GC: What are your counter-arguments to these TRAs saying sex is not binary because of hermaphrodites and intersex, that binary sexes are "flawed human made taxonomies" and that "you can't see someone's chromosomes and genitals so sex does not matter"?

submitted by EverydayIsSad from self.GCdebatesQT

I found this thread on the feminist subreddit, someone was brave enough to bring up the "sex is binary" topic into the discussion (and got banned after a while); https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g79ttua/

If you scroll down you reach these comments saying sex is not binary; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7ask4g/

Dude? Have you never heard of people with DSDs (intersex people)? Sex is very obviously not binary, just from a very crude chromosomes/gonads point of view. Or did were you just ignorant of genetic mosaics and other forms of DSDs? Just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45,X/46,XY_mosaicism

It's you who are rejecting science here.

"Sexual reproduction in plants and animals is a binary system."

That is not consistently true. Jeebus, where did you learn your biology? From a hack like Peterson? I mean, goodness, a simple google search can solve this question. https://animals.mom.com/animals-dont-male-reproduction-9838.html

Maybe your issue isn't feminists "rejecting" science - but your own ignorance of scientific observations.

Call them what you want. Such people who do not fit on the binary do exist. There are people with XX chromosomes with sperm. There are people with XY chromosomes with ovaries and can give birth. This is not a binary.

So yes, the answer to 'how is babby formed' is through the joining of a sperm and an egg.

Now, in your daily life, when you refer to someone as a man, how aware are you of their ability to produce sperm?

This last one I have seen time and time again, "you can't see someone's chromosomes, genitals, and ability to produce egg or sperm so sex does not matter and is not important!"

They also said binary sexes are "flawed human made taxonomies"; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7a3m3q/

if one does hold to the causal theory of reference, which is quite common with scientific realists (and my inner semiotics nerd has a fondness for it myself), one would say that sperm = man and egg = woman is a pretty wobbly position.

So, if we were to make the arguments similar, it would be: Backbone (the feature) = mammal (the category). Except that isn't true. Any number of vertebrates could have backbones, and so the presence of a backbone does not indicated a mammal.

Now we could flip this to category/feature and say woman = egg. Except that also isn't true. Post-menopausal women do not have eggs, but they are not a different sex category.

the argument I was showing was around "those with sperm are men" and "those with eggs are women" -- it was element, then category. You went with category, then element, so not the same argument.

So then we agree that "those with eggs are women" is incorrect, as one does not need to have eggs to be a woman.

Intersex people with both eggs and sperm literally exist, as do other intersex animals-- sex as a binary system empirically isn't a biological reality.

The OP said hermaphrodites having both sperm and egg show that sex is binary, but the responses they got were;

the experience of sex isn't binary-- the options for an individual organisms sex aren't limited to 'male' or 'female'.

If all you care about is pedantry than this topic is probably over your head.

Scientists agree that the binary you are defending is flawed and simplistic.

This comment says because there can be such a thing as organisms that have both sperm and egg, then it means sex is not binary; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7andg8/

a binary system doesn't mean "two"; or "both" it means a system in which there are two options-- an either/or situation.

If you introduce a scenario where the options are "either/or" AND "both/neither" that is by definition no longer a binary system.

These other comments say; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7as9ns/ , https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7aphdj/

if binary doesn't sufficiently capture the totality of biological phenomena then why it is irrational to consider a different mode of categorization?

even with the sexual reproduction of plants where it binary, plants often have both gametes. There aren't male and female plants, there are just distinct elements. Self-pollination is quite common.

In biology, rare or unusual phenomenon is not usually ignored or pushed to the side in regards to furthering understanding of the world we live in. I am not advocating denying anything, I'm just pointing out that if you cannot accurately categorize intersex individuals in your categorical framework then it is necessarily leaving out data, not including it.

And in the general sense, sex and reproduction have a variety of options. Earthworms are hermaphroditic as a species but don't self-fertilize. Unicellular organisms often reproduce asexually. Some species are monogendered and reproduce through parthenogenesis.

If we narrow this down to humans and the variety of circumstances they can find themselves in, regardless of the frequency of a phenomenon, excluding a whole categorization doesn't seem a disposition interested in exploring the data we have available. You're saying the binary captures the nature of the biological system but it cannot categorize or account for "when things go wrong." Or at the very least you haven't fully explained what you are trying to say in a way I find complete. If you have two endpoints and some data points that fall between it, we usually recognize that as a range or spectrum as opposed to a binary form of categorization.

