“Woman is a social role, like a postman.”

You may have heard this argument before from activists. Immediately, you know this is absurd, but activists insist upon womanhood being a “performance” or a “social role,” similar to a job in society. When challenged to define how one “performs” womanhood, you will be met with one of two responses:

1. a list of cultural stereotypes such as dress, makeup, and behaviors, or

2. the activist will realize that they’ve walked headfirst into the cultural concepts they claim to despise and argue that the performance of womanhood can only be defined by how the individual performing it thinks it’s performed because “a woman can be anything.”

Even Social Constructs Are Definable

Of course, both of these arguments are false. If a woman were anything and based entirely on an individual’s ideas, then there would be nothing to identify into. Even imaginary creatures like dragons and unicorns can be described and have an understood general definition. There is a consensus on what makes both creatures, even if cultural, regional, or individual representations differ on the details. The dragons in Chinese mythology look very different from Medieval representations or modern, chubby characters in children’s media.

But across all representations, we know a dragon must be a reptile with limbs, claws, teeth, and a tail. They can have wings or fly by some other means. They are usually large and have horns and scales. Anything outside of that typical representation requires someone to say, “this is actually a dragon,” and it’s often a purposeful subversion of expectations. Likewise, we all know a unicorn is a horse-like creature with a single horn. These creatures are social constructs.

So, if even a creature that exists only in concept and imagination can have a standard definition and agreed upon consensus so well established that we can know it across the globe, and we know they can’t just be “anything,” why are “man” and “woman” different?

A job like a postman/mail carrier is a social construct. You can’t walk into a post office, declare yourself a mail carrier, take the mail and deliver it as you like. There is a process, there is a consensus on qualifications and procedures that one must have and do in order to deliver the mail. Likewise with most other jobs and societal roles. You can’t simply identify in and out of job titles, declaring yourself a doctor one moment and an astronaut the next like a living Barbie doll. Nor can you do that with strictly social roles such as mother, grandfather, or even friend.

You can’t be a mother without being a female raising a child through birth or adoption. You can’t be a grandfather unless your child is a parent. And you can’t waltz up to anyone on the street and declare yourself their friend. For whatever reason, all these examples are obvious and any challenge to them is seen as absurd. But again, for some reason, identifying as the opposite sex, neither, or anything else relating to “gender” identity/sex is not. Why?

Imitation Is Not Reality

You won’t get a satisfying answer as to “why.” You’ll simply get a return trip to the beginning of the argument, with the opposition explaining that a man can be a woman “in every meaningful way.” If you ask them to explain, they’ll go back into stereotypes, often point to a man who “passes” as a woman in appearance, or give you a list of cosmetic surgeries and procedures that somehow turn a man into a woman in their eyes.

These are another and perhaps an even more egregious set of stereotypes, as it equates naturally developed anatomy to surgically constructed replicas with no function. After all, “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck,” right? Wrong. Humans can be spectacular imitators. People can waddle and quack like ducks, but we aren’t anymore a duck than your furries or “therians” are actual animals. Nor is someone a postman simply by dressing up like one and handing out something resembling the post.

Transgenderism Deliberately Avoids Any Definition

The activists seek not only to have these subjective, nebulous identities validated on an interpersonal level, but to cement them in legislation as well. Falsification of legal documentation to reflect these identities is, for whatever reason, considered a relatively mainstream position. This is of course problematic not only because it is a blatant lie on a legal identification document, but it also has no objective criteria by which it can be applied to every trans identified individual. This is by design, of course.

If they can land on an objective standard, they risk losing the privileges to change documentation or go into opposite sex spaces for huge swaths of their community who don’t adhere to them:

• They can’t use a surgical or pharmaceutical standard because it would then coerce or force people to undergo treatments they may not have otherwise undergone in order to get those privileges.

• A standard of “passing” doesn’t work either, because that would be based on a completely external, highly subjective measure that would lead to discrimination based on beauty standards and would also most likely make people feel similarly coerced into surgery as the previous example.

Both of these would no doubt be challenged in court and undone. This is why proponents of gender ideology have landed on self declaration and the argument of the social construct. The objectivity is in the fact that the individual stated, or even *will* state, that their gender is something other than their sex, despite the lack of evidence that supports the claim. It’s all a matter of individual belief, which is not done with any other social role or identity marker on documentation.

Race, for example, is a highly variable gradient. One can be of mixed descent, have brown skin, but identify as either black, white, or both. Is it an indicator of heritage, skin color, or both? How far back does your heritage have to go for it to factor in, if at all?

Eye color can change with contacts or some highly risky procedures, similarly to gender procedures, so why make that based on actual eye color, and not however the individual identifies their eye color?

The same could be argued for height, which can also change with footwear and surgery. Age is also a gradient, with some cultural calendars, “leap years,” and dubious record keeping nations making it confusing or difficult to track for some. But, we still track it accurately, based on objective measurements, based on date and time of birth. And, like gender, there are those who wish to identify as a different age. However, under no other means, for no other wishes do we support the ability to lie on identification.

So, what is the difference between the woman and the postman?

She can’t claim his job through self declaration, but he can claim her womanhood with it.

A good trans activist or queer theorist will tell you that sex doesn’t matter, that it is fluid, and that gender supersedes it. However, were sex not a real thing, were any of their assertions about it true, then being trans-identified wouldn’t be the novel, bold, and profound thing worth celebrating that they claim it to be.

It would be no more spectacular than the reality of male and female already is. We would no more bat an eye at trans identification than clownfish do when one of their own changes sex. It would just be a part of normal life – no more transcendent an experience than any other part of human development. Which is not to say that human development isn’t amazing in its own right, but rather to illustrate that it doesn’t move us in the way that trans activists believe we should be moved by someone’s gender journey.

The Primary Contradiction

Proponents of trans ideology will go so far as to claim that acknowledging sex is an erasure of someone’s trans identity -- even saying something along the lines of acknowledging sex erases their very personhood. And that’s where the primary contradiction of trans ideology lies: in order for it to be a groundbreaking revelation about humanity, it has to have ground to stand on – it has to rely on sex.

You can’t be a “trans woman” unless you’re male. You can’t be a “trans man” unless you’re female. Though those in support of this ideology will nearly always claim that “man,” “woman,” “boy,” “girl,” “male,” and “female” are all “social constructs” that are based solely on self-proclamation and identification, they will not argue this for “trans women” and “trans men.” Only males can be “trans women” and only females can be “trans men.” If you suggest otherwise to them they will often scoff, stumble, and attempt to insult your intelligence before trying to shut down the conversation.

This was most spectacularly on display when stories started circulating on Reddit and X (formerly Twitter) about women “pretending to be trans women” to produce fetish content on pornographic websites such as Only Fans and Pornhub. The comment sections on social media were teeming with activists and trans-identifying people seething at such heresy.

Conversely, everyone else in the comments took the opportunity to ask why they were so offended if “people are who they say they are” and that there was no difference between women and trans-identifying males as they previously had claimed. Some trans-identifying males even took to threatening the women and telling them to “stay out of our spaces,” which was a particularly hilarious display of hypocrisy. The spaces in question, of course, are porn categories, unlike the physical spaces in which these same men wish to and do impose themselves on women.

The Implicit Binary

It seems the mantras and talking points failed or outright neglected to cover this argument. It’s hard to say if this was intentional or merely overlooked out of hubris. Given what we know about the biggest queer theorists, either explanation is likely. If it was an oversight in the messaging, it speaks to their overconfidence; if it was intentional, it was a purposeful attempt to hide the man behind the curtain, so to speak.

