A while back, the Presidents of the Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE), the American Society of Naturalists (ASN) and the Society of Systematic Biologists (SSB) posted this letter on the SSE website (click title to see archived version):
The letter was a response to Trump’s Executive order on sex, which gave the biological definition of sex: a binary based on the physiological apparatus for producing gametes of different size, of which there are two forms. This is how the “Tri-Societies Letter” (henceforth “TSL”) started:
As scientists, we write to express our concerns about the Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government”. That Order states first, that “there are two sexes…[which] are not changeable”. The Order goes on to state that sex is determined at conception and is based on the size of the gamete that the resulting individual will produce. These statements are contradicted by extensive scientific evidence.
The TSL, posted on the SSE webpage, asserts that sex is a multivariate trait, is not binary but a spectrum, and that this spectrum occurs in all biological species. It adds this (bolding is mine):
Scientific consensus defines sex in humans as a biological construct that relies on a combination of chromosomes, hormonal balances, and the resulting expression of gonads, external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. There is variation in all these biological attributes that make up sex. Accordingly, sex (and gendered expression) is not a binary trait. While some aspects of sex are bimodal, variation along the continuum of male to female is well documented in humans through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genetic composition at conception does not define one’s identity. Rather, sex and gender result from the interplay of genetics and environment. Such diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans.
Note that it gives no way to determine whether an organism, including a human, is male or female! And how many sexes are there? This gives us no clue.
The letter went on to imply that all the members of the society, or at least nearly all of them, agreed with the Presidents’ views in the TSL:
Our three scientific societies represent over 3500 scientists, many of whom are experts on the variability that is found in sexual expression throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. More information explaining why sex lies along a continuum can be found here. If you wish to speak to one of our scientists, please contact any of the societies listed below.
It turned out that this was a distortion: the Societies had never polled their membership to see how many people agreed with their letter.
The result was considerable pushback against the TSL from scientists, 125 of whom wrote a letter to the Societies saying they didn’t agree with the TSL’s characterization of sex. Luana Maroja was the driving force behind this pushback, and the letter included this (I signed it, of course):
However, we do not see sex as a “construct” and we do not see other mentioned human-specific characteristics, such as “lived experiences” or “[phenotypic] variation along the continuum of male to female”, as having anything to do with the biological definition of sex. While we humans might be unique in having gender identities and certain types of sexual dimorphism, sex applies to us just as it applies to dragonflies, butterflies, or fish – there is no human exceptionalism. Yes, there are developmental pathologies that cause sterility and there are variations in phenotypic traits related to sexual dimorphism. However, the existence of this variation does not make sex any less binary or more complex, because what defines sex is not a combination of chromosomes or hormonal balances or external genitalia and secondary sex characteristics. The universal biological definition of sex is gamete size.
You can see my other posts about this kerfuffle here.
The response from the Societies can’t be posted as we were refused permission to do so, but I characterized it this way:
. . . . this time we asked for a response and got one, signed by all three Presidents. I can’t reprint it because we didn’t ask for permission [we later did but were refused], but some of its gist is in the response below from Luana [Maroja]. I will say that they admitted that they think they’re in close agreement with us (I am not so sure!), that their letter wasn’t properly phrased, that some of our differences come from different semantic interpretations of words like “binary” and “continuum”(nope), and that they didn’t send the letter anyway because a federal judge changed the Executive Order on sex (this didn’t affect our criticisms). At any rate, the tri-societies letter is on hold because the organizations are now concerned with more serious threats from the Trump Administration, like science funding.
The upshot was that the Societies eventually decided to remove the letter from the SSE website. What remains on the the original page is this, “This letter was originally posted on February 5th. A revised version is in progress and will be posted shortly.”
We are still waiting. I’m betting that no revision will ever appear. And it shouldn’t, for it’s not good for the premier evolution societies to pretend that biologists see sex as a spectrum.
