Many comments posted here are largely meaningless, self-satisfying sophistry (intellectual masturbation). The subject of this piece is not some complex philosophical conundrum but a simple scientific fact. Grow up.
Sorry, but I would have disagree with you here. The female sex is the one that produces the larger gametes, but that doesn't mean that Every female currently produces them, just that females are the only ones able to.
This definition is useful almost all of the time, but it would also mean that a male dog that has been neutered is no longer male, or that a woman post menopause is no longer female, or a prepubescent boy isn't male (making the 'adult' in 'adult human male' redundant when defining a 'man').
The definition by Colin and Co. is more precise. Since there is no third gamete, there is no third developmental pathway for human beings, ergo you have to go down one of the two only available paths. [This includes people with DSDs, depending on whether they have a functioning SRY gene and androgen receptors]. Whichever of these two paths you go down (for the male or female phenotype) defines your sex. To me this seems perfectly reasonable, what would you disagree with here?
Disagree away to your heart's content. But you kind of have to put some hard evidence on the table, otherwise it's just an opinion.
And the way that the biological definitions are framed, "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite -- is what is called the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership. Those without the ability to do so, without functional gonads, are, ipso facto, sexless:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
But while I'll readily agree that "there is no third gamete", and that that justifies the definition of sex as a binary, though the sexes are hardly exhaustive in the reproduction department, the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely diddly-squat in the biological definitions about any "developmental pathways".
The definitions of Colin and Company basically turn each sex into a spectrum of three, into polythetic categories whereas the biological definitions are monothetic categories -- a single necessary condition for category membership, i.e., functional gonads of either of two types. See my elaboration on the theme on Michael Shermer's post:
More particularly on the "disagree" front, you might also look at the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites, clownfish in particular, which has "necessarily" turned each sex into a binary: functional and non-functional males and females:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
So newly hatched clownfish are both a non-functional male AND a non-functional female? Bloody ridiculous, so profoundly unscientific as to be gobsmackingly idiotic. Whoever was responsible for that, directly or indirectly, should be hung, drawn and quartered -- figuratively speaking, of course ...
Think I'd posted that after my comments on Shermer's post on the same topic, and probably intended to elaborate a bit on the nature of categories. Bit of a complex topic, and one I certainly haven't "plumbed the depths" of, but sort of a preliminary record of what I've learned so far.
🙄 Speaking analogously, your statement is not far removed from saying that "teenager" is "only a valid concept during the period of life when" people are between 13 and 19. 🙄 An incoherent phrase -- "teenager" is always "valid"; it's just not always applicable.
You don't seem to have a flaming clue how categories work and are too pigheaded to learn. You're unlikely to you read this, but others might derive some value from this post on the topic:
So, what determines your sex is: if you have ovaries you're female, testes you're male, but on rare occasions there is ambiguity about whether you're male or female, e.g. maybe you have ovotestes. Do people ever e.g. have one ovary and one testis?
Anyway, let's consider the case of those trans women who undergo a full medical transition using this criterion. They no longer have their testes.
Does this mean they are no longer male? Note that if we did say they are no longer male, we still cannot claim they're female under this criterion because they haven't acquired ovaries, so what sex are they in this case? Are we to say the have no sex?
However, I think we can say they are still male because they were born male and developed the way they did because they're male and removal of the testes does not undo that. All the surgery and hormone therapy is achieving is to make the male externally resemble a female. What makes you male or female is thus down to whether you develop testes or ovaries in the first place, not what might happen to your body via surgery or unfortunate accident or illness subsequently. Would you agree?
This does then raise the question: Suppose medical technology was such that we could give trans women functional ovaries and wombs, etc in future. Would we regard that as a genuine change of sex, despite the prior male developmental history?
Human beings can be described as mammals with two arms and two legs. A man whose leg has been amputated or a baby born without a foot are no less human than those with the full complement, however. If a baby is born with the equipment intended to produce sperm, that baby is male. If a baby is born with the equipment designed to produce eggs, that baby is female. (Rarely, .018% of the time, a baby's external genitalia will make it unclear which is the case.) It's biology, it's simple, and it has nothing to do with what stage of life you are in, or what might happen to one's reproductive organs later. Hence on may argue that a trans woman should be counted and treated as a woman, but that person is still biologically male. Gender identity has a socially-conditioned aspect to it. Sex does not.
Your "two arms and two legs" argument is something of a false analogy.
While it is true that one doesn't need two of each to qualify as human, it is still true, or at least consistent with standard biological definitions (see below), that one doesn't need to be either male or female to qualify as human -- many of us are, in fact, neither male nor female, are sexless.
Having two legs, or having a sex are what are called "accidental properties" of the category (species) called "humans".
However, having functional gonads are what are similarly called "essential properties" of the categories called "male" and "female". A world of difference; see:
Diddly-squat about any "equipment designed to produce". They SAY "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite. I rather doubt anyone will be able to "produce" -- make available for use -- those if they lack functional gonads.
I doubt the definition means to imply the gonads have to be currently producing eggs or sperm, or currently capable of doing so, but means to convey that the gonads' purpose, when functional, is to produce them -- as opposed to doing something else. Babies don't produce sperm or eggs, yet they come in male and female because they have the equipment designed for the purpose, which potentially will produce them in the future. Infertile males are still male, and infertile females are still female. Mature females whose ovaries no longer produce eggs due to menopause are still female. Women who have had complete hysterectomies (including the ovaries) are still female. Therefore a man who for some reason has his testicles removed is still male, because he was born with the kind of equipment that makes sperm (as opposed to eggs).
Both say pretty much the same thing, but the one for "male" SAYS:
"male (noun): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
"produces gametes". Period. Absolutely diddly-squat about "purpose when functional".
And look at the OD definition for "sex" itself:
"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
Reproductive FUNCTION -- first and foremost, the activity of DOING something -- i.e., producing gametes so as to be able to reproduce -- though it is also defined by Google/OD so as to encompass "purpose":
"function (noun): an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing."
But "purpose" is a rather vague or subjective term whereas "activity" is far more quantifiable and objective. We can "easily" tell if some organism is actually producing, right now, either type of gamete. But its "purpose"? Ridiculous definition or interpretation.
In addition to which, what is the "function" of ovotestis in humans? Not all that common but not unheard of either. So are they males? Females? Both? Neither? Sexed? Or sexless?
Same sort of problem with sequential hermaphrodites, clownfish in particular which on hatching aren't able to produce either type of gamete but some of whom go on to produce sperm and some of the latter going on to produce ova:
They ALL, right from hatching, have the "purpose" and potential of eventually producing, sequentially, both sperm and ova -- are they both males AND females right from hatching because they have that "potential purpose"? If that's the case then one can hardly call them sequential hermaphrodites if they're male AND female through their whole life span.
That's just one of the many problems of the profoundly unscientific, if not anti-scientific if not cluelessly idiotic definitions that Colin Wright, Emma Hilton, and Heather Heying are peddling; they should be ashamed to call themselves "biologists":
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
Though I kind of expected much better of Hilton as she had a lengthy Twitter thread which more or less underlined that "produces large gametes" as the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a female -- of a very large number of species, from lilies to asparagus to bees to humans:
You may wish to take a gander at my "exchange" with one of the three, Heather Heying, who at least engaged, even if briefly, with me on my criticisms before blocking me. Not really an action very becoming of someone claiming to be biologist and a scientist committed to scientific principles, open inquiry and open discussion; bit of a joke, in fact:
You are insisting that if, in the context of describing a category of organisms, one of their organs is described as "producing gametes", that means that the organ must be active in order to qualify a particular individual as a member of that group. Rather, the statement "makes gametes" is on the same order as "cement mixers make cement", which is not a statement about only those cement mixers that are currently in the process of doing so. Those not making cement do not cease to be cement mixers. Likewise, biologically-speaking, "produces gametes" is only intended to tell you the usual function of sex organs in that type of organism's body. It does not follow that one should exclude juveniles in whom the organ is not yet active, or mature specimens in which the organ is atypically or no longer active. This is not a political statement, but the usual way a biologist describes, and reads descriptions of, organisms.
