Does anyone here know how to counter these people saying sex is not binary because of hermaphrodites and intersex, that binary sexes are "flawed human made taxonomies" and that "you can't see someone's chromosomes and genitals so sex does not matter"?

submitted by EverydayIsSad from self.GenderCritical

I found this thread on the feminist subreddit, someone was brave enough to bring up the "sex is binary" topic into the discussion (and got banned after a while); https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g79ttua/

If you scroll down you reach these comments saying sex is not binary; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7ask4g/

Dude? Have you never heard of people with DSDs (intersex people)? Sex is very obviously not binary, just from a very crude chromosomes/gonads point of view. Or did were you just ignorant of genetic mosaics and other forms of DSDs? Just one example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/45,X/46,XY_mosaicism

It's you who are rejecting science here.

"Sexual reproduction in plants and animals is a binary system."

That is not consistently true. Jeebus, where did you learn your biology? From a hack like Peterson? I mean, goodness, a simple google search can solve this question. https://animals.mom.com/animals-dont-male-reproduction-9838.html

Maybe your issue isn't feminists "rejecting" science - but your own ignorance of scientific observations.

Call them what you want. Such people who do not fit on the binary do exist. There are people with XX chromosomes with sperm. There are people with XY chromosomes with ovaries and can give birth. This is not a binary.

So yes, the answer to 'how is babby formed' is through the joining of a sperm and an egg.

Now, in your daily life, when you refer to someone as a man, how aware are you of their ability to produce sperm?

This last one I have seen time and time again, "you can't see someone's chromosomes, genitals, and ability to produce egg or sperm so sex does not matter and is not important!"

They also said binary sexes are "flawed human made taxonomies"; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7a3m3q/

if one does hold to the causal theory of reference, which is quite common with scientific realists (and my inner semiotics nerd has a fondness for it myself), one would say that sperm = man and egg = woman is a pretty wobbly position.

So, if we were to make the arguments similar, it would be: Backbone (the feature) = mammal (the category). Except that isn't true. Any number of vertebrates could have backbones, and so the presence of a backbone does not indicated a mammal.

Now we could flip this to category/feature and say woman = egg. Except that also isn't true. Post-menopausal women do not have eggs, but they are not a different sex category.

the argument I was showing was around "those with sperm are men" and "those with eggs are women" -- it was element, then category. You went with category, then element, so not the same argument.

So then we agree that "those with eggs are women" is incorrect, as one does not need to have eggs to be a woman.

Intersex people with both eggs and sperm literally exist, as do other intersex animals-- sex as a binary system empirically isn't a biological reality.

The OP said hermaphrodites having both sperm and egg show that sex is binary, but the responses they got were;

the experience of sex isn't binary-- the options for an individual organisms sex aren't limited to 'male' or 'female'.

If all you care about is pedantry than this topic is probably over your head.

Scientists agree that the binary you are defending is flawed and simplistic.

This comment says because there can be such a thing as organisms that have both sperm and egg, then it means sex is not binary; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7andg8/

a binary system doesn't mean "two"; or "both" it means a system in which there are two options-- an either/or situation.

If you introduce a scenario where the options are "either/or" AND "both/neither" that is by definition no longer a binary system.

These other comments say; https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7as9ns/ , https://old.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/j35tfg/is_there_a_feminist_subreddit_that_permits_free/g7aphdj/

if binary doesn't sufficiently capture the totality of biological phenomena then why it is irrational to consider a different mode of categorization?

even with the sexual reproduction of plants where it binary, plants often have both gametes. There aren't male and female plants, there are just distinct elements. Self-pollination is quite common.

In biology, rare or unusual phenomenon is not usually ignored or pushed to the side in regards to furthering understanding of the world we live in. I am not advocating denying anything, I'm just pointing out that if you cannot accurately categorize intersex individuals in your categorical framework then it is necessarily leaving out data, not including it.

And in the general sense, sex and reproduction have a variety of options. Earthworms are hermaphroditic as a species but don't self-fertilize. Unicellular organisms often reproduce asexually. Some species are monogendered and reproduce through parthenogenesis.

If we narrow this down to humans and the variety of circumstances they can find themselves in, regardless of the frequency of a phenomenon, excluding a whole categorization doesn't seem a disposition interested in exploring the data we have available. You're saying the binary captures the nature of the biological system but it cannot categorize or account for "when things go wrong." Or at the very least you haven't fully explained what you are trying to say in a way I find complete. If you have two endpoints and some data points that fall between it, we usually recognize that as a range or spectrum as opposed to a binary form of categorization.

Going back to a broader sense of scientific thinking, look at something like the theory of evolution. What "goes wrong" in it that it cannot account for? It's fairly inclusive for explaining a wide variety of circumstances as opposed to qualifying something as "going wrong" because it doesn't fit neatly into its theoretical framework. Or think of the theory of gravity where we have to adjust and modify it to include phenomena that we continue to discover that gives us a deeper understanding of it. I'm not seeing that ethos of accepting and including data into your framework being particularly reflected in what you are putting forth.

