It is difficult to believe these individuals might actually believe the nonsense they present, however given the overwhelming plethora of diverse. insane, illogical, delusional ideas presented as reality in recent times, it is quite possible they are members of the cult of the unreality. “Follow the money” is also a universal truth that could persuade belief that these people are nothing more than opportunistic charlatans.
Great work..not easy to dealign with people whose framework is unconstrained by reality - more philosophers need to step up and help out the biologist.
We all know that water is a compound of oxygen (1) and hydrogen (2), or H2O. There is also "heavy water", which is H2O2, and tritium (H3O). These isotopes do not make water composition a "spectrum". It simply means that a tiny proportion of water molecules are H3O or H2O2.
Not only that, Colin! This movement has defamed, cancelled and actually physically attacked women. The people who want to defund the police call the police on us truth tellers when we put the incontrovertible facts out on paper. We are vilified as racists and bigots, when they suddenly spiral into attacks on our appearance, especially for the ex-wives of men who claim to be female. I've been told I wasn't "woman enough" to keep my husband. I was certainly woman enough to menstruate, get pregnant and give birth twice and breastfeed my babies into healthy toddler-hood. Then the movement grasps at these children and tells them to cancel their own mothers. This cancellation policy, openly stated by the specialist therapists and ideologues, is actually transference of self-harm from the messed up fathers to the children.
This is obviously correct, but it’s kind of like debating with flat-earthers, creationists, or geocentrists. The real scandal is that anyone who took “feminist epistemology” seriously in the first place got a respected academic position.
"science and technology studies" is a field that grew out of the humanities. And one of the problems I have with the humanities, at least in their modern incarnation, is their abandonment of science in favor of ideology.
A wonderful defense of reason, as usual. Frankly, though, I’m surprised the controversy continues. I’ve been listening to these irrational, anti-biological arguments for close to half a century now.
They seem to arise from some combination of arrogance, willful ignorance, or an inability to process complex information. That is, they are often promulgated by individuals who either see no need to consider perspectives beyond their own, deliberately ignore evidence that conflicts with their beliefs, or struggle with critical analysis. I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense—I just can’t think of another explanation.
Perhaps one could argue that it gives people a sense of intellectual satisfaction to engage in wordplay and to perceive themselves as especially clever for doing so. But that hardly seems sufficient justification for ignoring the straightforward biological fact that sex is defined by gamete type.
Interestingly, I’m currently teaching a seminar entitled Sex and Evolution, about which I’ve written here:
I am still a bit confused about the "definition" of sex in relation to what you call "determinants" of sex, Dr. Wright. I understand your explanation of "male" being the category label for an animal whose body is set up to produce small gametes, and likewise "female" being the category label for an animal whose body is set up to produce large gametes. But what do you include in the category of determinants? I think you have said that this category includes chromosomes, but what else?
My primary question is: Why are chromosomes and physical set up for gamete size classified separately, as "determinants" and "definition" respectively? Is it because chromosomes are necessary but not sufficient for categorizing an animal as male or female post-conception?
My second question is one that arises during the eternally returning arguments from "trans" ideologues about disorders of sexual development. I still am not clear whether you think that all humans can be classified as either male or female without exception. Sometimes you have alluded to possible exceptions (right?). Whether or not such people have existed, how would their gamete-producing systems work? Would they be "not set up" to produce either gamete, or alternately, set up to produce both small and large gametes at the same time? In empirical reality, are there recorded cases of individual humans who had both ovaries and testes? Would that condition be necessary and sufficient to be regarded as a true exception to the fact that the sex of humans as well as most other living things is defined by whether an individual has a body set up to produce small or large gametes?
I very much appreciate all of your work, that you continue to publish your writing on Substack, and that you continue to teach us about human reproductive biology.
> Yet despite the diversity of sex determination mechanisms (Bachtrog et al., 2014), the sex classes across taxa remain intelligible and comparable because they remain anchored in gamete size.
That fascinates me. Why should it be so? Take coral for example: one might predict that males and females would produce same sized gametes because they are ejected exactly the same way into exactly the same environment, so why would one expect them to be different? The male, female binary seems to transcend mechanism or environment and seems to be almost a fundamental property of life.