It both protects trans identification as something unique and sacred that can’t be changed while maintaining “people are who they say they are” by the omission that women can’t claim to be men who claim to be women and vice versa. Similarly, a man can’t claim to be a “nonbinary trans man,” nor a woman claim to be a “nonbinary trans woman,” because nonbinary is also reliant on understanding that there are only two sexes and the person “identifies” with neither.

All other genders depend on the same principle – an attempt at avoiding the sex binary – which requires a concrete understanding that there is one – even though they claim to be ignorant of it.

You can’t avoid something or identify in or out of it if you don’t think it exists. Even if sex were strictly a bimodal social construct, you would still need the two measurable ends of the spectrum and to know what they are in order to identify where on that spectrum someone falls. That would still require measurable and objective categories.

This is something that activists often ignore in their arguments when they propose the sex spectrum. Objectivity and measurement of values and categories are still requisites of a spectrum. Without them, it would instead be a random series of labels with no discernible traits or values that had any meaning. If that were the case, then there would be no meaning outside of someone’s subjective concept with no capacity for consensus. And without that consensus we can’t establish societal regulations and meaning, thereby making the push for trans identification to be valued and held up in a legal, social, or medical context a completely moot point.

This is where proponents of queer theory and trans ideology, for lack of a better term, played themselves.

The Fall

In their fevered push to dismantle boundaries and definitions for their own, often fetishistic fancies, their arguments undo the very validation they claim to crave.

If sex doesn’t matter or exist, then there is no point in identifying as one, the other, neither, or both. There is no reason to try to imitate or escape one sex’s traits or the other’s. There would be no reason for a gender identity to matter, be celebrated, or be seen as a source of victimhood. No pins, no flags, no self-aggrandizing books about living one’s truth and self-discovery through cross-dressing could exist unless the fact that sex is quite real and immutable is acknowledged.

Unfortunately for activists (but fortunately for the rest of us) no structure can stand while its foundation is being destroyed. With more organizations like the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association starting to reject the objectively false claims of so-called “gender affirming care,” we’ve already started seeing the cracks appear in their poorly constructed ideology.

Eventually, the entire structure they built will fall, but the foundation will endure for something stronger and complementary to take its place.

Think back to a time when you were very young­—young enough to start making assumptions about the world around you. You’re starting to find your place in the world, see where you fit in, but you don’t have the language or full understanding to articulate what you want or what you’re experiencing. Most of what you’re doing is absorbing information at such high speed you can’t even process it fully. You just take in the information and try your best to succeed at navigating society.

You played pretend based on careers or social roles you learned about. You built forts or block towers and houses. You may have served meals to your family and friends made of plastic food or leaves and dirt. Some of you even had a real bite of those pretend meals and learned the hard way that your imagination doesn’t change toys and dirt into gourmet cuisine. This is how children learn about the world­—they take in information about everything, from how food is prepared and served to the complex workings of society like jobs, building, and relationships. You didn’t even realize you were doing this or how much of the world you were absorbing and reflecting through your fun and games.

In retrospect, this would’ve been a challenging and confusing time as you grew and learned so much in such a short time. But most of you made some friends and assimilated with peers well enough to keep you relatively grounded and survive the schoolyard into adulthood. Some of you may not even remember because it was so inconsequential of a time and your memories focus on moments of rambunctious play or precocious pranks. However, some of us recall this time in painful detail. Fitting in was a struggle and the messaging from peers was that we were missing something and we weren’t sure what or why.

The reason for being an offbeat outcast can be any number of things—disorders, bad parents, or even just as simple as atypical interests or not keeping up with the pack. For the most part, this cohort works out the reason and pushes forward. They find their fellow misfits and get through the growing pains. However, some of those kids—often the ones with trauma—don’t. With such a limited understanding of the world and an even more limited way of expressing themselves, these children do their best to make sense of why they don’t fit in and often blame themselves for that inability. An assessment and a question form subconsciously, “Everyone else is able to get along, aren’t they? It must be something about me that’s wrong.” This was my experience, and, like so many children seem to fall into today, I thought it was because I was born the wrong sex.

How Sex Rejection is Reinforced

I was very young when I settled on this reason. And, for me, it was continually reinforced by my environment. I had difficulty fitting in with girls. I preferred playing with boys as a result, and they accepted me without question. The games and activities I liked were very general. I liked building and taking things apart, rough and tumble interactions with others, acting out various careers, and my toys were more likely to go on dramatic adventures than they were to play house. This worked better with the boys than the girls on the playground.

Although, my case happened back in the 90s and early 00s, well before social media spread trans identity like a plague, the overall story and thought process is much the same as it is for anyone who blamed their distress on their sex.

At some point:

1. the individual experiences distress or trauma they can’t fully parse

2. the individual believes their bodies and personality are a source of disgust and should be rejected, and

3. the individual latches onto an alternate identity of the opposite sex as an ultimate rejection of themselves and source of comfort in an idealized fantasy identity.

Major contributing factors can be fetishistic disorder, autism, body dysmorphia, social contagion, sexual trauma or other comorbidities. Some researchers have also shown links to weakened areas in the brain that relate to perception of the self in individuals with sex distress (aka gender dysphoria). However, there has never been any proof that this distress has an origin beyond subjective belief and cultural stereotypes.

The Mythical Trans Kid

Enter the cultural phenomena of the “trans kid.” Thanks to the media pushing distressed and groomed children like Jazz Jennings into the public eye as a sensational novelty, the idea that a child could somehow know they were born in the wrong body has been widely accepted by the public.

Initially, this idea was rightly questioned, but it was swiftly silenced by sympathetic talkshow hosts and news outlet highlights featuring the children, giving simplistic, yet passionate claims about being themselves and knowing who they are. At the time, for most people in the West, this was a fair enough explanation, as they were afraid of crushing a child’s sense of self and belonging. And, at the time, most people believed this was only affecting a few children and the thought that such a serious claim about a child would be backed without any evidence by the medical and psychological communities was even more unbelievable than that of someone being born in the wrong body. Thus, with its foot firmly in the door, the myth of the trans kid was able to squeeze its way into the cultural zeitgeist and spread from the fringes of daytime TV and special investigative reports to the total saturation of children’s media, school curriculum, and every corner of social media with full backing and protection of major corporations and institutions.

With this total capture, creation of and admittance into gender clinics, trans identification, and policies that mandated affirmation proliferated under the public’s collective noses. Seemingly overnight, nearly every family was touched by this in some way—daughters were claiming to be nonbinary, a friend or relative’s little boy was actually a girl all along, or a child’s quirky new friend introduced themselves with mismatched pronouns and an unusual name like Luna, Kai, or Blaze. What was initially shrugged off as a phase was soon realized to be a state- and corporate-enforced system all thanks to the quiet spread. And this, was by design—a devious plan years in the making, formulated by megalomaniacs and people lost to their delusions.

The Creation of the Trans Kid

The plan was to use children as a means to validate the (mostly male) adults who had historically been the majority of “transsexuals.” It sounds simple enough, but was, in fact, multifaceted. The validation would accomplish multiple things:

1. The opposite sex identification would be seen as lifelong and immutable—similar to the argument made for sexual orientation

2. The sympathy for the children would pass along to the adults, who had, until then been seen mostly as pariahs.

3. The sympathy and acceptance would change the cultural narrative to make all legal and societal demands more palatable to the public.

4. The validity of the trans identity as a lifelong issue would open the door to more experimental “medical treatments” and insurance coverage.

5. Obliterating the societal protections and consent laws for minors around their bodies and identity would open up children to other forms of exploitation.

The push to transition children also opened the door for the dark underworld of fetishistic older men who desire to keep people in a youthful, vulnerable state while grooming them into sexual exploitation. This can be seen in multiple cases such as Kim Petras, Corey Maison, and, based on his social media, Brianna Ghey, who was tragically murdered in 2023. All three of these boys had “transitioned” and ended up either making sexualized content or, as in Corey’s case, went fully into pornographic fetish content for the gratification of men who celebrate the medical transition of children.