Don't think you're really addressing my argument and all of the links and quotes I've provided to justify it. All you've put on the table is a bunch of ipse dixits and unevidenced opinion.
Though I'll concede, provisionally, that defining a cement mixer as "a machine that mixes ingredients to make cement" may be a useful analogy. However, a "cement mixer" that is missing the motor that does the mixing can't really be said to qualify as one. It may LOOK like a cement mixer, but it is missing the ability to perform the function that is the essential element, the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as such. If "appearance" is sufficient to qualify entities for membership in such categories then Bruce Jenner should qualify as a woman and as a female ...
There's a fundamental difference between form and function, and very often the latter is an essential and defining element. Feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones -- though I use the term loosely as she's more an ideologue than a philosopher -- had an "interesting" if heavily biased essay on that dichotomy:
She, like many women and most feminists, seems rather desperately engaged in some motivated reasoning, if not egregious gaslighting, to justify mere form as sufficient claim to membership in the category "female". In notable contradistinction to the biological definitions, quoted in reputable biological journals and dictionaries, by which "male" and "female" denote only those with quite transitory abilities to reproduce because they exhibit the functions, because they manifest the processes of producing gametes on something like a regular basis.
And it’s cost free.Actually, you could ask the little 4 year old sibling of the new born baby , and he or she would be right .” He, look at the little wee wee..that’s my baby brother!”
I am guessing they are males that have their balls chopped off. As a biological woman I feel very strongly saying ask any biological woman that has had to have a double mastectomy or a hysterectomy if they are any less a woman. NO DFFERENT
A human born male remains male for life regardless of whether or not their body has had surgery to remove any part of it. He is male after losing an arm, an ear, his testes, anything. The biological sex cannot be changed by surgery.
I don't agree. Because I am PHYSICALLY female (mostly. I have streaks of gonads in my internal cavity above my ovaries) however my genes say I am a MAN. Im also a natural redhead- so I'm a complete genetic freak. My genetic abnormality is called Swyer Syndrome
What, precisely, do you not agree with? You said it yourself: your condition, Swyer's syndrome is anomalous. Yes, there are a very few people in the world like you, whose appearance is female, and have internal structures that are female (albeit, not capable of producing gametes), whose genetic makeup would anticipate maleness. The fact this happens once in a great while is because genes are subject to rare mutations that produce no individual or evolutionary advantage, and in this case prevent active participation in an ancient dimorphic system of reproduction. Meaning, in English, your mutation produces no personal benefit, and even if it were, you can't pass your genes on. Obviously, this kind of thing has no bearing on any other aspect of human ability or worth. But it does mean there is no reason to suggest, from the existence of anomalies, that sex is a "spectrum".
Bit of a tough break in life's genetic lottery; sorry to hear of it.
But sadly there's a great deal of misinformation on that issue and related ones that's being peddled by various charlatans, grifters, scientism-ists, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists that just muddies the waters. Why many, including myself, have often argued that we need to go back to first principles, many of a logical and philosophical nature which most people -- including various so-called biologists & philosophers -- generally don't have a clue about. See my latest for some elaborations on that theme:
But a big part of the problem is that many people are rather desperate to believe that everyone has a sex and that it is "immutable 🙄". A belief that does not at all square with standard biological definitions; for example see the Glossary in this article in the (Oxford) Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
But there's another equally problematic aspect of that "belief" that probably relates directly to your own circumstances, and to those of the intersex in general. Seems that many people are overly concerned about telling many of the intersex that, by the standard biological definitions, they simply don't have a sex, that they are sexless. Maybe because those people don't want to "offend" the intersex, or simply because they don't want to face that possibility themselves. In any case, I don't think that is doing any favours to the intersex or to society in general.
But as a case in point, consider this tweet by Zach Elliott who's had a couple of guest posts here on RLS:
"Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes."
Since when are questions of "scientifically correct or incorrect" going to be trumped by supposedly "morally problematic claims"? Totally clueless about the fundamental principles undergirding science. He and too many others are all too ready to bastardize science for "political purposes", to engage in Lysenkoism -- the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable." Not at all impressed that Colin gave Zach access to his "soapbox" here, though they're both equally "guilty" of that charge.
Carl Sagan, in his Demon-Haunted World, had a passage that summarizes that too common phenomenon:
"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
"unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true" -- indeed. A rather damning indictment of much of what passes for biology and philosophy these days.
"So, what determines your sex is: if you have ovaries you're female, testes you're male ..."
Good questions, though a bit disappointed that Colin hasn't stepped up to the plate to answer them ... 😉
But you might consider a tweet of his from several years ago as something in the way of an answer:
"What if I woke up and my reproductive anatomy had somehow inexplicably changed from a functional penis and testes to a functional vagina and ovaries? Would I cease to be male? 100% YES! I would absolutely now be a female."
A more or less solid endorsement of the standard biological definitions by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types. Where I think he drops the ball – betrays something in the way of "prior commitments" at best if not some intellectual dishonesty – is in not recognizing that "functional gonads" are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male or female. For an example of that principle, see:
“An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.”
But the logical consequence of those biological definitions for the sexes is that those without either type of functional gonads are necessarily of neither sex, are sexless.
As some backup for that position, see this quite good essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths – university of Sydney, philosophy of science, Wikipedia bio, and co-author of Genetics and Philosophy – along with a salient quote:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from *defining* each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either."
And that is pretty much exactly the way that standard dictionaries, encylopedias, and reputable biological journals define those sex categories; for example:
“female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.”
Note the "produces the larger gametes" – present tense indefinite – in the second link which underlines the idea that the gonads have to be functional for an organism to qualify as male or female.
Unfortunately, the so-called social sciences and most feminists peddle the idea of structural criteria as that "necessary and sufficient condition" – i.e., absent any necessary functionality – for sex category membership which is, of course, flatly contradicted by the biological definitions. And I expect that that is because of their own "prior commitment" to a rather desperate article of faith that "biological sex in humans is immutable". For example, see explicit claims to that effect from feminist "philosopher" Kathleen Stock and from Maya Forstater:
You might also be interested in an article – that Colin had helpfully tweeted a link to some time back – from Marco Del Giudice at the University of New Mexico on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender". A passage that underlines the above:
"On a deeper level, the 'patchwork' definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)."
I realise it's been a long time since your reply to my comment, and I apologise I didn't respond at the time. Thank you for the informative answer you provided.
It seems to me the strict biological definition of sex that you cite here is clearly at odds with common parlance (or at least common parlance prior to the rise of the trans movement) - I grant this is not unusual when considering scientific terms vs terms used in common parlance, as the former are typically a lot more precise than the latter.
Anyway, we don't/didn't determine whether an individual is actually producing gametes in order to decide whether that person is a boy or a girl or a man or a woman. We do/did so based on their appearance / anatomy.
We also routinely record someone's sex on their birth certificate based on their anatomy at (or these days often before) birth, but e.g. newborn boys do not produce sperm - this won't happen until puberty. The situation with egg production in girls is more complex as this starts during embryonic development but mature eggs don't appear until puberty - do biologists count immature gametes as gametes for the purposes of the biological definition of sex?
I think one reason that e.g. Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, Emma Hilton and Colin Wright reach for definitions of sex that do not require actual current production of gametes is that our bodies are only able to produce gametes for a limited period part of our lives, in the case of boys/men from puberty onwards, in the case of girls/women from puberty until menopause. However our bodies are shaped by which reproductive system we develop and this affects us (especially during/after puberty) for our whole lives, even if we are or become infertile. Hence they look for a definition of sex that refers to the phenotype / reproductive anatomy rather than the ability to produce small vs large gametes. My observation is that maybe there is a need for such terms alongside the definition of sex that biologists use?
Thanks for getting back to me James. But no problemo on the delay -- worth the wait 🙂 -- and I can appreciate the reasons for that delay; I have more than a few comments in a queue that I should be responding to myself.