What I’m leading up to is that, at the SSE’s annual conference taking place this month, the Society is sponsoring a three-hour symposium with four lecturers, a symposium that seems designed to reiterate the premises of the now-vanished letter. You can see the summary of this symposium by clicking on the link below to see synopses of the four lectures; then click on the bottom symposium, which looks like this:
If you go through the written summaries of the talks, you will see two themes reiterated:
1.) Biological sex is not binary but multifaceted, a “complex suite of traits across multiple organizational levels”. No definition of biological sex appears to be given.
2.) Teaching that sex is binary harms those people who feel they’re not part of the binary, presumably nonbinary people, genderfluid people, some trans people, and the like. An important goal of teaching about sex and gender is to avoid harming people, and this form of teaching must be designed to avoid that harm.
The first point simply reiterates what was in the now-disappeared letter. It makes the argument that many “progressive” biologists make: sex involves a combination of different traits. This of course neglects the universality of the gametic definition, for no other definition holds for all animals and vascular plants. That’s why the definition (really a post facto observation) is used. In fact, many of those who hold to the “multifactoral” definition never even give a definition of sex, so I don’t know how they can tell that, say, a rabbit is male or female.
The second point turns biology teaching into a form of social engineering or propaganda: we must teach about sex in a way that does not harm people (i.e., offend them). I see this as distortion of biological truth in the interests of social justice, something that Luana and I discussed in our paper “The Ideological Subversion of Biology.” In fact, of course, teaching that biological sex is binary should not make anybody feel worthless or demeaned, for the dignity and rights of people depend not on biology but on morality, which is a social construct. I have made this point endlessly and won’t repeat it here; see the end of the paper linked just above.
Some quotes from the summary and the abstracts:
Symposium summary at the beginning:
This symposium will explore the current science behind sex and gender, explore how educators can move their instruction beyond simple binary XX/XY paradigms, and provide educational materials for teaching this nuanced and difficult subject.
The non-binary nature of sex:
However, “biological sex” can describe a complex suite of traits across multiple organizational levels, including chromosomal inheritance, physiology, morphology, behavior, etc. To capture the full range of sex variability and diversity, we must critically assess our research approaches for studying sex associated traits. In this talk, I will provide practical guidance for conceptual frameworks, experimental designs, and analytical methods for studying and teaching the biology of sex. I invite fellow scientists and educators to conscientiously apply these inclusive approaches, to advance our biological understanding of sex and to encourage academically and socially responsible outcomes of our research.
. . . . Biology is the study of the diversity of life, which includes diversity in sex, gender, sexual behavior, and sexual and romantic orientations. However, the few existing studies of biology textbooks and classrooms suggest that many textbook authors and classroom instructors represent only a narrow swath of this diversity which can lead to an over emphasis on binary sex, conflation of sex and gender, and reinforcement of essentialisms.
Biological sex is a complex and highly variable trait; however, overly simplistic explanations are common in undergraduate biology classrooms. Here we test the impact of an accurate approach to teaching about the diversity of biological sex in organismal biology (‘treatment’ lecture) and compare this approach to a ‘traditional’ lecture section of the same introductory biology course.
The harm of teaching sex “wrongly”.
Although science is thought to be objective and free of emotion, many people are uncomfortable talking about the biology of sex. That discomfort and fear leaves room for hostile attacks on the science of sex to easily propagate through political and social channels. This creates unique challenges for educators in this area. In this presentation, I will discuss the biological basis of sex and sexual diversity from the perspective of a developmental biologist. The hierarchical nature of development connects genetics to phenotypes. Development dictates how sexual diversity emerges within species. The evolution of development dictates how sexual diversity arises among species. I will use development to demonstrate how biologists can distill complexity down into understandable chunks to address the most pervasive misconceptions about sex, especially those actively being used to take away
people’s rights.. . . To more fully characterize the current range of narratives about sex, gender, sexual behavior, and orientation (SGBO narratives) present in undergraduate biology courses, we interviewed a national sample of 53 biology majors whose genders do not align with the sex they were assigned at birth (i.e., trans-spectrum students) about the SGBO narratives they encountered in biology courses.
