Reality's Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. All articles are free, but if you would pay to access this article behind a paywall, please consider becoming a paying subscriber anyway, or making a one-time or recurring donation. I’d rather a million people view this content for free than have it be accessible to only a small group of paying subscribers, but that means I rely fully on the generosity of my readers for support. Thank you!
Thanks for a clear explanation. Regarding the SRY gene and it appearing on X chromosomes, wikipedia's article about XX male syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome) claims that about 10% of XX males do not have SRY, but that having an extra copy of a gene called SOX9 or the absence of a gene called DOX1 can also cause XX male syndrome. Furthermore, 2 other genes, SF1, WNT4 are claimed to be being investigated for roles in XX male syndrome. So it seems the genetics of XX males aren't straightforward.
I also have a question: Do people ever have both (or some mix of) testes & ovaries or is it always the case you have one or the other but not both?
Maybe the person's experience isn't "black and white". That goes for most people anyway.
Simply because those conditions exist doesn't mean society has to trash women's sports, and private spaces, indoctrinate children with very age inappropriate information, etc.
You clearly fail to mention those with gonadal dysgenesis or more precisely mixed testicular and ovarian tissue within the gonads. You also don't mention a category for those with 45X/46XY. 45X are usually females until there is a 45X/46XY, which does NOT necessarily make them male as they are most often ambiguous both biologically as well as physically. While I agree there are not 6 different sex classifications, I do feel there are 3, female, male and for lack of a term, X sex, based on your theory of biological sex. In the US the term biological sex is often referred to as "chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. So within your definition of biological sex, you are leaving out gonadal dysgenesis and specific chromosome combinations, but also those that may have internal female organs, such as uterus and ovaries, but have external male genitalia and vice versa. If the definition above is correct, then you cannot go by only ovarian or testicular gonads alone, but take into consideration the whole person, including genitals, chromosomes, gonads and hormones. A person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome may have female genitals at birth but not discovered until later in life when they are infertile, that in fact they are actually 46XY chromosomally, had streaked gonads but was raised as and identifies as being female. So how do we really classify and determine biological sex? How do we determine "assigned sex at birth". Sometimes it really isn't at all definitive or clear.
Except that, it's not a claim that these variations are new sexes. The claim more accurately would be that they show it's not nearly as clear cut as people want to believe it to be. The point people are trying to make is that there are combinations of the two that aren't as distinctive and contain aspects of the opposite sex. That's NOT saying it's a whole new sex, it's saying it's not a black and white topic the way people want to believe it to be. If the existence of sex organs is your determining factor of who's male and female which is what you're alluding to here, then swapping from one set to another would change your sex. There are animals that change their sex, but I would be very surprised to find out they change their whole biological makeup in order to do so.
The point is, the topic of sex/gender is NOT a black and white, yes or no question that we once were told to believe it to be. There are combinations and mixtures, and in your comments you've admitted as much, but still you sit there and twist the topic to make it sound like others are trying to call them separate genders completely. Who? Who's saying they're a different gender? I read the same tweets you brought up in this post, and I definitely did not get the same interpretation. There are combinations, in betweens, mixes and matches. It's not a black and white subject, and you said it yourself, there's still a lot we don't know, and yet here you are unequivocally stating that you're either male or female, whilst admitting someone could have both ovaries and testes.............. That doesn't pass the smell test, let alone how science works....
Yes we are. You just don't like it because it disproves your white supremacist notion of binary gender and sex. We always existed and we are human beings. Get over yourselves.
That was a lot of words just to say "I refuse to accept anything outside of my perspective and need to involve myself in other people's business that has zero impact on me."
This article just shows that the writer is biased and is driving into the point without acknowledging it. We know sex chromosomes do not determine sex. An activated SRY gene is what will determine your gametes. Even if sex chromosomes didn't make things different sexes (which it does as that is how we define biological sex, and saying something is a syndrome doesn't negate that as that "syndrome", is just a normal part of biology) we still sex intersexed people. This article is clearly written by someone with an agenda to poorly explain away biological variation, by saying external genitalia is what matters, when we know that is biologically inaccurate.
this entire article is based on a lie. if you want to clear up misinformation, that’s fine. but you’re coming after a trans biologist because of something they never said. “sex karyotypes” is the only categorizing mentioned, nothing about biological sexes other than male and female was explicitly said. if you want to state that you’d assume the argument they’re making is against the tweet they responded to, that’s fine. but you’re attempting to damage the credibility of a biologist because you’re lying about something they never said. i know this is typical journalism, but the fact it’s present in the scientific would should be concerning no matter our differing opinions.