But you're quite right that "biological definitions of sex ... [are] at odds with common parlance". And that wouldn't be much of a problem if the two "communities" never had to talk with one another. But they do, and there are any number of problems, some more serious than others, that follow from having two quite inconsistent and contradictory definitions in play -- as per your later suggestion about "a need ... alongside the [biological definitions]".
For an example of those problems, see these two (old and current) versions of the Wikipedia article on Sequential Hermaphroditism:
Nice feature of Wikipedia is that there's a full editing history. But in the first one from April 2019, the article had said:
"If the female dies, the male gains weight and becomes the female for that group. The largest non-breeding fish then sexually matures and becomes the male of the group."
That more or less makes sense, and basically recognizes the "non-breeding fish" are sexless, are neither male nor female. But later versions (October 21 or earlier) apparently balk at "sexless", and basically turn those "non-breeding fish" into what are little short of square circles, oxymorons, contradictions in terms:
"The largest non-breeding male then sexually matures and becomes the reproductive male for the group."
If they're "non-breeding" then by the biological definitions they are, ipso facto, sexless.
Think the editors there eventually recognized the outright idiocy of those claims, but the current result isn't much if any better:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
So they're basically saying -- more or less following the lead of Heying, Hilton, & Wright [HHW] -- that male and female are now binaries: e.g., functional males, and non-functional males. Presumably, such fish are hatched as non-functional males AND non-functional females, some of whom go on to become functional males AND non-functional females, and some of those go on to become (again) non-functional males AND functional females. Absolute idiocy; antiscientific claptrap and egregious Lysenkoism; all to evade saying "sexless". Whoever was responsible for that -- HHW or their minions? -- should be shot.
And further to that, the HHW "hypothesis" further expands non-functional into pre-functional and post-functional; a discrete spectrum of three. Houston, we have a problem. Something I've tried getting Colin, Emma, and Heather to address -- the latter blocking me for my troubles, though I'll concede she did refund my subscription, but not before deleting my comment:
Not terribly impressed. But you might also have some interest in a "spirited" conversation I was having on the topic over at the International Skeptics Forum where I had said:
"Intensional & stipulative definitions of male/female apply to all anisogamous species
Resolved: The unscientific definitions of Heying, Hilton, & Wright are flatly contradicted by and inconsistent with the standard biological definitions of Parker, Lehtonen, Griffiths, Google/OD, and many other sources. The former should therefore be deprecated, and be replaced in, to start with, all biological and sociological journals and applications with the latter.
The definitions of Hilton and Company essentially define each sex as a polythetic category; each sex becomes a discrete spectrum of three states or conditions:"
I think that's just the tip of the iceberg; only one of many problems caused by contradictory and inconsistent definitions for the sexes. Though I'm not at all sure what is the optimal solution. But I don't think we'll find one by trying to sweep that rather large elephant -- the one in the living room -- under the carpet. 🙂
You seem to have entirely missed this paragraph in the article:
"It is crucial to note, however, that the sex of individuals within a species isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment. Pre-pubertal males don’t produce sperm, and some infertile adults of both sexes never produce gametes due to various infertility issues. Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality. In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time."
Biological sex is not determined by the ability to produce gametes (eggs, sperm). If that were the case, pre-pubertal children, people rendered infertile by illness/accident, and menopausal women would be considered sexless.
TeeJae: "missed this paragraph in the article .... isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment."
Which article? Wright's? The OP? Might help to actually say so right out of the chute.
But that's just his opinion, his own rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definition, and little more than the letter that he, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying had published in the letters-to-the-editors section of the UK Times. A fairly decent newspaper, but hardly any sort of peer-reviewed biological journal. As their letter has it:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
But those 3 conditions -- each of which is supposedly sufficient to qualify individuals as male or female -- basically turns their definitions for each sex into a spectrum of 3. Rather risible for them to be throwing stones at Nature, Scientific American, and others for doing the same thing.
For elaborations on that theme, you might be interested in my latest:
TeeJae: "Biological sex is not determined by the ability to produce gametes (eggs, sperm)."
Actually, in point of fact, the definitions stipulated in actual peer-reviewed biological journals -- not popular newspapers ... -- do in fact specify that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. That Binarists vs. Spectrumists essay quotes the definitions from the Glossary in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
Diddly-squat there about any past or future functionality. They're all about being able to reproduce right now because of having functional gonads.
TeeJae: "...would be considered sexless."
So what? The sexes aren't "designed" as participation trophies to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. They're "designed" by actual biologists -- those worth their salt ... -- to be able to grapple with the brute fact -- emphasized by that Molecular Human Reproduction article -- that anisogamy -- two differently sized gametes -- is ubiquitous across literally millions of species and hundreds of million years. And that that brute fact has more or less driven virtually all of the sexual dimorphism we see today. Which objective do you think is more important?
We will have to agree to disagree on this. There is VASTLY more peer-reviewed scientific literature which concludes that the biological sex of humans is determined by which gonads babies are born with (of which chromosomes are a crucial factor). Period. So, please do not respond with more of your same 'it's all about gamete production' argument, as it is both nonsensical and irrational, and citing more pseudoscience will not convince me otherwise.
Btw, Nature and Scientific American lost their credibility when they jumped on the covid vax promotion bandwagon.
But kinda think you're misunderstanding my argument and the biology, though if Emma Hilton has anything to say about it -- which she does -- then it's a fairly common failing. For example, see this tweet thread of hers:
"There appears to be a some confusion on your part regarding terms like 'determine', and this is sending you down a rabbithole. In developmental biology, 'determination' describes the process that drives cell or tissue differentiation. ....
The article you have posted is describing the diversity of sex determination mechanisms across various species. That is, they are describing the different ways different species trigger sex development. ...."
Chromosomes generally "determine" our sexes in being the causative factors or "mechanisms" that lead to the development of the gonads that actually produce -- bring into existence -- new gametes. Whereas -- by the standard biological definitions -- actually producing gametes are the "membership dues" to qualify as members of the sex categories. Entirely different kettles of fish which many people trip over.
But much of biological and philosophical communities really aren't covering themselves with much glory over defining the sex categories -- bit of a clown show from square one.
For example see this tweet of Tomas Bogardus who had written a post here recently somehow analogizing sexes to shoes, and which links to a paper by a couple of other "philosophers":
"An emerging consensus among philosophers of biology is that sex is grounded in some manner or another on anisogamy, that is, the ability to produce either large gametes (egg) or small gametes (sperm), though the exact nature of this grounding remains contentious. Here we argue for a new conception of this relation. In our view, one’s sex doesn’t depend on the kind of gamete one is capable of making, but on the kind of gamete one is designed to make ...."
They're basically endorsing the idea of "producing large gametes or small gametes" as the traditional "membership dues" for sex category membership in the first part. But then they jump the shark by trying to argue in favour of replacing that with a determination of "what kind of gamete one is designed to make". Not quite sure how they think to do that for all of the millions of anisogamous species over all their life cycles. "muddying the waters to make them seem deep" as Nietzsche put it:
Yup. It's kind of foundational, it defines and characterizes literally millions of all of the sexually-reproducing species that have shown up on the world's stage over the last 500 to 1000 million years.
Classic article from the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction that describes the process by which anisogamy developed:
But you might also take a gander at their Glossary for their definitions for "male" and "female" which, again, say diddly-squat about any of the "past-present-future functionality" schlock that Colin and his partners in crime Emma Hilton and Heather Heying have been peddling:
I don’t know why we have to go through all these long winded contortions about the two sexes by going into great detail about the rare cases of “intersex”. Infants are not “assigned” a sex . They are Born with a sex : male or female. It’s not tha complicated!
Maybe not surprising given that "Learning for Justice" is an offshoot or under the auspices of the Southern Poverty Law Center". Has something of a "checkered past":
Standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types; those with neither are thereby sexless:
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
It seems to me that the real importance of this issue is political. If you can be persuaded that there is no such thing as objective reality, you can be persuaded of anything. And persuaded to do anything. It's the psychopaths' dream-come-true.