They mean that because hermaphrodites have both sperm and egg, they are not male or female, and they are this third category that shows sex is not binary in other animals and plants (most plants are hermaphrodites and many other animals are hermaphrodites)

... I know pasting all those comments for you here made this post long, but I thought if you don't want to go into that thread yourselves I would paste the comments I'm referring to here. Does anyone have any counter-arguments to these TRA arguments I highlighted above?

If anyone can break all those TRA arguments apart and debunk them I would be really thankful.

all 55 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]MarkTwainiac 33 insightful - 1 fun33 insightful - 0 fun34 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There's no such thing as hermaphroditism in humans; there's never been a single documented case of a human being capable of producing both sperm and egg.

In the medical literature, the term that used to be employed for some very rare types of DSDs was pseudohermaphroditism.

The term hermaphrodite comes from a story in ancient Greek mythology concerning Hermaphroditus, a son of the gods Hermes and Aphrodite who was remarkably handsome and very sexually attractive. The female adult nymph Salmacis fell in love with him when he was a youth, tried to seduce/molest him and was rebuffed. So Salmacis prayed to the gods to be forever united with the boy she lusted after. The gods granted her wish, and as a result, Hermaphroditus and Salmacis became joined in a single body, which was said to have the characteristics of both sexes. But if you look at ancient Greek statues and pictorial descriptions of Hermaphroditus, he always has breast buds (gynecomastia?) and very prominent male genitalia. Often, in fact, he has an erect penis of quit pronounced size.

People with DSDs, the doctors who study and treat them, and organizations advocating on their behalf have long asked the world not to use the term "hermaphrodite" coz it's not just wholly inaccurate, it's a stigmatizing slur that has been used to "other" people with DSDs for too long a time.

Sex is binary coz for sexual reproduction to occur two kinds of gametes are required: egg and sperm. And an egg and sperm are required each and very time, no exceptions. Human and mammalian reproduction can't occur, and never has occurred, with only one type of gamete.

Whilst there are wide variations in human sex characteristics - big dicks, micro penises; large breasts, tiny breasts; people who are very fertile and people who are infertile; men with low T compared to others of their sex, women with high T compared to others of their sex; etc - none of these variations changes the fact that there is/are no additional gametes beyond egg and sperm.

Similarly, in humans there are only two kinds of sex chromosomes - X and Y. In humans, there are no Q,R, S,T, U, V, W or Z sex chromosomes - just X and Y. And the key in determining sex is the presence of the SRY gene that's usually located on the Y chromosome. If an SRY gene is present and active, an embryo will almost always develop as male.

Most female humans are XX and most male humans are XY, but on occasion anomalies in sex chromosomes occur - resulting in conditions like X0 and XXY. But all these people are still clearly male or female.

On very rare occasions, an XX person is conceived with an SRY gene mislocated on one of the X chromosomes. Hence, XX males.

Also on rare occasion, XY humans with a functioning SRY gene on the Y chromosome have a condition that reduces or entirely eliminates their sensitivity to testosterone, so they develop in ways that cause them to appear to be female, and to be raised as such. But such people are infertile; they cannot create either egg or sperm, so they are not a third sex nor are they an "in between" sex.

Similarly, there are individuals with rare medical conditions that have "ovotesticular disorders" in which they have gonads containing both ovarian and testicular tissues. But most of these people are sterile, incapable of producing either egg or sperm. Those who can produce gametes usually can produce only ova, and it's not clear whether the ova is always or usually viable.

There are people with XX chromosomes with sperm.

Uh, no. People with "XX male syndrome" aka De la Chapelle, which usually comes about due to the SRY gene being mislocated on an X chromosome, are sterile - they produce neither sperm nor egg.

There are people with XY chromosomes with ovaries and can give birth.

Again, no. There have been a couple of cases of mosaicism, where most of the body has been found to have XY chromosomes but select reproductive organs have been found to have XX chromosomes.

Also, anyone who equates having ovaries with the ability to conceive, implant an embryo/get pregnant, grow a fetus and give birth is just showing their ignorance of the myriad female roles in human/mammalian reproduction.

In humans, the key organ in getting pregnant, gestating a fetus and giving birth is the uterus - not the ovaries. An XX female person can have healthy, fully functioning ovaries - but if she doesn't have a uterus due to a DSD like MRKH or coz she had to have her uterus surgically removed for medical reasons - she won't be able to get pregnant, grow a child or "give birth."

At the same time, an XY male person with a groin injury or a DSD like Caster Semenya's can be missing a penis, or have a penis so small or malformed that penetrative PIV sex is impossible - but if said person still has functioning testes, even if they are internal, chances are good he can father a child with medical assistance.

[–]NecessaryScene1 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It's almost comical how desperate TRAs are to invent bizarre new DSDs. They were talking about people with just a Y chromosome the other day...

[–]chrysthefeminist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There are no people with just a Y. The X is needed for viability.