This plan is, for the most part, explicitly laid out constantly, although presented as a sympathetic plea, rather than a methodical strategy:

• In curriculum and the legal system, it’s framed as a desire to be inclusive and eliminate stigma that would place males in female sports and spaces.

• In medicine, it’s framed as a more accurate and necessary method of treating patients by not acknowledging sex as an important part of assessment and treatment.

• In psychology, it eliminates cross sex identification as a delusion or pathology and transforms it into the cure-all solution to all other disordered conditions.

With the proliferation normalizing trans identification and the goals of the plan in the public, activists were sure they would fully realize their goals totally unchallenged. And this is where fundamental questions about human development became some of the strongest arguments against this agenda.

The Questions Gender Ideology Ignores

With all the robust studies about how children and adolescents learn and develop, how could we believe that children—particularly prepubescent children—know with such certainty they were meant to be the opposite sex?

How was this accepted with no hard evidence to the extent of subjecting these children to dangerous and crippling experimental procedures?

How can children be born knowing they weren’t in the right body, knowing nothing else about the world around them?

And most importantly, why is the rejection of the body seen as the cure-all as opposed to yet another symptom of deeper issues?

These children are being offered a culturally sanctioned answer for all their troubles. It’s an answer they’re celebrated for accepting. It’s an answer that confirms their false belief that they were at fault for not fitting in—that there was something wrong with them all along. It’s an answer that seals them into stereotypes, affirming only that girls and boys can’t have atypical interests without actually being the opposite sex. It’s an answer these children are readily waiting to accept because they’re so desperate to fit in and succeed. It preys on the normal, biological drive for a social species that we evolved to have. Such blatant manipulation is grotesque and deliberate.

One of the most striking things we learn in childhood is that things we believe are real during play are often not. Dirt and plastic toys aren’t food; there are no five-year-old firefighters; unlike real babies, your doll can be put down and forgotten; and no matter how many animals you pretend to be, you’ll always actually be a human.

With proper guidance, kids who felt like I did would learn that not fitting in can be normal and isn’t their fault. They would learn how to cope with and get treatment for the underlying causes behind those feelings. They would optimally be able to cope with reality and accept their bodies. This now radical idea—acceptance of the self and the body—is the most productive and truthful option that has the best hope for integrating the child into society with a healthy body and mind.

There is a movement that began as a slow and quiet stirring. As it spread through online spaces, it latched onto other causes and weaseled into education and political interests. Seemingly overnight, its heads appeared in pop culture, the medical industry, political policy, and had even begun rearranging language.

This movement has been coined as “Gender Ideology” and was born from another called “Queer Theory.” Both are deconstructionist, postmodern movements that seek to undermine, if not dismantle foundational aspects of society such as biology and safeguarding children.

The difficulty with gender ideology and perhaps the key to its success is the number of institutions and subjects it has threaded itself into. From the medical field to candy corporations, it has invaded western culture unlike anything in recent memory. I would even go so far as to say that it’s started permeating culture across the globe. It hasn’t been a shock to me.

True authenticity and constant celebration with no downsides? Happiness and free self-expression in a world where so much oppression still exists? Parades and rainbows as a distraction from the miserable news cycles counting down climate change calamities, war, shootings, and stabbings? Why wouldn’t these platitudes capture the hearts and minds of outcasts and worriers of all ages?

As anxiety rates rise, as society seemingly is collapsing around us, it is natural to seek escapism. And what better form of that is there than reinventing your entire self? To be born anew in the body that has imprisoned you, like a phoenix rising from the ashes. Posts have popped up all over social media comparing pre pandemic “cis” selves, often looking dower and sloppy, to their new and improved trans identities: bright smiles, and styled as ideally as they can manage.

It’s a movement that needs no formal advertising campaign. It merely preys on the consumer’s insecurities and social media does the rest. However, this has not stopped major brands such as Oreo and Skittles from proudly announcing their support for “trans rights”. Nor has it stopped the push for changes in language and practices in the law, education, medicine, and businesses at every level.

On the surface, this seems like an obvious push for inclusivity and kindness. However, in practice, it has devastated all these areas in society and has been a struggle to overcome thanks to the nature of the hydra that is gender ideology. Once one head of the beast is challenged, the others swarm to its defense.

The Heart of the Gender Hydra

It is a mistake to believe that by taking down one head, you will achieve success. The others will always be there to distract you while the former regrows in the background. Try to stop males in female spaces and sports, the legal sex change and sex spectrum arguments swoop in. Try to stop pediatric transition and the threats of suicide, and false equivalency of LGB rights chomp at your feet. So, what can be done about it? You must strike at the foundation–the heart of the hydra–the fiction upon which the rest depends: legal sex change.

Why is legal sex change the heart of the beast? Because law is how we shape society and how we establish precedent upon which boundaries are built.

Thanks to legal sex change, we have eroded the very definitions and protections around biological sex and thereby made the reality of the sexes up for debate.

It is a legal descriptor of an individual based entirely on a subjective belief that impacts how they are treated within the law. There is, to my knowledge, no other such defining legal characteristic with such profound impacts attached to it.

One could argue race is comparable, but there is no racial segregation in sports, spaces, and medicine – nor should there be, as there is no significant difference between the races that impacts health and safety. Sex segregation of these things is meaningful and backed by unimpeachable data. To challenge that data on the basis of a psychological disorder is absurd.

The only difference between a man walking into the women’s bathroom or locker room without a legal sex change, and one who has had their sex legally changed is the documentation. Essentially, a letter on their ID is what allows them to commit an otherwise criminal act and violate that single sex space. The same is true in sports such as Power Lifting, which recently saw a loss in a discrimination lawsuit that tried to prevent biological males from competing in the female category.

Its Origins in Queer Theory

This comes from the core of the beast and is inherited from its mother, Queer Theory: the idea that everything considered the “norm” or even “biological” must be subverted and dismantled. If there is no difference legally, then there must be no difference biologically. The undeniable male advantage and reason behind sex segregated sports can now be argued as a paltry matter of averages in “people” that has nothing to do with the “social construct” of “man” and “woman”. Those are “genders” anyway, and have nothing to do with “sex”, which to them is just another arbitrary construct.

This is because once the social and legal categories of “man” and “woman” have been dismantled, the biological reality can now be undermined. If there are no differences between the sexes socially or legally, if one can become the other simply by feeling and asserting it in society, then what makes someone a man or woman biologically? It’s here that we see heads that use the term “intersex” (rare congenital disorders within males or females involving the development of the reproductive system), and “feminism” to further their push. These edge cases of sex development (that we are only able to adequately treat by distinguishing which are males and females) are used because of their abnormal chromosome compositions and anatomical structures.

While that head misrepresents medical conditions, another appeals to feminism to shame you for believing men are stronger and faster than women on average. How dare you believe that women are inferior to men? You must be a misogynist. There are plenty of women who can best plenty of men in physical competition. This type of rhetoric is meant to distract from and obfuscate the fact that the difference between male and female physical performance is massive. The most physically elite males outperform the most physically elite females by significant margins and the overwhelming majority of males outperform the overwhelming majority of females in physical competition. It’s a fact that we do more harm by obscuring than we could ever do by revealing and accepting.

This leads, of course, to language and practices in medicine being rewritten to reflect the deconstruction. Websites that discuss sex specific health conditions such as the menstrual cycle, cervical and prostate cancers, and pregnancy have had “male”, “female”, “men”, and “women” removed and replaced with “people” or “patients”. Even worse, some have even been replaced with dehumanizing language such as, “birthing bodies”. This leads to confusion in situations in which clarity and reality are imperative. Who has a uterus? Who can give birth? Why do some people have uteruses and others don’t? How do pregnancy and birth happen? This can’t be clearly specified because of the deconstruction. It is considered offensive and meaningless to discuss these facts.

