all 12 comments

[–][deleted] 25 insightful - 1 fun25 insightful - 0 fun26 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Very interesting article. I completely agree with the author. Intersex conditions can't be used to explain transgenderism because most transgender people aren't intersex. Also, if sex was a spectrum as they say, there would be more than two reproductive functions, and it wouldn't be possible to identify average female and male traits at all. I don't understand why it's considered transphobic to recognize these facts. If anything, wouldn't it be trans erasure to imply that, if sex can't be defined by biological factors, there's no need to physically transition, and therefore sex dysphoria isn't more than a social phenomenon?

[–]spinningIntelligence 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also, you don't identify your way into being intersex.

[–]respectmyidentity 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Also OMG intersex people are less than 1% of the population. Even if there are trans people with a brain-based intersex condition - so far - no dice. No proof at all. Same with people who have adrenal and endocrine issues - negligible amounts. This is a fucking joke. And a cover for dismantling title IX.

[–]MezozoicGay 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

PART THREE--Endocrinology

Oh, that is weird part always. When women are taking HRT, they are mostly taking progestogen with a bit estrogen (at least the ones I know and when I was researching this topic), and progestogen hormones are the ones that affecting women body the most. While men when taking HRT to become transwomen, they are only taking estrogens. and sometimes a bit of progestogenes. Estrogen and Testosteron are mostly giving "looks like sex", but not the sex itself.

[–]endless_assfluff 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Ok, I read the original "article." Here's what I'm getting, and I know it's similar to what people have already said.

  • This is an opinion piece by a grad student.

  • The argument addresses a straw man: no one is arguing that an individual's biological sex should be determined by brain structure or hormones, and the existence of intersex people does not conflict with the existence of biological men or women. They are arguing with a definition, that the definition of "man" is someone who was born with XY chromosomes and a penis and the definition of "woman" is someone who was born with XX chromosomes and a vagina. Yes, we have a word for people with different genital/chromosome combinations, a word that the author herself used: intersex. At no point do they use the word "genital" in the article, nor do they address that definition. "Actually, intersex people exist" as an argument is like someone saying "A number is prime if it has exactly two positive divisors, itself and 1, and a number is composite if it has more than two positive divisors" and someone else saying "Actually, 1 is neither prime nor composite." It makes no sense because a definition isn't an argument for or against something, it's a definition.

  • The argument is self-contradictory. The author does not substitute her own definition of "male" or "female," or even "transgender." So since a small minority of people are intersex, neurochemistry can vary between the sexes, hormone levels also vary, and apparently scientists are left shaking their heads and throwing up their hands on how to define biological sex---if only people had observable sex characteristics that were present at birth!---what does the author think the words male, female, and transgender mean? Put another way, if biological sex doesn't exist, how can someone be transgender?

  • The articles linked by the author agree with gender-critical ideology. Neurochemistry varies between individuals? Cool, that's what we've been saying all along, and it doesn't conflict with the fact that genitals exist.

  • "Secondary sex characteristics—penis, vagina, appearance, behavior—arise later, from hormones, environment, experience, and genes interacting." What the actual fuck? Penises and vaginas aren't secondary sex characteristics. They don't somehow "arise later" out of nowhere. Neither is appearance and behavior; the author just spent a few paragraphs arguing that behavior isn't tied to sex.

  • The author seems to think science is the process of hunting down evidence that fits your pre-existing worldview, not a process by which to develop that worldview. She willfully misrepresents dissenting ideas and ignores obvious evidence that conflicts with her beliefs. By doing so, she reveals that her beliefs on this topic are not based on reasoning or empirical evidence. And scientists do that sometimes because scientists are people. Heck, "my beliefs are logical because I'm a scientist" is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy, which is illogical.

So to break it down:

  • "The irony in all this is that these “protectors of enlightenment” are guilty of the very behavior this phrase derides. Though often dismissed as just a fringe internet movement, they espouse unscientific claims that have infected our politics and culture. Especially alarming is that these “intellectual” assertions are used by nonscientists to claim a scientific basis for the dehumanization of trans people.": Ad hominem.

  • "The real world consequences are stacking up: the trans military ban, bathroom bills, and removal of workplace and medical discrimination protections": Appeal to emotion, also somewhat fuzzy & circular since you need to already believe self-identification can override biological sex in order to believe those things are bad.

