Guest post: How far the institutional capture has come
Originally a comment by Sonderval on DSDs are not halfway houses “between” the two sexes.
And of course, there is the usual mistake of equating “is on a spectrum” with “is difficult to determine”/”can be assigned at will”. A spectrum is a spectrum exactly because points on it can be determined uniquely and objectively. (Monochromatic) colors lie on a spectrum because each wavelength (which can be determined exactly) causes a different stimulation of the three color-perceiving cone cell types we have. So if sex were a spectrum, this would imply that there is an objective way of determining it. Yes people with DSD exist, but this still does not and cannot imply that a man can be a woman, in the same way that the existence of colors like purple does not mean that red is blue.
The fact that the Lancet repeats the standard phrase “exists on a spectrum” without even thinking what that means just shows how far the institutional capture has come and how quickly supposedly critical scientists stop thinking critically if it suits their ideological needs.
To me as a scientist and science communicator, this is one of the saddest things of this whole debate: How quickly scientists stop thinking critically and repeat the dogma without thinking – because they really convinced themselves, because they think that this is the kind thing to do and kindness has to trump truth, because they do not really think about these things or perhaps even out of fear of being shunned.
It may be a mistake, but it is not an innocent one. As iknklast pointed out:
None of these conditions or the phenomena they cite support the claims they are making. They are not part of any supporting arguments, they are not evidence of the mutability of sex, or the existence of gendered “souls”, they are not justifications for changing the definitions of “woman” or “man.” Yet they are continually thrown in our faces, and used to defend each of these claims. But there is no connection between them, logical, biological or medical. In this context, DSDs are a deception and distraction, another non-sequiter talking point that critics have to stop, and dismantle, while the genderists continue their Gish gallop of unevidenced bullshit. They are just another way of trying to undermine the concept of sex. If they do that in the minds of the undecided and under-informed, then their deployment has succeeded. They don’t have to explain or support anything. And they don’t, because they can’t. They can be dropped and forgotten, until the next “debate.” And they are. (How much of the “LGBTQI” “rights” campaign has ever been focused on the “I”? Apart from their placeholder status in the rollcall of members of the alphabet soup “community”, when have you ever heard a trans activist mention the “I”? When is the “I” mentioned outside of assertions about how “complicated” the “spectrum” of sex is? When was the last time you heard a genderist say anything about the unique needs and requirements of people with DSD conditions?
Transactivism’s refusal to drop the misleading and dehumanizing misnomer “intersex” itself is indicative of its level of awareness of and concern for the needs of people with DSD. And why would genderism give up a term so well-suited suited to match their narrative of sexual indeterminacy and fluidity? “Intersex” is the perfect way to suggest the sex is fuzzy and ill-defined. That it ends up implying that DSD people are some kind of freaks who are somehow neither men or women-or both at the same time- is just a sacrifice for the greater good of the T
eam.DSDs are being used solely to confuse and confound, not elucidate or explain. Pointing to these so-called “intersex” conditions is supposed to shut us up and shut us down, not refute the points we are making, or to disprove the basic facts that are on our side. They provide no support at all for their own position, despite their insistence that they do. This is not an “accident”, “error” or “mistake”, but a stratagem. It is “NO DEBATE!” by other means, because they are not engaging in good faith discussion when they use them. Are there more than two sexes in humans? No. Is sex a “spectrum? No. Can humans change sex? No. Is there such an entity as a “gender identity” that can be at odds with the material body? No. Are humans ever “born in the wrong body?” No. No, no, no. As noted above, the existence of DSDs does not change any of this. It can’t because there’s absoluetly no connection to them. Those who originated this line of “argument” must know that it is wrong; those who mindlessly repeat it may not, as they might be counting on the integrity and authority of people (like those at The Lancet who are appealling to “intersex” conditions in their new, Captured-Edition writers’ guidelines) who should, and must know better.
I would love to know that breakdown between True Believers who’ve fooled themselves, and those who mouth the mantras out of fear for their positions and livelihood. And the number who are in it for the narcissistic power tripping, of which there is likely a non-zero number, since we’ve seen them appear elsewhere.
@YNNB
Considering the breakdown, I know several very smart and as far as I know kind and well-meaning totally not power-trippy people who believe they are on the right side of history when they say how complicated all this is and that we have to be kind etc.
As I’ve said before, I think that scientists are especially prone to fall for the “It is so complicated” argument.:
https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2024/guest-post-extrapolating-the-lessons-of-science-to-a-credo-quia-absurdum/
But I’m still disappointed, especially in people with knowledge of biology. They of all people should know that in biology, there are never clear-cut 100% water-tight definitions. Humans and chimps are different species, but if you consider evolution, there is no point and no individual where you can say “This is where the genus homo begins”. Assuming that this should be possible is a favorite with creationists, so biologists should know better.
Horses and donkeys are different species, although there are mules.
Any biologists should immediately recognize that the argument “People with DSD exist, therefore the concepts of man and woman are not possible to define objectively” is using a standard that is impossible to uphold in biology. Or, actually, even in everyday life. What exactly is a car? If I remove the motor or the wheels, does it stop being a car (that is equivalent of the argument “women without an uterus are still women, so men can be women too…”)? Where is the border between a car and a motorbike? Is a quad a car? How about a trike? What about a motorbike with a sidecar?
Almost all concepts we use in everyday life have blurred boundaries, but that does not mean that the concepts are meaningless.