Going back to a broader sense of scientific thinking, look at something like the theory of evolution. What "goes wrong" in it that it cannot account for? It's fairly inclusive for explaining a wide variety of circumstances as opposed to qualifying something as "going wrong" because it doesn't fit neatly into its theoretical framework. Or think of the theory of gravity where we have to adjust and modify it to include phenomena that we continue to discover that gives us a deeper understanding of it. I'm not seeing that ethos of accepting and including data into your framework being particularly reflected in what you are putting forth.

They mean that because hermaphrodites have both sperm and egg, they are not male or female, and they are this third category that shows sex is not binary in other animals and plants (most plants are hermaphrodites and many other animals are hermaphrodites)

... I know pasting all those comments for you here made this post long, but I thought if you don't want to go into that thread yourselves I would paste the comments I'm referring to here. Does anyone have any counter-arguments to these TRA arguments I highlighted above?

If anyone can break all those TRA arguments apart and debunk them I would be really thankful.

all 9 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]slushpilot 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All of these points are completely irrelevant. They could be 100% scientifically true for all I care, but it does not matter.

When we're debating as a society about transwomen and the question of abolishing sex-based rights—it's never been about DSDs, or variations of chromosomes, or slugs. Those "gotcha" points are just cheap diversions.

These kinds of arguments work by finding the rarest of exceptions to the rule and turning them into the general rule, as if we should apply the logic of the smallest exception to everything that is not exceptional. It's dishonest.

This deconstruction technique is an important part of postmodernism: you take something that is normally obvious to everyone (common sense), then break it down into small details, and frame your narrative to position whatever detail you want as primarily important. Hence why you hear about things that are "just socially constructed"—it implies we can deconstruct and rearrange them, at will.

Intersex conditions are such a tiny proportion of people, it's not even worth arguing about. Keep your eyes on the big picture.

We're talking about men. All of them unambiguously male in their biology and behaviour. Or women, all unambiguously female, whether or not they menstruate, or have the capacity to get pregnant, or wear dresses. It doesn't matter: still women according to the same common sense we've always had.

I've not yet heard of an actual intersex person for whom any of these supposed "trans rights" are really an issue like they are for the Woke crowd. It's also important to remember that people with DSDs are not even trans: some might technically qualify, but I would assume most would actually prefer to have the natural genitalia & characteristics of their birth sex! These transgender pushers are just using people with legitimate sexual development disorders, and don't actually speak for them.

Ok, maybe I can think of one legitimate debate around these issues, which I think it can serve as a practical example: Caster Semenya. The question of someone who didn't know they were male running womens' races in the Olympics is a worthwhile discussion—but only for that individual because it's a very unique case. The important thing to remember is, you can't just apply the same logic to everyone else and pretend like it's the same thing.

[–]ColoredTwiceIntersex female, medical malpractice victim, lesbian 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

and don't actually speak for the

Intersex organizations all the time demanding to not be included in LGBTQ+, as it harmful to them, but trans activists are ignoring them and continuing doing the harm.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is an incredible response! Just... chef’s kiss

[–]CatbugMods allow rape victim blaming in this sub :) 8 insightful - 5 fun8 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

How does babby form? A disorder where someone gets some mixed features is not the same thing as a magic third component to making a fetus.

We can see just about every other sexed feature like peoples faces, and what we see is male. I don’t need to see chromosomes to know that a man is a man. Nobody does.

[–]SnowAssMan 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

85% of the female sex gives birth, while 0% of the male sex gives birth – what spectrum?

Our species does not reproduce asexually. Our species does not produce genuine hermaphrodites that possess both sexes (can fertilise & be fertilised). – what spectrum?

Even people with DSDs are literally fertile (they produce either sperm or ova). I'm not saying fertility defines sex, but if you don't know someone's sex, but then discover that they are pregnant, you can use the latter information as an indicator as to what sex they are with 100% accuracy.

There is nothing more female than being post-menopausal. Running out of eggs means you had eggs to run out of. Women above a certain age don't start producing sperm. An infertile woman is an infertile woman, not a fertile man.

But none of this is relevant since trans people don't have DSDs, they are unambiguously male or female, so this whole line of debate is just more evasion.

If we're going to talk about things that "don't matter", let's start with self-identification. There is no reason whatsoever to distinguish between a man & a trans-woman, because a trans-woman's self-identification with the opposite sex is indefinable, inconsequential & therefore irrelevant.

Sex however is definable, consequential & therefore significant, which necessitates the existence of: gynaecology, women's sports, even women's prisons. They are single-sex because of the differences between the sexes.