An important point that is being missed in this discussion is what is sex? Sex is a mechanism for reproduction. It can be contrasted with asexual reproduction ( i.e. cloning) which is common in single-cell organisms. Sex, by contrast is most common in complex multi-cellular life.
Why did sexual reproduction develop? Well, math. Or more specifically, probability. If the organism is an exact copy of its parent, it stands less chance of survival if it is faced with a threat that could wipe it out. In multi-cellular organisms this becomes particularly important.
The difference between asexual and sexual reproduction is genetically how reproduction is done. Both use genetic material but in asexual reproduction, the chromosomes are haploid (single strand). By contrast, in sexual reproduction the chromosomes are diploid (double helix, one strand from the mother and one strand from the father).
Not all genes are expressed in a diploid chromosome. One becomes dominant. The other recessive. Because of this dual nature of the chromosomes, the organism can create much more complex multicellular organisms. They can also have a bulwark against disease and predators which increases their probability of reproductive success over asexual reproduction. Math. The genes that have the greatest opportunity to survive do so. The ones that impair reproductive success die out.
For most cellular reproduction, chromosomes replicate using mitosis - which makes full copies of both chromosomal pairs. But there is another kind of chromosomal reproduction — meioses — which only takes place in the gonads. With meioses, the chromesomes split in two and become haploid. These haploid cells then become the basis for ova and sperm. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are our sex chromosomes. In females, the pairs are XX. In males the pairs are XY. So when they replicate via meiosis, the female produces 2 X haploids. The male produces one X haploid and one Y haploid. Ovaries produce large gametes which contain the genetic material plus resources to grow a zygote. Tested produce small gametes which are basically just the genetic material and what is needed to swim fast.
Suffice it to say that while we define the binary nature of sex by which organism produces large or small gametes, the real source of the sex binary derives from the diploid nature of our chromosomes. The binary nature of sex is in every cell of our bodies.
In the face of this most fundamental explanation of sexual reproduction, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that sex is a sex is a spectrum.
I'm in the process of submitting a paper to F&S Reports, a journal that publishes articles on reproductive medicine, on behalf of an endocrinologist, and was horrified to see the following in their instructions for authors - academia has been well and truly captured by the pseudoscience of gender ideology: "Definitions. Sex generally refers to a set of biological attributes that are associated with physical and physiological features (e.g., chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, internal and external anatomy). A binary sex categorization (male/female) is usually designated at birth ("sex assigned at birth"), most often based solely on the visible external anatomy of a newborn. Gender generally refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men and gender-diverse people that occur in a historical and cultural context and may vary across societies and over time. Gender influences how people view themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and how power is distributed in society. Sex and gender are often incorrectly portrayed as binary (female/male or woman/man) and unchanging whereas these constructs actually exist along a spectrum and include additional sex categorizations and gender identities such as people who are intersex/have differences of sex development (DSD) or identify as non-binary. Moreover, the terms "sex" and "gender" can be ambiguous—thus it is important for authors to define the manner in which they are used. In addition to this definition guidance and the SAGER guidelines, the resources on this page offer further insight around sex and gender in research studies."
"Both of these arguments—the argument from intersex conditions and the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics—follow from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system."
Great article!! I used to be completely behind trans people. I am a gay man and somewhat liberal. I wanted to be kind, accepting, and inclusive. But then something happened. Trans men were saying that trans men are Men. Which I believe is saying biologically. Then I started hearing that trans men are Men so therefore I as a gay man should include them in my dating pool, and if I don't, I am transphobic. So I tried over and over to explain that I am not attracted to vaginas. So then I got called not only transphobic, but a genital fetishist instead. I next said if I could have sex with a vagina, I could just be straight, and they said I'm supposed to be attracted to a gender and not a sex. Sigh. Nothing I could say or explain got them to see my point. They just got angrier and angrier at me.
So I started to think about being trans. What does that mean for everyone? And I read up on everything I can find.
I am intersex. I have swyers syndrome with MGD. I was one of the lucky, to be born intersex in the 1980s and dodge the ubiquitous genital mutilation surgery that has plagued many of my peers. I was fortunately, heteronormative in appearance enough for it to be negligible. I actually didn't even find out about the genotype difference until I was 32 years old and was required to undergo genetic testing at my psychiatric clinic.
Since I learned about my difference, I've noticed that a LOT of transgendered people are intrinsically cruel to me out of jealousy. They consider my condition enviable because it would justify their gender dysphoria. Some have told me that I'm too ugly to actually be a girl (again, jealousy- I'm not terrible looking).
I find it intensely twisted that anyone would WANT to be a complete genetic freak. (Along with being Swyers, I am also a redhead..among other weird weird things). For me, I've always considered myself a woman (and still do). I've never considered adopting myself as a man because I've always existed as a woman. A Y chromosome isn't going to shatter my understanding of who I am.
Not sure how I landed on your article Colin but I certainly enjoyed the read. Sorry your friend had such a glaring response. Experience suggests something else is going on there. When I encountered a dear soul, known to me for a lifetime, on a matter vastly different, concerning finance, her once logical brain, brilliant in mathematics and actuarial science, had veered so far into irrationality that I almost concluded it might be due to the effects of the mRNA vaccine delivery system affecting her DNA, as if that were even possible beyond her debilitating fatigue experienced since vaccination. There isn’t even the slightest hint of further conversation between two people who once made sport out of a given topic, so I live in the sense, it is what it is, and maybe one day a naloxone will come along to reverse all ills. As for this article, your clear, present writing on the subject of the sexes, in an environment surrounded by hysteria, struck me as very satisfying. Perhaps because so little is written as clearly as this, it stands out.
It's just mental illness that a man believes he could be a woman or a woman believes she could be a man .... Or even some of them with this king of mental illness could believe they are dogs, cats, cows, chicken, etc.
All of these sick men/women should receive psychiatric treatment!!
I understand your point…sometimes i wonder if the hormones get so out of whack for a whole host of reasons that folks don’t have the grip on being male or female as most in civil society do.
It's just mental illness that a man believes he could be a woman or a woman believes she could be a man .... Or even some of them with this king of mental illness could believe they are dogs, cats, cows, chicken, etc.
All of these sick men/women should receive psychiatric treatment!!
1 in 2,000 human births gender nonspecific and used to be randomly surgically assigned, it's that that barbarism has ended & people choose that we have trans movement (1 reason). But you're right, men cannot become women, nor vice versa, & as Exulansic, Glinner & others are canceled for showing, @ risk youth are dying because of their "gender affirming care" & gender critical actually gender AFFIRMING🌈UDHR.
Many comments posted here are largely meaningless, self-satisfying sophistry (intellectual masturbation). The subject of this piece is not some complex philosophical conundrum but a simple scientific fact. Grow up.
Yes, this entire comments section is incredibly tiresome. Dear lord!
Sorry, but I would have disagree with you here. The female sex is the one that produces the larger gametes, but that doesn't mean that Every female currently produces them, just that females are the only ones able to.
This definition is useful almost all of the time, but it would also mean that a male dog that has been neutered is no longer male, or that a woman post menopause is no longer female, or a prepubescent boy isn't male (making the 'adult' in 'adult human male' redundant when defining a 'man').
The definition by Colin and Co. is more precise. Since there is no third gamete, there is no third developmental pathway for human beings, ergo you have to go down one of the two only available paths. [This includes people with DSDs, depending on whether they have a functioning SRY gene and androgen receptors]. Whichever of these two paths you go down (for the male or female phenotype) defines your sex. To me this seems perfectly reasonable, what would you disagree with here?
Disagree away to your heart's content. But you kind of have to put some hard evidence on the table, otherwise it's just an opinion.
And the way that the biological definitions are framed, "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite -- is what is called the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership. Those without the ability to do so, without functional gonads, are, ipso facto, sexless:
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/
But while I'll readily agree that "there is no third gamete", and that that justifies the definition of sex as a binary, though the sexes are hardly exhaustive in the reproduction department, the fact of the matter is that there is absolutely diddly-squat in the biological definitions about any "developmental pathways".
