[706f6f70]

It strikes me as somewhat ironic that Nature would public this given that they recently tweeted:

> Editorial: The US Department of Health and Human Services proposes to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they are born with. This proposal has no foundation in science and should be abandoned. [1]

That last sentence just absolutely boggles the mind and I'm not entirely sure how this journal retains any semblance of reputation when its editorial board is so clearly willing to put ideology over science.

---

[1] https://twitter.com/nature/status/1064694083090812928

[yesenadam]

It doesn't 'boggle' my mind. It would be helpful, I suppose, if you could explain how the last sentence shows they are 'so clearly willing to put ideology over science' - nothing could be less clear to me, although I'm far from expert. Otherwise it will seem like that's precisely what you're doing yourself, which I suspect is why you've been heavily downvoted.

[thsowers]

To play devils advocate: I am against establishing such a definition, but I dislike when organizations that are supposed to be inherently unbiased and unopinionated state an opinion, even when it is one that I agree with. I feel like doing so gives potential detractors of said organization (like GP) more ground to criticize them on.

[thoughtexplorer]

Because Nature is claiming that science is not science. That should concern everyone.

The fact is that anatomy predicts gender over 99% of the time.

https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1064937624329048064

https://www.playboy.com/read/the-difference-between-sex-and-...

[notahacker]

If the purpose of proposed legislation is to eliminate all consideration of exceptions, surely science demonstrating that exceptions exist is the pertinent factor, and not science demonstrating that exceptions are rare.

[tree_of_item]

The last sentence shows that they, Nature, are seriously suggesting that there is something wrong with defining sex based on observable sexual characteristics. This shows they are willing to put ideology over science: the only reason to suggest such a thing is ideology.

[tzs]

> The last sentence shows that they, Nature, are seriously suggesting that there is something wrong with defining sex based on observable sexual characteristics

No. They are suggesting that there is something wrong with defining it based on just one particular observable characteristic.

There are numerous characteristics in humans that come in two forms or varieties, one generally associated with males and one generally with females. Many people end up with some characteristics of the form generally associated with males and with some characteristics generally associated with females.

For example, there is a response in the hypothalamus to the pheromone androstadienone that is different in males and females, and can be recognized on an MRI scan.

Another example is how "male" and "female" brains perform visual and spatial memory tasks, such as imagining how a shape would look when rotated. Males generally are better at this than females, and brain scans show that when doing this task males are using different parts of the brain than females use--male brains approach this task differently than do female brains.

Some people with male genitals have female androstadienone response and female visual and spatial processing, and some people with female genitals have male androstadienone response and male visual and spatial processing. In particular, studies have found that transgender people are often this way, with their brain having the responses of the gender they identify as rather than the gender their genitals suggest.

[yesenadam]

I don't know what you mean here by 'ideology', or how you can claim so certainly to know what 'the only reason' to do something must be.

[rocannon]

Are you aware of intersex people? This is why the editors of Nature are correct in saying the proposal has no foundation in science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex How do people with ambiguous traits at birth get categorized according to such a proposal?

[thoughtexplorer]

They're wrong unfortunately. Biological sex has a strong scientific basis. The existence of intersex doesn't change that.

This is a good primer on the subject from a liberal M.D. and source: https://www.playboy.com/read/the-difference-between-sex-and-...

"For 99 percent of us, our sex and anatomy dictate our gender; they are essentially the same thing. But for the one percent of the population who are transgender or intersex, their sex and gender don’t align. What has complicated this issue is that some outlets have replaced the word sex with gender when reporting on the memo, particularly when making any references to anatomy."

"But intersex people possess both female and male anatomy, which leads to having a gender identity that may be different from the way they appear to the outside world. To suggest that this group proves that gender is completely unrelated to anatomy, or that a person’s sense of gender in the brain somehow operates in a way that is distinct from the rest of their body, is foolish and erroneous."

[tzs]

Where would you put someone born with male genitals, but who identifies as female, and for whom brain scans show a brain that has female hormone responses and female processing patterns, who undergoes male to female sex reassignment surgery?

[mr_toad]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndr...