Determining One’s Sex Requires Requires One to Consider Anisogamy

Paul Griffith explains in a letter to Nature:

Nature's recent Editorial and collection of opinion articles on sex and gender in research would have benefited from greater attention to evolutionary biology and the definition of sex by anisogamy, or differing gamete size. In the words of evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden in her book Evolution's Rainbow (Univ. California Press, 2013): "To a biologist, "male" means making small gametes, and "female" means making large gametes. Period!"

This definition avoids the 'sex binary' that concerns so many people. Some organisms produce both male and female gametes, and others produce different gametes at distinct life stages or under various conditions. Organisms can be male, female, both at the same time, male at one time and female at another, or have no clear and unambiguous sex. The definition also implies that there are no essential or universal male or female phenotypes: male pipefish gestate their embryos and female jacana birds fight over mates, for example.

Anisogamy is at the heart of the modern theory of why sexes evolved and why they show such extraordinary diversity. Neglecting it makes the varied phenotypic expression of sex, and its interaction with gender in humans, seem unmanageably complex. As with so much of biology, sex makes better sense when viewed in the light of evolution.

Nature 631, 275 (2024)

doi: https//doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02248-1

Continue ReadingDetermining One’s Sex Requires Requires One to Consider Anisogamy

J.K. Rowling Explains Why She Stood Up for Women

Why did J.K. Rowling take a strong stand in support of women, exposing herself to "a tsunami of death and rape threats"? See the following excerpt from J.K. Rowling's new book, The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht:

The thing is, those appalled by my position often fail to grasp how truly despicable I find theirs. I’ve watched “no debate” become the slogan of those who once posed as defenders of free speech. I’ve witnessed supposedly progressive men arguing that women don’t exist as an observable biological class and don’t deserve biology-based rights. I’ve listened as certain female celebrities insist that there isn’t the slightest risk to women and girls in allowing any man who self-identifies as a woman to enter single-sex spaces reserved for women, including changing rooms, bathrooms or rape shelters. . . . I’ve asked people who consider themselves socialists and egalitarians what might be the practical consequences of erasing easily understood words like “woman” and “mother”, and replacing them with “cervix-haver”, “menstruator” and “birthing parent”, especially for those for whom English is a second language, or women whose understanding of their own bodies is limited. They seem confused and irritated by this question. Better that a hundred women who aren’t up to speed with the latest gender jargon miss public health information than that one trans-identified individual feels invalidated, seems to be the view.

Continue ReadingJ.K. Rowling Explains Why She Stood Up for Women

Facts First on Sex

Alan Sokal discusses "sex is assigned at birth" as Exhibit A on how well-intentioned science can run off the rails when it fails to put facts first. His article at The Critic is titled: "Woke invades the sciences: The intrusion of irrational ideology is distorting and censoring science."

Fast forward four decades. Now the entire American medical establishment, from the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association and even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, insists that sex — as in male or female — is, in the AAP’s words, “an assignment that is made at birth”. What could this mean?

What are the indisputable facts?

The facts about sex are straightforward, and are taught in any half-decent high-school course in biology. Nearly all animals, as well as many plants, reproduce sexually. In almost all sexually reproducing multicellular species this occurs by combining a large gamete, called an ovum (or egg), with a small gamete, called a sperm. Though some (“hermaphrodite”) plants and animals produce both ova and sperm, there are no hermaphrodite mammalian species. In mammals, each individual produces only one kind of gamete. Those individuals that produce (relatively few) ova are called female; those that produce (large numbers of) sperm are called male. Whether a mammal embryo develops into a male or a female is determined (at least when things go right, which is nearly all the time) by a pair of sex chromosomes: XX for females, XY for males. In short, sex in all animals is defined by gamete size; sex in all mammals is determined by sex chromosomes; and there are two and only two sexes: male and female.

I've had this discussion with several people who want to claim that there are more than two sexes (or that sex is "fluid") "because some people are intersex." This is an extraordinarily misguided claim because only a tiny percentage of people who claim to be transgender have intersex conditions. The same is true of the general population. Very few people have intersex conditions:

For sure, quirks of mutation or prenatal development may leave some individuals unable to produce viable gametes at all. But an infertile individual with a Y chromosome is still male, just as a one-legged person remains a full member of our bipedal species.

Much is speciously made of the fact that a very few humans are born with chromosomal patterns other than XX and XY. The most common, Klinefelter syndrome (XXY), occurs in about 0.1 per cent of live births; these individuals are anatomically male, though often infertile. Some extremely rare conditions, such as de la Chapelle syndrome (0.003 per cent) and Swyer syndrome (0.0005 per cent), arguably fall outside the standard male/female classification. Even so, the sexual divide is an exceedingly clear binary, as binary as any distinction you can find in biology.

See also, this article on intersex, pointing to the work of biologist Colin Wright. Consequently, almost all newborn babies are obviously male or female. It's the same whether we are talking about human animals, dog, cats or any other mammal.