This trickled into all levels of education and now, we see elementary school children being taught that biology is not only ambiguous and arbitrary, but that it is second to gender identity – an immeasurable and totally subjective belief about oneself. It is made worse by its inconsistency and ambiguity.

“What is a woman?”

“Anyone who identifies as one.”

“How do I know if I want to identify as one? What does that mean?”

“It means that you feel like a woman or want to be one.”

“What does it feel like to be a woman? What does it take to be one?”

“It doesn’t take anything to be a woman. A woman can feel or be like anything she wants!”

What are we supposed to learn from this? If any gender can be anything, why bother with the distinctions? Why medicalize anyone or try to resemble a desired sex or lack thereof? What does it mean to be trans if it can be anything? Why do people with gender dysphoria get to have their trans identity considered with more validity than people who aren’t diagnosed with it?

How Legal Sex Change Affects the Law

The permeation of this ideology in the culture brings us back around to an issue that was minor, but presents itself more commonly now that the deconstruction has spread so far: how the legal sex changes affect the law and everyday life.

As it stands currently, legal sex changes on birth certificates aren’t available in every state, and even in states where it is legal, the legality and regulations around changing it on ID vary by county. While the laws surrounding this are now touted as a push for trans rights, the beginning of these changes in the law were to circumvent the illegality of gay marriage. It was only because two males couldn’t be considered legally married that legal sex change was proposed. It was during these instances where doctors, testimonials, and the courts started to redefine what a woman was and what constituted “living as a woman.”

The laws started slowly changing in 1959 with the case of Charlotte McLeod, with the restriction that the individuals seeking legal sex change must have had genital surgery. However, since then, things drastically started picking up speed around 2006, and now, some states have gone so far as to allow people to register their sex as “X” without any restrictions, such as notes from clinicians.

The most obvious and hotly contested of the issues stemming from this is the public bathroom. While many have advocated for third and single occupancy facilities, it fails to address the current dilemma. How can women maintain a sex segregated bathroom? There may be no way to make this foolproof – people who want to violate the boundary of sex segregation who can “stealth” will continue to do so. However, because of legal sex change, women can’t really challenge an obvious male who comes into a bathroom, spa, gym, or locker room, even if he were to expose intact male genitals in a communal space or shower.

At an infamous incident at Wi Spa in Los Angeles, California, women attempted to have one such male removed from the women’s spa area, only to be rejected by staff and ridiculed by another man in the lobby. Further ridicule and harassment followed the women who protested and voiced their concerns. It was later revealed that the male in question was previously arrested twice for indecent exposure and for failing to register as a sex offender.

Unfortunately, the laws in question make it so, even with this criminal history, men like this can continue to invade women’s spaces and expose themselves. There is no way to discern which males are “living as women” in earnest, and which are opportunistic predators. For example, males who have made predatory comments about young girls and threatened violence such as “Jessica Simpson (Yaniv)” from Canada, have even gone to the lengths of having “gender affirmative” surgery to make their genitals resemble those of the opposite sex.

Although I wish this were the extent of it, this even affects national security. Recently, I was informed by a friend who works for TSA that the policy surrounding the body scanners has drastically changed to value “inclusivity” over safety of flights and other passengers. The body scanners that TSA uses have settings for male and female bodies that speed the check process along by noting which areas of the body may have more mass or bulk under an individual’s clothing. Likewise, TSA agents are trained to do pat downs that take someone’s sex into consideration. From what I understand, male agents are not trained on how to pat down females, and female agents are not trained to pat down males.

However, because of the government pressure to be “inclusive”, a new button was added to the machine that is to be used as the primary scanner setting: gender neutral. Unfortunately, the machine settings were barely changed, and this setting cannot always adequately read the bodies of the people walking through it. This causes the machine to alert on individuals, at which point the agents running the scanner must decide for themselves which bodies are male and which are female based on their own judgement and not based on the identification of the individual. This forces the agents to use their best guess based on observations of sex characteristics or regressive stereotypes surrounding expression.

Silly as it may be, it impacts national security, as it could lead to terrorists and cartels taking advantage of the policy to store drugs, weapons, or explosive devices in the clothing or bodies of the prospective passengers. By having them claim alternate gender identities, they could bypass the awkward and inaccurate scanner and pat down policies, as alerts and untrained staff may not be able to identify hidden parcels. This is the same government agency that has gone so far as to scan flip flops as potentially housing dangerous items within the rubber soles. As we’ve seen time and time again with this ideological push into government, logic and consistency, and even safety, take a backseat to identity.

I want to be clear – I have compassion for people with gender dysphoria. I am one. I understand the fear of bigotry as a female, bisexual, and child of immigrants. However, I don’t believe it is fair, inclusive, nor kind to entertain this legal fiction for the sake of feelings. In my (Hispanic/Cuban) culture, pale skinned females are seen as highly valued sex objects, and I felt the constant danger of sexual assault and objectification from family and the community. Family friends wanted to arrange my marriage to their sons when I was as young as five. I couldn’t and can’t hide my sex nor my skin color. Neither can others who are oppressed or in danger because of theirs. Your age cannot be changed on your ID, despite some niche groups arguing that it should be because “trans age” is a way for them to process childhood trauma. So, why should we continue to allow legal sex change that was only established as a way around bigoted restrictions on marriage?

Legal Sex Change Harms Everyone

It’s not inclusive to allow some groups to engage in legal fiction and not allow it for others. That kind of radical inclusivity would devolve into a free-for-all. Every unique identity and subjective change would be allowed, and government identification would become meaningless. We are already seeing this with the “X” marker and restrictions around legal sex change dropping.

It is also unkind to allow someone to engage in a lie, especially one that allows for the erosion of others’ rights and affords privileges above the others. Nor is it kind to redefine language and safety to suit the subjective beliefs of others. In no other case that comes to memory do we as a society deem this acceptable. So why here?

Although the beast has many heads and the battle will be long and messy, as most bureaucratic combat is, I believe striking at this foundational element will fell it much faster. As my empathy for those affected by this who are not trying to be opportunistic or predatory runs deep, so does my sense of morality and rationality. And this is the only way I can see the ideological hydra coming to rest on all fronts permanently: eliminating legal sex change.

This article was originally published on the Paradox Institute website on April 11, 2023. It has been re-published here for Substack.

On The Joe Rogan Experience, anthropologist Dr. Michael Masters claimed that humans can change sex through a disorder in which ‘females turn into males at puberty.’

That conclusion is false. The disorder exists, but it does not involve sex change.

Let’s examine Masters’ claims with scientific evidence.

1 - First, he claims that some isolated island populations have a condition where they all grow up as female until puberty transforms some of them into males.

This disorder is known as 5-alpha reductase deficiency (5-ARD), common in certain parts of the world such as the Dominican Republic. But affected individuals do not begin as females. It is a MALE ONLY disorder of sex development. In the womb, affected males develop testes like normal, but cannot complete the growth of their penis and scrotum because they are unable to produce DHT due to an enzyme deficiency. DHT is a potent testosterone required for the development of the male’s penis and scrotum and descent of the testes (Kumar et al, 2022). Without it, males are born with external genitalia that is underdeveloped

At puberty, the surge of testosterone from their testes is sufficient to cause masculinization of their external genitalia and body, with some experiencing descent of the testes and development of the penis and scrotum. These males were never females.

2 - He claims that the disorder is caused by insensitivity to DHT.

