There Are Still Only Two Human Sexes

It baffles me that, in furtherance of Woke ideology, so many people are somehow willing to pretend that human animals come in more than two sexes. These pretensions are part of an "antiscientific trend toward the outright denial of biological sex." These arguments often take one of two forms: the argument from intersex conditions and the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics. At Quillette, Colin Wright, who holds a PH.D. in evolutionary biology, explains that both of these arguments fail. His article is titled "JK Rowling Is Right—Sex Is Real and It Is Not a “Spectrum”:

[Both arguments involve] 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.

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.

The binary distinction between ovaries and testes as the criterion determining an individual’s sex is not arbitrary, nor unique to humans. The evolutionary function of ovaries and testes is to produce either eggs or sperm, respectively, which must be combined for sexual reproduction to take place. If that didn’t happen, there would be no humans. While this knowledge may have been cutting edge science in the 1660s, it’s odd that we should suddenly treat it as controversial in 2020.

More recently, in an article titled "Sex Chromosome Variants Are Not Their Own Unique Sexes," Wright responded to a Tweet by a purported biologist named McClean, making an unusual claim.

McLean, who prominently lists five degrees after his name and claims to be a human evolutionary geneticist, took issue with that claim and forwarded a very common—and very wrong—portrayal of biological sex: that different sex chromosome compositions beyond the standard XX and XY each represent their own unique sex. In fact, Dr. McLean appears to suggest in his tweet that there may be as many as 10 biological sexes!

It especially concerned Wright that McClean's groundless claim was retweeted more than 4,000 times. There is apparently a hot market for bad biology.

First, Wright restates McClean's claim:

The argument that individuals with sex chromosomes that deviate from the typical (46, XX and 46, XY) arrangements, such as those with Klinefelter syndrome (47, XXY) or Turner syndrome (45, X0), is common and usually used to argue that there are 6 sexes, though other numbers are frequently thrown around as well.
The proper response to the above claim is, again, that the size of the gametes determine sex. Males produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). Since some individuals do not actually produce gametes, we sometimes need to look to the sex organ rather than the gamete.  Once we do that, we can still see that there are only two sexes.  Wright explains:

But on an individual level (since not all individuals may be able to produce gametes) an organism’s sex corresponds to the type of primary sex organs (testes vs ovaries) and individual has developed. In mammals, which includes humans, the Y chromosome carries a gene (SRY) that encodes a testes-determining factor. If an individual has a Y chromosome with a functional SRY gene, they will develop testes and therefore will be biologically male. Absent a Y chromosome and functional SRY gene (unless the SRY gene has been transposed to an X chromosome), an embryo will develop ovaries and will therefore be biologically female. What’s important to note is that the presence of a Y chromosome, or two, or three, etc., all result in the development of testes and therefore these individuals are biologically male. Likewise, individuals with additional or fewer X chromosomes, in the absence of a Y, all develop ovaries and are therefore biologically female. With this in mind, the chart in the above tweet can more accurately be rewritten as:

X – Female XX – Female XXY – Male XY – Male XYY – Male XXXY – Male

Wright concludes that these atypical chromosomal patterns do not result in new sexes, "but rather represent natural variation within males and females."

Ergo, there are still only two sexes.  It's interesting to note that there does not seem to be any confusion about this when discussing any animal other than humans. In this way, the Woke position on "many sexes" reminds me of claims by religious fundamentalists that evolution by natural selection is straightforward until those upstart biologists start trying to apply natural selection to human animals.

I might be wrong, of course.  Therefore, I'll keep an eye out for ferocious arguments from Woke biologists that squirrels, hamsters and flowers come in six sexes (and unlimited numbers of genders).

Continue ReadingThere Are Still Only Two Human Sexes

A Detailed Case-Study in Theatrical Woke Defiance at Haverford College

In "Race and Social Panic at Haverford: A Case Study in Educational Dysfunction," Quillette's Jonathan Kay gives a detailed account of how Woke-permeated campus-wide insanity can be triggered by nothing in particular. Kay makes a strong case that Haverford College, a private and expensive far-left-leaning liberal arts institution, self-spiraled into moral panic in a way that brings to mind the meltdown of Evergreen State, a story told and experienced by evolutionary psychology professors Brett Weinstein and Heather Heying.  See also, Weinstein's discussion of Evergreen with his brother, Podcaster Eric Weinstein ("The Portal").

The self-annointed thought police are still working overtime at Haverford, where free-speech is merely a phrase and where tribal truths are the reality.  I could not imagine sending any student to Haverford if they wanted to learn how to think self-critically and be prepared to hold a job in the outside world.

