As a biologist, the only strongly discontinuous binary I can think of has weirdly become violently controversial. It is sex: male vs female. You can be cancelled, vilified, even physically threatened if you dare to suggest that an adult human must be either man or woman. But it is true; for once, the discontinuous mind is right. And the tyranny comes from the other direction, as that brave hero JK Rowling could testify.
Sex is a true binary. It all started with the evolution of anisogamy – sexual reproduction where the gametes are of two discontinuous sizes: macrogametes or eggs, and microgametes or sperm. The difference is huge. You could pack 15,000 sperm into one human egg. When two individuals jointly invest in a baby, and one invests 15,000 times as much as the other, you might say that she (see how pronouns creep in unannounced) has made a greater commitment to the partnership.
Females have two Xs, males one X and one Y. Any mammal with a Y chromosome will develop as a male.
In mammals, including humans, there are occasional intersexes. Babies can be born with ambiguous genitalia. These cases are rare. The highest estimate, 1.7 per cent of the population, comes from the US biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling. But she inflated her estimate hugely by including Klinefelter and Turner syndromes, neither of which are true intersexes. Klinefelter individuals have an extra X chromosome (XXY) but their Y chromosome ensures that they are obvious males, producing microgametes, albeit from reduced testes. Turner individuals are unambiguous females with no Y chromosome and only one (functioning) X chromosome. They have a vagina and uterus, and their ovaries, if any, are non-functional. Obviously, Klinefelter (always male) and Turner (always female) individuals must be eliminated from counts of intersexes, in which case Fausto-Sterling’s estimate shrinks from 1.7 per cent to less than 0.02 per cent. Genuine intersexes are way too rare to challenge the statement that sex is binary. There are two sexes in mammals, and that’s that.
But what about gender? What is gender, and how many genders are there? It is now fashionable to use “gender” for what we might call fictive sex: a person’s “gender” is the sex to which they feel that they belong, as opposed to their biological sex. In this meaning, “genders” have proliferated wildly. When I last heard, there were 83. But that was yesterday. What does “gender” actually mean?
Your genes and chromosomes may determine your sex, but your gender is whatever floats your boat: “I was assigned male at birth, but I identify as a woman.” Finally, the wheel turns full circle, and self-identification has now gone so far as to usurp even “sex”. A “woman” is defined as anyone who chooses to call herself a woman, and never mind if she has a penis and a hairy chest. And of course this entitles her to enter women’s changing rooms and athletic competitions. Why should she not? She is, after all, a woman, is she not? Deny it and you are a transphobic bigot.
Many of us know people who choose to identify with the sex opposite to their biological reality. It is polite and friendly to call them by the name and pronouns that they prefer. They have a right to that respect and sympathy. Their militantly vocal supporters do not have a right to commandeer our words and impose idiosyncratic redefinitions on the rest of us. You have a right to your private lexicon, but you are not entitled to insist that we change our language to suit your whim. And you absolutely have no right to bully and intimidate those who follow common usage and biological reality in their usage of “woman” as honoured descriptor for half the population. A woman is an adult human female, free of Y chromosomes.
Nothing to add…wonderful explanation! I am nearly 100 hence I am really “beyond the Pale”. However, I presume the coming generations will adjust as they have to all other changes but how that will occur, I do wonder? I do question the militancy? What is the reason for such anger?
(((What is the reason for such anger?))) Every generation want to set out a new and over turn the perceived mundane of the previous generation. The Now generation, in the west, has to be the cushiest gen’ for the longest time. No wars, no famine and never out of their hand the electronic puppet-master. They are bored to paralysis. But they are driven to overturn something. Anything. Then back to the coffee shop for triple espresso latte with cream whip on top.
“Sex is a true binary. It all started with the evolution of anisogamy – sexual reproduction where the gametes are of two discontinuous sizes: macrogametes or eggs, and microgametes or sperm.”