The definitions of Colin and Company basically turn each sex into a spectrum of three, into polythetic categories whereas the biological definitions are monothetic categories -- a single necessary condition for category membership, i.e., functional gonads of either of two types. See my elaboration on the theme on Michael Shermer's post:
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman-anyway/comment/7630788
More particularly on the "disagree" front, you might also look at the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites, clownfish in particular, which has "necessarily" turned each sex into a binary: functional and non-functional males and females:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism
So newly hatched clownfish are both a non-functional male AND a non-functional female? Bloody ridiculous, so profoundly unscientific as to be gobsmackingly idiotic. Whoever was responsible for that, directly or indirectly, should be hung, drawn and quartered -- figuratively speaking, of course ...
Thank you for replying, I will take a look at what you've sent.
👍 All I can reasonably ask. 🙂
Though you may also want to take a gander at my post on "What is a woman?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
Think I'd posted that after my comments on Shermer's post on the same topic, and probably intended to elaborate a bit on the nature of categories. Bit of a complex topic, and one I certainly haven't "plumbed the depths" of, but sort of a preliminary record of what I've learned so far.
And I assume, given the same” logic” that a post menopausal woman is no longer a woman…just an old crone. With no sex😜.
🙄 Speaking analogously, your statement is not far removed from saying that "teenager" is "only a valid concept during the period of life when" people are between 13 and 19. 🙄 An incoherent phrase -- "teenager" is always "valid"; it's just not always applicable.
You don't seem to have a flaming clue how categories work and are too pigheaded to learn. You're unlikely to you read this, but others might derive some value from this post on the topic:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
Your helpless repetition of the same phrases is diagnostic.
Please don’t get steersman in here.
So, what determines your sex is: if you have ovaries you're female, testes you're male, but on rare occasions there is ambiguity about whether you're male or female, e.g. maybe you have ovotestes. Do people ever e.g. have one ovary and one testis?
Anyway, let's consider the case of those trans women who undergo a full medical transition using this criterion. They no longer have their testes.
Does this mean they are no longer male? Note that if we did say they are no longer male, we still cannot claim they're female under this criterion because they haven't acquired ovaries, so what sex are they in this case? Are we to say the have no sex?
However, I think we can say they are still male because they were born male and developed the way they did because they're male and removal of the testes does not undo that. All the surgery and hormone therapy is achieving is to make the male externally resemble a female. What makes you male or female is thus down to whether you develop testes or ovaries in the first place, not what might happen to your body via surgery or unfortunate accident or illness subsequently. Would you agree?
This does then raise the question: Suppose medical technology was such that we could give trans women functional ovaries and wombs, etc in future. Would we regard that as a genuine change of sex, despite the prior male developmental history?
Human beings can be described as mammals with two arms and two legs. A man whose leg has been amputated or a baby born without a foot are no less human than those with the full complement, however. If a baby is born with the equipment intended to produce sperm, that baby is male. If a baby is born with the equipment designed to produce eggs, that baby is female. (Rarely, .018% of the time, a baby's external genitalia will make it unclear which is the case.) It's biology, it's simple, and it has nothing to do with what stage of life you are in, or what might happen to one's reproductive organs later. Hence on may argue that a trans woman should be counted and treated as a woman, but that person is still biologically male. Gender identity has a socially-conditioned aspect to it. Sex does not.
Your "two arms and two legs" argument is something of a false analogy.
While it is true that one doesn't need two of each to qualify as human, it is still true, or at least consistent with standard biological definitions (see below), that one doesn't need to be either male or female to qualify as human -- many of us are, in fact, neither male nor female, are sexless.
Having two legs, or having a sex are what are called "accidental properties" of the category (species) called "humans".
However, having functional gonads are what are similarly called "essential properties" of the categories called "male" and "female". A world of difference; see:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
You might also take a look at definitions for those sex categories in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Diddly-squat about any "equipment designed to produce". They SAY "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite. I rather doubt anyone will be able to "produce" -- make available for use -- those if they lack functional gonads.
I doubt the definition means to imply the gonads have to be currently producing eggs or sperm, or currently capable of doing so, but means to convey that the gonads' purpose, when functional, is to produce them -- as opposed to doing something else. Babies don't produce sperm or eggs, yet they come in male and female because they have the equipment designed for the purpose, which potentially will produce them in the future. Infertile males are still male, and infertile females are still female. Mature females whose ovaries no longer produce eggs due to menopause are still female. Women who have had complete hysterectomies (including the ovaries) are still female. Therefore a man who for some reason has his testicles removed is still male, because he was born with the kind of equipment that makes sperm (as opposed to eggs).
Think you have to look closely at what the definitions actually say, and not at what you WANT them to say.
The MHR ones SAY "produces gametes". Period. Which is more or less what Oxford dictionaries SAY:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Both say pretty much the same thing, but the one for "male" SAYS:
"male (noun): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
"produces gametes". Period. Absolutely diddly-squat about "purpose when functional".
And look at the OD definition for "sex" itself:
"Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326191905/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
Reproductive FUNCTION -- first and foremost, the activity of DOING something -- i.e., producing gametes so as to be able to reproduce -- though it is also defined by Google/OD so as to encompass "purpose":
"function (noun): an activity or purpose natural to or intended for a person or thing."
But "purpose" is a rather vague or subjective term whereas "activity" is far more quantifiable and objective. We can "easily" tell if some organism is actually producing, right now, either type of gamete. But its "purpose"? Ridiculous definition or interpretation.
In addition to which, what is the "function" of ovotestis in humans? Not all that common but not unheard of either. So are they males? Females? Both? Neither? Sexed? Or sexless?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotestis
Same sort of problem with sequential hermaphrodites, clownfish in particular which on hatching aren't able to produce either type of gamete but some of whom go on to produce sperm and some of the latter going on to produce ova:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism
They ALL, right from hatching, have the "purpose" and potential of eventually producing, sequentially, both sperm and ova -- are they both males AND females right from hatching because they have that "potential purpose"? If that's the case then one can hardly call them sequential hermaphrodites if they're male AND female through their whole life span.
That's just one of the many problems of the profoundly unscientific, if not anti-scientific if not cluelessly idiotic definitions that Colin Wright, Emma Hilton, and Heather Heying are peddling; they should be ashamed to call themselves "biologists":
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Though I kind of expected much better of Hilton as she had a lengthy Twitter thread which more or less underlined that "produces large gametes" as the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a female -- of a very large number of species, from lilies to asparagus to bees to humans:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1133120326844506112
You may wish to take a gander at my "exchange" with one of the three, Heather Heying, who at least engaged, even if briefly, with me on my criticisms before blocking me. Not really an action very becoming of someone claiming to be biologist and a scientist committed to scientific principles, open inquiry and open discussion; bit of a joke, in fact:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
You are insisting that if, in the context of describing a category of organisms, one of their organs is described as "producing gametes", that means that the organ must be active in order to qualify a particular individual as a member of that group. Rather, the statement "makes gametes" is on the same order as "cement mixers make cement", which is not a statement about only those cement mixers that are currently in the process of doing so. Those not making cement do not cease to be cement mixers. Likewise, biologically-speaking, "produces gametes" is only intended to tell you the usual function of sex organs in that type of organism's body. It does not follow that one should exclude juveniles in whom the organ is not yet active, or mature specimens in which the organ is atypically or no longer active. This is not a political statement, but the usual way a biologist describes, and reads descriptions of, organisms.
Don't think you're really addressing my argument and all of the links and quotes I've provided to justify it. All you've put on the table is a bunch of ipse dixits and unevidenced opinion.
Though I'll concede, provisionally, that defining a cement mixer as "a machine that mixes ingredients to make cement" may be a useful analogy. However, a "cement mixer" that is missing the motor that does the mixing can't really be said to qualify as one. It may LOOK like a cement mixer, but it is missing the ability to perform the function that is the essential element, the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as such. If "appearance" is sufficient to qualify entities for membership in such categories then Bruce Jenner should qualify as a woman and as a female ...
