguish what sex they are... but to my (novice) knowledge, there are no humans without a sex, and there are no true hermaphrodites within our species.
For a human to be neither male nor female, they would need to lack a reproductive anatomy completely. As I understand it, failure to develop a reproductive system (even an incomplete or ambiguous one) results in miscarriage - a fetus can't develop without this element. Similarly, for a human to be both sexes simultaneously, they would need to have two complete reproductive systems. Perhaps I would bend a bit on this, and say they would need to have two fully functional sets of gonads. I don't believe that any human (or mammal for that matter) has been observed to be simultaneously male and female.
I suspect this is generosity of spirit on Byrne's part, but the pendant in me felt obligated to state my objection :)
All in all, however, I appreciate the article, and respect the effort and support of Alex Byrne.
"Their opinions matter." That is undoubtedly (and unfortunately ) true. Truth is a function of consensus and these esteemed authors are winning the consensus game. In spaces where people have little expertise, it makes sense to trust academics and experts .As just a regular person with a good education and a wealth of common sense, I can't win against their credentialed offerings. My opinion feels like a pistol to their howitzer
So much of the debate that the vocal left has created seems to come down to redefining words that use to have a culturally agreed on definition.
The term "gender" use to be equated to the term "sex". I'm not an anthropologist which seems to be where these terms should be defined. But culturally, gender is now separate from sex. Although they do seem to be blurred in the paper you criticized. Sex is defined by chromosomes or gametes. Gender is defined by culture and the persons perceived identity. One interesting cultural anomaly on the redefinition of Gender is the "gender reveal party". What these really are is "sex reveal parties" since Gender is no longer defined by chromosomes.
I am interested in how sex and gender translate into no humane domains. You seem to have stated that if sex is defined by chromosomes, their are other species that change their gender (i.e. whether large gamete or small) without changing their chromosomes. Do they have the same X/Y division on chromosomes. Is the use of the term gender there consistent with the use of gender for humans?
Given that sex and gender definitions are no longer clear, the terms male and female and man and woman are not going to be clear. JK Rowling certainly has a view of what defines the word woman. Is her view more meaningful than the anthropologists defining the word.
To some extent, the paper is pointing out that the terms sex and gender (along with male/female, man/woman) from the past do have culturally biased definitions. Especially given the anthropology societies do not seem to agree anymore on how to define them for humans let alone how those definitions apply to other species.
What is the process for the anthropologic community to converge on defining these terms with today's knowledge. Does the anthropologic community agree that they have a definition issue?
Oooh, I just finished Trouble with Gender, so this essay is like the dessert after a main course!
I cannot tell you how many times I have been told that sex as spectrum is "settled science." One time was by a biologist! I felt weird disagreeing with her--she's got a PhD in biology and I'm a small-time novelist--but I figured that you don't have to be a cardiologist to know the human heart isn't found in the human leg.
The claim that sex is "culturally constructed" is itself a "culturally constructed" falsehood. While stereotypes and beauty standards are clearly culturally constructed, culture didn't construct our bodies, and didn't make some people have bodies designed (by nature) around production of large gametes or small gametes. This isn't something that varies across societies. Every single society of humans denotes "males" and "females" of the species, and a male in one human society would be a male in any other society and vice versa.
Maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary divisions, like divisions based on skin color. To be blunt, there is nothing culturally created when it comes to things like periods or pregnancy on the one hand, and ejaculation on the other. There are times when maleness or femaleness don't matter and we don't need to be divided, and there are times when it does matter and the division must be deon for the sake of safety and/or fairness. Things like fairness in sports, and safety in bathrooms and other places where women are more vulnerable are divided up based purely upon the physical categories of maleness and femaleness.
That there are a very small percentage of people whose sex may be so ambiguous as to be unknowable (and this is not all people with dsds, as most dsds clearly apply to "males" or "females") does not mean either that sex is a spectrum or that there are more than two sexes. For those whose sex is unknowable - those with some very rare dsds which make it unclear which system (production of large or small gametes) they belong to - I say they get to choose whether they want to be known as male, female, both or neither.