Jonathan Kay's long article leaves a pit in my stomach and casts a pall over my evening as I write this comment. He needed to fill his article with an extraordinary amount of details in order to substantiate his extraordinary conclusions, including the following:  A) Nothing insensitive or racist occurred at Haverford College leading up to the current shrill unrest. B) Nothing that happened at Haverford justified the long ridiculous list of student demands (to which the administration mostly acceded).  C) Most chillingly, the administrators of Haverford (and many other colleges) lack the the necessary resources to have meaningful conversations with students or to take respectable negotiating positions during these Woke-fueled paroxysms.

A few excerpts from Jonathan Kay's excellent article:

[T]he mania that swept Haverford College in late October and early November 2020 lays bare, with unusual clarity, the fervid atmosphere of grievance and self-entitlement that has made the administration of elite colleges and universities so difficult.

Of all the Haverford community members I spoke with, the only one who asked to be quoted by name was recently graduated philosophy major Alex Gutierrez, who once summarized the mindset of campus activists in an essay about Jacques Lacan. “Modern activists have psyches that are built for the joy of transgression,” he observed. “They engage in activism so they can repeatedly experience that joy, a joy that is denied them in everyday life because everyday life is dominated by the ethics of pleasure… And so they need to invent fictional dominant orders so that they can defy them. This is why protesters would actually be extremely unhappy if oppression went away. They want white patriarchy to be as powerful as possible, so they can defy it.”

Gutierrez wrote these words before his alma mater fell into upheaval in late October. But his analysis seems apt. When students complained that Raymond had caused them “harm” with her October 28th email, they weren’t really speaking up as activists denouncing racism on campus (since there doesn’t seem to be much of it), but as consumers whose parents paid good money for them to experience the sensation of transgressive social-justice heroism. “Normally, the administrators are the perfect target for student transgression,” Gutierrez told me. “They take the abuse and they’re not supposed to push back. That’s part of their role. That’s what students expect.”

Continue ReadingA Detailed Case-Study in Theatrical Woke Defiance at Haverford College

About “Vulva Owners” and Our Nomenclature Wars.

More and more people cannot bear to say words like "men" and "women" anymore. Talk about "objectifying" sexuality . . . Consider this recent article from Healthline:

Here's an excerpt:

‘Do Vulva Owners Like Sex?’ Is the Wrong Question — Here’s What You Should Ask Instead. . . . Some do like sex and some don’t. Just like some penis owners like sex and some don’t.

This question, in and of itself, isn’t great, though. It makes some broad generalizations and assumptions about people and sex in general.

So instead of asking whether vulva owners like sex, you should really be focusing on the person you want to have sex with, and ask them how they feel, what they want, and what they need.

Here's an article about a recent ad by Tampa.  Same issue:

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAbout “Vulva Owners” and Our Nomenclature Wars.

The Woke Temple Tacks Away From Clown Graphics, But Maintains Laser Focus

For the past year or so, The Woke Temple has carefully summarized the preachings of Wokeness using brightly colorful graphics decorated with clowns. I think this approach was often effective at getting the point across. What better way to ridicule the preachers of Wokeness than by refusing to take them seriously? The Woke Temple combined this packaging with text that carefully and accurately restated Woke teachings straight from the books of Robin DiAngela, Ibram Kendi and others. This tactic reminds me of a quote by Isaac Asimov. “Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.” This allusion to religion is apropos here in that the Woke flock seem to be under the influence of something very much like a fundamentalist religion. Exhibit A is the ubiquitous Woke teaching that either you proclaim that you agree with Woke preachings or they will declare that you are a bad person, a "racist."

As the Woke Temple has colorfully illustrated over the past year, people who are Woke claim that the best way to address racism is to enthusiastically judge people based on the color of their skin, a tactic that pisses on the central teaching of Martin Luther King. This the far Left's equivalent of saying that the threat of COVID is going away while death rates are dramatically increasing. It is that absurd, yet this absurd set of teachings has now been embraced by HR Departments, Government agencies and schools throughout the United States. I can't think of a clearer example of a hostile work environment and I hope lawsuits start flying to stop these practices. Contrary to the claim of Joe Biden, these sessions are not effective ways to address "racial insensitivity" or to encourage "self-esteem."

We need to consider creative approaches to nullify Woke preachings because engaging in conversation does not work. People who have embraced Wokeness are impervious to contrary evidence and reasoning because once these ideas take root, they nullify the ability to think, evaluate contrary evidence and self-critically discuss teachings. Somehow, these Woke proclamations parasitically invade the thought processes of smart and good-hearted people, taking them emotional hostage.  Once a person becomes Woke, they would rather do anything--anything--than be called "racist," even by the proudly racist people who preach Woke principles.

Recently The Woke Temple has modified its tactics. The clowns are gone and the look is streamlined and straight-forward.  Perhaps it will be more effective in getting the message across to more people.  I hope so.  We need all the help we can get. Here's the latest graphic from The Woke Temple:

Continue ReadingThe Woke Temple Tacks Away From Clown Graphics, But Maintains Laser Focus

John McWorter Draws a Line in the Sand When Ibram X. Kendi Publicly Labels his Ideas “Racist.”

One of the things I find most disturbing about "anti-racists" is their demand that you must either agree to everything they say or else you are a "racist." Popular authors Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo claim that if you are not an "anti-racist" you are a racist. There are only two options. Thus speak the anti-racists.  This false dilemma, this unjustified dichotomy, is just "because."

"Anti-racism" is not the opposite of racism, despite the misleading nomenclature. It is virulent new form of racism. To pull off this minor miracle of creativity, the "anti-racists" have invoked a new expansive definition of "racism" that has nothing to do with specific unfair attitudes or behavior of specific people. The "anti-racists" invoke a Manichean claim that it is OK to judge people as good and bad (respectively Blacks and whites) based on immutable physical appearance, just because. In doing this, they are dusting off that old disreputable idea that melanin should serve as a guilt barometer. This is something they have in common with racists of the Civil War and Jim Crow eras, although the new barometer is upside-down.

This "anti-racist" formula has worked all too well for the past several years. Well-meaning people who fervently disagree with this "anti-racist" claim, however, including the specific claim that "all white people are racist," are being held emotional hostage. They are afraid to speak up, to disagree in public places. It is truly bizarre to see so many people who disagree with these "anti-racist" claims who are afraid to speak up. I know this from numerous private conversations. It's starting to look like many religions, where the preachers preach at the flock and members of the flock merely nod their heads, even thought they know in every bone of their bodies that the Earth is not 6,000 years old, that virgins don't have babies and that (an example from my Catholic upbringing) eating the host is not literally eating bloody muscles and capillaries. Members of the flock sat in total silence when the NYT promoted claims that the American Revolution was primarily for the purpose of promoting slavery, a central claim of "The 1619 Project."

So this is where we are: the preachers are preaching and members of the flock keep sitting silently because they are afraid of going to "anti-racist" hell. For them, hell is what would happen is they were publicly called "racist."  Thus, members of the flock will sit in paralyzed silence, even when the anti-racists call all "white" people and their Black intellectual allies "racist" no matter how exemplary their lives have been. Isn't that weird? "White" people are already being called racists as a group merely by their skin color, yet they fear being called "racist" as individuals. And what drives this fear is, ironically, that they hate racism. This is stranger than any fiction any creative writer could concoct. These "anti-racist" threats of name-calling are successfully turning many people into Zombies (this reminds me of how many types of wasps sting and zombify other bugs to use as hatcheries). After getting stung by the threat of being called "racists," the fearful zombified flock is willing to sit in silence even when the "anti-racists" make patently false claims that no racial progress has occurred since 1619, since the Civil War or since the Civil Rights era.  They sit in silence while the "anti-racists" ridicule Martin Luther King's idea that we should not be judged by the color of our skin, but only by the content of character.

Once this creepy dynamic settled into place, anti-racists, such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, began getting free rides from individuals who knew better but who were afraid to speak out. More troublesome, the anti-racists' fact-free and oftentimes false diatribes also began getting luxury free rides from corporate HR departments, government agencies (and here) and many members of our sense-making institutions, including left-leaning legacy media. In addition to securing the silence of people who disagree under threat of being called names, the "anti-racists" employ another big weapon: the rage of Woke mobs who are willing to destroy the careers of anyone who dares to dissent (recent example).

Linguist John McWhorter has not been afraid to call out the anti-racists.  He has done this in many places, including his article in The Atlantic,  "The Dehumanizing Condescension of White Fragility: The popular book aims to combat racism but talks down to Black people." McWorther, a professor of linguistics, has taken a lot of flack from the far left for repeatedly calling out that the Emperor Has No Clothes.

McWhorter had more than his fill, however, when Ibram X. Kendi recently and publicly called McWhorter's ideas "racist."  Kendi has made dozens of claims that should be vigorously scrutinized by academics, book reviewers and the general public, but he has been surfing on the waves of fearful silence. That silence meant that the normally unflappable McWhorter had to fend for himself.  He decided it was time to push back dramatically, in a public way. Hence these excerpts from the November 23, 2020 episode of The Glenn Show with Glenn Loury:

Continue ReadingJohn McWorter Draws a Line in the Sand When Ibram X. Kendi Publicly Labels his Ideas “Racist.”