A Response to SciAm’s ‘Stop Using Phony Science’
Our official rebuttal to the famous Scientific American article using the complexities of sex determination and the diversity of sex differences to argue that sex is not binary.
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
[2] Sax, L. (2002). How common is lntersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research.
[4] Kimball, J. (2020). Sex chromosomes. LibreText.org.
[10] Schmitt, D. (2016). Sex and gender are dials, not switches. Psychology Today.
[11] Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. (2014).
[13] Marinov, GK. (2020). In humans, sex is binary and immutable. Academic Quest.
[15] D Sun, S. (2019). Stop using phony science to justify transphobia. Scientific American.
Well-written, unusually lucid. Were SciAm operating scientifically in this domain, they would bring in the concept of animal mimicry; particularly Batesian and anti-Batesian mimicry, ideas which were articulated and defined in the late 19th century.
From that period forwards, ethology and sociobiology would identify many mimicry systems, from predatory parasitic mimicry in cuckoos and cowbirds to the vivid behavior of cuttlefish who can maintain partial female mimicry to confuse males while mating with their harem, a form of mimicry called “sexual mimicry.”
They would bring together contemporary biologists who formulated theories and measures of sex mimicry systems, and wrote foundational papers in the late 90’s and early 2000’s. These papers provided elegant, simple, and parsimonious explanations for human sexual mimicry behaviors, which like other animals tend to provide protection against male aggression and provide ingress to protected female spaces.
Then would provide mathematical models of benefits of the mimicry, and then find in humans mimic males have between one and two orders of magnitude less violent assault than other males, and an order of magnitude less death from violent assault.
We would then read of the difficulty of human mimicry research because researches themselves being human are highly responsive to mimicry. It talk about how much biological research, law, sociology, and medicine is tainted by conflation of sex mimicry with sex categories.
Then perhaps a callout box of the first psychologists and psychiatrists who were confused, and Dr. Money who tortured children surgically and emotionally to prove his theories of mimicry which have not been extirpated from medical practice.
Finally, as always, a callout to investigate the phenomenon in a sensitive but factual way and look for more progress in research with humans, the most versatile of all animal mimics.
Sex is polythetic, binary, non-teleological, empirical, AND mutable.