We analyzed interviews using reflexive thematic analysis with the goal of identifying SGBO narrative in biology content and how these narratives supported or harmed these students’ sense of belonging in biology classrooms. We found five SGBO narratives that harmed trans-spectrum students’ sense of belonging. We also found three narratives that supported trans-spectrum students’ belonging. These narratives could manifest in the classroom in multiple ways ranging from short disclaimers to elaborate case studies. The ways the narratives manifested influenced their impact on at least some students. These narratives and how they manifest provide potential teaching suggestions to both support trans-spectrum in STEM classrooms and more accurately teach the diversity of biology of sex, gender, sexual behavior, and orientation.
(Continuing the last quote in the section just above):
. . . We show that (1) the treatment lecture has a positive impact on feelings of inclusion for LGBTQIA+ students, (2) the treatment lecture had a positive impact on LGBTQIA+ and TGNC (transgender and gender nonconforming) student experiences in the course compared to other students. . .
This is not a huge deal, but I don’t think that one should distort the most widely accepted definition of sex to avoid offending people who don’t think they adhere to it. I can’t see any other reason for this symposium. And yes, sex is binary, and that’s universal: there are only two types of gametes, and this holds across all animals and vascular plants. It’s not only universal but useful, for the binary enables us to understand one of the most important phenomena in biology: sexual selection, a form of selection that leads to differences between males and females. Of course teachers should be sensitive to their audience and not denigrate those who feel non-binary, but they should also teach the conventional wisdom about sex, which is apparently not going to happen at this symposium.
“Construct” should be your red-flag. Ideologically, that means that whatever is the construct is merely part of the superstructure of the underlying means of production (which are firmly in the hands of the Bourgeoisie). This means that it is not only invalid, but its subversion is a necessity as part of the overall revolutionary project.
🎯
False consciousness, to be sublated.
It puzzles me how people can get away with writing such blather and never get called on giving a reference. These things come from somewhere – but it is put across as if it is common knowledge – using polysemy, motte/bailey,…
Question : WTF IS LGBTQIA+
Answer : the synthetic dialectical identity of a Gnostic religion which sublates marginalized sexual practices with the empty hull of same-sex marriage law.
See e.g.
David M. Halperin
Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography
1995
Oxford University Press
Related:
Herbert Marcuse, e.g.
Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud
Beacon Press
1955
Addendum :
The same-sex marriage laws are “empty hulls” because codification in law – and resolution of the conflict that led to it – extinguished the revolutionary drive of the same-sex marriage conflict.
Queer Theory uses that stable position to re-kindle revolution through dialectical conflict, by merely adding L, G, and B to its own doctrine organized around marginalized sexual practices.
That’s why there’s a “B” – it is sexual praxis, an identity without an essence (Halperin).
I recently wrote a piece, ‘Sex metamorphosis’, which pushes back against the ‘sex is a spectrum’ claim. It was published on the Daily Philosophy website. I wonder if Jerry would allow me to put up a link to it here?
Yes, of course. If you wish and it’s too late to edit, send me the link and I will put it in your post.
Thanks! Here is the link:
https://daily-philosophy.com/robshaw-sex-metamorphosis/
It’s a pity indeed we won’t be there to see because, as you noted, such science fictionally scenario would involve reverting some changes due to development (not just puberty), meaning we should be able to rejuvenate at will, meaning “eternal life”.
Nice science fiction indeed!
I’m surprised you and your referee missed an obvious further aspect. Most people (most men at least; women’s sexuality appears to be less black and white) are heterosexuals. Indeed we don’t notice it because it’s so common, but isn’t it “suprising” that most men are attracted to women and most women are attracted to men? What would THAT imply for your fictional scenario? would one by default switch their orientation, mantain it, would it be a choice available at will?
And this leads I’m afraid to troubling paths (conversion therapies) so suddenly the utopia darkens.
Regards
As Mr. Robshaw wrote that “The change would be complete at every level,” I would take that to mean a concomitant change in sexuality as well. Perhaps with the same degree of variability occurring in natal males and females. So perhaps no troubling conversions therapies needed.
It is science fiction, after all.
Serious question, not trying to troll: why did you write “but isn’t it ‘suprising’ [sic] that most men are attracted to women and most women are attracted to men?” Of course it’s not surprising. Why the quotation marks around the word surprising? What am I missing?
Science Fiction indeed, have you read any Ian M Banks and his ‘Culture’ series?