As for the rest of us, sex is clear, beyond debate and has nothing to do with culture. It has only to do with nature, biology and reality. We are not harming anyone by acknowledging this reality, and we are protecting the vulnerable, and promoting fairness. What's wrong with that? The four scholars who wrote this article are totally out of touch with reality.
The academic credentials for the professors that Dr. Byrne provided immediately suggested to me that the scientists and educators would be woke ideologues. Especially in the social sciences the pattern of thought that has set in is alarmingly non-rational. This is more obvious in professional associations such as the American Psychological Association, which has become more aggressively ideological and authoritarian. I used to have fond memories of being in college at the University of Michigan, but now when I hear that a scholar is associated with that university I feel wary.
I know Byrne is well-respected but for some reason I don’t feel his thought is very strong, I don’t know why. Anyway —
Science is one of our systems for how we describe (encode) reality with symbols - numbers and words - in order to predict it.
You can stand up in front of a room and say anything you want - do a dramatic reading of “Wild is the Wind”. Though you may be a scientist by profession, it doesn’t make what you say science since it predicts nothing about reality, and makes false assertions about creature, leaves and wind, lovely but metaphorical statements.
Science is a series of processes creating statements in successive approximation of reality, and we judge it by how accurate those predictions are. As one description of reality is found to be more accurate, it replaces an older one. Statements which are baldly false never rise to the level of “science” like conjecture, hypothesis, theory.
Apparently all statements in this conference, like all dramatic readings, use metaphorical language to create emotion, but are not science since they contravene simple fact. Song and Dance.
The dramatic reading is the performance point, not some statement of reality. They could also stand up and sing “Pappa was a Rolling Stone”, but even though they are scientists it doesn’t make it an explanation of reality even useful to consider.
Science does adjust. By clarifying fact independent of emotion.
For instance, Aristotle thought two object fall proportionally to their mass. Galileo showed they fall at equal speeds. Galileo got into trouble with other facts he discerned about the solar system which contradicted the emotional feelings about the place of humans in the universe. Galileo lost the fight but won the argument.
Biological science from millennia of observation tells us that when it comes to sex, every human child is conceived of sex between exactly one female who gestates the child, and exactly one male impregnating the female.
Science has further refined these facts showing that male and female is determined at conception, and cannot be changed, and gestation and impregnation are due to contribution of egg and sperm respectively.
All the rest is song and dance, and a “dance with the devil in the pale moonlight”
As a layman, there are a couple of red flags here: the author states the paper’s authors are well educated and are top-drawer academics, their opinions “matter.” Hmmmmm 🤔🤔 Matter to who?
Secondly, it would seem the injection of $$$ into this newfound gender phenomena is no different than at least one other high-profile academic-backed scare prevalent in today’s society.
If peer review were working, this would have never gotten this far. That's why part of the plan is silencing critics, hence canceled conference talks. It is the very definition of pseudoscience since part of the scientific method is being circumvented
Reading the specialties of the 4 authors -
2 are anthropologists. Not particularly qualified to weigh in on biological issues.
1 is in the gender studies field and was examined by Madame Gender Trouble herself. Big X there.
1 is an anatomist. Well, now we're getting warm, though knowing that the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone doesn't mean you know a whole lot about sexual dimorphism. Not having read the paper myself, I wonder if she wasn't included just to give it just a shred of credibility?
Thank you for this thoughtful and well argued essay. As a fellow professor, I agree with you. However, I wonder how long we can continue the debate at this level of analysis. Much of the debate is, I think, fueled by a naïve set of misconceptions about biology that are much more fundamental than those usually discussed. For instance, animals aren’t discrete entities like toasters that can be discussed in isolation. They are sets of physiological processes (which are emergent properties of a particular physical organization) embedded in dynamic environments in which they develop, and in terms of which they have evolved. This is basic physiology. You can’t talk about animals (people included) without understanding these contexts, and understanding that organisms are dynamic integrated sets of systems that are temporarily stable, but not static overtime. I alluded to this point in my last essays both on this Substack, and on mine regarding fish. https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/dont-ask-animals-how-to-fix-your Talking about fish requires understanding that they evolved in an aquatic environment and, therefore, are under a different set of contingencies than terrestrial animals. Without that understanding and explicit conceptualization, talking about fish sex is meaningless. Nobody seems to bring that perspective to the conversation. So, I’m beginning to think it’s futile to debate people who lack this level of biological understanding. Although, I admire those who do. And, to be blunt, I ain’t got nothing in common with mushrooms… what they do really doesn’t make a difference to my love life. Facetiousness aside, I’m also puzzled by the continual debate about “socially constructed“ categories. As you’ve said, all words are socially constructed. Short of divine revelation, we have no alternative but to construct categories to understand the world. Those categories are going to have ambiguities, as you pointed out. Arguing about the ambiguity as if one particular definition is “TRUE“ and all others are false is ridiculous, and can be dismissed out of hand. That, of course, does not mean that changing the definition of a word changes the ‘reality’ toward which it points. A red chair doesn’t become a tomato because I call it a tomato. Again, thank you for a great read. Sincerely, Frederick.