No, their androgen receptors work normally. This is why they can masculinize at puberty when the testes create a surge of testosterone. The problem is that the body cannot produce enough DHT during fetal development for their external genitalia (Kang et al. 2014). This is an enzyme production issue, not a receptor failure

3 - He claims that their ovaries descend and become testes at puberty.

But these males never had ovaries. They have the SRY gene, which causes the bipotential gonads to differentiate into testes (Kashimada & Koopman, 2010). This does not happen during puberty. This happens at 6 weeks gestation. Failure of the testes to descend does not make them ovaries

.

4 - He then claims that they transform into the opposite sex at puberty.

But no sex change occurs. These individuals are male for life. At puberty, they simply continue along the male pathway through further developing their external genitals. This is not a sex change. Humans are gonochoric, where individuals are either male or female for life (Holub & Shackelford, 2021).

5 - He claims this condition is called pseudohermaphroditism.

No, it’s called 5-alpha reductase deficiency, because it’s a deficiency in the 5-alpha reductase enzyme. Medicine has abandoned the use of the term pseudohermaphrodite since the early 2000s because it conflates distinct conditions, making it “scientifically specious and clinically problematic” (Dreger et al. 2005).

6 - He claims that natural selection doesn’t impact it.

But 5-ARD profoundly impacts fertility. First, low DHT can impair the growth and differentiation of sperm cells and the growth of the prostate, causing them to have a prostate that is 1/10th the healthy size. Small prostates mean that semen volumes are low, harming sperm transport and motility. Second, undescended testes can also disrupt the careful balance of temperature for sperm creation (Kang, Imperato-McGinley, Zhu, & Rosenwaks, 2014)

7 - Finally, Masters claims that we all start out as females.

No, we all start genetically sexed and physically undifferentiated before genetics drive us down either pathway (Wolpert et al. 2019). See our video “Debunking ‘We All Begin Female’” for a concise explanation and our longer animated video for a thorough deep dive.

Conclusion

In conclusion, individuals with 5-ARD are male from conception, with testes and the SRY gene. The disorder only affects the production of DHT, leaving external genitals underdeveloped. At puberty, the surge of testosterone from the testes causes masculinization of the genitals. Therefore, this condition is an example of a male disorder, not a sex change.

I presented the above scientific evidence to Masters in a post on X. He responded to me with a BBC article describing how such males are “brought up as girls” and “appear to have a vagina.”

And then he said, “This is true. No false claims involved. Perhaps some details were missed as I am not a self-proclaimed ‘science educator in the biology of sex’ but this is how it was explained to me in graduate school. Appreciate the troll tho.”

To which I responded:

“Not a troll. It’s a scientific rebuttal of false claims about a disorder, using in-text scientific papers. The goal is to help educate others and stop the spread of misinformation about people with disorders of sex development, whose care is often harmed by false info.”

For more on 5-ARD, see our animation on the topic, along with our new book, The Sex Development Handbook, which covers 25 of these disorders with elegant diagrams and accessible commentary for a wide audience. Links are in the description.

And if you’d like to support our work of restoring reality to science education, please consider donating at theparadoxinstitute.org. Your contribution funds the production and distribution of our educational media.

Scientific sources

• Wolpert, L., Tickle, C., & Martinez Arias, A. (2019). Principles of Development (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

• Rey, R., Josso, N., Racine, C. (2020). Sexual differentiation. In: Endotext. South Dartmouth, MDText, Inc.

• Kumar, G., & Barboza-Meca, J. J. (2022). 5-Alpha-Reductase Deficiency. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.

• Kang, H., Imperato-McGinley, J., Zhu, Y.-S., & Rosenwaks, Z. (2014). The effect of 5a-reductase-2 deficiency on human fertility. Fertility and Sterility, 101(2), 320–326.

• Kashimada, K., Koopman, P. (2010). Sry, the master switch in mammalian sex determination. Development, 137.

• Dreger, A. D., Chase, C., Sousa, A., Gruppuso, P. A., & Frader, J. (2005). Changing the nomenclature/taxonomy for intersex: A scientific and clinical rationale. Journal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, 18(8), 729–733.

• Holub, A., Shackelford, T. (2021). Gonochorism. Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer.

A new paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics argues that the major harms of female genital mutilation (or FGM) do not come from the practices themselves, but from those who oppose those evil practices, painting anti-FGM efforts as a “heavily racialized and ethnocentric framework.

But female genital mutilation is not a harmless practice. It subjects girls, who are not old enough to consent, to the cutting and removal of parts of their genitals. This is done to enforce social conformity and control female sexuality under the pressure of tradition. This can range from removal of the clitoral hood to the entire removal of the clitoris and parts of the labia and even the sewing of the vaginal opening. Predominant in the Global South, such as Africa and the Middle East, FGM causes a multitude of lifelong physical and psychological harms

Throughout the paper, the authors ignore these harms and place blame on those fighting FGM, and in the process, employ six moral evils to justify the practice.

1 - The first moral evil arises when the paper uses cultural relativism to undermine universal protections for children.

In other words, if the culture accepts it, then it must be okay. For example, the authors describe how women who experienced FGM in the global south often report perceived social benefits, such as a feeling of heightened connection to one’s group, or that despite the pain, it was celebratory, exciting, and important. This conflates cultural endorsement of the practice with it being morally acceptable. But moral truths are not determined by whether a practice is culturally accepted. For example, many cultures in the Islamic world often support and enforce the killing of gay people. But that does not make it morally permissible. Cultural acceptance can explain why a harm persists, but it cannot morally justify inflicting harm.

2 - Minimizes harms through selective skepticism.

The authors repeatedly question claims of trauma or sexual harm caused by FGM, but do not apply equivalent skepticism to the self-reported claims of empowerment or aesthetic benefit. For example, the authors write that “most affected women themselves rarely used the word trauma to describe [FGM],” and instead, “describe it as celebratory, empowering, important, and significant.” Why are positive statements of FGM unquestionably accepted, while negative statements are heavily critiqued? Skepticism that only flows in one moral direction is advocacy disguised as neutrality.

3 - Dismisses psychological trauma as socially constructed.

The paper argues that trauma around FGM is culturally constructed through Western PTSD frameworks and that the main cause of distress is due to anti-FGM narratives. For example, the authors write, “[The PTSD framework] applies Western cultural understandings to people who do not necessarily equate the experience of pain as directly causing trauma.” And that the “current global anti-FGM discourse is replete with potentially trauma-inducing effects.” This argument creates a chilling implication: suffering only “counts” if it fits culturally approved interpretations. This is ethically dangerous, because it selectively disqualifies victims whose suffering complicates a political narrative.

4 – Morally inverts responsibility.

The paper emphasizes supposed harms caused by anti-FGM discourse while minimizing the moral evil of the practice itself. For example, the authors write, “What is almost entirely absent from the public conversation on ‘FGM’ is discussion of the ways in which the dominant discourse on ‘FGM’ can itself be damaging to the health and well-being of those within associated communities.” But we can oppose stigma against victims while also opposing the practice. The paper fails to uphold both truths and instead shifts moral weight away from FGM and toward those who object to it.

5 – Frames opposition to FGM as racist.

The paper claims that strong opposition to FGM is motivated by Western-centered morality that reinforces colonial power on the Global South. For example, “Campaigns against ‘FGM’ are nested within neocolonial development frameworks that construct African or South Asian women’s female genital practices as barbaric and primitive.” But these practices are barbaric. The evil of permanently injuring a child’s body does not depend on geography, race, or historical power. Portraying moral concern for children as colonial power dynamics deflects blame on those opposed to FGM rather than the practice itself. This avoids answering the fundamental ethical question.

6 – Erases the child as an individual with rights.

Throughout the paper, the authors emphasize the importance of the community, of the culture, of the traditions, of the adults’ opinions, but nowhere are the child’s needs discussed. For example, “One’s body may be perceived as belonging to a larger group rather than being subject to individual choices and preferences,” creating a “strong sense of identity” and that FGM can create “heightened connection to one’s group.” But nowhere does the paper ask the most basic ethical question: what does this do to the child’s future body, sexual health, and autonomy? Here, the child is treated as an object to be used for the culture, not as an individual with rights nor as a person in need of protection.

While the paper claims to call for balance and evidence-based discourse, the analysis shows a consistent pattern:

• It presents no data on the harms of FGM

• Consistently minimizes bodily harm

• Conflates cultural acceptance with moral value

• Gaslights victims by claiming their trauma is caused by Western racism, not the practice itself.

Therefore, FGM defenders shift moral responsibility away from the practice and onto those who condemn it.

Female genital mutilation is not a cosmetic alteration. It is the irreversible mutilation of a girl’s body. Calling it anything else does not make it less barbaric. And while we should always be open to improving how laws are enforced and how victims are treated, none of that changes the central moral evil of FGM. No amount of cultural meaning, identity affirmation, or political caution can make the practice morally permissible.

If you want to learn more about the detailed physical and psychological harms of FGM, see the scientific sources below.

And if you’d like to support our work of restoring reality to science education, please consider donating at theparadoxinstitute.org. Your contribution funds the production and distribution of our educational media.

Scientific sources

1. Sarayloo, K., Latifnejad Roudsari, R., & Elhadi, A. (2019). Health consequences of female genital mutilation: A systematic review. Galen Medical Journal, 8, e1336.

2. Klein, E., Helzner, E., Shayowitz, M., Kohlhoff, S., & Smith-Norowitz, T. A. (2018). Female genital mutilation: Health consequences and complications—A short literature review. Obstetrics and Gynecology International, 2018, Article 7365715.

3. Reisel, D., & Creighton, S. M. (2015). Long-term health consequences of female genital mutilation (FGM). Maturitas, 80(1), 48–51.

4. Mpinga, E. K., Macias, A., Hasselgård-Rowe, J., Kandala, N.-B., Félicien, T. K., Verloo, H., Bukonda, N. K. Z., & Chastonay, P. (2016). Female genital mutilation: A systematic review of research on its economic and social impacts across four decades. Global Health Action, 9, 31489.

Paradox Institute - Jan 15, 2022

Many often conflate two concepts in biology: how sex is defined versus how sex is determined. Conflating these two things, as we will see, can create absurd conclusions, so it is important we separate them out to accurately understand what male and female are and how they develop in the womb.

Defining sex: What are male and female?

Biologically, sex is defined with respect to gamete type.[1] Because there are only two gamete types, there are only two sexes.[2] The male sex is the phenotype that produces small gametes (sperm) and the female sex is the phenotype that produces large gametes (ova).[3] This applies to all species that reproduce through two gametes of differing size (anisogamy), and it includes humans.[4]

Based on this definition, we know whether an individual is male or female by looking at the structures that support the production (gonads) and release (genitalia) of either gamete type.[5] In other words, we look at whether the individual develops a body plan organized around small gametes or large gametes.[6] In humans, sex is binary and immutable. Individuals are either male or female throughout their entire life cycle.[7]

Determining sex: How does an individual become a male or female?

In humans, sex is determined by genes.[8] In biology, determining sex does not mean “observing” or “identifying sex” in the colloquial sense. Instead, determining sex is a technical term for the process by which genes trigger and regulate differentiation down the male or female path in the womb. This determines the structures that can support the production and release of either gamete type, and thus, the individual’s sex.[9]

There are many different sex determination mechanisms across species.[10] Humans and other mammals use genetic sex determination, where certain genes trigger male or female development, whereas reptiles often use temperature sex determination, where certain temperature values trigger male or female development.[11] In all these species, an individual’s sex is defined with respect to gamete type and identified by the structures that support the production and release of either gamete.

Thus, while there are various mechanisms that control male and female development, there are still only two endpoints: male and female.[12]

Why determining sex does not equal defining sex

There’s two main reasons why the mechanisms that determine sex (like genes) are not the same thing as the definition of sex.

First, because sex determination mechanisms vary across species and across time, we cannot use them as the definition for the sex of individuals across species.

For example, mammals tend to use the X-Y chromosomal system, whereas birds tend to use the Z-W chromosomal system. Despite this difference in sex determination mechanisms, what unites male birds (ZZ) and male mammals (XY) is that they both develop the phenotypes that produce small gametes. And what unites female birds (ZW) and female mammals (XX) is that they both develop the phenotypes that produce large gametes.[13] The Z-W system in birds, like the X-Y system in humans, determines the development path the fetus will go down, and thus, their sex. Furthermore, sex determination mechanisms have changed across evolutionary history and continue to evolve depending upon specific conditions of the environment.

This shows us that sex determination mechanisms can be widely diverse across species yet result in the same outcome of males and females; it also shows us that sex determination mechanisms are not the same thing as sex.[14]

Second, because of developmental disorders, we cannot use sex determination mechanisms as the definition for the sex of individuals within humans and across species.

Almost always, the Y chromosome determines sex in humans: those with a Y chromosome develop as males, and those without the Y chromosome develop as females. Males usually have 46:XY and females usually have 46:XX.[15]

However, rare errors of cell division during meiosis can result in a translocation or mutation of genes within the chromosomes, and this can result in a sex opposite of what is expected from the chromosomes. For example, 1 in 20,000 births result in males with XX chromosomes.[16] This happens when the SRY gene (the male sex determining region on the Y chromosome) is translocated to an X chromosome during cell division in the father’s reproductive cells.[17] When the fetus is conceived, they receive XX [SRY]. SRY triggers a cascade of genes leading to male development: gonadal differentiation into testes, which then leads to the development of male internal and external genitalia.[18]

Though they cannot produce sperm, since this requires the AZF region from the Y chromosome, XX males are defined as male because they develop the phenotype that produces small gametes (determined by genetics).[19]

Another example for why we cannot use sex determination mechanisms like chromosomes as the definition of sex involves a rare case of a pregnant female with XXY chromosomes.[20] At conception, the lack of an SRY gene on the Y chromosome and the presence of two X chromosomes allowed transcription factors like WNT4 and RSPO1 to develop complete ovaries.[21] The lack of testes and the subsequent lack of anti-Mullerian hormone and testosterone then allowed for full development of female internal and external genitalia (oviducts, uterus, cervix, vagina, and vulva).

She is defined as female, despite the presence of the Y chromosome, because she developed the phenotype that produces large gametes (determined by genetics).

Both cases, and many others, reinforce the important distinction between the mechanisms that determine sex and sex itself. The sex development of both cases is charted below, showing how XX males develop as males and how the rare case of the XXY female developed as female.

Logical absurdities

Failing to distinguish between how sex is determined versus how sex is defined creates logical absurdities.

For example, if we define the XX male as female purely by absence of the Y chromosome, one must conclude that some females develop testes, a Wolffian structure, and a penis, and if we define the pregnant XXY female as male purely by the presence of the Y chromosome, one must conclude that some males can develop ovaries, a uterus, cervix, vagina, and a vulva, produce ova, and give birth.

In both instances, defining sex based on chromosomes alone (and not the genetically determined phenotype with respect to gamete type), results in absurd, self-contradictory logic. After all, how can a male develop a full female reproductive system and produce large gametes? And how can a female develop a full male reproductive system and produce small gametes? This would be like saying a piece of gold is iron and iron gold. However, gold is never iron and iron is never gold.

Likewise, males can never produce ova and give birth, and females can never produce sperm and impregnate. These reproductive functions are mutually exclusive.[22]

Unfortunately, this inaccurate logic—that absence of a Y chromosome is always female and presence of a Y chromosome always male—has immense ramifications if used by society.

