Are Social Justice Warriors denying science? Is either Sex or Gender fluid?

Posted on by

Consider a heresy which contradicts the Gleischshaltung of Political Correctness: Gender is NOT a social construct, and both Gender and Sex are in fact binary.

How is this possible? Some sceptics suggest that both gender and sex are determined by chromosome status: Males are XY and females are XX. End of story.

The truth is not so simple. From my understanding of Biology: the default setting for embryonic development is female. Female fetuses can become male if two events occur:

1 – The activation of the SRY gene (controlling events such as differentiation of gonads into testes/ovaries)

2 – Testosterone Receptors bind to appropriate levels of Bio-available testosterone in utero.

So far, we have described a Binary situation:

Where can Biochemistry proceed differently? (I do not imply that “pathology” occurs anywhere during this discourse)

Sometimes, there is a transfer of the SRY gene to the X chromosome from the Y – where XX karyotypes are now expressing male determining factor

There can also be a downturn in testosterone response in two crucial stages of embryonic development:

1 – The stage where cerebral hardwiring for sexual identity changes from the female default setting to male
2 – The different stage of embryonic development where cerebral hardwiring for sexual orientation changes from the default setting of attraction to males to attraction to females.

Of course, Hormone/Hormone Receptor status & SRY expression do not operate independently of each other. So, what about non-binary situations?

At birth, the genitalia can be ambiguous. Very rarely is the newborn a true hermaphrodite, but rather the genitals may not be well-formed or the baby may have characteristics of both sexes. The external sex organs may not match the internal sex organs or genetic sex.

Often (but not always) genital ambiguity corresponds with ambiguity in sexual identity and/or sexual orientation (resulting from hormone/hormone receptor status in utero). Nature is not binary under these circumstances: there can exist ambiguities in gender/sex status, in other words a continuum.

In other words: it is indeed possible to be a lesbian trapped in a man’s body: that is no joke! Meanwhile, some of the most feminine women on our planet are (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome) AIS individuals with XY karyotypes, who do not respond to Testosterone. That said, hormone/receptor status is not always, all or nothing; some AIS individuals are “intermediate” in both Gender/Sex. Ben Barres (a famous transgender scientist who just recently succumbed to pancreatic cancer) is both a heroine and a role-model worthy of public adulation; another exception to the Biological rules cited above. She was cerebrally hard-wired to be male and not female despite her XY status.

The Biology cited above is not exhaustive but sufficient for our purposes.

OK OK, where does that leave us so far?

Everything described so far is decidedly binary and the gender-fluid exceptions to the rule are indeed real, but VERY RARE, far less than one percent of the population.

So, why are we currently witnessing a bumper-crop in gender-dysphoria in schools and campuses requiring a rethink in administration and teacher practice (not to mention a different set of washrooms in public buildings)?

I suggest, in politest terms possible, we are witnessing some public mass hysteria which is resulting in the horrible enabling of teenage angst and attention seeking, all with tragic results. I humbly admit I could be wrong on this, but I feel morally obliged to ask the question.

Many teens resort to self-injury/cutting, a sad condition (a result of teen angst) requiring intervention. Today, we now witness what I deem a similar phenomenon; i.e. pseudo-Gender Dysphoria (again, a result of teen angst). However, instead of intervention, conventional wisdom would male us codependents and enable teenage angst even to self-mutilation at an early age; all before frontal lobes are fully developed and hormones settle down. I am not saying gender-dysphoria is always unreal: I am suggesting there may be many false positives when diagnosing gender-dysphoria today.

Here in Canada, Kenneth Zucker, a renowned psychologist specializing in Sexology has taken a more conservative (and common sense) approach.

He counsels confused teens while encouraging them to wait. As a result, over 80% of these confused teens (after they calm down) discover they really were confused and 88% eventually reconcile with their birth gender. Meanwhile, a new BBC documentary, (Transgender Kids: Who Knows Best?) has highlighted Doctor Zucker’s success. Of course, Canada’s moral and intellectual superiors responded by shutting down the BBC documentary on Canadian Television, not to mention shutting down Dr. Zucker’s clinic. Political Correctness will brook no compromise!

