No problem! Yes, there are so many ideologically motivated arguments for denying the reality of 2 sexes, it's amazing. I would expect this from everyday activists, but we've got a big problem when this is being spouted by PhDs!
When you see people list their names as "Dr. So-And-So, PhD" that should be a major red flag that they're going to rely on their perceived authority, rather than solid arguments, to advance their claims. Listing 5 degrees after one's name is just totally ridiculous!
Thanks for a clear explanation. Regarding the SRY gene and it appearing on X chromosomes, wikipedia's article about XX male syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome) claims that about 10% of XX males do not have SRY, but that having an extra copy of a gene called SOX9 or the absence of a gene called DOX1 can also cause XX male syndrome. Furthermore, 2 other genes, SF1, WNT4 are claimed to be being investigated for roles in XX male syndrome. So it seems the genetics of XX males aren't straightforward.
I also have a question: Do people ever have both (or some mix of) testes & ovaries or is it always the case you have one or the other but not both?
Yeah, the SRY gene is sort of a main "master switch" but as you've outlines there are some exceptions and the genetics in rare cases can be pretty complex, and there's still a lot we don't know about other genes that might play a role in male development absent SRY. It's pretty easy to get lost in the weeds when you drill down deep enough!
And yes, some people can have both testes and ovaries. Sometimes they have one of each, or sometimes they have "ovotestes" where the gonads can be composed of both ovarian and testicular tissue. However, they're usually infertile and produce a single gamete type. There's a super old paper that purports to have indirect evidence that a fertile male with one ovary and one testicle actually had an ovulation event in their ovary, but it's not totally clear. But even if true, or if humans could legitimately be simultaneous hermaphrodites, this would not be a 3rd sex. Rather, hermaphrodites simply have features of *both* sexes. To be a 3rd sex they would have to produce a unique 3rd type of gamete that was neither an egg nor sperm.
It seems to me this last that you mention would define being another species - using producing a third type of gamete to define a third gender. That's saying evolution would have to develop a different version of gamete, which would serve what purpose?
That's a good question. However, you're conflating sex and gender. Sex relates to biology via chromosomes; gender relates to identity via societal expectations related to sex.
You clearly fail to mention those with gonadal dysgenesis or more precisely mixed testicular and ovarian tissue within the gonads. You also don't mention a category for those with 45X/46XY. 45X are usually females until there is a 45X/46XY, which does NOT necessarily make them male as they are most often ambiguous both biologically as well as physically. While I agree there are not 6 different sex classifications, I do feel there are 3, female, male and for lack of a term, X sex, based on your theory of biological sex. In the US the term biological sex is often referred to as "chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. So within your definition of biological sex, you are leaving out gonadal dysgenesis and specific chromosome combinations, but also those that may have internal female organs, such as uterus and ovaries, but have external male genitalia and vice versa. If the definition above is correct, then you cannot go by only ovarian or testicular gonads alone, but take into consideration the whole person, including genitals, chromosomes, gonads and hormones. A person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome may have female genitals at birth but not discovered until later in life when they are infertile, that in fact they are actually 46XY chromosomally, had streaked gonads but was raised as and identifies as being female. So how do we really classify and determine biological sex? How do we determine "assigned sex at birth". Sometimes it really isn't at all definitive or clear.
Except that, it's not a claim that these variations are new sexes. The claim more accurately would be that they show it's not nearly as clear cut as people want to believe it to be. The point people are trying to make is that there are combinations of the two that aren't as distinctive and contain aspects of the opposite sex. That's NOT saying it's a whole new sex, it's saying it's not a black and white topic the way people want to believe it to be. If the existence of sex organs is your determining factor of who's male and female which is what you're alluding to here, then swapping from one set to another would change your sex. There are animals that change their sex, but I would be very surprised to find out they change their whole biological makeup in order to do so.
The point is, the topic of sex/gender is NOT a black and white, yes or no question that we once were told to believe it to be. There are combinations and mixtures, and in your comments you've admitted as much, but still you sit there and twist the topic to make it sound like others are trying to call them separate genders completely. Who? Who's saying they're a different gender? I read the same tweets you brought up in this post, and I definitely did not get the same interpretation. There are combinations, in betweens, mixes and matches. It's not a black and white subject, and you said it yourself, there's still a lot we don't know, and yet here you are unequivocally stating that you're either male or female, whilst admitting someone could have both ovaries and testes.............. That doesn't pass the smell test, let alone how science works....