What would call a person (who is well known) who has all female genitalia and presents in all ways as typically female, but in fact has testicles. How do you "judge" that person against your standards..🤦♂️
You are correct that these are variations. The definition of variations from the Oxford dictionary states: BIOLOGY
the occurrence of an organism in more than one distinct color or form.
I believe that there are three common strains of Homosapien in our DNA that all have opposite sexes from each other. It is known that the Cro-Magnums introgressed DNA from the Denisovans and the Neanderthals.
I agree listening to biased “scientists” is something you should avoid if you are looking for an actual truthful statistics. So I highly recommend people to ignore your bigoted articles too! One article title that made me laugh in particular is “Transgender Trend”. The definition of a trend is ‘a change or development towards something new or different.’ However with one search and no science degree myself I can find evidence (sourced from National Geographic) of the first known transgender person dating all the way back to 1886 but this is just what is on record in the west, in the east it is most likely far earlier hence making your title and statement completely factually incorrect seems like you need to head back to school !!
Hi Colin, I’m a huge fan of what you do and I’m really happy to see a knowledgeable scientist able to give unbiased opinions on this. I just wanted to ask if the sry gene in the Y chromosome causes development of male reproductive organs, why is it in cases of women with swyer syndrome (like caster semenya) they have the Y chromosome yet develop female reproductive organs? And how is it that people can be born with ambiguous genitalia?
I don’t think you understand what you’re writing about. You’re completely ignoring people with XX chromosomes that have a penis and/or gonads and people with XY chromosomes that have a uterus and/or ovaries. An XY does not automatically give you a penis and/or gonads. Androgens do that. And a mix up in the androgen bath in the first trimester will make an XY person be born with a working uterus and ovaries. They’re not always sterile. It just seem disingenuous to post this while ignoring the facts. People will use your misinformation to further their bigotry and discrimination, and probably have.
Thank you for explaining this so others can understand. And argh, the misinformation and retweeting is maddening! Did people miss bio 101?
Thanks for a clear explanation. Regarding the SRY gene and it appearing on X chromosomes, wikipedia's article about XX male syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome) claims that about 10% of XX males do not have SRY, but that having an extra copy of a gene called SOX9 or the absence of a gene called DOX1 can also cause XX male syndrome. Furthermore, 2 other genes, SF1, WNT4 are claimed to be being investigated for roles in XX male syndrome. So it seems the genetics of XX males aren't straightforward.
I also have a question: Do people ever have both (or some mix of) testes & ovaries or is it always the case you have one or the other but not both?
Maybe the person's experience isn't "black and white". That goes for most people anyway.
Simply because those conditions exist doesn't mean society has to trash women's sports, and private spaces, indoctrinate children with very age inappropriate information, etc.
You clearly fail to mention those with gonadal dysgenesis or more precisely mixed testicular and ovarian tissue within the gonads. You also don't mention a category for those with 45X/46XY. 45X are usually females until there is a 45X/46XY, which does NOT necessarily make them male as they are most often ambiguous both biologically as well as physically. While I agree there are not 6 different sex classifications, I do feel there are 3, female, male and for lack of a term, X sex, based on your theory of biological sex. In the US the term biological sex is often referred to as "chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals”—that is, all four characteristics. So within your definition of biological sex, you are leaving out gonadal dysgenesis and specific chromosome combinations, but also those that may have internal female organs, such as uterus and ovaries, but have external male genitalia and vice versa. If the definition above is correct, then you cannot go by only ovarian or testicular gonads alone, but take into consideration the whole person, including genitals, chromosomes, gonads and hormones. A person with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome may have female genitals at birth but not discovered until later in life when they are infertile, that in fact they are actually 46XY chromosomally, had streaked gonads but was raised as and identifies as being female. So how do we really classify and determine biological sex? How do we determine "assigned sex at birth". Sometimes it really isn't at all definitive or clear.
I have a question. What about intersex people? As in people who have both testes and ova? Is there some chromosome variation for that?