The vast majority of human beings on earth know, without a doubt, that sex is binary. Even those at the Cleveland clinic who have been pressured into using phrases like ‘sex assigned at birth’. The academy grows less and less reputable as such rubbish proliferates. Truth matters.
The biological function of the act of sex is the survival of our species. At that level "having sex" i.e. intercourse, is to create a new human: it is about beginnings, not outcomes. Every person on the plane exists because sex is binary, an egg from a female was fertilised by sperm from a male. Surely this is basic sex ed?
Good article by Alex Byrne, picks out the flaws quite skillfully. the only quibble I have is with this sentence: "Perhaps there are exactly two sexes, but there are some humans who are neither male nor female, or who are both sexes simultaneously." I would say that there are some humans who have ambiguous or mixed organs and anatomies, which makes it difficult to distinguish what sex they are... but to my (novice) knowledge, there are no humans without a sex, and there are no true hermaphrodites within our species.
For a human to be neither male nor female, they would need to lack a reproductive anatomy completely. As I understand it, failure to develop a reproductive system (even an incomplete or ambiguous one) results in miscarriage - a fetus can't develop without this element. Similarly, for a human to be both sexes simultaneously, they would need to have two complete reproductive systems. Perhaps I would bend a bit on this, and say they would need to have two fully functional sets of gonads. I don't believe that any human (or mammal for that matter) has been observed to be simultaneously male and female.
I suspect this is generosity of spirit on Byrne's part, but the pendant in me felt obligated to state my objection :)
All in all, however, I appreciate the article, and respect the effort and support of Alex Byrne.
"Their opinions matter." That is undoubtedly (and unfortunately ) true. Truth is a function of consensus and these esteemed authors are winning the consensus game. In spaces where people have little expertise, it makes sense to trust academics and experts .As just a regular person with a good education and a wealth of common sense, I can't win against their credentialed offerings. My opinion feels like a pistol to their howitzer
Interesting article.
So much of the debate that the vocal left has created seems to come down to redefining words that use to have a culturally agreed on definition.
The term "gender" use to be equated to the term "sex". I'm not an anthropologist which seems to be where these terms should be defined. But culturally, gender is now separate from sex. Although they do seem to be blurred in the paper you criticized. Sex is defined by chromosomes or gametes. Gender is defined by culture and the persons perceived identity. One interesting cultural anomaly on the redefinition of Gender is the "gender reveal party". What these really are is "sex reveal parties" since Gender is no longer defined by chromosomes.
I am interested in how sex and gender translate into no humane domains. You seem to have stated that if sex is defined by chromosomes, their are other species that change their gender (i.e. whether large gamete or small) without changing their chromosomes. Do they have the same X/Y division on chromosomes. Is the use of the term gender there consistent with the use of gender for humans?
Given that sex and gender definitions are no longer clear, the terms male and female and man and woman are not going to be clear. JK Rowling certainly has a view of what defines the word woman. Is her view more meaningful than the anthropologists defining the word.
To some extent, the paper is pointing out that the terms sex and gender (along with male/female, man/woman) from the past do have culturally biased definitions. Especially given the anthropology societies do not seem to agree anymore on how to define them for humans let alone how those definitions apply to other species.
What is the process for the anthropologic community to converge on defining these terms with today's knowledge. Does the anthropologic community agree that they have a definition issue?
Oooh, I just finished Trouble with Gender, so this essay is like the dessert after a main course!