  • "...a 41-51 percent suicide attempt rate...": The 41% statistic has been debunked, which the author would know if she'd bothered to read the primary source. Author cites a news article instead of a peer-reviewed study. The 51% statistic seems to be pulled out of someone's ass, since it doesn't appear in the original study or the news article the author cites. In addition, the statistic by itself does not imply that TERF meanies are the reason the transgender suicide rate is so high.

  • "Biological sex: How you get it": Straw man, see above. Misunderstanding of formal logic: you can't argue with the "logic" of a definition, because a definition is just that.

  • "Secondary sex characteristics—penis, vagina, appearance, behavior—arise later, from hormones, environment, experience, and genes interacting.": An outright lie, repeating here because it's so egregious that the author claims that genitals are secondary sex characteristics. Also self-contradictory that behavior is a secondary sex characteristic.

  • "The brain: where stuff gets 'made up'": Straw man; agrees with GC ideology.

  • "The body and the brain and the hormones betwixt": Straw man; agrees with GC ideology. Eye twitching at the word 'betwixt,' but that's not relevant.

  • "While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.": Lying by omission; the author never actually addresses the most obvious characteristic of biological sex.

  • "Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing.": Continuing to lie by omission. Are we supposed to pretend genitals aren't observable?

  • "The trans experience provides essential insights into the science of sex and scientifically demonstrates that uncommon and atypical phenomena are vital for a successful living system.": Unsubstantiated; what does the second clause have to do with anything else? Also, straw man.

  • "Even the scientific endeavor itself is quantifiably better when it is more inclusive and diverse.": Straw man. Genitals exist != leave people who identify as transgender out of any discussion forever.

  • "So, no matter what a pundit, politician or internet troll may say, trans people are an indispensable part of our living reality.": So are genitals?

It's that old quote about reasoning someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. Scientists aren't immune to that.

[–]Realwoman 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So that supposed scientist and specialist in biology doesn't know what secondary sex characterists are and how they differ from primary sex characteristics? Wtf, that's grade level biology.

[–]mharmless 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

It doesn't want to know.

[–]FlippyKing 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The argument addresses a straw man: no one is arguing that an individual's biological sex should be determined by brain structure or hormones, and the existence of intersex people does not conflict with the existence of biological men or women. They are arguing with a definition, that the definition of "man" is someone who was born with XY chromosomes and a penis and the definition of "woman" is someone who was born with XX chromosomes and a vagina.

This of what you typed especially jumped out at me. Other parts did too, but then I'd end up quoting 1/2 of what you typed.

I hope you can put these bullet points up on other social media places to refute the bogus article. It hits the nail on the head, drives it in one swing.

[–]RuminatingOracle 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is a great summary and I agree you should post it in other online forums. The original article is frequently used to "disprove" sex when it does nothing of the sort, and a study instead of an opinion piece. Also, most of the people using it read the title and an article on it and decided it meant whatever the hell they wanted it to me.

[–]msteacherlady 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for the taking the time to do this. I'm just a humble biology teacher and reading up on how people are countering against something I know is wrong is tremendously helpful. People need to keep this up. For every dumb op ed, people need to be able to easily access rebuttals.

The National Science Teachers Association published an article about teaching science while policing your instruction and language to be inclusive to transgender students. It's tantamount to having an article about how the sun is responsible for climate change and not seeing a major backlash from teachers. I think we're all scared to speak out, meanwhile these woketivists are just running their mouths.

Edit to add: Betwixt bothered me too. Why do these people sound so much like the dweebs writing loosely disguised fanfiction in my college creative writing class?

[–]msteacherlady 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank god for this rebuttal! As a science teacher, I get inundated with lots and lots of newsy little science stories that I might want to present to my class, and slowly I've seen the trans agenda creep into publications that I once trusted.

[–]sisterinsomnia 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sexism and misogyny have no difficulty seeing sex as a binary. And it IS a binary concept, of course, and not a spectrum. Someone wrote that humans have ten fingers, that the number of fingers is not along a spectrum, even though some are born with twelve fingers or eight fingers, say. Likewise, intersex conditions are not something along a spectrum.

Gender, of course, can be viewed as a spectrum if it is just the same as personality types. But if you go that route you will end up with sexist views of the world where people are men because they are dominant, competitive and risk-loving and where people are women because they are submissive, emotional, nurturing and passive. There's no real way to argue for gender equality under those conditions, because what we call gender equality is really the equality of the sexes.