The binary does not exist
From an article in the current Scientific American:
“Sex” typically refers to biological sex, which can be defined by myriad characteristics such as chromosomes, hormone levels, gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The terms “female” and “male” are often used in relation to biological sex. “Gender” refers to how an individual identifies—woman, man, nonbinary, and so forth. Much of the scientific literature confuses and conflates female/male and woman/man terminology without providing definitions to clarify what it is referring to and why those terms were chosen.
So “woman” and “man” don’t label biological sex? They’re purely social? They label only how people “identify” and not what people are? And this is settled knowledge and everyone agrees with it? But nevertheless the scientific literature confuses the terminology?
Are we quite sure about that?
For the purpose of describing anatomical and physiological evidence, most of the literature uses “female” and “male,” so we use those words here when discussing the results of such studies. For ethnographic and archaeological evidence, we are attempting to reconstruct social roles, for which the terms “woman” and “man” are usually used. Unfortunately, both these word sets assume a binary, which does not exist biologically, psychologically or socially. Sex and gender both exist as a spectrum, but when citing the work of others, it is difficult to add that nuance.
Oh, neither sex nor gender is binary? Both are a spectrum? I did not know that.
The inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports.
Therefore it’s totally fair for men to infiltrate women’s sports. That’s science, baby!
I can’t recall ever seeing gender-related definitions of man, woman, non-binary and so forth which listed the attributes unique to each — or even any defining feature. When man and woman are sex-related terms, we can say that no woman produces viable sperm and no man produces eggs. But what “social roles” or cultural aspects separates a man identity from a woman identity?
If this is science, the definitions must be clear. I’m getting so tired of purportedly scientific essays and papers sliding over the details cuz, well, we know the kind of thing we’re talking about.
Just when medical research starts investing more money into the biological effects that sex has on differentiating symptoms of diseases, along comes Scientific (sic) American to tell the researchers it’s more complicated due to, what exactly? Do transwomen (sic) identify heart attacks the way that ciswomen (sic) do now?
Firstly, let’s just sweep the facts of human reproduction under the carpet of “biological sex” so we can discuss more “scientific” things. Sure. Then we can make the case that male and female don’t mean anything at all.
What rubbish.
They should rename it Pseudoscientific American, amirite ?
Ideological American might work. Shelf it in the religion aisle.
There was a time when Scientific American was an important must-read publication. Back in 1967 I was delighted that I could by then afford a personal subscription. But at some point, maybe around 1990, I don’t remember, it started to go downhill to the trashy magazine it is today.
Popular Science is also seen as fluffy now, and not as legit as SciAm, but in the 1800’s they published superlative articles from the likes of CS Peirce, Darwin, et al. They have published similar gender woo articles.
This is so fucked up that even an English major such as me can knock the piss out of it:
No, chromosomes do not “define” sex, they determine sex. The rest of the terms in that list neither determine nor define sex: they depend on sex: Depending upon which sex one is, the rest follow. It is GAMETES that define sex. WHICH is NOT mentioned.
The terms “female” and “male” describe the two biological sexes.
“Gender” is a bullshit term that means whatever one (regardless of one’s sex) wants it to me. “Nonbinary” is of the same order as “Aquarian,” “Sacred,” and “Trekkie.” There is no “confusing” or “conflating” in female = woman and male = man.
Step one of sleight of hand; all the variables by which sex can be measured.
Step two, suggest that because of the “myriad characteristics,” that this constitutes a blurring or spreading out of “sex.” Yes, sexual development is complicated, and can, as a result, go awry at any number of points in any number of ways. And yes, sex has an impact on a large number of organs, tissues, and systems. But despite all of intricacies of development, and the wide array of characteristics and determinants of sex, there are still only two. There is no third gamete or “blended” gamete. The two sexes do not grade imperceptibly from one to the other. The percentage of individuals in which the various characteristics do not align perfectly is small, and they do not constitute a third or intermediate sex, let alone several of them. The conditions they might exhibit are (as far as I’ve read) particular to each sex rather than being spread randomly. The existence of these individuals does not invalidate the concept of the sexual binary, or render it so useless as to cause us to throw up our hands in confusion at the resulting “complexity” (which seems to be SA’s preferred position) And the existence of DSDs has nothing at all to do with gender identity. Arguments appealing to so-called “intersex” conditions are bad faith attempts to muddy the definition of sex to the degree that people can claim to be the sex they are not. They might as well be claiming to be a species they’re not; it’s just as possible and plausible.
Like the “Sex pspectrum” graphic they published some time ago, this piece will be cited by those who don’t know any better, as well as those who should,or do. And because it’s in Scientific American, it will be taken as true and accurate when it is neither. I have no degrees in science, but I have enough of an understanding to know that this is an ideological piece, not a scientific one. I know that humans come in two sexes and two sexes only, and that humans can’t change sex. If you want to argue for the existence of “gender identity”, then do so. Prove your case positively, rather than try to erode the concept and definition of “sex” and go no further (like the creationists who argue their case by “disproving” evolution, and claim victory by default, without having demonstrated how their hypothesis explains the same evidence better). It infuriates me that people who do know better are supporting and promoting this bullshit. I don’t care how many degrees they have, or in what fields, in this regard they are no better than creationists, astrologers, and spiritualists. The assertions they’re making should be spurring research projects into the questions raised by the implications of claims of gender ideology. What other organisms have gender identities? When did they arise in the human lineage? Where does it reside, and how can it be found and impartially evaluated? These are just some of the paths of inquiry that would be being followed if “gender” were real, if it were not more akin to a religious belief than an empirical observation of the human condition.
If woman/women is indeed the gender word, relating to identity and not biological sex as claimed, then the Women’s Health Clinic would treat high heel, corset and underwire related injuries, as well as hair straightener burns, and not yeast infections, mammograms, cervix smear tests and pregnancy care and terminations.