Just FYI, back in the early 80’s, I recall reading several works by the SF author John Varley that featured what you’ve called sex metamorphosis. Check out his novella “Options” as an example if you’re curious.
βPer
Congratulations on your publication.
Sorry for being late, had to think about your thought experiment, but since trans is still being discussed on other threads, perhaps this will be on point.
I submit that transwoman (or transman) is not the correct appellation for people who have taken the first eentsy teentsy baby step toward becoming a now-woman (or a now-man) by changing (slightly) a few secondary sex characteristics, and stopping there. You do recognize that some trans people take no hormones or surgery at all, and might not even use makeup or stereotypical clothing. They just assert they are now the other sex. They need not make any effort at all to play the part. If a man walks into a women’s bathroom, no one can say anything because we must not make assumptions about someone’s gender identity based on what our lyin’ eyes tell us about their outward appearance.
I suggest instead that we could call the men fem-men and women masc-women. This makes it clear that the men continue to be men, but they have decided to express the feminine sides of their personalities (and may well have had medical and surgical manipulation, too.) No one has trans’ed into anything. To do that they would, as you say, have to go all the way and become now-women and now-men. The sex marker doesn’t change until the sex truly does, not before. You could even reserve “transwoman” to be used instead of “now-woman” because it would have no other use. Although if the man had truly become a woman, why would you call her anything but a woman plain and simple? A woman is just someone who has, for now, decided not to try out being or reverting to a man, and a man is just the opposite.
This bears on your conclusion where you say that “of course” you believe trans people should have all the civil rights etc. of anyone else. But what are those civil rights? Civil rights (in distinction from civil liberties like habeas corpus, freedom of speech, and due process, which restrict state power) work by creating ever more numerous and expansive protected classes against which it is illegal for private actors (or the state) to discriminate in certain public-facing activities, like employment and public accommodation. Civil rights enhance state power and bureaucracy because discrimination statutes have to be enforced and violators investigated and punished.
So does a “fem-man” lose any civil rights when he becomes fem? Probably not, but I’m open to argument. But does becoming fem endow him with any new civil rights? Which means, does fem become a protected class? When we say that “transwomen” should have the same civil rights as everyone else, I hear us saying they should have the special rights accorded to women, that we can’t exclude a transwoman from spaces reserved for women because that would be denying the transwoman the civil rights that other women enjoy. (This is exactly how Human Rights law is interpreted in Canada.) I submit that if we called “first step” men fem-men, it would be less obvious that a special protected class of fem should be created. You’d really be creating a protected class for fashion sense, as Jordan Peterson put it.
Because our society tends to create novel protected classes against discrimination without thinking through the implications — giving fem-men the rights of women rather obviously harms women’s rights and safety — keeping our language as clear as possible helps make good policy. Does a fem-man who comes to a job interview in drag (and it’s not a theatre job) really have a civil rights case against the employer who decided not to hire him? If “she” was a transwoman, there might be sympathy, but if “he” is a fem-man probably not.
Marxism is a spectrum.
Hahaha brilliant. And true.
🎯
… though IMHO I’d say its fractal
So all the Marxism formula is identical at all scales/properties it operates at…
I didn’t come up with that – James “Off the Rails” Lindsay did.
Declaring that Marxism is a spectrum jabs back hard at the monumental evasion instantly deployed, “That’s not Marxism, you are ignorant.”
It is deployed ad nauseum until it reaches the stage of ad absurdity, even until we hear, “Marx said he is not a Marxist.” Unironically.
As expected, they have and never will resolve their cognitive dissonance.
I do love how Maroja et al. brought up the binary nature of dragonflies, butterflies, and fish — which are the groups that the 3 society presidents research!
They must contradict themselves every single day, but do they notice?
Yes the cognitive dissonance must be physically painful. A sharp pang in the back of the head. The four speakers are all smart, well-trained, and thoughtful. It’s apparent that they’re motivated by empathy for “trans” people who they see as suffering needlessly under the yoke of oppressive teaching practices.