"The UBD has the virtue that, in addition to being universally applicable, it explains a diverse load of facts. And it’s grounded in a body of powerful and widely illuminating theory. It’s an argument that should appeal to economists. When two gametes unite to make a zygote they must, between them, provide the expensive nourishment it needs. In a fair and equitable world, you might expect the two parents to contribute equally, each bearing half the necessary costs. Such a system is known as isogamy. It doesn’t exist in animals and plants, but can be found in some microorganisms and algae. Clever mathematical modelling, by various scientists including Geoffrey Parker7 of the University of Liverpool, indicates that, under plausible conditions, isogamy is unstable. It tends to be replaced, in evolutionary time, by its opposite, anisogamy: two different kinds of gamete, one bearing all the economic costs, the other nothing more than DNA."
Does Dawkins, or do you, propose any models that focus on possible evolutionary advantages rather than on costs resulting from the system of anisogamy? Considering it has become the system for most life on Earth, wouldn't it have to have had major advantages for all species?
I can understand anisogamy intuitively in 'non-symetrical' situations. In birds, somebody has to carry the egg, and it's a clear case where dedicated function will prevail, especially if the freeloading male -- from the gamete perspective -- makes an equal contribution to feeding the chick. But how about corals? Is there an intuitive explanation? The problem with the mathematical models is that they're all retroactively predictive, which is less impressive than proactively predictive.
Anisogamy defining feature of mammals (primates give birth to young with long period of dependency), birds, reptiles and many other creatures. Totally different mode of being in the case of coral, which have hermaphrodite species besides gonochoric (separately sexed) species.
The fact that these persons you bring up have a disorder of sexual development says it all. This is a tragic disorder, and not a case of biology being "non-binary."
As always, clean and clear. It must get exhausting arguing elementary science with non-scientists.
Scientific reality is what persists after sociologists go to their eternal rest in the oblivion of meaninglessness.
I enjoy the debate sometimes though, like a cat enjoys playing with a mouse before eviscerating it.
It is difficult to believe these individuals might actually believe the nonsense they present, however given the overwhelming plethora of diverse. insane, illogical, delusional ideas presented as reality in recent times, it is quite possible they are members of the cult of the unreality. “Follow the money” is also a universal truth that could persuade belief that these people are nothing more than opportunistic charlatans.
My favourite quote: “The gamete-based definition does not deny biological variation; it organizes it.” 🤗
Excellent rebuttal! Perhaps too much to hope this one will do the trick?
Nope, because as pointed out, these folks are making confessions of their religion, not engaging in discussions of fact at all.
Great work..not easy to dealign with people whose framework is unconstrained by reality - more philosophers need to step up and help out the biologist.
We all know that water is a compound of oxygen (1) and hydrogen (2), or H2O. There is also "heavy water", which is H2O2, and tritium (H3O). These isotopes do not make water composition a "spectrum". It simply means that a tiny proportion of water molecules are H3O or H2O2.
It's really amazing how much these critiques coming largely not from biology are nothing more than games between signifier and signified.
Not only that, Colin! This movement has defamed, cancelled and actually physically attacked women. The people who want to defund the police call the police on us truth tellers when we put the incontrovertible facts out on paper. We are vilified as racists and bigots, when they suddenly spiral into attacks on our appearance, especially for the ex-wives of men who claim to be female. I've been told I wasn't "woman enough" to keep my husband. I was certainly woman enough to menstruate, get pregnant and give birth twice and breastfeed my babies into healthy toddler-hood. Then the movement grasps at these children and tells them to cancel their own mothers. This cancellation policy, openly stated by the specialist therapists and ideologues, is actually transference of self-harm from the messed up fathers to the children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7x__AAK16U&t=590s
This is obviously correct, but it’s kind of like debating with flat-earthers, creationists, or geocentrists. The real scandal is that anyone who took “feminist epistemology” seriously in the first place got a respected academic position.
Gender Ideology Syllogism
Logical and Rational Argument
All humans are mammals.
All mammals are mortal.
Therefore, all humans are mortal.
Illogical and Irrational Argument
All biological women are women.
All trans-women are women.
Therefore, all trans-women are biological women.
When presented with an illogical and/or irrational premise, go back, review your premises, and identify the false claim.
"science and technology studies" is a field that grew out of the humanities. And one of the problems I have with the humanities, at least in their modern incarnation, is their abandonment of science in favor of ideology.
A wonderful defense of reason, as usual. Frankly, though, I’m surprised the controversy continues. I’ve been listening to these irrational, anti-biological arguments for close to half a century now.
They seem to arise from some combination of arrogance, willful ignorance, or an inability to process complex information. That is, they are often promulgated by individuals who either see no need to consider perspectives beyond their own, deliberately ignore evidence that conflicts with their beliefs, or struggle with critical analysis. I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense—I just can’t think of another explanation.