OK, let’s bring this home:

Can Sex and/or Gender be nonbinary from a scientific point of view? Yes, continua exist, but only in very rare cases: we are probably talking far less than one percent of the population. Is Gender a “Social Construct” and can it be “fluid”? The jury seems still to be out on either question, but all indications so far are: “No” on both counts?

Do these answers really change anything at a fundamental level. Decidedly no! Everyone still MUST treat each other with respect, not to mention love and compassion (that includes you too SJWs)

That all said – Primum non nocere! “first, do no harm!” Perhaps we should revisit our mad rush to mutilate youngsters, and pay heed to Doctor Zucker. Current evidence indicates the subsequent depression of Transgenders results in a 40%+ suicide rate – an instance where the cure indeed is far worse than the “ailment”. Well maybe not. At the very least, we should pause to ask the question and proceed cautiously.

185 thoughts on “Are Social Justice Warriors denying science? Is either Sex or Gender fluid?”

  1. “Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war”

    I just got slammed on the AP teachers’ forum for this very post. It would appear my motives are questionable as are my morals and teaching credentials for even daring to question the premises of today’s SJW Gleichshaltung.

    I welcome correction!

  4. Well, strictly from a scientific point of view, gender is binary of course. It takes two (gametes) to tango, no more no less. There are two different gamete sizes in an anisogamous population. Produce the larger, you’re female, produce the smaller, you’re male. Of course there’s no ought derivable from this is, I’m just articulating the universal distinction. It covers species with a gender-determining allele (easily implemented in the inevitable diploid which arises in sexual species), as well as those based on temperature, or which switch during a single lifetime. We humans have a speciesist attachment to gender fixity and associated secondary labels.

    Nonetheless, the gender people feel most comfortable with identifying with is the gender we should regard them as, IMO.

  5. I suggest, in politest terms possible, we are witnessing some public mass hysteria …

    I’m more inclined to call it a fad.

    I don’t doubt that there are genuine cases. But it sure seems that there is an over-reaction from both sides.

    My current reaction is to keep my head down, and wait for things to settle down.

  6. I wish there were a woman or two here to comment on this. (Not that there’s a female version of science or anything, but sometimes perspectives matter.) Unfortunately, I think Patrick drove them all off.

  8. Didn’t notice any reference to of the enzyme 5 alpha-reductase deficiency…
    Neither to the androgen receptor binding affinity…
    How about the effects the sex hormone binding globulin ?

    Hmmm…

    “…Testosterone Receptors bind to appropriate levels of Bio-available testosterone in utero…” O’RLY? I think we are going to learn the new levels of biology and endocrinology today… 🙂
    Darwin help us!

  10. Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    What on earth are you on about?

    You should know… You are the sex guy… You have never heard of the Dominican Paradox?
    Please don’t tell me you know nothin about that… lol

  12. Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    I still have no idea what you are trying to say. There appears to be nothing between the ellipses.

    Tell me what is wrong with this statement:
    “…Testosterone Receptors bind to appropriate levels of Bio-available testosterone in utero…”
    If you don’t know, you’d better say it soon…

  13. Alan Fox:
    walto,
    It’s discouraging that we currently have no women participating. Suggestions?

    Dunno really. Maybe Lizzie’d have some suggestions. But Patrick’s departure may eventually help. I guess you could send out an all-points-bulletin indicating that the gun guy is gone…

  15. Well, gender theory and queer theory are not my specialties (despite having read a lot of Foucault), so I have no expertise to call upon. But the general view in gender theory is that there’s a meaningful difference between sex and gender: sex is biological and gender is socially constructed. Sally Haslanger, who is a very precise metaphysician on what it means to call something “socially constructed”, puts it this way:

    “Very roughly, as the slogan goes, gender is the social meaning of sex. The idea is that gender is not a classification scheme based simply on anatomical or biological differences, but marks social differences between individuals. Sex differences are about testicles and ovaries, the penis and the uterus . . . gender, in contrast, is a classification of individuals in terms of their social position, as determined by interpretations of their sex . . . sex is an anatomical distinction based on locally salient sexual/reproductive differences, and gender is a distinction between the social/political positions of those with bodies marked as of different sexes.”