But all of them know that sex is binary, and that the kinds of secondary sex traits they study (like the wing spurs of female jacanas that Sara Lipshutz studies) are outcomes of sexual selection that is the consequence of the gamete size difference. They have all read Geoff Parker’s papers – the theory is older than all of these individual speakers. So they know that sex is binary. But they are handicapped (oops ableist) by their empathy, and that empathy has allowed them to be captured by ideologues.
Parker, GA., et al. (1972). The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 36, 529-553.
There it is! I teach about this in my evo class, and I made up a big Punnett diagram that combines different gamete sizes, rating them for overall fitness. And the winnahs are what we in fact see in the majority of multicellular species.
A link to Geoff Parker’s personal history behind this paper (and the earlier sperm competition paper) is here and free to read. One interesting feature of Geoff’s historical review is his inclusion of a letter from George C Williams [ ca 1973] expressing GCW’s opinion that the 72 paper might well be the most important paper on the evolution of sexuality ever written. (GCW is well known for writing such + letters to young scientists when their work really grabbed his attention: he wrote me a similar letter in 1977 on my 76 Hermaphroditism paper.)
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/10/2/287
The organizers of the symposium confuse saying something which some people will find offensive and causing harm. The idea that anything that goes against transgender people’s beliefs and which they find offensive causes them harm is a way to try to shut down discussion and serious teaching.
“Lived experience”… always the reddest of flags. Like those of the USSR, China, Democratic Kampuchea etc.
Kudos for countering this spectrum nonsense, boss (and L. Marjora et al).
D.A.
NYC
I wonder if they’re reacting against Trump. There’s plenty to dislike about Trump but that’s not a reason to say he’s wrong about this one.
Of course they’re reacting to Trump. If he were to come out as “non-binary” it might shut the whole thing down.
LOL Good point.
Here’s an interesting thought experiment. Imagine that regressive, authoritarian religious conservatives who wanted to enforce strict gender roles decided that the binary nature of sex normalized gender nonconformity. If people are either male or female, they reason, then that means a gay or effeminate man is still a man. That couldn’t be. He had to be some sort of aberration, a quasi-male in between the norms.
Same for masculine or assertive women, who clearly weren’t real women. They thus conclude there must be a spectrum of abnormal variables in between male and female, utilizing all the arguments currently being used by the scientists supporting the idea that some men merit inclusion in the female category to support the idea that some women don’t merit inclusion in the female category.
Imagine they get power, and start promoting the “sex spectrum” in order to stigmatize those who don’t conform to rigid ideals.
Would the same people responsible for this symposium on “Teaching Sex and Gender in Science Education” now be making Jerry’s arguments FOR a sex binary instead of AGAINST? The “harm” has shifted.
I suspect they would. Science doesn’t work like that.
Oooh this is brilliant! It would expose the deepest nature of the queer theorists: they are extreme libertarians, opposed to any norms or expectations (especially those that arise from the nature of our biological traits inherited from our parents & other ancestors). What matters to the QT is radical choice, not the specific outcome.
Indeed. Science does not work like that. But Education surely does. There is some truth in the slur that those who can, do; those who can’t do, teach; and those who can’t teach, teach teachers. Biology teaching may be particularly vulnerable to this, but very much the same happens with K-12 teaching in all sciences, mathematics, and even reading FFS.
Ideological capture doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Yes, part of this is left-wing reactionaries responding to Trump. But the academic foolishness long predates him. Whatever the remaining merits of our colleges and universities as research institutions, they have been long failing in what used to be their primary pursuit. It is also increasingly clear—optimists like Pinker notwithstanding—that they are incapable of substantive reform from within. Unfortunately, that means the battle will need to continue through politics, and as in all wars, there will be significant collateral damage.
Unfortunately reform from within is a weak hand to play. Every minor reform meets with long established counterarguments (which support the status quo).
Perhaps Jerry will have something to say about this recent thing at the upcoming Heterodox meeting.
This is the “Mills & Boons” of biology.
“The Love of Biology” sex, lies, deception, hate, hurt, harm. It doesn’t end well.
I’d rather gaze at the stars for no particular reason.
They give human sex a definition that is a complete discontinuity to the definition of sex for all other animals. Wonder why.