Hi TillsI agree that "biological sex" is complex and that chromosomes, hormones, gonads, anatomy and other traits can vary. Intersex variations are real too.
Where I disagree is with your description of my argument as "narrowly conceived" and "reductionist".
The real disagreement here is with the definitions themselves. The definitions I quoted were not my own. They came from the NIH, the Endocrine Society and the National Academies and I used them as the baseline for what biological sex means.
I also did not reduce "biological sex" to one characteristic. I specifically referred to chromosomes, gonads, hormones and reproductive anatomy. That was also the point I was making in my reply to Kathy. A field biologist may identify an animal as male or female by looking at visible anatomy because those characteristics are normally reliable indicators of sex. But that does not mean "biological sex" is defined as whatever can be seen through binoculars.
External anatomy is evidence of biological sex. It is not the definition of "biological sex". If visible anatomy can reasonably be used to identify the sex of other mammals then it makes little sense to say that the same kind of evidence has no relevance when identifying sex in humans.
So when you say, "You have taken one set of biological markers and excluded so many others" and "You cannot separate out one part of the bodily function from others and say, in true reductionist fashion, that this is the defining characteristic", that is not the argument I made. That is a straw man fallacy.
It seems that what you are really arguing is that the definitions themselves are too narrow because they do not include all the additional biological traits you listed. That is a different argument or framework.
Perhaps it would help if you gave the definition of "biological sex" that you are using here. You have explained why you consider the definitions I quoted too narrow and listed a number of additional biological traits that you believe should be included, but I am still not clear on what your alternative definition of "biological sex" actually is.
I have looked at the papers you added. They support things I have never disputed: there are many biological differences between males and females and gender incongruence may have a biological basis. Some of the papers look at chromosomes, hormones, receptors, genetics and brain differences. The brain research is just one example of the extra traits you are trying to bring into the definition of "biological sex".
Some studies have found differences in transgender people that resemble patterns more commonly found in the opposite sex but the findings are mixed and many of the studies are based on small samples. None of this shows that these additional traits should become part of the definition of "biological sex".
The number of citations presented risks becoming citation dumping. A large volume of citations does not show that the definitions of "biological sex" are wrong. What matters is whether those studies actually support the conclusion that these additional traits should be included in the definition of "biological sex".
Something being biological or associated with sex does not automatically make it part of the definition of "biological sex". Hormone levels, receptors and other traits can vary within males and females. That does not mean every biological difference becomes a separate way of deciding whether someone is male or female.
The same applies to brain differences and gender incongruence. Even if gender identity has biological influences that does not make gender identity itself a "biological sex" characteristic. The same applies to intersex variations. They show that sex development can sometimes be atypical. They do not make the baseline definitions invalid or show that the distinction between male and female disappears. Likewise, having a chromosome variation does not by itself show that someone was wrongly identified as male or female at birth. That depends on the particular variation and what effect it had.
Saying that my response is "part of the problem" goes beyond disagreeing with the definitions or with my reasoning. I was using established definitions and explaining the distinctions they make.
In your final reply you describe my position as "narrowly conceived and reductionist". But I did not create the definitions I used. I quoted definitions from the NIH, the Endocrine Society and the National Academies and used them as the baseline for what "biological sex" means. So I do not see how relying on those definitions makes my position narrowly conceived or reductionist. If you believe those definitions are too narrow then you need to show why they are wrong or inadequate. So far you have shown that biology is complex but you have not shown that the definitions themselves are wrong.
You are right that this is a supportive space, but this is also a site where people learn from one another, share what they know and share their experiences.
I have no interest either in turning this into an endless argument. So I am happy to leave it there and accept that we disagree.
Best Wishes AlwaysSarah BGlobal Moderator@Tills