There's a fundamental difference between form and function, and very often the latter is an essential and defining element. Feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones -- though I use the term loosely as she's more an ideologue than a philosopher -- had an "interesting" if heavily biased essay on that dichotomy:
https://janeclarejones.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/7-july-infertile-women-are-women.pdf
She, like many women and most feminists, seems rather desperately engaged in some motivated reasoning, if not egregious gaslighting, to justify mere form as sufficient claim to membership in the category "female". In notable contradistinction to the biological definitions, quoted in reputable biological journals and dictionaries, by which "male" and "female" denote only those with quite transitory abilities to reproduce because they exhibit the functions, because they manifest the processes of producing gametes on something like a regular basis.
And it’s cost free.Actually, you could ask the little 4 year old sibling of the new born baby , and he or she would be right .” He, look at the little wee wee..that’s my baby brother!”
I am guessing they are males that have their balls chopped off. As a biological woman I feel very strongly saying ask any biological woman that has had to have a double mastectomy or a hysterectomy if they are any less a woman. NO DFFERENT
A human born male remains male for life regardless of whether or not their body has had surgery to remove any part of it. He is male after losing an arm, an ear, his testes, anything. The biological sex cannot be changed by surgery.
I don't agree. Because I am PHYSICALLY female (mostly. I have streaks of gonads in my internal cavity above my ovaries) however my genes say I am a MAN. Im also a natural redhead- so I'm a complete genetic freak. My genetic abnormality is called Swyer Syndrome
What, precisely, do you not agree with? You said it yourself: your condition, Swyer's syndrome is anomalous. Yes, there are a very few people in the world like you, whose appearance is female, and have internal structures that are female (albeit, not capable of producing gametes), whose genetic makeup would anticipate maleness. The fact this happens once in a great while is because genes are subject to rare mutations that produce no individual or evolutionary advantage, and in this case prevent active participation in an ancient dimorphic system of reproduction. Meaning, in English, your mutation produces no personal benefit, and even if it were, you can't pass your genes on. Obviously, this kind of thing has no bearing on any other aspect of human ability or worth. But it does mean there is no reason to suggest, from the existence of anomalies, that sex is a "spectrum".
Bit of a tough break in life's genetic lottery; sorry to hear of it.
But sadly there's a great deal of misinformation on that issue and related ones that's being peddled by various charlatans, grifters, scientism-ists, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists that just muddies the waters. Why many, including myself, have often argued that we need to go back to first principles, many of a logical and philosophical nature which most people -- including various so-called biologists & philosophers -- generally don't have a clue about. See my latest for some elaborations on that theme:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
But a big part of the problem is that many people are rather desperate to believe that everyone has a sex and that it is "immutable 🙄". A belief that does not at all square with standard biological definitions; for example see the Glossary in this article in the (Oxford) Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
But there's another equally problematic aspect of that "belief" that probably relates directly to your own circumstances, and to those of the intersex in general. Seems that many people are overly concerned about telling many of the intersex that, by the standard biological definitions, they simply don't have a sex, that they are sexless. Maybe because those people don't want to "offend" the intersex, or simply because they don't want to face that possibility themselves. In any case, I don't think that is doing any favours to the intersex or to society in general.
But as a case in point, consider this tweet by Zach Elliott who's had a couple of guest posts here on RLS:
"Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes."
https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1592711689438662656
Since when are questions of "scientifically correct or incorrect" going to be trumped by supposedly "morally problematic claims"? Totally clueless about the fundamental principles undergirding science. He and too many others are all too ready to bastardize science for "political purposes", to engage in Lysenkoism -- the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable." Not at all impressed that Colin gave Zach access to his "soapbox" here, though they're both equally "guilty" of that charge.
Carl Sagan, in his Demon-Haunted World, had a passage that summarizes that too common phenomenon:
"I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#The_Demon-Haunted_World_:_Science_as_a_Candle_in_the_Dark_(1995)
"unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true" -- indeed. A rather damning indictment of much of what passes for biology and philosophy these days.
James,
"So, what determines your sex is: if you have ovaries you're female, testes you're male ..."
Good questions, though a bit disappointed that Colin hasn't stepped up to the plate to answer them ... 😉
But you might consider a tweet of his from several years ago as something in the way of an answer:
"What if I woke up and my reproductive anatomy had somehow inexplicably changed from a functional penis and testes to a functional vagina and ovaries? Would I cease to be male? 100% YES! I would absolutely now be a female."
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1240781010800979968
A more or less solid endorsement of the standard biological definitions by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types. Where I think he drops the ball – betrays something in the way of "prior commitments" at best if not some intellectual dishonesty – is in not recognizing that "functional gonads" are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male or female. For an example of that principle, see:
“An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
But the logical consequence of those biological definitions for the sexes is that those without either type of functional gonads are necessarily of neither sex, are sexless.
As some backup for that position, see this quite good essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths – university of Sydney, philosophy of science, Wikipedia bio, and co-author of Genetics and Philosophy – along with a salient quote:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from *defining* each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
And that is pretty much exactly the way that standard dictionaries, encylopedias, and reputable biological journals define those sex categories; for example:
“female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.”
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
Note the "produces the larger gametes" – present tense indefinite – in the second link which underlines the idea that the gonads have to be functional for an organism to qualify as male or female.
Unfortunately, the so-called social sciences and most feminists peddle the idea of structural criteria as that "necessary and sufficient condition" – i.e., absent any necessary functionality – for sex category membership which is, of course, flatly contradicted by the biological definitions. And I expect that that is because of their own "prior commitment" to a rather desperate article of faith that "biological sex in humans is immutable". For example, see explicit claims to that effect from feminist "philosopher" Kathleen Stock and from Maya Forstater:
https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/entering-the-parallel-universe-of?s=r
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view
You might also be interested in an article – that Colin had helpfully tweeted a link to some time back – from Marco Del Giudice at the University of New Mexico on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender". A passage that underlines the above:
"On a deeper level, the 'patchwork' definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
Steersman,
I realise it's been a long time since your reply to my comment, and I apologise I didn't respond at the time. Thank you for the informative answer you provided.
It seems to me the strict biological definition of sex that you cite here is clearly at odds with common parlance (or at least common parlance prior to the rise of the trans movement) - I grant this is not unusual when considering scientific terms vs terms used in common parlance, as the former are typically a lot more precise than the latter.
Anyway, we don't/didn't determine whether an individual is actually producing gametes in order to decide whether that person is a boy or a girl or a man or a woman. We do/did so based on their appearance / anatomy.
We also routinely record someone's sex on their birth certificate based on their anatomy at (or these days often before) birth, but e.g. newborn boys do not produce sperm - this won't happen until puberty. The situation with egg production in girls is more complex as this starts during embryonic development but mature eggs don't appear until puberty - do biologists count immature gametes as gametes for the purposes of the biological definition of sex?
I think one reason that e.g. Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, Emma Hilton and Colin Wright reach for definitions of sex that do not require actual current production of gametes is that our bodies are only able to produce gametes for a limited period part of our lives, in the case of boys/men from puberty onwards, in the case of girls/women from puberty until menopause. However our bodies are shaped by which reproductive system we develop and this affects us (especially during/after puberty) for our whole lives, even if we are or become infertile. Hence they look for a definition of sex that refers to the phenotype / reproductive anatomy rather than the ability to produce small vs large gametes. My observation is that maybe there is a need for such terms alongside the definition of sex that biologists use?
Thanks for getting back to me James. But no problemo on the delay -- worth the wait 🙂 -- and I can appreciate the reasons for that delay; I have more than a few comments in a queue that I should be responding to myself.
But you're quite right that "biological definitions of sex ... [are] at odds with common parlance". And that wouldn't be much of a problem if the two "communities" never had to talk with one another. But they do, and there are any number of problems, some more serious than others, that follow from having two quite inconsistent and contradictory definitions in play -- as per your later suggestion about "a need ... alongside the [biological definitions]".