Perhaps one could argue that it gives people a sense of intellectual satisfaction to engage in wordplay and to perceive themselves as especially clever for doing so. But that hardly seems sufficient justification for ignoring the straightforward biological fact that sex is defined by gamete type.
Interestingly, I’m currently teaching a seminar entitled Sex and Evolution, about which I’ve written here:
“Is Animal Sex Like Porn?”
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/is-animal-sex-like-porn
None of my students seem to have any difficulty with these concepts. Why is it that so many professors do?
In any event, thank you for another interesting essay.
Sincerely,
Frederick
I am still a bit confused about the "definition" of sex in relation to what you call "determinants" of sex, Dr. Wright. I understand your explanation of "male" being the category label for an animal whose body is set up to produce small gametes, and likewise "female" being the category label for an animal whose body is set up to produce large gametes. But what do you include in the category of determinants? I think you have said that this category includes chromosomes, but what else?
My primary question is: Why are chromosomes and physical set up for gamete size classified separately, as "determinants" and "definition" respectively? Is it because chromosomes are necessary but not sufficient for categorizing an animal as male or female post-conception?
My second question is one that arises during the eternally returning arguments from "trans" ideologues about disorders of sexual development. I still am not clear whether you think that all humans can be classified as either male or female without exception. Sometimes you have alluded to possible exceptions (right?). Whether or not such people have existed, how would their gamete-producing systems work? Would they be "not set up" to produce either gamete, or alternately, set up to produce both small and large gametes at the same time? In empirical reality, are there recorded cases of individual humans who had both ovaries and testes? Would that condition be necessary and sufficient to be regarded as a true exception to the fact that the sex of humans as well as most other living things is defined by whether an individual has a body set up to produce small or large gametes?
I very much appreciate all of your work, that you continue to publish your writing on Substack, and that you continue to teach us about human reproductive biology.
> Yet despite the diversity of sex determination mechanisms (Bachtrog et al., 2014), the sex classes across taxa remain intelligible and comparable because they remain anchored in gamete size.
That fascinates me. Why should it be so? Take coral for example: one might predict that males and females would produce same sized gametes because they are ejected exactly the same way into exactly the same environment, so why would one expect them to be different? The male, female binary seems to transcend mechanism or environment and seems to be almost a fundamental property of life.
"The UBD has the virtue that, in addition to being universally applicable, it explains a diverse load of facts. And it’s grounded in a body of powerful and widely illuminating theory. It’s an argument that should appeal to economists. When two gametes unite to make a zygote they must, between them, provide the expensive nourishment it needs. In a fair and equitable world, you might expect the two parents to contribute equally, each bearing half the necessary costs. Such a system is known as isogamy. It doesn’t exist in animals and plants, but can be found in some microorganisms and algae. Clever mathematical modelling, by various scientists including Geoffrey Parker7 of the University of Liverpool, indicates that, under plausible conditions, isogamy is unstable. It tends to be replaced, in evolutionary time, by its opposite, anisogamy: two different kinds of gamete, one bearing all the economic costs, the other nothing more than DNA."
Richard Dawkins
https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/is-the-male-female-divide-a-social
*UBD: Universal Biological Definition
Does Dawkins, or do you, propose any models that focus on possible evolutionary advantages rather than on costs resulting from the system of anisogamy? Considering it has become the system for most life on Earth, wouldn't it have to have had major advantages for all species?
I can understand anisogamy intuitively in 'non-symetrical' situations. In birds, somebody has to carry the egg, and it's a clear case where dedicated function will prevail, especially if the freeloading male -- from the gamete perspective -- makes an equal contribution to feeding the chick. But how about corals? Is there an intuitive explanation? The problem with the mathematical models is that they're all retroactively predictive, which is less impressive than proactively predictive.
Anisogamy defining feature of mammals (primates give birth to young with long period of dependency), birds, reptiles and many other creatures. Totally different mode of being in the case of coral, which have hermaphrodite species besides gonochoric (separately sexed) species.
Sure, it makes sense with higher animals. Didn't know some corals were hermaphrodites. That makes sense too.
How do you know sex in a person who doesn’t make gametes? (Gonad
dysgenesis or ovotestes)
The fact that these persons you bring up have a disorder of sexual development says it all. This is a tragic disorder, and not a case of biology being "non-binary."
In those very rare cases, you probably can't. Why do you ask?
Oh - because that's me.
That's interesting. Do you mind if I ask how you see yourself when it comes to gender? (Forgive me if it's a nosy question).
It's ok - I've always seen myself as a woman. Have otherwise girl "parts" and had no idea until I was about 11.
Wow, that must have been a shock.
Yep, I cried )-: