Reality is reality, just as A is A. And the reality is that human beings are a sexually dimorphic species with two sexes with both physical and actually physiological differences, some acute and some statistically obvious. There is no “spectrum”. There is no “gender identity” with any objective reality to it that is separate and distinct from biological sex. People insisting that a biological male can get periods if he identifies as a girl, that cancer works differently based on your gender identity, or that chromosomes magically change as if will alone can bend reality—are all science deniers and have rejected what people have seen clearly since time immemorial.
There are two ways to approach this. The first is to do what people did before science informed us of sex determining chromosomes: Recognize the obvious. There were people with female genitalia who could get pregnant and give birth to a baby that they could nurse (Women) and there were those with male genitalia who could couple their genitalia with those women and impregnate them (Men). People recognized obvious differences in physical form, as well as how men tended to be bigger and stronger than women, while women showed many other actual physiological differences with men when it came to abilities and how they acted. Even then, people recognized that not everyone with female genitalia would be fertile or ever give birth, just as there were males who couldn’t impregnate a female. Nonetheless, “boys have a penis; girls have a vagina” as Kindergarten Cop explained to us.
The other approach is the strictly scientific one.
“In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time. The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova. No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex ‘spectrum’ or additional sexes beyond male and female. Sex is binary.”
Note, that caveat that is not inconsistent with the purely observational delineation of the sexes between male and female: Specifically that there are actual bona fide cases where a person does not develop in accordance with their chromosomes. As your humble author has previously noted: “there are abnormal cases of non ‘XX’ or ‘XY’ chromosome pairings (e.g. XO, XXY), or of a body developing in utero contra to chromosomes, but those are rare and not indicative of a ‘social norm’ of recognizing that the vast majority of people are indeed women or men, a fact confirmed by not only our entire history as a species, but of practically every other mammalian species in existence.”
In other words, the exception proves the rule, in both senses of the word “prove”.
“In reality, biological sex is an indicator of either being male or female, in sexually dimorphic species such as human beings. Females have an XX chromosome pairing and males have an XY chromosome pairing. There are cases where there are X0 or XXY pairing, such as Klinefelter Syndrome, or where other conditions alter the natural course of development in utero of a child into either physically as a male or physically as a female, such as Swyer Syndrome. However, even there, the body tends towards either the male or female form. Additionally, there are often other complications, such as infertility that are part and parcel of these syndromes. In other words, such individuals are not a 3rd sex, nor are they proof of a ‘spectrum’ of biological sexes.”
It is important to note these “exceptions” and that they represent actual physical consequences of their related medical conditions, and that such medical conditions do not and can not refute the reality of the sex binary. These medical conditions are completely different than modern-day “transgenderism” or indeed of any aspect of transgender ideology.
But those who push transgender ideology nonetheless attempt to conflate the two. They purport a false dilemma fallacy whereby humans are either completely binary with no deviations whatsoever, or there is a full spectrum. They hope to trap people into this fallacious position and then claim triumph when those with “intersex” conditions are aptly demonstrated to be real.
Recently, at the Paris 2024 Olympics, two boxers came to notice as having been accused of having XY chromosomes while being allowed to compete in the women’s division. It should be noted that the accusing international boxing organization was too corrupt for the Olympics and were not taken at their word, at least not without supporting information. It does appear, though, that those two boxers likely had one of those aforementioned medical conditions and were born with what appeared to be female external genitalia.
What to do in such cases where one’s chromosomal karyotype does not match their external genitalia, that is, when the scientific and observational definitions of “man” and “woman” do not match in a society based on the sex binary? In this case, one can make a perfectly legitimate argument to disallow these boxers due to physiological and developmental differences due to their XY chromosomes despite their assumed female external genitalia. Indeed the question of what to do with individuals with such bona fide medical conditions is a valid discussion to have as a society.
But far too quickly, some who define sex by karyotype (XX vs. XY chromosomes), have conflated these cases of bone fide medical conditions with transgender ideology and the spate of biologically normal men who identify as women in order to place higher in sports competitions (or for any other reason, really) and fallen into the transgender trap.
This is the exact manichean stance that transgender ideologues want people to firmly make and hold onto as they set up their false dilemma fallacy. Taking the stance which excludes the exceptions that prove the rule leads to the demise of the rule itself, at least as far as uniformed and persuadable people go. Do not let a knee-jerk drive to contrarianism to lead to falling into this fallacious trap, for reality does not require nor request it.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 08.16.24 : The Other McCain