For an example of those problems, see these two (old and current) versions of the Wikipedia article on Sequential Hermaphroditism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequential_hermaphroditism&oldid=890717544
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequential_hermaphroditism&oldid=1090231882
Nice feature of Wikipedia is that there's a full editing history. But in the first one from April 2019, the article had said:
"If the female dies, the male gains weight and becomes the female for that group. The largest non-breeding fish then sexually matures and becomes the male of the group."
That more or less makes sense, and basically recognizes the "non-breeding fish" are sexless, are neither male nor female. But later versions (October 21 or earlier) apparently balk at "sexless", and basically turn those "non-breeding fish" into what are little short of square circles, oxymorons, contradictions in terms:
"The largest non-breeding male then sexually matures and becomes the reproductive male for the group."
If they're "non-breeding" then by the biological definitions they are, ipso facto, sexless.
Think the editors there eventually recognized the outright idiocy of those claims, but the current result isn't much if any better:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
So they're basically saying -- more or less following the lead of Heying, Hilton, & Wright [HHW] -- that male and female are now binaries: e.g., functional males, and non-functional males. Presumably, such fish are hatched as non-functional males AND non-functional females, some of whom go on to become functional males AND non-functional females, and some of those go on to become (again) non-functional males AND functional females. Absolute idiocy; antiscientific claptrap and egregious Lysenkoism; all to evade saying "sexless". Whoever was responsible for that -- HHW or their minions? -- should be shot.
And further to that, the HHW "hypothesis" further expands non-functional into pre-functional and post-functional; a discrete spectrum of three. Houston, we have a problem. Something I've tried getting Colin, Emma, and Heather to address -- the latter blocking me for my troubles, though I'll concede she did refund my subscription, but not before deleting my comment:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
Not terribly impressed. But you might also have some interest in a "spirited" conversation I was having on the topic over at the International Skeptics Forum where I had said:
"Intensional & stipulative definitions of male/female apply to all anisogamous species
Resolved: The unscientific definitions of Heying, Hilton, & Wright are flatly contradicted by and inconsistent with the standard biological definitions of Parker, Lehtonen, Griffiths, Google/OD, and many other sources. The former should therefore be deprecated, and be replaced in, to start with, all biological and sociological journals and applications with the latter.
The definitions of Hilton and Company essentially define each sex as a polythetic category; each sex becomes a discrete spectrum of three states or conditions:"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13919917#post13919917
I think that's just the tip of the iceberg; only one of many problems caused by contradictory and inconsistent definitions for the sexes. Though I'm not at all sure what is the optimal solution. But I don't think we'll find one by trying to sweep that rather large elephant -- the one in the living room -- under the carpet. 🙂
You seem to have entirely missed this paragraph in the article:
"It is crucial to note, however, that the sex of individuals within a species isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment. Pre-pubertal males don’t produce sperm, and some infertile adults of both sexes never produce gametes due to various infertility issues. Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality. In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time."
Biological sex is not determined by the ability to produce gametes (eggs, sperm). If that were the case, pre-pubertal children, people rendered infertile by illness/accident, and menopausal women would be considered sexless.
TeeJae: "missed this paragraph in the article .... isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment."
Which article? Wright's? The OP? Might help to actually say so right out of the chute.
But that's just his opinion, his own rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definition, and little more than the letter that he, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying had published in the letters-to-the-editors section of the UK Times. A fairly decent newspaper, but hardly any sort of peer-reviewed biological journal. As their letter has it:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
But those 3 conditions -- each of which is supposedly sufficient to qualify individuals as male or female -- basically turns their definitions for each sex into a spectrum of 3. Rather risible for them to be throwing stones at Nature, Scientific American, and others for doing the same thing.
For elaborations on that theme, you might be interested in my latest:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
TeeJae: "Biological sex is not determined by the ability to produce gametes (eggs, sperm)."
Actually, in point of fact, the definitions stipulated in actual peer-reviewed biological journals -- not popular newspapers ... -- do in fact specify that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. That Binarists vs. Spectrumists essay quotes the definitions from the Glossary in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Diddly-squat there about any past or future functionality. They're all about being able to reproduce right now because of having functional gonads.
TeeJae: "...would be considered sexless."
So what? The sexes aren't "designed" as participation trophies to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. They're "designed" by actual biologists -- those worth their salt ... -- to be able to grapple with the brute fact -- emphasized by that Molecular Human Reproduction article -- that anisogamy -- two differently sized gametes -- is ubiquitous across literally millions of species and hundreds of million years. And that that brute fact has more or less driven virtually all of the sexual dimorphism we see today. Which objective do you think is more important?
We will have to agree to disagree on this. There is VASTLY more peer-reviewed scientific literature which concludes that the biological sex of humans is determined by which gonads babies are born with (of which chromosomes are a crucial factor). Period. So, please do not respond with more of your same 'it's all about gamete production' argument, as it is both nonsensical and irrational, and citing more pseudoscience will not convince me otherwise.
Btw, Nature and Scientific American lost their credibility when they jumped on the covid vax promotion bandwagon.
And your evidence for that "conclusion" is where?
But kinda think you're misunderstanding my argument and the biology, though if Emma Hilton has anything to say about it -- which she does -- then it's a fairly common failing. For example, see this tweet thread of hers:
"There appears to be a some confusion on your part regarding terms like 'determine', and this is sending you down a rabbithole. In developmental biology, 'determination' describes the process that drives cell or tissue differentiation. ....
The article you have posted is describing the diversity of sex determination mechanisms across various species. That is, they are describing the different ways different species trigger sex development. ...."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1444251438566232065
Chromosomes generally "determine" our sexes in being the causative factors or "mechanisms" that lead to the development of the gonads that actually produce -- bring into existence -- new gametes. Whereas -- by the standard biological definitions -- actually producing gametes are the "membership dues" to qualify as members of the sex categories. Entirely different kettles of fish which many people trip over.
But much of biological and philosophical communities really aren't covering themselves with much glory over defining the sex categories -- bit of a clown show from square one.
For example see this tweet of Tomas Bogardus who had written a post here recently somehow analogizing sexes to shoes, and which links to a paper by a couple of other "philosophers":
https://twitter.com/TomasBogardus/status/1636115683099697152
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yojau8ut45xw591/Garson%2C%20Rifkin%20-%20Sex%20by%20Design.pdf?dl=0
"An emerging consensus among philosophers of biology is that sex is grounded in some manner or another on anisogamy, that is, the ability to produce either large gametes (egg) or small gametes (sperm), though the exact nature of this grounding remains contentious. Here we argue for a new conception of this relation. In our view, one’s sex doesn’t depend on the kind of gamete one is capable of making, but on the kind of gamete one is designed to make ...."
They're basically endorsing the idea of "producing large gametes or small gametes" as the traditional "membership dues" for sex category membership in the first part. But then they jump the shark by trying to argue in favour of replacing that with a determination of "what kind of gamete one is designed to make". Not quite sure how they think to do that for all of the millions of anisogamous species over all their life cycles. "muddying the waters to make them seem deep" as Nietzsche put it:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/119332-they-muddy-the-water-to-make-it-seem-deep
Btw, I'm not terribly impressed by Nature and Scientific American either ...
In our species the male is the one that produces sperm / small gamete, the female produces ovum / ''eggs'' gemete
So what separates a male and a female is the reproductive system, the sperm and ovum.
Yup. It's kind of foundational, it defines and characterizes literally millions of all of the sexually-reproducing species that have shown up on the world's stage over the last 500 to 1000 million years.
Classic article from the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction that describes the process by which anisogamy developed:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Fairly popular article, kind of a "gold standard" in fact:
https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1459926052009095169
But you might also take a gander at their Glossary for their definitions for "male" and "female" which, again, say diddly-squat about any of the "past-present-future functionality" schlock that Colin and his partners in crime Emma Hilton and Heather Heying have been peddling:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Now i see it. Thank you very much.
I can't see your reply for some reason.
You may have to refresh your screen. Substack tends to be tardy in doing so automatically.
Or maybe Colin is hiding those responses? Although I see it so that doesn't seem likely.