When a birth certificate is completed, is there a box for abnormal, male or female? This is much more complex and until you know someone, live with someone or deal with the emotional and societal impact of being intersex or have DSD, then you cannot relate. It is not black or white.
so you agree? that the definition of the sex binary is arbitrarily decided upon by a social view of human sex expression, and not based on actual biological charting where it clearly shows 6 variations of sex?
This article just shows that the writer is biased and is driving into the point without acknowledging it. We know sex chromosomes do not determine sex. An activated SRY gene is what will determine your gametes. Even if sex chromosomes didn't make things different sexes (which it does as that is how we define biological sex, and saying something is a syndrome doesn't negate that as that "syndrome", is just a normal part of biology) we still sex intersexed people. This article is clearly written by someone with an agenda to poorly explain away biological variation, by saying external genitalia is what matters, when we know that is biologically inaccurate.
this entire article is based on a lie. if you want to clear up misinformation, that’s fine. but you’re coming after a trans biologist because of something they never said. “sex karyotypes” is the only categorizing mentioned, nothing about biological sexes other than male and female was explicitly said. if you want to state that you’d assume the argument they’re making is against the tweet they responded to, that’s fine. but you’re attempting to damage the credibility of a biologist because you’re lying about something they never said. i know this is typical journalism, but the fact it’s present in the scientific would should be concerning no matter our differing opinions.
Maybe the person's experience isn't "black and white". That goes for most people anyway.
Simply because those conditions exist doesn't mean society has to trash women's sports, and private spaces, indoctrinate children with very age inappropriate information, etc.
I agree listening to biased “scientists” is something you should avoid if you are looking for an actual truthful statistics. So I highly recommend people to ignore your bigoted articles too! One article title that made me laugh in particular is “Transgender Trend”. The definition of a trend is ‘a change or development towards something new or different.’ However with one search and no science degree myself I can find evidence (sourced from National Geographic) of the first known transgender person dating all the way back to 1886 but this is just what is on record in the west, in the east it is most likely far earlier hence making your title and statement completely factually incorrect seems like you need to head back to school !!
I don’t think you understand what you’re writing about. You’re completely ignoring people with XX chromosomes that have a penis and/or gonads and people with XY chromosomes that have a uterus and/or ovaries. An XY does not automatically give you a penis and/or gonads. Androgens do that. And a mix up in the androgen bath in the first trimester will make an XY person be born with a working uterus and ovaries. They’re not always sterile. It just seem disingenuous to post this while ignoring the facts. People will use your misinformation to further their bigotry and discrimination, and probably have.
McLean writes: "... there are 6 common sex karyotypes: XX, XY, XXY, XXXY, & XYYY. & there are 4 rare sex karyotypes: XO, XO/XX mosaicism, XY/XXY mosacism, XXY/XXXY/XXXXY mosaicism."
- He says SIX, but only lists FIVE.
- He lists XO as being rare, yet the occurrence is
about 1 in 2,000 to 5,000.
- He lists XYYY as being common. There are only
twelve recorded cases of this disorder.
- He fails to list XYY (Jacob's syndrome) which
occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000 births.
Also, he is purposefully misrepresenting the meaning of "sex" and "karyotype". He has simply listed mutations/defects OF and WITHIN the two sexes.
I guess an easy way to remember it, is that regardless of the number of "X" there are, if there is a "Y" present, it is male. It's all or nothing. So, even if the X chromosomes seem to be outnumbering the Y (eg: XXXY), the presence of the Y makes it male. XXXY is not half female, half male, rather, it's a male with two extra X chromosomes.
This is how the doctor describes himself:
"Dr. Shay-Akil McLean, Ph.D. (IG: @Hood_Biologist & @DrShayAkil) is a Queer Trans masculine & genderqueer man (THEY/he) racialized as Black, on stolen Indigenous land, an educator, organizer, writer, public intellectual, human biologist, geneticist, biological anthropologist & sociologist. Dr. McLean earned their Ph.D. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) School of Integrative Biology’s Program for Ecology, Evolution, & Conservation Biology (PEEC)."