What Dawkins is saying here is that the gametes are binary. That is not in dispute. But the binary argument collapses as soon as two gametes (egg and sperm) combine to form a zygote. So, the argument fails at the very first step leading to a separate individual.
“Females have two Xs, males one X and one Y”.
Dawkins is incorrect. There are at least a dozen combinations of the X and Y. Here they are:
X, XX, XXX, XXXX, XXXXX, XY, XXY, XXXY, XXXXY, XXYY, 6,XY/47,XXY, and 45,X/47,XXX.
“Any mammal with a Y chromosome will develop as a male.”
Dawkins’ categorical statement is incorrect:
Here are the exceptions:
1) Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS): XY individuals develop typical female anatomy.
2) Swyer syndrome: XY individuals develop female reproductive structures due to gonadal dysgenesis.
3) 5‑alpha‑reductase deficiency: XY individuals may develop female or ambiguous genitalia.
” there are occasional intersexes.”
Dawkins just contradicted his absolute statement that sex is binary.
“Klinefelter and Turner syndromes…are [not] true intersexes. Klinefelter individuals have an extra X chromosome (XXY)…Turner [Syndrome]…only one (functioning) X chromosome.”
Dawkins just contradicted himself for a second time. Gametes may be binary, but zygotes are not. Apart from XX and XY, they include at least two more: XXY and X. So, not binary.
“Genuine intersexes are way too rare to challenge the statement that sex is binary”
Dawkins arbitrarily excludes Klinefelter Syndrome (XXX) and Turner Syndrome (X) – both glaring exceptions to his claim that zygotes are binary – to claim that intersex is less than 0.02%. But that is not zero, so he contradicts himself yet again. These individuals exist and 0.02% of 8 billion is a large number that Dawkins wants to eliminate from consideration.
And then he goes completely off the rails with his idiosyncratic interpretation of gender.
Wouldn’t you need to demonstrate that the conditions you detail, will necessarily cause the person to have a sense they are sexually in the wrong body? They may go through life without any confusion. Documenting the rare variations doesn’t alter much IMO. The IOC (Olympic Committee) now use differences/disorders in sex development (DSDs) to determine sex for category. An interesting article about it: https://www.olympics.com/ioc/news/international-olympic-committee-announces-new-policy-on-the-protection-of-the-female-women-s-category-in-olympic-sport
“Wouldn’t you need to demonstrate that the conditions you detail, will necessarily cause the person to have a sense they are sexually in the wrong body?”
The purpose of my comment was to detail why pretty well all the statements made by Richard Dawkins do not comply with the scientific facts. I did that without needing to address the question you asked.
In any case, the factors I outlined do not necessarily lead to the person to have a sense they are sexually in the wrong body? But, clearly, they can do so, unless you are going to deny the patently undeniable fact these people do exist.
“Documenting the rare variations doesn’t alter much IMO”
But the variations do matter and in two important ways:
1) They mean that statistically Dawkins is wrong when he says sex is binary. Sex is bimodal with 98-99% at two ends of the spectrum and 1-2% between these extremes. But even male and female, as categories, exist on a spectrum. At the male end of the spectrum from masculine males to feminine males; and at the other end of the bimodal spectrum and from masculine females to feminine females.
2) These people do exist. They represent 1-2% of the population which is 1 in 50-100 people you know. The average person has 150 stable human relationships, so if you are an average person as far as relationships are concerned, 1-3 people you know belong in this 1-2%. Moreover, they are individuals just like you are an individual, and they matter very much indeed at least to themselves and hopefully the people around them. Unfortunately, the attitude of people like Richard Dawkins, who should know better, make life far more difficult than it should be for them.
“The IOC (Olympic Committee) now use differences/disorders in sex development (DSDs) to determine sex for category. ”
That is entirely a separate issue. It is the nature of sporting competition, at least at the elite level, to be equally balanced between competitors. For example, weight categories in boxing and wrestling.
