[hairybobbins]

Why do you find this offensive?

Wright's key points regarding 'sex realism', as I understand them, are that sex is not a spectrum (as many people are claiming these days) but a male-female binary, and that sex is still an important characteristic in many circumstances, such that it cannot realistically be supplanted by 'gender identity' or similar.

Seems like a reasonable viewpoint to me, and not one that would generally be considered offensive for others to mention.

[pjc50]

Intersex people are living proof that it's not always a binary.

[leephillips]

An “intersex” person (now usually described by doctors or biologists as a person with a disorder of sexual development, or DSD for short) is either male or female, just like any other human being. So to use the rather silly terminology under dispute, “binary”. The “disorder” is a non-typical development of sexual characteristics of the person’s sex: a disorder of male development in a male, or of female development in a female. We can’t even mention the disorder without implicitly affirming the sex categorization that it affects. The “binary” is part of the definition of homo sapiens.

Every “intersex” person is either male or female. Many in that community object to others describing them as some kind of other sex and, especially, using their medical condition as an ignorant cudgel to advance the “trans” rights agenda.

[dawnbreez]

This sounds like you're conflating biological sex (i.e., having both breasts and a penis) with gender (i.e., person IDs as female). I understand why; they use almost the same terms. However, it is important to note that, if you are describing a person who was assigned female at birth, and continues to identify as female, that's entirely describing their gender, not the state of their biological sex characteristics.

In other words, if a person experiences DSD, but self-identifies as male or female, what you are describing is not proof that sex is a binary, but rather proof that a person with DSD can experience gender dysphoria.

[leephillips]

I don’t see where I’ve conflated anything, nor do I understand your attempt to show where I have. “Biological sex” is redundant; sex is a biological classification. There isn’t any other kind.

[dawnbreez]

You argue that people who are intersex regularly identify as male or female, and do not like being pointed to as trans representation...but that's not describing their biological sex characteristics, that's describing their gender identity. You're describing someone who identifies as cis-male or cis-female, despite their biological sex characteristics.

[Cthulhu_]

It may SEEM like a reasonable viewpoint to you, but it's not grounded in reality.

Saying sex is a binary is excluding anyone that doesn't fit within that binary. And if that's something you can't imagine, then it's not a subject you should have or voice an opinion on.

[MerelyMortal]

> if that's something you can't imagine, then it's not a subject you should have or voice an opinion on.

That's a dangerous thought process. Silencing people who don't understand things surely cannot be good as a whole.

[hairybobbins]

You might disagree with this point of view, but that doesn't make it unreasonable.

As Wright notes in https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum, this view of sex as a binary system is based on the concept of male and female being the two discrete halves of the reproductive system in humans (and other anisogamous species):

"Biological sex [...] is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system."

Surely this is not an unreasonable starting point for an evolutionary biologist to extrapolate from?

[implements]

It’s grounded in the reality 99.98% experience - that individuals are biologically differentiated into the male (inseminating) or female (gestating and nursing) reproductive role.

Stress reproductive role there - as unique individuals they have limitless other personal and social roles they can fulfil, and to be honest I don’t see these as naturally gendered, nor feel it would be desirable for it to be so.

[implements]

Well, you could downvote - but, given as the first paragraph seems to be biological fact, perhaps you could instead mount a reasoned defence of gendered personal and social roles, and why they should have primacy over sex as defining components of the identities of “man” and “woman”.

As someone born in the 60s, a time when gendered roles began to be considered limiting and harmful, I would genuinely love to see a defence - at least one beyond “It makes people with gender dysphoria happy” (which is a good thing, but not obviously the right thing given the opportunity for discrimination between genders and expected conformity to normative gender stereotypes).

[dawnbreez]

The trick here is that we're looking at dogwhistles.

To someone outside the theater of culture-war this takes place in, this looks like a series of perfectly ordinary statements. Of course sex is binary, and that statement doesn't sound like it conflicts with gender being a spectrum, because sex and gender are obviously separate.

However, to someone who has lived within this theater of culture-war--who have been dealing with this rhetoric as rhetoric, which is what it is--this is a red flag. "Sex is binary" is the opening salvo in a common rhetorical strategy, which goes "Sex is binary, you're either male or female" -> "I'm just stating a fact, no need to be defensive" -> "See, this is why I don't trust trans people" -> "This is why you shouldn't trust trans people, they contradict basic facts like sex being binary". Notice the magic trick here--by picking phrasing that's plausibly deniable, and then framing any reaction to it as "disagreeing with Science", this guy can make it look like he's disagreeing with trans people, and make it look like trans people are somehow in the wrong for this, without ever actually having to stop and explain why.

That's not even getting into the fact that, frankly, "sex is binary" isn't actually correct. There are plenty of examples of species that don't actually fit into a binary sex model correctly--species which can reproduce both sexually and asexually, species which can change sex in order to find mates more reliably, and even cases where more than two sexes can be observed (such as in bees, for whom "worker", "drone", and "queen" all have different sexual characteristics). This goes against what most of us were taught when we were young, but that's part of the rational approach to the world: sometimes the model that we were given when we were in elementary school is wrong, and a newer model is a more accurate description of what's going on.