If you are talking about Swyer syndrome, they do not have working ovaries. However, that's not really the point. The point is that these conditions do not qualify as ANOTHER SEX. They result from errors, abnormalities, mutations, anomalies, etc... People with these conditions should be treated with the same respect, dignity, and kindness, as everyone else. However, the overwhelming majority of people that are in the center of all the controversy on this issue, are NOT people with sex chromosome abnormalities. All these people claiming to be gender-fluid, non-binary, trans-whatever, are doing this for very different reasons, which is a whole other discussion.
My comment still stands as fact. Some of these XY with uterus and ovary people are fertile and do ovulate. I don't expect you to know that since it is rare and you cannot be aware of every activist or story out there. But to simply state as fact that they don't exist is myopic and frankly obtuse when presented with the fact that they do exist. And I feel like I, as a non-binary individual, would not want to have a conversation with you about what reasons we are "doing this". BTW, it's not something I'm "doing." I have no connection with the societal construct of my gender assigned at birth. It's not a mental disorder like TERFS like to think. It's a complete dismissal of the implications of societal pressure to conform to a gender identity. I like to call it gender atheism. I just don't feel it. It's pretty simple, really.
Thank you for explaining this so others can understand. And argh, the misinformation and retweeting is maddening! Did people miss bio 101?
No problem! Yes, there are so many ideologically motivated arguments for denying the reality of 2 sexes, it's amazing. I would expect this from everyday activists, but we've got a big problem when this is being spouted by PhDs!
or people with, BA, BA, MA, MA, PhD That just precious!
When you see people list their names as "Dr. So-And-So, PhD" that should be a major red flag that they're going to rely on their perceived authority, rather than solid arguments, to advance their claims. Listing 5 degrees after one's name is just totally ridiculous!
It's weird that ama differs from your opinion.
Thanks for a clear explanation. Regarding the SRY gene and it appearing on X chromosomes, wikipedia's article about XX male syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome) claims that about 10% of XX males do not have SRY, but that having an extra copy of a gene called SOX9 or the absence of a gene called DOX1 can also cause XX male syndrome. Furthermore, 2 other genes, SF1, WNT4 are claimed to be being investigated for roles in XX male syndrome. So it seems the genetics of XX males aren't straightforward.
I also have a question: Do people ever have both (or some mix of) testes & ovaries or is it always the case you have one or the other but not both?
Yeah, the SRY gene is sort of a main "master switch" but as you've outlines there are some exceptions and the genetics in rare cases can be pretty complex, and there's still a lot we don't know about other genes that might play a role in male development absent SRY. It's pretty easy to get lost in the weeds when you drill down deep enough!
And yes, some people can have both testes and ovaries. Sometimes they have one of each, or sometimes they have "ovotestes" where the gonads can be composed of both ovarian and testicular tissue. However, they're usually infertile and produce a single gamete type. There's a super old paper that purports to have indirect evidence that a fertile male with one ovary and one testicle actually had an ovulation event in their ovary, but it's not totally clear. But even if true, or if humans could legitimately be simultaneous hermaphrodites, this would not be a 3rd sex. Rather, hermaphrodites simply have features of *both* sexes. To be a 3rd sex they would have to produce a unique 3rd type of gamete that was neither an egg nor sperm.
It seems to me this last that you mention would define being another species - using producing a third type of gamete to define a third gender. That's saying evolution would have to develop a different version of gamete, which would serve what purpose?
That's a good question. However, you're conflating sex and gender. Sex relates to biology via chromosomes; gender relates to identity via societal expectations related to sex.
You clearly fail to mention those with gonadal dysgenesis or more precisely mixed testicular and ovarian tissue within the gonads. You also don't mention a category for those with 45X/46XY. 45X are usually females until there is a 45X/46XY, which does NOT necessarily make them male as they are most often ambiguous both biologically as well as physically. While I agree there are not 6 different sex classifications, I do feel there are 3, female, male and for lack of a term, X sex, based on your theory of biological sex. In the US the term biological sex is often referred to as "chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. So within your definition of biological sex, you are leaving out gonadal dysgenesis and specific chromosome combinations, but also those that may have internal female organs, such as uterus and ovaries, but have external male genitalia and vice versa. If the definition above is correct, then you cannot go by only ovarian or testicular gonads alone, but take into consideration the whole person, including genitals, chromosomes, gonads and hormones. A person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome may have female genitals at birth but not discovered until later in life when they are infertile, that in fact they are actually 46XY chromosomally, had streaked gonads but was raised as and identifies as being female. So how do we really classify and determine biological sex? How do we determine "assigned sex at birth". Sometimes it really isn't at all definitive or clear.
Except that, it's not a claim that these variations are new sexes. The claim more accurately would be that they show it's not nearly as clear cut as people want to believe it to be. The point people are trying to make is that there are combinations of the two that aren't as distinctive and contain aspects of the opposite sex. That's NOT saying it's a whole new sex, it's saying it's not a black and white topic the way people want to believe it to be. If the existence of sex organs is your determining factor of who's male and female which is what you're alluding to here, then swapping from one set to another would change your sex. There are animals that change their sex, but I would be very surprised to find out they change their whole biological makeup in order to do so.
The point is, the topic of sex/gender is NOT a black and white, yes or no question that we once were told to believe it to be. There are combinations and mixtures, and in your comments you've admitted as much, but still you sit there and twist the topic to make it sound like others are trying to call them separate genders completely. Who? Who's saying they're a different gender? I read the same tweets you brought up in this post, and I definitely did not get the same interpretation. There are combinations, in betweens, mixes and matches. It's not a black and white subject, and you said it yourself, there's still a lot we don't know, and yet here you are unequivocally stating that you're either male or female, whilst admitting someone could have both ovaries and testes.............. That doesn't pass the smell test, let alone how science works....
Aren't these abnormalities? For the majority of people, with no abnormalities one is either male, or female.
I haven't noticed a big huge announcement in the world by science that they have discovered a "3rd" sex.
When a birth certificate is completed, is there a box for abnormal, male or female? This is much more complex and until you know someone, live with someone or deal with the emotional and societal impact of being intersex or have DSD, then you cannot relate. It is not black or white.
So is it possible for someone with no Y chromosome to be born male and vice versa?
so you agree? that the definition of the sex binary is arbitrarily decided upon by a social view of human sex expression, and not based on actual biological charting where it clearly shows 6 variations of sex?
This article just shows that the writer is biased and is driving into the point without acknowledging it. We know sex chromosomes do not determine sex. An activated SRY gene is what will determine your gametes. Even if sex chromosomes didn't make things different sexes (which it does as that is how we define biological sex, and saying something is a syndrome doesn't negate that as that "syndrome", is just a normal part of biology) we still sex intersexed people. This article is clearly written by someone with an agenda to poorly explain away biological variation, by saying external genitalia is what matters, when we know that is biologically inaccurate.
this entire article is based on a lie. if you want to clear up misinformation, that’s fine. but you’re coming after a trans biologist because of something they never said. “sex karyotypes” is the only categorizing mentioned, nothing about biological sexes other than male and female was explicitly said. if you want to state that you’d assume the argument they’re making is against the tweet they responded to, that’s fine. but you’re attempting to damage the credibility of a biologist because you’re lying about something they never said. i know this is typical journalism, but the fact it’s present in the scientific would should be concerning no matter our differing opinions.
Maybe the person's experience isn't "black and white". That goes for most people anyway.
Simply because those conditions exist doesn't mean society has to trash women's sports, and private spaces, indoctrinate children with very age inappropriate information, etc.
I agree listening to biased “scientists” is something you should avoid if you are looking for an actual truthful statistics. So I highly recommend people to ignore your bigoted articles too! One article title that made me laugh in particular is “Transgender Trend”. The definition of a trend is ‘a change or development towards something new or different.’ However with one search and no science degree myself I can find evidence (sourced from National Geographic) of the first known transgender person dating all the way back to 1886 but this is just what is on record in the west, in the east it is most likely far earlier hence making your title and statement completely factually incorrect seems like you need to head back to school !!