A baby’s name is assigned at birth; no one doubts that. But a baby’s sex is not “assigned”; it is determined at conception and is then observed at birth, first by examination of the external genital organs, and then, in cases of doubt, by chromosomal analysis[1]. Of course, any observation can be erroneous, and in rare cases the sex reported on the birth certificate is inaccurate and needs to be subsequently corrected. But the fallibility of observation does not change the fact that what is being observed — a person’s sex — is an objective biological reality, just like their blood group or fingerprint pattern, not something that is “assigned”. The medical associations’ pronouncements are social constructivism gone amok — this time about a subject that has been more-or-less accurately understood by humans (albeit without all the scientific details) ever since the beginning of our species. Sex, unlike quarks, is not subtle.

How can all of these formerly prestigious medical organizations suddenly (at the same time) forget the basic facts regarding sex?

The cause is evidently political. The medical establishment’s new-found reluctance to speak honestly about biological reality — and its insouciance in speaking dishonestly about it — presumably stems from a laudable desire to defend the human rights of transgender people. But while the goal is praiseworthy, the chosen method is misguided. Protecting transgender people from discrimination and harassment does not require pretending that sex is merely “assigned”.

Continue ReadingFacts First on Sex

What is a Woman? Here is J.K. Rowling’s Answer . . .

What is a woman? J.K. Rowling offers this answer:

You’ve asked me several questions on this thread and accused me of avoiding answering, so here goes.

I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes. It’s irrelevant whether or not her gametes have ever been fertilised, whether or not she’s carried a baby to term, irrelevant if she was born with a rare difference of sexual development that makes neither of the above possible, or if she’s aged beyond being able to produce viable eggs. She is a woman and just as much a woman as the others.

I don’t believe a woman is more or less of a woman for having sex with men, women, both or not wanting sex at all. I don’t think a woman is more or less of a woman for having a buzz cut and liking suits and ties, or wearing stilettos and mini dresses, for being black, white or brown, for being six feet tall or a little person, for being kind or cruel, angry or sad, loud or retiring. She isn't more of a woman for featuring in Playboy or being a surrendered wife, nor less of a woman for designing space rockets or taking up boxing. What makes her a woman is the fact of being born in a body that, assuming nothing has gone wrong in her physical development (which, as stated above, still doesn't stop her being a woman), is geared towards producing eggs as opposed to sperm, towards bearing as opposed to begetting children, and irrespective of whether she's done either of those things, or ever wants to.

Womanhood isn't a mystical state of being, nor is it measured by how well one apes sex stereotypes. We are not the creatures either porn or the Bible tell you we are. Femaleness is not, as trans woman Andrea Chu Long wrote, ‘an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes,’ nor are we God’s afterthought, sprung from Adam’s rib.

Women are provably subject to certain experiences because of our female bodies, including different forms of oppression, depending on the cultures in which we live. When trans activists say 'I thought you didn't want to be defined by your biology,' it’s a feeble and transparent attempt at linguistic sleight of hand. Women don't want to be limited, exploited, punished, or subject to other unjust treatment because of their biology, but our being female is indeed defined by our biology. It's one material fact about us, like having freckles or disliking beetroot, neither of which are representative of our entire beings, either. Women have billions of different personalities and life stories, which have nothing to do with our bodies, although we are likely to have had experiences men don't and can't, because we belong to our sex class.

Some people feel strongly that they should have been, or wish to be seen as, the sex class into which they weren't born. Gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition and I feel nothing but sympathy for anyone who suffers from it. I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety. I do not, however, believe that surgeries and cross-sex hormones literally turn a person into the opposite sex, nor do I believe in the idea that each of us has a nebulous ‘gender identity’ that may or might not match our sexed bodies. I believe the ideology that preaches those tenets has caused, and continues to cause, very real harm to vulnerable people.

I am strongly against women's and girls' rights and protections being dismantled to accommodate trans-identified men, for the very simple reason that no study has ever demonstrated that trans-identified men don't have exactly the same pattern of criminality as other men, and because, however they identify, men retain their advantages of speed and strength. In other words, I think the safety and rights of girls and women are more important than those men's desire for validation.

I sincerely hope that answers your questions. You may still disagree, but as I hope this shows, I’m more than happy to have this debate.

Continue ReadingWhat is a Woman? Here is J.K. Rowling’s Answer . . .

Andrew Sullivan Pulls Aside the Curtain to Expose the “Transqueer” Movement

Andrew Sullivan, a gay man who was a courageous leader of the movement to legalize gay marriage, has written a thoughtful article about the "transqueer" movement. Here's an excerpt:

"The truth is: we have come a long way in understanding and respecting the unique human experience of being transgender. In the US, trans people are protected by the gold standard of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. They are everywhere in our popular culture. An entire generation has even been told that being trans is the most glamorous thing you could possibly be. But none of this is sufficient for the transqueers. What they want is an abolition of biological sex for everyone; the end of men and of women as separate categories; the sex reassignment of children on demand; the destruction of the nuclear family; an end to the Hippocratic Oath; the abolition of homosexuality; the presence of male bodies in women’s showers, prisons and shelter; the creation of fantastical post-everything genders and pronouns; and the criminalization of anyone who would ever question this cultural revolution.

They are not winning, but it is not for lack of trying. The pseudoscience behind child transition is beginning to be exposed and puberty blockers are now banned in the UK outside clinical trials. A new lawsuit is being filed against the NCAA for destroying women’s sports. Public opinion has responded to the transqueer ideology by moving in the opposite direction, and now gay people are being caught in the queer crossfire."

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan Pulls Aside the Curtain to Expose the “Transqueer” Movement