    The point then is that if one distinguishes between sex and gender, then there is no “denying biology” (whatever that might mean) by those who point out that not everyone conforms to the man/woman gender binary.

  19. walto,

    Why do you recommend it? Were you seriously recommending it based on its merits or are you being ironic?

  21. J-Mac: Tell me what is wrong with this statement:
    “…Testosterone Receptors bind to appropriate levels of Bio-available testosterone in utero…”
    If you don’t know, you’d better say it soon…

    If you still don’t know ask Joe F. His practical experience in the lab should help, though his fitness unfounded speculations probably won’t… Though they say even the blind find things sometimes… lol

  22. Kantian Naturalist:
    walto,

    Why do you recommend it? Were you seriously recommending it based on its merits or are you being ironic?

    I thought it was good myself, but WTHDIK? I recommended it here because my 23-year-old daughter tells me it’s all the rage among her friends because it so accurately depicts the kind of “relationships” that women her age now have.

  23. Alan Fox: It’s discouraging that we currently have no women participating. Suggestions?

    All I have to add is that they don’t type very well on Rohypnol. (How’s that for politically incorrect, Tom Mueller?)

  24. Tom English: All I have to add is that they don’t type very well on Rohypnol. (How’s that for politically incorrect, Tom Mueller?)

    Politically incorrect = rape joke?

  25. From “How Common Is Intersex? (seems reliable — forgive me for not chasing down primary sources):

    Here’s what we do know: If you ask experts at medical centers how often a child is born so noticeably atypical in terms of genitalia that a specialist in sex differentiation is called in, the number comes out to about 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births.

    Click the link to see a lot more on the incidence of “sex variations.”

  26. Kantian Naturalist: Politically incorrect = rape joke?

    The president likes to joke about sexual assault, so I suppose I was wrong in characterizing it as politically incorrect.

    By the way, I set myself up as an experienced rapist in that one. Part of the joke was a meta-joke, in which I made myself out to be someone who tells tasteless jokes, and who contributes to the female-unfriendliness of TSZ. It seemed funny to me, to cast myself against type. Perhaps people guys here do not know my type as well as I suppose. Isn’t there something terribly wrong, if that’s something to worry about?

  27. Yes at this time Canada literally lives in a dictaorship which includes the establishment. they decide the moral and intellectual right and wrong and enforce it claiming moral and intellectual rights to do so. its a invasion of Canadians moral and intellectual rights to conclusions based on beliefs of our choosing. Its very wicked and very anti christian.
    however it happens everywhere.
    Anyways.
    god created male and female in biology. especially in humans as the separation of the sexes was not for reproduction but to stop loneliess. Then also diffeent roles.
    yet our souls do not have a sexual iodenity. We were made in Gods image and he has no sexual idenmtity.
    Its entirely of the biological world. So a soul, put in at conception, is not yet a male/female identity.
    Indeed dysfunction in the biology leads to the problems of homosexuality and confusion of sexual identity. Its real biology failure. In fact jesus mentioned sexual dysfunction as due to biology problems.
    .It requires for healing DISCUSSION. this requires freedom.
    the denial of same freedom not only denies healing but denies our moral and legal rights.
    The modern passion of the left wing in these things is oppressing our rights as the common people.
    They are dictators but they are. one must deal as can until they are stopped.
    There must be lots of people hurt by these things.

  28. walto,

    Hope my daughter’s past that at 35. Her last visit was great; no shouting, tantrums or tears. My wife and daughter were pretty civilised, too. 😉

  29. J-Mac,

    Tell me what is wrong with this statement:
    “…Testosterone Receptors bind to appropriate levels of Bio-available testosterone in utero…”
    If you don’t know, you’d better say it soon…

    Perhaps you could aim to simply make an argument instead of disconnected statements hanging in the air and vaguely related to sex? Receptors bind to the thing they are a receptor of? Wow, got me there, Professor.

  30. Tom English: The president likes to joke about sexual assault, so I suppose I was wrong in characterizing it as politically incorrect.

    By the way, I set myself up as an experienced rapist in that one. Part of the joke was a meta-joke, in which I made myself out to be someone who tells tasteless jokes, and who contributes to the female-unfriendliness of TSZ. It seemed funny to me, to cast myself against type. Perhaps people guys here do not know my type as well as I suppose. Isn’t there something terribly wrong, if that’s something to worry about?

    Ah, I see now. Since I don’t know you at all, I thought you were earnestly (not ironically) making a rape joke. But you might consider how posts like yours might be read by people who don’t know you and aren’t aware that this is some meta-joke you’re playing against yourself.

  31. Kantian Naturalist:
    Well, gender theory and queer theory are not my specialties (despite having read a lot of Foucault), so I have no expertise to call upon. But the general view in gender theory is that there’s a meaningful difference between sex and gender: sex is biological and gender is socially constructed. Sally Haslanger, who is a very precise metaphysician on what it means to call something “socially constructed”, puts it this way:

    “Very roughly, as the slogan goes, gender is the social meaning of sex. The idea is that gender is not a classification scheme based simply on anatomical or biological differences, but marks social differences between individuals. Sex differences are about testicles and ovaries, the penis and the uterus . . . gender, in contrast, is a classification of individuals in terms of their social position, as determined by interpretations of their sex . . . sex is an anatomical distinction based on locally salient sexual/reproductive differences, and gender is a distinction between the social/political positions of those with bodies marked as of different sexes.”

    The point then is that if one distinguishes between sex and gender, then there is no “denying biology” (whatever that might mean) by those who point out that not everyone conforms to the man/woman gender binary.

    Thank you for your common sense

    The newspeak political correctness currently in vogue claims otherwise:

    There are apparently 4 considerations (and counting)

    1- Sex: (anatomical plumbing)

    2- gender identity

    3- sexual orientation ( hetero-homo-bi-sexual). Although campus thought police would relieve me of tenure to subscribe to so simple a continuum

    4- Gender Expression. Many confuse Gender Identity with gender expression, especially in California it would appear!

  32. [Kantian Naturalist]
    Ah, I see now. Since I don’t know you at all, I thought you were earnestly (not ironically) making a rape joke. But you might consider how posts like yours might be read by people who don’t know you and aren’t aware that this is some meta-joke you’re playing against yourself.

    The parenthetical comment was a dead giveaway:

    (How’s that for politically incorrect, Tom Mueller?)

    To be sure, at first I didn’t know what Rohypnol is, or what some predators use it for, so I really just let it stand as a kind of anti-PC joke. Only when you called it a rape joke did I bother looking up Rohypnol, but I didn’t have much doubt that it was a kind of joke because of “How’s that for politically incorrect?”

    Glen Davidson

  33. Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    Perhaps you could aim to simply make an argument instead of disconnected statements hanging in the air and vaguely related to sex? Receptors bind to the thing they are a receptor of? Wow, got me there, Professor.

    If you can’t identified this simple and yet obvious error, we have nothing to talk about…
    Anybody who has ever seen this process would know that receptors themselves don’t bind to testosterone, but testosterone, or other androgens, bind to androgen receptors as they are mobile in the circulatory system, unlike the receptors that are stationary…

    While this is a miniscule error, it tells a lot about the ones who write something they don’t fully understand…

    Capish, assistant professor? 😉

    BTW: Have you found what the Dominica Paradox is? It’s about boys who have been raised as girls because they lacked mainly external sex organs…

  34. J-Mac: If you can’t identified this simple and yet obvious error, we have nothing to talk about…
    Anybody who has ever seen this process would know that receptors themselves don’t bind to testosterone, but testosterone, or other androgens, bind to androgen receptors as they are mobile in the circulatory system, unlike the receptors that are stationary…

    While this is a miniscule error, it tells a lot about the ones who write something they don’t fully understand…

    Let’s be clear here: I would never publically call J-Mac a “moron”!

    … for reasons which are very evident whenever J-Mac publically brays his more than moderate lack of insight!

    Whenever a signal molecule “docks”; the larger receptor molecule significantly reorganizes three dimensional conformation upon binding to the smaller molecule, describing an induced fit docking approach in which the receptor is allowed to move in order to bind to the ligand optimally in a manner not dissimilar to the “induced fit” which occurs when the ACTIVE SITE of an enzyme binds a substrate

    Meanwhile, only a subset of receptors are membrane bound.