There is definitely a recent "trend". If you go in and search articles, and interviews with people who have been working in this field for awhile.
Benjamin Boyce has some good interviews with detransitioners, and Dr. Zucker. (YouTube).
Jordan Peterson has a good interview with a "trans care" specialist, "Regrets of a trans care specialist". (YouTube).
Also, several European countries are scaling back on the "affirmation only" model.
Thank goodness.
I don’t think you understand what you’re writing about. You’re completely ignoring people with XX chromosomes that have a penis and/or gonads and people with XY chromosomes that have a uterus and/or ovaries. An XY does not automatically give you a penis and/or gonads. Androgens do that. And a mix up in the androgen bath in the first trimester will make an XY person be born with a working uterus and ovaries. They’re not always sterile. It just seem disingenuous to post this while ignoring the facts. People will use your misinformation to further their bigotry and discrimination, and probably have.
I have a question. What about intersex people? As in people who have both testes and ova? Is there some chromosome variation for that?
Simple, direct, convincing
I'll be using this in my next (irritating) argument with a gender ideologue.
McLean writes: "... there are 6 common sex karyotypes: XX, XY, XXY, XXXY, & XYYY. & there are 4 rare sex karyotypes: XO, XO/XX mosaicism, XY/XXY mosacism, XXY/XXXY/XXXXY mosaicism."
- He says SIX, but only lists FIVE.
- He lists XO as being rare, yet the occurrence is
about 1 in 2,000 to 5,000.
- He lists XYYY as being common. There are only
twelve recorded cases of this disorder.
- He fails to list XYY (Jacob's syndrome) which
occurs in approximately 1 in 1,000 births.
Also, he is purposefully misrepresenting the meaning of "sex" and "karyotype". He has simply listed mutations/defects OF and WITHIN the two sexes.
I guess an easy way to remember it, is that regardless of the number of "X" there are, if there is a "Y" present, it is male. It's all or nothing. So, even if the X chromosomes seem to be outnumbering the Y (eg: XXXY), the presence of the Y makes it male. XXXY is not half female, half male, rather, it's a male with two extra X chromosomes.
This is how the doctor describes himself:
"Dr. Shay-Akil McLean, Ph.D. (IG: @Hood_Biologist & @DrShayAkil) is a Queer Trans masculine & genderqueer man (THEY/he) racialized as Black, on stolen Indigenous land, an educator, organizer, writer, public intellectual, human biologist, geneticist, biological anthropologist & sociologist. Dr. McLean earned their Ph.D. from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) School of Integrative Biology’s Program for Ecology, Evolution, & Conservation Biology (PEEC)."
There are XY people with a working uterus and ovaries. So, no, it’s not that simple.
If you are talking about Swyer syndrome, they do not have working ovaries. However, that's not really the point. The point is that these conditions do not qualify as ANOTHER SEX. They result from errors, abnormalities, mutations, anomalies, etc... People with these conditions should be treated with the same respect, dignity, and kindness, as everyone else. However, the overwhelming majority of people that are in the center of all the controversy on this issue, are NOT people with sex chromosome abnormalities. All these people claiming to be gender-fluid, non-binary, trans-whatever, are doing this for very different reasons, which is a whole other discussion.
My comment still stands as fact. Some of these XY with uterus and ovary people are fertile and do ovulate. I don't expect you to know that since it is rare and you cannot be aware of every activist or story out there. But to simply state as fact that they don't exist is myopic and frankly obtuse when presented with the fact that they do exist. And I feel like I, as a non-binary individual, would not want to have a conversation with you about what reasons we are "doing this". BTW, it's not something I'm "doing." I have no connection with the societal construct of my gender assigned at birth. It's not a mental disorder like TERFS like to think. It's a complete dismissal of the implications of societal pressure to conform to a gender identity. I like to call it gender atheism. I just don't feel it. It's pretty simple, really.
Even in his self-description McLean is a hot mess.
So women with gonadal dysgenesis are not women, since they have not developed the female primary sex organs.
I’m intersex and I don’t consider myself male but definitely more feminine, intersex people are as common as people with ginger hair