Some rare individuals are born with one leg or no legs (Limb Amelia) or even multiple legs beyond two (polymelia). Others lose one or both limbs during their lifetimes. The compassion we may feel for these individuals does not detract from the fact that humans are a bipedal species. The existence of individuals with DSDs or who have had surgery to alter their genitals does not alter the fact that sex is binary in humans.
“sex is binary”
I have already explained that the above statement is contrary to what science tells us is true. To simply repeat the scientifically incorrect statement without addressing the rather detailed explanation that I presented that sex is actually bimodal, is no answer to that detailed explanation. Your statement remains scientifically incorrect.
“The existence of individuals with DSDs or who have had surgery to alter their genitals does not alter the fact that sex is binary in humans.”
Except that sex is bimodal, which is a term that includes the 1-2% of the population that the incorrect statement “sex is binary” excludes. Science strives to be accurate and based on facts. Sex is bimodal.
Sex is Binary
It responds to the common (but nonsensical) argument that sex is “bimodal” and therefore that sex is not binary but in fact a spectrum.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/doggit/
Is this a valid argument IYO?
In a binary distribution there are only two discrete categories with no continuum between them. For example, gametes come in two discrete categories (sperm and ova) with nothing in between.
In a bimodal distribution there is continuous data with two peaks. For example, all the other biological sex characteristics (with one exception – see below) exhibit a bimodal distribution.
The writer agrees that biologic sex characteristics are bimodal, but that sex itself is binary. She never really gets down to explaining why she thinks sex is binary when all the biological sex characteristics are bimodal. In a sense, she uses her conclusion in her argument to reach that conclusion (“circular reasoning”).
But when the relevant scientific experts say that sex is bimodal that is exactly what they mean – that the biological sex characteristics are bimodal – and she seems to agree. Moreover, the only thing that is distinctly binary are the gametes as described above.
There is a special issue with the sex chromosomes. They come in about 12 discrete combinations so, neither binary nor bimodal but multimodal with two prominent peaks.
But let me ask you a question:
There is a condition called Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS). In the embryonic stage of development, everyone starts off following the female body plan and divergence from the female body plan to the male body plan occurs under the influence of high testosterone levels. In CAIS, the sex chromosomes are XY, the gonads are testicular, and they produce the necessary high levels of testosterone, but the receptors for this hormone are completely insensitive to the effects of that hormone. Therefore, this individual continues to develop the female body plan. They are officially born female and have female registered on their birth certificates and are raised as females, and they develop female secondary biological sex characteristics at puberty. The fact that they have XY chromosomes only comes to light when they are unable to conceive or if they have a chromosome test for other reasons. If such an individual never marries, or never tries to conceive, or tries but fails and decides against investigating why, they will never know they have XY sex chromosomes and high testosterone levels. So, my question is, does this make you think any differently about this subject?
Considering that not even the individual in question may know they have this condition, it is largely a theoretical question in most contexts except if the individual decides to enter competitive female sporting competition. The International Olympic Committee has now limited female competition to biological women but has made an exception for these rare individuals with CAIS who although XY have otherwise female bodies having derived no benefit from testosterone during their development over their lifetime. This is very different from having taken cross-sex hormones for a limited period. I think conflating the situation of these rare individuals with the many men who choose to claim a trans identity is intentionally confusing members of the public about the issues involved.
My comment was in response to the claim by the author of your link that sex is binary. There was nothing about the “trans in sport” question in that link. You diverging back to the trans question sounds to me like you have no further response to the “sex is binary” claim made by Richard Dawkins. That’s fine. We can leave it there.
I’ve already responded to the “trans women in women’s sport” question but let me just comment further that the author of your link who persuaded the Darts Association to ban trans women from women’s dart competition where there is no competitive advantage, shows that she is not a serious person from whom to seek an opinion on this matter.
There are concerns that need to be addressed but we can do without the bias and antagonism spread by the organisation that the author of your link represents. Trans people are a small minority group with a very high depression and suicide rate if not supported by the people around them. It is unseemly to be seen beating down on them and encouraging others to do the same.