For example, activists who argue that males can be females and females can be males would love to use this reasoning to deconstruct the definition of sex for sociopolitical purposes, and those who have atypical development may be relegated to categories they do not belong in: people with fully developed, genetically determined male bodies in female spaces and vice versa. Because of this, it’s best we maintain the distinction between the mechanisms that determine sex and the definition of sex.

Males and females are not defined by the mechanisms that develop them in the womb. They are defined by the phenotypes that produce either small or large gametes, respectively. For humans, this is determined by genetics. Defining sexes this way does not mean that sex is a spectrum or that one can change sex. One’s sex is determined at conception by the individual’s genetic profile, developed in utero, and immutable.

If we wish to ascertain the full picture of a person’s sex, we must analyze their genetics and their genetically determined phenotype: the structures they develop that support the production and release of either gamete type. This is the only way forward for an accurate and consistent definition of sex.

For visual learners, check out our animated video on the subject!

Scientific sources

[1] da Silva, J. (2018). The evolution of sexes: a specific test of the disruptive selection theory. Ecology and Evolution, 8, 207-219.

[2] Scharer, L. (2017). The varied ways of being male and female. Molecular Reproduction & Development, 84.

[3] Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. (2014). Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of two sexes. Molecular Human Reproduction, 20(12).

[4] Lehtonen, J. (2017). Gamete Size. Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science.

[5] Bhargava, A., et al. (2021). Considering sex as a biological variable in basic and clinical studies. Endocrine Reviews, 20(20).

[6] Lehtonen, J. (2021). The legacy of Parker, Baker, and Smith 1972: gamete competition, the evolution of anisogamy, and model robustness. Cells, 10(573).

[7] Holub, A., Shackelford, T. (2021). Gonochorism. Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior. Springer.

[8] Eggers, S., Sinclair, A. (2012). Mammalian sex determination: insights from humans and mice. Chromosome Res, 20.

[9] Bhargava, A., et al. (2021).

[10] Bachtrog D, Mank JE, Peichel CL, Kirkpatrick M, Otto SP, Ashman TL, et al. (2014). Sex Determination: Why So Many Ways of Doing It? PLoS Biol, 12(7).

[11] Avise, J. (2011). Two sexes in one. In: Hermaphroditism: a primer on the biology, ecology, and the evolution of dual sexuality. Columbia University Press, 5.

[12] Beukeboom, L, Perrin, N. (2014). The evolution of sex determination. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

[13] Avise, J. (2011).

[14] Bachtrog D, Mank JE, Peichel CL, Kirkpatrick M, Otto SP, Ashman TL, et al. (2014).

[15] Jones, R., Lopez, K. (2014). Chapter 5: Sexual differentiation. In: Human Reproductive Biology, 4th edition. Elsevier, 87.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Kimball, J. (2020). Sex chromosomes. LibreText.org.

[18] Rey, R., Josso, N., Racine, C. (2020). Sexual differentiation. In: Endotext. South Dartmouth, MDText, Inc.

[19] NIH. (2021). 46,XX testicular disorder of sex development. MedlinePlus Genetics.

[20] Hu, L., et al. (2019). A 47,XXY pregnant woman without the SRY gene. Sex Development, 13(83-86).

[21] Witchel, S. (2018). Disorders of sex development. Best Practice and Research in Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 48.

[22] Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. (2014).

Paradox Institute - July 24, 2020

The Scientific American article ‘Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia‘ is another article using the complexities of sex determination and the diversity of sex differences to argue that sex is not binary.

The author writes that three subjects help explain the transgender experience: “(1) genetics, (2) neurobiology and (3) endocrinology.”

True so far. Compared to the population, certain trans individuals may have unique differences in these three systems, and some might not. The biological experience of trans individuals, like everyone else, can be affected by:

(1) genetics

(2) neurobiology (the structure and connections of the brain)

(3) endocrinology (the influence of hormones on the body)

Here, the author begins with genetics.

Part One: Genetics

“Nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male.” The author claims this is a tired simplification. But even with the existence of X or XXY, is this a simplification?

First, using atypical karyotypes (like X or XXY) in arguments to support trans identities is disingenuous. Why? Because trans individuals almost always have typical XX or XY karyotypes. How do we know? Because we’ve done the karyotype tests. In one study, conducted with over 300 trans individuals, 97.55% had typical karyotypes of XX or XY, matching their birth sex. Only 3 out of 368 had Klinefelter syndrome.[1] Such studies show us that using chromosomal anomalies to explain trans experience is ignorant or dishonest.

Second, 99.98% of births are unambiguously male or female.[2] Even in cases of chromosomal anomalies like X or XXY, the fetus still develops a reproductive system organized to support ova (in X cases) or a system organized to support sperm (in XXY cases).

The reason why chromosomal anomalies still produce a female or male is thanks to the activation of the SRY gene (usually found on the short arm of the Y chromosome). If the SRY gene is present and active, it initiates a complex set of gene cascades causing male development.[3] Fetuses with only one X do not have the SRY gene, and thus develop as females. Fetuses with XXY DO have the SRY gene, and thus develop as males. This genetic system is so consistent that even in cases of XXX or XXXY, the fetus still develops as a female or male, respectively.[4]

The author then brings up additional congenital medical conditions to argue against the sex binary: “XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries,” he writes.

Those unfamiliar with sex development might be confused. How does this happen? Simple: the activation or inactivation SRY gene. For XX individuals with testes, this occurs when the SRY gene moves onto an X chromosome, causing male development. And for XY individuals with ovaries, this occurs when the SRY gene is not activated, causing female development.

Thus, despite the author’s claims that sex does not arise from chromosomal makeup alone, sex is indeed largely determined by the activation or inactivation of the SRY gene.[5]

Next, the author discusses how SRY activation initiates additional genes such as DMRT1, which help and maintain testicular tissue.[6] This is true. If these genes are not present during fetal development, the testes may not develop, and you will develop as a female. But again, you might ask, what do these congenital conditions of the reproductive tract (DSDs) have to do with trans individuals, who almost always develop with typical chromosomes and typical reproductive systems? Perhaps these DSDs are being used for ideological means?

Part Two: Neurobiology

Here, the author uses neuroscience in brain differences to argue that male and female cannot be clearly defined: “A half century of empirical research has repeatedly challenged the idea that brain biology is simply XY = male brain or XX = female brain.”

It is true that there are indeed no black and white “male” and “female” brains. But this variation in brain differences does not mean there is no clearly defined ‘male’ or ‘female,’ because we define sex through one of two evolved reproductive anatomies.[7] Rather, there are average differences in the brain within and between males and females that, when aggregated together, allow us to predict someone’s sex with up to 97% accuracy.[8] This is specifically done through analyzing the overall morphology of the cerebral cortex.

It is true that trans individuals may have specific structures in the brain that are similar to that typically seen in the opposite sex. As the author mentions, some specific regions in gay men are similar to straight women. But these similarities do not change one’s sex.

The existence of subtle brain similarities to the opposite sex does not mean that such individuals ARE the opposite sex. It just means that one might have specific structures that are atypical. This does not change your sex class any more than other physical differences. Using brain similarities and differences to argue that someone IS the opposite sex is akin to using sex differences in height to argue that a short male who falls in the typical female range IS a female. Variation does not make someone ‘less male’ or ‘less female’

Part Three: Hormones

The author uses hormone levels to ‘disprove’ the sex binary: “But like all things biology, hormones cannot be limited to the pubescent idea of “estrogen = female and testosterone = male.” This is true, as males and females are both exposed to testosterone and estrogen. These hormone levels, like differences in the brain, exist as bimodal distributions, an average for males and an average for females.[9]

But variance in hormones, even extreme variance, does not disprove the sex binary. For example, a male who has less T than the average male does not become ‘less male’ or ‘more female.’ He is still a male, as his body is organized around small gametes.