    For example: androgen receptors (including Testosterone Receptor) is NOT membrane bound but rather floats in the cytosol and is not at all stationary as J-Mac would ignorantly propose.

    That the best you can do J-Mac?!

    I really pity you (in a Christian sort of way)

  35. GlenDavidson: To be sure, at first I didn’t know what Rohypnol is, or what some predators use it for, so I really just let it stand as a kind of anti-PC joke. Only when you called it a rape joke did I bother looking up Rohypnol, but I didn’t have much doubt that it was a kind of joke because of “How’s that for politically incorrect?”

    Is the only thing that makes a rape joke not ok political correctness?

  39. newton: I agree it was obvious, what do think, ok for a rape joke if one is mocking political correctness?

    No, why do you have to bother me about this?

    It wasn’t anything I was addressing, and I was neither attacking nor defending what English wrote. Just noting that it was indicated to be a joke, in whatever taste.

    Glen Davidson

  40. J-Mac:
    TomMueller,

    You are right of course…I apologize… I don’t know what I was thinking… 🙁
    I got the SHBG receptor mixed up AR…

    Uhmmm… OK

    Now you have me at a disadvantage

    Thank you for a polite reply

    Does that mean we can reboot and address each in courteous terms from now on?

  42. OK OK… Gender-dysphoria can be real!

    So how about pseudo-gender dysphoria and misdiagnosis resulting in false-positives?

    Check out California: 27 percent of youths age 12 to 17 in California, self-identify as gender non-conforming

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-27-california-adolescents-identify-nongender-conforming/

    Really now!?

    So I ask out loud: are we witnessing mass delusion or hysteria accelerated by social media?

    https://www.csicop.org/si/show/mass_delusions_and_hysterias_highlights_from_the_past_millennium

  43. TomMueller: Check out California: 27 percent of youths age 12 to 17 in California, self-identify as gender non-conforming

    Do you really think this number is the true indication of gender issues among youths?
    If the same study were done among the isolated tribes of say… Amazonian territory, do you think that number would be similar?

  44. TomMueller:
    OK OK… Gender-dysphoria can be real!

    So how about pseudo-gender dysphoria and misdiagnosis resulting in false-positives?

    Check out California:27 percent of youths age 12 to 17 in California, self-identify as gender non-conforming

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/study-27-california-adolescents-identify-nongender-conforming/

    Really now!?

    They asked the kids one question: a person’s appearance ,style and dress ,the way they walk and talk may affect how people describe them .How do you think people at school would describe you?

    1 very feminine
    2 mostly feminine
    3 equally feminine and masculine
    4 mostly masculine
    5 very masculine

    Depending on the section they put in three groups GNC ( 6.2) androgynous ( 20.8) the rest conforming ( 73) . Of the androgynous 37% males, 63% female.mean age 14.1

    The question is not what you identify as but rather what others describe you as , perhaps the significance of this survey more an indication of how kids view the norms of society they are judged by and less an indication of mass hysteria or delusion fueled by mass media .

  45. J-Mac: Do you really think this number is the true indication of gender issues among youths?
    If the same study were done among the isolated tribes of say… Amazonian territory, do you think thatnumber would be similar?

    Damn twice in one day I agree with you

  48. newton: They asked the kids one question: a person’s appearance ,style and dress ,the way they walk and talk may affect how people describe them .How do you think people at school would describe you?

    1 very feminine
    2 mostlyfeminine
    3 equally feminine and masculine
    4 mostly masculine
    5 very masculine

    Depending on the section they put in three groups GNC ( 6.2) androgynous ( 20.8) the rest conforming ( 73) . Of the androgynous 37% males, 63% female.mean age 14.1

    The question is not what you identify as but rather what others describe you as , perhaps the significance of this survey more an indication of how kids view the norms of society they are judged by andless an indication of mass hysteria or delusion fueled by mass media .

    Good one! Psychologist and psychiatrists call it an attention seeking behaviour.

  49. J-Mac: Good one! Psychologist and psychiatrists call it an attention seeking behaviour.

    Actually the study seems more to do with self image vs societal norms( one question concerning how society views one). Interestingly the highest number of those in androgynous category were Hispanic females. The researchers seemed concerned about different groups suicide potential and prevention.

Leave a Reply