I cannot tell you how many times I have been told that sex as spectrum is "settled science." One time was by a biologist! I felt weird disagreeing with her--she's got a PhD in biology and I'm a small-time novelist--but I figured that you don't have to be a cardiologist to know the human heart isn't found in the human leg.
The claim that sex is "culturally constructed" is itself a "culturally constructed" falsehood. While stereotypes and beauty standards are clearly culturally constructed, culture didn't construct our bodies, and didn't make some people have bodies designed (by nature) around production of large gametes or small gametes. This isn't something that varies across societies. Every single society of humans denotes "males" and "females" of the species, and a male in one human society would be a male in any other society and vice versa.
Maleness and femaleness are not arbitrary divisions, like divisions based on skin color. To be blunt, there is nothing culturally created when it comes to things like periods or pregnancy on the one hand, and ejaculation on the other. There are times when maleness or femaleness don't matter and we don't need to be divided, and there are times when it does matter and the division must be deon for the sake of safety and/or fairness. Things like fairness in sports, and safety in bathrooms and other places where women are more vulnerable are divided up based purely upon the physical categories of maleness and femaleness.
That there are a very small percentage of people whose sex may be so ambiguous as to be unknowable (and this is not all people with dsds, as most dsds clearly apply to "males" or "females") does not mean either that sex is a spectrum or that there are more than two sexes. For those whose sex is unknowable - those with some very rare dsds which make it unclear which system (production of large or small gametes) they belong to - I say they get to choose whether they want to be known as male, female, both or neither.
As for the rest of us, sex is clear, beyond debate and has nothing to do with culture. It has only to do with nature, biology and reality. We are not harming anyone by acknowledging this reality, and we are protecting the vulnerable, and promoting fairness. What's wrong with that? The four scholars who wrote this article are totally out of touch with reality.
The academic credentials for the professors that Dr. Byrne provided immediately suggested to me that the scientists and educators would be woke ideologues. Especially in the social sciences the pattern of thought that has set in is alarmingly non-rational. This is more obvious in professional associations such as the American Psychological Association, which has become more aggressively ideological and authoritarian. I used to have fond memories of being in college at the University of Michigan, but now when I hear that a scholar is associated with that university I feel wary.
I know Byrne is well-respected but for some reason I don’t feel his thought is very strong, I don’t know why. Anyway —
Science is one of our systems for how we describe (encode) reality with symbols - numbers and words - in order to predict it.
You can stand up in front of a room and say anything you want - do a dramatic reading of “Wild is the Wind”. Though you may be a scientist by profession, it doesn’t make what you say science since it predicts nothing about reality, and makes false assertions about creature, leaves and wind, lovely but metaphorical statements.
Science is a series of processes creating statements in successive approximation of reality, and we judge it by how accurate those predictions are. As one description of reality is found to be more accurate, it replaces an older one. Statements which are baldly false never rise to the level of “science” like conjecture, hypothesis, theory.
Apparently all statements in this conference, like all dramatic readings, use metaphorical language to create emotion, but are not science since they contravene simple fact. Song and Dance.
The dramatic reading is the performance point, not some statement of reality. They could also stand up and sing “Pappa was a Rolling Stone”, but even though they are scientists it doesn’t make it an explanation of reality even useful to consider.
Science does adjust. By clarifying fact independent of emotion.
For instance, Aristotle thought two object fall proportionally to their mass. Galileo showed they fall at equal speeds. Galileo got into trouble with other facts he discerned about the solar system which contradicted the emotional feelings about the place of humans in the universe. Galileo lost the fight but won the argument.
Biological science from millennia of observation tells us that when it comes to sex, every human child is conceived of sex between exactly one female who gestates the child, and exactly one male impregnating the female.
Science has further refined these facts showing that male and female is determined at conception, and cannot be changed, and gestation and impregnation are due to contribution of egg and sperm respectively.
All the rest is song and dance, and a “dance with the devil in the pale moonlight”
As a layman, there are a couple of red flags here: the author states the paper’s authors are well educated and are top-drawer academics, their opinions “matter.” Hmmmmm 🤔🤔 Matter to who?
Secondly, it would seem the injection of $$$ into this newfound gender phenomena is no different than at least one other high-profile academic-backed scare prevalent in today’s society.