So to conclude, you may notice a pattern in all three aspects: (1) genetics, (2) neurobiology, and (3) neuroendocrinology. In all three categories, variation does not mean sex is on a spectrum, but rather, that sex-related traits are on a spectrum, a bimodal distribution. Sex differences within and between males and females exist as bimodal distributions. There is variation of hormone production, brain structure, and external appearance, but this does not make a ‘sex spectrum.’ Rather, it makes a spectrum of anatomy and physiology.[10]

The reason why we can place traits such as hormone levels on bimodal distributions is BECAUSE of the sex binary. Because there are two gametes of differing size, there are two sexes, with variation within males and variation within females.[11]

The author does not go wrong in presenting basic scientific facts about the variation of sex-related traits. Where they go wrong is arguing that because variation of genes, brain structure, and hormones, that male and female cannot be reliably defined.

“The science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real,” they write.

The problem is that sex on the reproductive level IS binary. There are only two reproductive functions, and thus, two sexes. The existence of trans people does not disprove this model, and it does not invalidate them. Rather, trans individuals represent the variation in biology, identity, and expression found within the sex binary. We don’t have to deny the fundamental reality of sex to accept trans individuals.

The author tells us to stop using phony science to justify transphobia. But I have a different request: when will activists and authors of major publications stop using complex medical conditions such as DSDs in arguments about unrelated identities? And finally, when will activists stop using the beautiful complexity and diversity of biology to justify the dismantling of male and female under the guise of ‘science’?

This rebuttal appears in an expanded form in Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth, a bestselling book published by the Paradox Institute.

Scientific sources

[1] Inoubli, A., et al. (2011). Karyotyping: Is It Worthwhile in Transsexualism? The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(2).

[2] Sax, L. (2002). How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research.

[3] Gilbert, SF. (2000). Chromosomal sex determination in mammals. Developmental Biology, 6th edition. Sunderland (MA), Sinauer Associates.

[4] Kimball, J. (2020). Sex chromosomes. LibreText.org.

[5] Kashimada, K., Koopman, P. (2010). Sry, the master switch in mammalian sex determination. Development, 137.

[6] Matson, C., et al. (2011). DMRT1 prevents female reprogramming in the postnatal mammalian testis. Nature.

[7] Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. (2014). Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of two sexes. Molecular Human Reproduction, 20(12).

[8] Luo, Z., et al. (2019). Gender identification of human corticol 3-D morphology using hierarchical sparsity. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience.

[9] Ellis, L. (2011). Identifying and explaining apparent universal sex differences in cognition and behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 51.

[10] Schmitt, D. (2016). Sex and gender are dials, not switches. Psychology Today.

[11] Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. (2014).

[12] Hayward, A., Gillooly, J. (2011). The cost of sex: Quantifying energetic investment in gamete production by males and females. PLoS ONE, 6(1).

[13] Marinov, GK. (2020). In humans, sex is binary and immutable. Academic Quest.

[14] Epelman, M., et al. (2005). Anisogamy, expenditure of reproductive effort, and the optimality of having two sexes. Operations Research, 53(3).

[15] D Sun, S. (2019). Stop using phony science to justify transphobia. Scientific American.

“All humans begin as female in the womb.” It’s one of the most common biology myths today—from old science papers to blockbuster movies like Jurassic Park. The argument claims that because early embryos share the same initial structures, those structures must be female—so everyone begins female.

But those early structures aren’t female anatomy—they’re undifferentiated. Female development is not undifferentiated, nor is it “absence of male”; it is a specialized pathway guided by genetics, just like male development. For example, genes like WNT4, RSPO1, and FOXL2 actively promote ovary development—and when any of them are lost, testes can form instead; WNT and HOX networks actively build the Müllerian ducts, which become female internal genitalia; and COUP-TFII eliminates the Wolffian ducts, which would otherwise form the internal male genitalia. Therefore, female development is not a passive default; it requires active signals that drive the female pathway and block the male path.

Further, male embryos don’t begin with ovaries and transform them into testes. Instead, every embryo starts with bipotential gonads—tissues that can become testes or ovaries depending on genetic signals. All embryos also share early Müllerian and Wolffian ducts and a common cloaca, none yet organized as male or female. This is not female anatomy; it’s the undifferentiated—or “indifferent”—stage, described clearly in modern developmental biology textbooks, such as the one below from Oxford, and various scientific papers.

From here, genes set at conception guide development for both sexes: XY embryos develop the bipotential gonads into testes, eliminate Müllerian ducts, and develop the Wolffian structures. XX embryos develop the bipotential gonads into ovaries, eliminate Wolffian ducts, and develop the Müllerian structures. In sum, both sexes start undifferentiated, develop their own sex-specific structures, and actively block the opposite sex pathway.

So, starting from an undifferentiated state does not mean we all start female. Saying otherwise is like claiming a block of unshaped marble is already a statue.

And if you want to test the myth, ask a simple question: Do male embryos begin with ovaries before transforming them into testes? They don’t—so the myth collapses.

So no—we don’t all begin female. We begin genetically sexed but physically undifferentiated, then develop along the male or female pathway determined by our genes.

For more on this, see our beautiful animation “Do We All Begin Female?” which walks you through the story of where the myth originated and what the science says.

Paradox Proofs is a new series where we debunk common biology myths or dive into interesting biology facts in under three minutes.

Scientific sources

Biason-Lauber, A. (2012). WNT4, RSPO1, and FOXL2 in sex development. Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, 30(5).

DiNapoli, L., Capel, B. (2008). SRY and the standoff in sex determination. Molecular Endocrinology, 22(1).

Eggers, S., Sinclair, A. (2012). Mammalian sex determination—insights from humans and mice. Chromosome Res, 20:215-238.

Gershoni, M., et al. (2017). The landscape of sex-differential transcriptome and its consequent action in human adults. BMC Biology, 15(7).

Kim, Y., Kobayashi, A., Sekido, R., et al. (2006). FGF9 and WNT4 act as antagonistic signals to regulate mammalian sex determination. PLoS Biology, 4(6).

Mullen, R., Behringer, R. (2015). Molecular genetics of Mullerian duct formation, regression, and differentiation. Sex Dev, 8(5), 281-296.

Ottolenghi, C., Pelosi, E., Tran. J., et al. (2007). Loss of WNT4 and FOXL2 leads to female-to-male sex reversal extending to germ cells. Human Molecular Genetics, 16(23), 2795-2804.

Prunskaite-Hyyryläinen, R., Skovorodkin, I., Xu, Q., et al. (2016). WNT4 coordinates directional cell migration and extension of the Müllerian duct essential for ontogenesis of the female reproductive tract. Human Molecular Genetics, 25(6).

Rey, R., Josso, N., Racine, C. (2020). Sexual differentiation. In: Endotext. South Dartmouth, MDText, Inc.

Warr, N., et al. (2012). The molecular and cellular basis of gonadal sex reversal in mice and humans. WIREs Dev Bio, 1.

Wilson, D., Bordoni, B. (2023). Embryology, Mullerian ducts (paramesonephric ducts). In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): Stat Pearls Publishing.

Wolpert, L., Tickle, C., & Martinez Arias, A. (2019). Principles of Development (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Zhao, F., Franco, H., Rodriguez, K., et al. (2017). Elimination of the male reproductive tract in the female embryo is actively promoted by COUP-TFII. Science, 357(6352), 717-720.

Zhao, F., Yao, H. (2019). A tale of two tracts: history, current advances, and future directions of research on sexual differentiation of reproductive tracts. Biology of Reproduction, 101(3).