Except that, it's not a claim that these variations are new sexes. The claim more accurately would be that they show it's not nearly as clear cut as people want to believe it to be. The point people are trying to make is that there are combinations of the two that aren't as distinctive and contain aspects of the opposite sex. That's NOT saying it's a whole new sex, it's saying it's not a black and white topic the way people want to believe it to be. If the existence of sex organs is your determining factor of who's male and female which is what you're alluding to here, then swapping from one set to another would change your sex. There are animals that change their sex, but I would be very surprised to find out they change their whole biological makeup in order to do so.
The point is, the topic of sex/gender is NOT a black and white, yes or no question that we once were told to believe it to be. There are combinations and mixtures, and in your comments you've admitted as much, but still you sit there and twist the topic to make it sound like others are trying to call them separate genders completely. Who? Who's saying they're a different gender? I read the same tweets you brought up in this post, and I definitely did not get the same interpretation. There are combinations, in betweens, mixes and matches. It's not a black and white subject, and you said it yourself, there's still a lot we don't know, and yet here you are unequivocally stating that you're either male or female, whilst admitting someone could have both ovaries and testes.............. That doesn't pass the smell test, let alone how science works....
Simple, direct, convincing
I'll be using this in my next (irritating) argument with a gender ideologue.
Yes we are. You just don't like it because it disproves your white supremacist notion of binary gender and sex. We always existed and we are human beings. Get over yourselves.
That was a lot of words just to say "I refuse to accept anything outside of my perspective and need to involve myself in other people's business that has zero impact on me."
You could have saved a lot of time.
This article just shows that the writer is biased and is driving into the point without acknowledging it. We know sex chromosomes do not determine sex. An activated SRY gene is what will determine your gametes. Even if sex chromosomes didn't make things different sexes (which it does as that is how we define biological sex, and saying something is a syndrome doesn't negate that as that "syndrome", is just a normal part of biology) we still sex intersexed people. This article is clearly written by someone with an agenda to poorly explain away biological variation, by saying external genitalia is what matters, when we know that is biologically inaccurate.
this entire article is based on a lie. if you want to clear up misinformation, that’s fine. but you’re coming after a trans biologist because of something they never said. “sex karyotypes” is the only categorizing mentioned, nothing about biological sexes other than male and female was explicitly said. if you want to state that you’d assume the argument they’re making is against the tweet they responded to, that’s fine. but you’re attempting to damage the credibility of a biologist because you’re lying about something they never said. i know this is typical journalism, but the fact it’s present in the scientific would should be concerning no matter our differing opinions.
What would call a person (who is well known) who has all female genitalia and presents in all ways as typically female, but in fact has testicles. How do you "judge" that person against your standards..🤦♂️
You are correct that these are variations. The definition of variations from the Oxford dictionary states: BIOLOGY
the occurrence of an organism in more than one distinct color or form.
I believe that there are three common strains of Homosapien in our DNA that all have opposite sexes from each other. It is known that the Cro-Magnums introgressed DNA from the Denisovans and the Neanderthals.
I agree listening to biased “scientists” is something you should avoid if you are looking for an actual truthful statistics. So I highly recommend people to ignore your bigoted articles too! One article title that made me laugh in particular is “Transgender Trend”. The definition of a trend is ‘a change or development towards something new or different.’ However with one search and no science degree myself I can find evidence (sourced from National Geographic) of the first known transgender person dating all the way back to 1886 but this is just what is on record in the west, in the east it is most likely far earlier hence making your title and statement completely factually incorrect seems like you need to head back to school !!
Hi Colin, I’m a huge fan of what you do and I’m really happy to see a knowledgeable scientist able to give unbiased opinions on this. I just wanted to ask if the sry gene in the Y chromosome causes development of male reproductive organs, why is it in cases of women with swyer syndrome (like caster semenya) they have the Y chromosome yet develop female reproductive organs? And how is it that people can be born with ambiguous genitalia?
I don’t think you understand what you’re writing about. You’re completely ignoring people with XX chromosomes that have a penis and/or gonads and people with XY chromosomes that have a uterus and/or ovaries. An XY does not automatically give you a penis and/or gonads. Androgens do that. And a mix up in the androgen bath in the first trimester will make an XY person be born with a working uterus and ovaries. They’re not always sterile. It just seem disingenuous to post this while ignoring the facts. People will use your misinformation to further their bigotry and discrimination, and probably have.