And that's part of the goal, here. "Sex realism", here, has nothing to do with reality, just as "religious fundamentalism" rarely has anything to do with the fundamentals of whatever religion is involved. Rather, "sex realism" is a rhetorical strategy which uses the aesthetics of skepticism to make one's argument seem sensible, polite, and rational. It relies on the audience never actually questioning whether the "sex realist" is describing reality, or reading beyond the face value of what they are saying.

The especially insidious part of this tactic is the way it weaponizes the reactions of people who understand what the dogwhistle means. People like me, who have spent hours upon hours discussing these things, immediately recognize the tactic at play--and more often than not, react loudly and angrily. After all, I've seen this conversation play out over and over, and invariably the guy claiming to just be a sex realist turns out to be an asshole, just like how the guys who claim to be "race realists" inevitably start citing things like the 13/50 argument (which is a whole other can of bad-statistics worms). But that's part of the plan--when I or someone like me says "What the fuck, get out" in response to the initial statement, that's when the sex-realist turns to the audience and says, "See how upset this person is over these definitely true things I just said! Clearly, if they're losing their cool this badly, I must be right!" And this works, because it short-circuits past the part where the sex-realist's argument is evaluated. By framing things in this way, the sex-realist can convince members of the audience to trust him before evaluating his argument, which lets him avoid actual scrutiny of what he's claiming.

TLDR: Wright is framing a simplified, not-really-correct statement as absolute truth, and then framing the people he opposes as unreasonable and irrational, to take advantage of the fact that human beings use trust to save processing power and avoid having to actually evaluate arguments.

[Vecr]

I'm not sure why people talk about insects and goldfish and things like that, when someone says "sex is binary" and they are talking about humans, they mean "human sex is binary". Anything that may or may not be true about other species does not matter for the argument. I'll say "as a general rule, human sex is binary" if you really want that changed.

[dawnbreez]

That's a bit more accurate, though it still sweeps a few edge cases under the rug.

Choosing phrases and words that more clearly express what you mean is a good thing. Communication is hard enough under normal circumstances, and on topics like this, things get even more complicated because of groups who are trying to conflate seemingly-innocent phrases with their own arguments (both to make their own arguments sound like there's already widespread support, and to make their opponents seem unreasonable, as I described above). You should try to be sure that you're saying what you actually mean, and try to avoid unintentional meaning from phrases that have been coopted by others.

On the other hand: Why, exactly, does it matter whether biological sex is binary or not? The other half of trying to say what you mean is understanding what you actually mean. What are you arguing toward?

[ryan-c]

If someone thinks biological sex is binary, that shows they're uninformed. Like gender, it is essentially a point cloud in n-dimensional space - largely bimodal, but with a few other notable clusters.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter. We are humans. Giving our biology the finger and doing what we want is an option. It is not a remotely new option, but both the accessibility and extent of that option are increasing over time.

Customized regimens of drugs and surgeries are available to achieve combinations of sex characteristics that simply do not occur naturally. Many insurance plans in the US will cover them.

We've just begun to scratch the surface of what is possible. I read an account recently of someone doing a YOLO by knocking out their DMRT1 gene with CRISPR. The goal was to alter hormone levels - and it seems to have worked.

I'm living the bleeding edge of some of this, the culture war is real, and it is heating up. All I want is to exist without oppression. This will likely play out similar to how it did for same-sex couples. Visibility and social acceptance has grown. We are now in the period of conservative people trying to put the genie back in the bottle. The effort will probably fail eventually - but much suffering will be caused in the process.

My choice is to stand up for myself - and do what I can to help those who cannot.

[hairybobbins]

> If someone thinks biological sex is binary, that shows they're uninformed. Like gender, it is essentially a point cloud in n-dimensional space - largely bimodal, but with a few other notable clusters.

Not really though - if someone has carefully considered this topic and still regards the sex binary as the most appropriate model to apply, it's more likely to indicate they are considering function over form in their reasoning. In particular, reproductive function - i.e. why we all have sexed bodies in the first place.

With this model, sex isn't just an assortment of bodily features, but is based on the reproductive function around which several related aspects of our bodies have evolved, with male and female being the two types of anatomical pattern appropriate to each reproductive role.

However, I do understand that to those who want to believe that sex can be changed through pharmaceutical and surgical interventions, this view of sex as a functional biological system isn't as compelling as the 'point cloud' model, which comes with the implication that if these points can be changed somehow, then sex is too.

[dawnbreez]

...This still ignores examples where sexual characteristics don't actually fit a binary, though. These are edge cases, yes, but they are edge cases that occur in nature. This is why cases like the bee example are important--bees have sexual trimorphism. Drones, workers, and queens all have different sexual characteristics that affect how they reproduce. Based on the reproductive function of bee anatomy, sex is not a binary for bees.

Also, I'd like to point out--for the record--that the ability to change one's sexual characteristics, and the presence or absence of sexual characteristics, has almost nothing to do with one's gender (beyond avoiding body dysphoria). This is an important distinction to make, because while we don't have full ability to change a person's sex (i.e., we don't have artificial wombs yet), a person's gender can be independent of their sexual characteristics (as evidenced not only by trans people, but also by intersex people who identify as cisgender).

[dawnbreez]

Mind linking a source for the CRISPR thing? I was just thinking the other day that having a CRISPR-based "one and done" pill for hormone therapy would be awesome.