[–]materialrealityplz 19 insightful - 1 fun19 insightful - 0 fun20 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, I'm not going to read their bullshit, but chromosomes very much do matter.

This is just one small point about their differences but Sharon Moalem does a really great job at explaining how having two X chromosomes make women genetically stronger then men. It's why women are dying from Covid less and more men are colourblind (because the backup X can be used if one is faulty). Although this is also the reason more women are have autoimmune diseases - because their autoimmune system is very aggressive and will even attack itself if "bored". He's done some really interesting talks that are on youtube you can find by searching his name.

Also, any arguments referring to other animals and plants you should ignore. They are irrelevant to humans and are only distractions.

Sex is binary, a few mutations doesn't mean otherwise.

[–]slushpilot 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sex is binary, a few mutations doesn't mean otherwise.

Yup. I replied with very much the same point to the crosspost in s/GCdebatesQT

[–]NecessaryScene1 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The arguments used here work for any two categories.

If you can't separate categories because it's impossible to draw a precise line, then you can't say that day isn't night, that left isn't right, that water isn't ice, that space isn't the atmosphere, that red isn't blue.

It's all bollocks. Twilight existing doesn't mean day is night.

In humans there are exactly two sexes. There is no continuum between egg and sperm.

The fuzziness only occurs in the development of a very tiny proportion of humans with DSDs who produce neither egg nor sperm. (If they produced either, that would determine their sex).

But still, the existence of people with DSDs does not mean that male people can be female people.

The dividing line between male and female is FAR more sharply defined than any of my other examples above. The edge is SO sharp and well defined, it is effectively invisible. The "spectrum" is two solid colour bars with a sharp edge.

[–]jjdub7Gay Male Guest Commentator 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

The onus is not on you to have to defend XX/XY but rather on them to explain why gendersouls are a concept not to be laughed out of the room.

[–]anxietyaccount8 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This whole topic is ridiculous, because the issue of transgenderism (and especially things like non-binary identities and pronoun usage) has nothing to do with biology. There is nothing unusual about a man with gender dysphoria's biological sex, he simply wants to be a woman, even though he is male. And, trans activists don't even believe that you have to get surgery to transition to the opposite sex.

[–]BuboTitan 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

These debates get complicated really quick, so if you want to counter it, you have to keep your message simple. Part of the reason these anti-biology denialists get away with this is because the word "sex" has so many connotations, so it's easy to confuse people.

  1. "Sex" in this context is about the reproductive process. And that process is a fully binary system in humans (and you have to go VERY far away from humans in the animal kingdom to find any exception to this). Either you are equipped to produce an egg, or fertilize one. Whether that equipment is fully functional or not is irrelevant. There is no "third sex" involved in reproduction, nor has any human being ever been a true hermaphrodite, able to both produce eggs and fertilize them. "Intersex" describes a wide variety of conditions, but intersex people all have a sex. And that's not the same thing as transgender anyway.

  2. So what is male and female? If you have the SRY gene, you are a male. If not, you are female. It's that simple. Whether you prefer wearing pants or skirts, wearing lipstick or watching football, etc, is irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with biological reproduction.

Note: when you debate this, you can't say "XY" chromosomes = male, and "XX" equals = female, because your opponent will pull a "gotcha" and point out the exceedingly rare cases of XX males. The SRY gene normally is carried on the Y chromosome, but it can be carried on the X. The SRY gene is the true and most objective definition.

[–]GConly 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

There are only two types of gametes. Post reproductive age humans are not a different sex.

99.8% of humans are meet the standard chromosome and gonad/genital set up.

The intersex conditions are almost universally infertile... Meaning they are not a special new sex (as these would have some kind of reproductive role) they are developmental abnormalities. Same as having six fingers or a congenital heart defect.

It's also not a spectrum any more than the number of fingers humans have is. Only 1/5000 has any kind of physical deviation from the norm.

[–]Shesstealthy 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And how does any of this relate to a person being trans? Are they saying that because bodies and sex are complex it therefore follows that people in one box should put themselves in an opposite box for reasons that have nothing to do with bodily variation? Or are they saying that all trans people have DSDs? Why aren't they using this crucial endocrinological information to further their cause?

[–]Anon123 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Simple.

Intersex people are either male or female. No one is determined to be both male and female. The anatomical anomalies of intersex people doesn't counter their determined sex. All intersex people are determined to be ONE sex, and there are only two choices: male or female. As others mentioned, there's no such thing as a hermaphrodite (a person with both sets of functioning genitals).

The scientific consensus is that 5 degrees of female on a "spectrum" or 5 degrees of male on a "spectrum" are not proof of a variety of separate sexes, just various degrees of male or female.

The scientific and medical consensus is also that we identify people based on sex, not gender.

Trans people are also not intersex, and their life experiences and biology have absolutely zero connection to intersex people. There is no empirical evidence saying trans people are merely intersex people with a fully one sex body and the brain of the opposite sex. It doesn't even make sense on a developmental level in the womb.