[–]SilverSlippers 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are no true human hermaphrodites (people who produce sperm or egg). Sex is based on the type of gamete that your body is built to produce, sperm or eggs. This is strictly binary. There are no speggs or alternate gametes. All humans with DSD's (or intersex people) have bodies that developed to produce one type of gamete or the other, but something got messed up along the way. The majority of DSD's result in sterility and often other systemic health problems as most developmental disorders that cause odd-looking genitals also cause other issues in the body. I.e. People with AIS have low-bone density and are at greater risk of fractures, people with CAH have trouble regulating electrolytes. People with DSD's are not a third sex, they are either male or female with developmental defects causing them to look or function differently.

Think about it this way: Humans have four limbs with five digits on each limb, right? Well sometimes people are born with extra toes or fingers, so should we say that there is a spectrum of limb-types? I have a relative with a missing heart chamber, so should we say that humans have a spectrum of types of hearts?

The fact that there are non-human animals where true hermaphroditism exists (i.e. clownfish are sequential hermaphrodites) has nothing to do with how humans should build our society around sex. The variety of sex developmental systems in nature is endless and fascinating but just because its possible in clownfish doesn't make it possible in humans. Clownfish can truly change sex (M to F) as in able to produce the gametes of their new sex. Salamanders can regrow limbs. Zebrafish can regrow their hearts. Male anglerfish physiologically merge with a female and become nothing more than a pair of testicles, with no fins or brain. Whiptail lizards are an all female species that reproduces via cloning that engages in sexual activity anyways. Humans can't do any of these things, so it shouldn't have any impact on discourse on how human society should work.

[–]DistantGlimmer 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"GC: What are your counter-arguments to these TRAs saying sex is not binary because of hermaphrodites and intersex"

Intersex people are considered part of the binary. It is incorrect and insulting to them to say they are not part of the binary of sex just because they have physical disorders.

"that binary sexes are "flawed human made taxonomies"

I mean everything that is part of language is technically "human-made" but words for sexes still describe the observable fact of sexual dimorphism. I've never heard any TRA actually prove sexual dimorphism wrong. Just because they don't like that dimorphic sex is an observable fact doesn't make it "flawed".

"you can't see someone's chromosomes and genitals so sex does not matter" and that "you can't see someone's chromosomes and genitals so sex does not matter"

This one is extremely silly. You can't "see" someone's cells or genes (at least with the naked eye) either but they are still extremely important in making us what we are.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Let’s pretend sex isn’t binary...

There are no human hermaphrodites. We are not the other species that are used as examples. We are not plants. Chameleons can change their appearance to camouflage themselves- the fuck does that have to do with humans? If we’re going off of what other creatures can do then Rachel Dolezal is black because she made herself look “black“.

Intersex people still have a sex that can be determined. Intersex is not trans and trans is not intersex so even if there’s a case to be made for breaking the binary and intersex conditions are exploited to make that case- it has nothing to do with normally/typically developed people who aren’t intersex undergoing elective surgery to cope with a mental condition. They still fall in the binary even if we accepted that intersex people don’t (they do. If anything they prove the rule, since they are always determined to be either male or female). Intersex people and these mythical human hermaphrodites would be the exceptions. Trans people wouldn’t be. Wherever you fell on this not binary sex spectrum, you’d have landed there in utero.

That’s the thing that gets me about this argument- even if sex isn’t binary, what does transition have to do with it? They haven’t changed sex. Even if sex is not binary, it would still be observable and distinguishable (even if just on a cellular/chromosomal level) despite transitioning. So they can argue all they want that sex is not binary- unless they can prove that humans can actually change sex, this argument does them no favors. They’d still be the sex they were born regardless of any sex spectrum. Those species and plants they reference to compare to us (and even the intersex conditions they exploit) didn’t take hormones or have surgery- they developed that way naturally.

[–]kwallio 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All of the "sex isn't binary, look at all these intersex people etc" BS is kind of the exception proving the rule. Intersex disorders are just that, disorders. There is no viable 3rd sex, many intersex persons are sterile, and furthermore they are incredibly rare. Listening to trans rhetoric you'd think that every other person is intersex but thats simply not true. Disorders like xx sry+ males are so rare there are somewhat like 200 instances known (total). Yet these incredibly rare disorders are thrown out by trans activists like its some kind of a gotcha. You can easily classify 99.999% of people based on their chromosomes and genitalia, the tiny percentage of intersex persons does not prove or disprove anything. Its like saying that thalidomide babies with shortened limbs mean that humans are actually seals or something in order to prop up your seal-self trans species identity. Its ridiculous.