I don’t know why we have to go through all these long winded contortions about the two sexes by going into great detail about the rare cases of “intersex”. Infants are not “assigned” a sex . They are Born with a sex : male or female. It’s not tha complicated!
sex is biological. gender is a social construct. not v hard
Your definition of "gender" has no basis in reality.
Here is another entity plaguing Ca schools https://www.learningforjustice.org/topics/gender-sexual-identity
Maybe not surprising given that "Learning for Justice" is an offshoot or under the auspices of the Southern Poverty Law Center". Has something of a "checkered past":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html
Bit more "problematic" is their clueless definition for sex which is so vague as to be useless:
"Sex refers to a person’s anatomy, physical attributes such as external sex organs, sex chromosomes and internal reproductive structures."
https://www.learningforjustice.org/magazine/summer-2015/sex-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-gender-expression
Standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types; those with neither are thereby sexless:
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
It seems to me that the real importance of this issue is political. If you can be persuaded that there is no such thing as objective reality, you can be persuaded of anything. And persuaded to do anything. It's the psychopaths' dream-come-true.
Well said
An important point that is being missed in this discussion is what is sex? Sex is a mechanism for reproduction. It can be contrasted with asexual reproduction ( i.e. cloning) which is common in single-cell organisms. Sex, by contrast is most common in complex multi-cellular life.
Why did sexual reproduction develop? Well, math. Or more specifically, probability. If the organism is an exact copy of its parent, it stands less chance of survival if it is faced with a threat that could wipe it out. In multi-cellular organisms this becomes particularly important.
The difference between asexual and sexual reproduction is genetically how reproduction is done. Both use genetic material but in asexual reproduction, the chromosomes are haploid (single strand). By contrast, in sexual reproduction the chromosomes are diploid (double helix, one strand from the mother and one strand from the father).
Not all genes are expressed in a diploid chromosome. One becomes dominant. The other recessive. Because of this dual nature of the chromosomes, the organism can create much more complex multicellular organisms. They can also have a bulwark against disease and predators which increases their probability of reproductive success over asexual reproduction. Math. The genes that have the greatest opportunity to survive do so. The ones that impair reproductive success die out.
For most cellular reproduction, chromosomes replicate using mitosis - which makes full copies of both chromosomal pairs. But there is another kind of chromosomal reproduction — meioses — which only takes place in the gonads. With meioses, the chromesomes split in two and become haploid. These haploid cells then become the basis for ova and sperm. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are our sex chromosomes. In females, the pairs are XX. In males the pairs are XY. So when they replicate via meiosis, the female produces 2 X haploids. The male produces one X haploid and one Y haploid. Ovaries produce large gametes which contain the genetic material plus resources to grow a zygote. Tested produce small gametes which are basically just the genetic material and what is needed to swim fast.
Suffice it to say that while we define the binary nature of sex by which organism produces large or small gametes, the real source of the sex binary derives from the diploid nature of our chromosomes. The binary nature of sex is in every cell of our bodies.
In the face of this most fundamental explanation of sexual reproduction, it is difficult to see how anyone can argue that sex is a sex is a spectrum.
Very well said.
I'm in the process of submitting a paper to F&S Reports, a journal that publishes articles on reproductive medicine, on behalf of an endocrinologist, and was horrified to see the following in their instructions for authors - academia has been well and truly captured by the pseudoscience of gender ideology: "Definitions. Sex generally refers to a set of biological attributes that are associated with physical and physiological features (e.g., chromosomal genotype, hormonal levels, internal and external anatomy). A binary sex categorization (male/female) is usually designated at birth ("sex assigned at birth"), most often based solely on the visible external anatomy of a newborn. Gender generally refers to socially constructed roles, behaviors, and identities of women, men and gender-diverse people that occur in a historical and cultural context and may vary across societies and over time. Gender influences how people view themselves and each other, how they behave and interact and how power is distributed in society. Sex and gender are often incorrectly portrayed as binary (female/male or woman/man) and unchanging whereas these constructs actually exist along a spectrum and include additional sex categorizations and gender identities such as people who are intersex/have differences of sex development (DSD) or identify as non-binary. Moreover, the terms "sex" and "gender" can be ambiguous—thus it is important for authors to define the manner in which they are used. In addition to this definition guidance and the SAGER guidelines, the resources on this page offer further insight around sex and gender in research studies."
Gender-identity is also (necessarily) binary, because when gender identity is not determined by sex it leads to definitional (and legal) contradictions: https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/gender-identity-on-trial
Well reasoned and articulated.
"Both of these arguments—the argument from intersex conditions and the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics—follow from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system."
This is complete horseshit.
Of course it isn’t.
It’s a deliberate confusion spread by a regressive ideology.
Great article!! I used to be completely behind trans people. I am a gay man and somewhat liberal. I wanted to be kind, accepting, and inclusive. But then something happened. Trans men were saying that trans men are Men. Which I believe is saying biologically. Then I started hearing that trans men are Men so therefore I as a gay man should include them in my dating pool, and if I don't, I am transphobic. So I tried over and over to explain that I am not attracted to vaginas. So then I got called not only transphobic, but a genital fetishist instead. I next said if I could have sex with a vagina, I could just be straight, and they said I'm supposed to be attracted to a gender and not a sex. Sigh. Nothing I could say or explain got them to see my point. They just got angrier and angrier at me.
So I started to think about being trans. What does that mean for everyone? And I read up on everything I can find.
I am intersex. I have swyers syndrome with MGD. I was one of the lucky, to be born intersex in the 1980s and dodge the ubiquitous genital mutilation surgery that has plagued many of my peers. I was fortunately, heteronormative in appearance enough for it to be negligible. I actually didn't even find out about the genotype difference until I was 32 years old and was required to undergo genetic testing at my psychiatric clinic.
Since I learned about my difference, I've noticed that a LOT of transgendered people are intrinsically cruel to me out of jealousy. They consider my condition enviable because it would justify their gender dysphoria. Some have told me that I'm too ugly to actually be a girl (again, jealousy- I'm not terrible looking).
I find it intensely twisted that anyone would WANT to be a complete genetic freak. (Along with being Swyers, I am also a redhead..among other weird weird things). For me, I've always considered myself a woman (and still do). I've never considered adopting myself as a man because I've always existed as a woman. A Y chromosome isn't going to shatter my understanding of who I am.
Not sure how I landed on your article Colin but I certainly enjoyed the read. Sorry your friend had such a glaring response. Experience suggests something else is going on there. When I encountered a dear soul, known to me for a lifetime, on a matter vastly different, concerning finance, her once logical brain, brilliant in mathematics and actuarial science, had veered so far into irrationality that I almost concluded it might be due to the effects of the mRNA vaccine delivery system affecting her DNA, as if that were even possible beyond her debilitating fatigue experienced since vaccination. There isn’t even the slightest hint of further conversation between two people who once made sport out of a given topic, so I live in the sense, it is what it is, and maybe one day a naloxone will come along to reverse all ills. As for this article, your clear, present writing on the subject of the sexes, in an environment surrounded by hysteria, struck me as very satisfying. Perhaps because so little is written as clearly as this, it stands out.
There are only two genders: men and women.
It's just mental illness that a man believes he could be a woman or a woman believes she could be a man .... Or even some of them with this king of mental illness could believe they are dogs, cats, cows, chicken, etc.
All of these sick men/women should receive psychiatric treatment!!
I understand your point…sometimes i wonder if the hormones get so out of whack for a whole host of reasons that folks don’t have the grip on being male or female as most in civil society do.
There are only two genders: men and women.
It's just mental illness that a man believes he could be a woman or a woman believes she could be a man .... Or even some of them with this king of mental illness could believe they are dogs, cats, cows, chicken, etc.
All of these sick men/women should receive psychiatric treatment!!
1 in 2,000 human births gender nonspecific and used to be randomly surgically assigned, it's that that barbarism has ended & people choose that we have trans movement (1 reason). But you're right, men cannot become women, nor vice versa, & as Exulansic, Glinner & others are canceled for showing, @ risk youth are dying because of their "gender affirming care" & gender critical actually gender AFFIRMING🌈UDHR.