The American Journal of Biological Anthropology was formerly The American Journal of Physical Anthropology but, according to reader who sent me this link, the name changed, presumably to reflect the changing nature of the field. I quote:
It is the flagship journal of the AABA and it used to be rigorous science only. The latest special issue is filled with this nonscientific nonsense. “Queering Biological Anthropology: uses of LGBTQIA+ knowledge and queer feminism in research”. It’s ridiculous and embarrassing.
Here’s the phenomenon:
Callitrichids are equally notable as chimeras, a term referring to organisms whose cells are derived from two or more distinct zygotic lineages (Anderson et al. 1951). Among mammals, small numbers of chimeric cells (i.e., “microchimerism”) are thought to be present in all placental species (Gammill and Harrington 2017; Nelson 2012). In callitrichids, however, chimerism routinely occurs on a much larger scale. Within this taxon, chimerism occurs in conjunction with the production of fraternal twins and other multiples, which is the typical birth pattern for all but callimicos (Ah-King and Tullberg 2000; Harris et al. 2014).
That’s interesting, but in the hands of an ideologue the finding allows one to go wild with speculation:
This article demonstrates how queer monster theory can illuminate the cultural boundary-work that stabilizes biological categories of sex and reproduction as well as the kinship claims that often follow. Read as monstrous informants, callitrichid chimeras make visible how “monstrosity” is employed to police these categories in human and nonhuman primates alike, as well as what is at stake when that policing is normalized. When primatology defaults to inherited assumptions about sex and reproduction, it risks not only mischaracterizing its study species but lending scientific authority to the broader cultural machinery of queer monsterization and erasure.
The promises of monsters and monkeys therefore carry epistemic and ethical obligations. Meeting them is, in a sense, a monstrous practice; it requires connections and conversations across subfields and sustained attention to the entanglements of science and sociopolitical dynamics. Yet these obligations can also begin with small methodological choices: specifying the traits being measured rather than using “sex” as a silent binary proxy; defining and justifying what counts as “reproduction” and “fitness” within a given analysis; and acknowledging nonbinary sex and nonreproductive individuals without casting them as aberrant or without value. Practiced in these ways, primatology and biological anthropology can begin to unsettle naturalized bias rather than reproduce it.
In fact, the whole issue is permeated with the view that sex is nonbinary. Here’s another example, one of two article that bemoans the fact that “gender” (presumably how one identifies with respect to sex)
A quote:
Intersectional feminism and queer theories may also be used to challenge sexist and cisgenderist biases that can harm sex- and gender-diverse individuals. Striving to de-center patriarchal ideology, feminist history highlights the shared goals of gender equality and equity. Feminist anthropology, specifically, teaches cultural competence and limits patriarchal biases in forensic casework. A rich understanding of intersectional feminism can help forensic practitioners better understand sex and gender variability. A more feminist forensic anthropology could greatly improve the communal impact of medicolegal practitioners across the U.S. Queer theory aims to critique assumptions related to “atypical” bodies by normalizing the spectrum of human sex and gender diversity. Advocating against biological determinism, integrating queer theories in medicolegal investigations can help ensure that documents and datasets are reflective of individuals’ biological and cultural experiences. Discussions on queering bioarchaeology emerged around the start of the century, with scholars such as Sabrina Agarwal, Pamela Geller, Sandra Hollimon, and Julie Wesp outlining the importance and utility of queer theory and methods in skeletal assessments and conceptualizations of the human body (e.g., Geller 2005, 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2019; Hollimon 1996, 2001, 2011; Wesp and Agarwal 2017). Failure to recognize both biological and cultural influences on the skeleton risks perpetuating scientism, presentism, and bio-colonialism (Geller 2005, 2009b, 2019; Hollimon 2011). Using queer theory in forensic anthropology can help improve medicolegal case resolution by broadening identification efforts and collaboration with living communities.
Another search for nonbinary sex in skeletons:
This author use sa bogus overestimateion of true intersex individuals, and then, since there are really no data showing what the skeletons of such individuals look like, they simply make predictions. Again, there’s a general denial that there are distinguishable sexes, as well as the usual emphasis on sex-related traits which, of course, we’ve long known are more variable than sex itself. We still have only two types of gametes.
Blackless et al. (2000) have estimated that approx. 1.7%–2.3% of all humans are intersex. Fausto-Sterling (2000a) similarly estimated that intersex people comprise 1.7% of the global population, revised from an earlier estimate of 4% (Fausto-Sterling 1993). If accurate, these estimates indicate that intersex is not rare in population genetics terms (Astorino 2019), since “rare” traits are exhibited by < 1% of individuals in a given population (Hartl et al. 1997; Jobling et al. 2013). Researchers in the social sciences have noted that this frequency estimate is comparable to the global frequency of humans with natural red hair—a trait that is generally not considered “rare” by medical professionals or many cultures (Dreger 1998; Karkazis 2008a; Davis 2015). In other vertebrates, it is unclear how common intersex is; while the frequency of other forms of sex diversity has been more comprehensively studied across higher vertebrate taxa (Ashman et al. 2014; Nemesházi and Bókony 2023), similar data on intersex are not available.
. . . . Given these frequencies, it may be inaccurate to characterize humans as sexually dimorphic (Blackless et al. 2000). Astorino (2019) suggested that humans may be conceptualized not as sexually dimorphic, but as sexually polymorphic. Dunsworth (2020) proposed referring to “sex differences” instead of sexual dimorphism. McLaughlin et al. (2023) argued that sex is multivariate, where many individual traits—each of which may or may not conform to a binary distribution—collectively constitute what is typically considered a single variable. Similarly, Smiley et al. (2024) asserted that individual sex variables each represent different aspects of sex, which may have complex, dynamic relationships with other sex variables, and suggested that researchers operationalize specific, measurable sex variables appropriate for a given study, each of which may be characterized as monomorphic, dimorphic, or multimorphic.
Despite the fact that sex variation has been noted to be complex in humans, sex is still most commonly defined as sexually dimorphic by biological anthropologists and evolutionary biologists.
Bonobos used to rectify the claimed erasure of lesbian and bisexual relationships:
The title of this paper “Just gal pals!” refers to the heteronormative tendency to erase lesbian and bisexual relationships and is a memeified response by the LGBTQ+ community online to such erasure (Warburton 2021). We believe it also encapsulates the way researchers over the decades have described bonobo GG rubbing: Wow look at those two female bonobos (gal pals) and their strong social bond or just two female bonobos (gal pals) reducing tension. Entrenched biases make the alternative—that two female bonobos are having sex—one of the last available explanations that researchers explicitly acknowledge in the scientific literature. This may be why sexual motivations are omitted from hypotheses for the function of GG rubbing (Hohmann and Fruth 2000; 2009; Waller 2016). Similarly, while GG rubbing in female bonobos has been emphasized, male–male sexual behavior in bonobos and other primates is often overlooked. Media portrayals of female–female sexuality in humans are often framed for consumption by the male gaze and/or imply that the women involved are “testing” or “experimenting” while not invalidating a heterosexual identity (Diamond 2005). Thus, female–female sexuality among humans, particularly for bi/pansexual women, is often not viewed as valid, and sexual relationships among women are viewed more favorably than those among men (Worthen 2013; Bettinsoli et al. 2020). As a result, recognition of female–female sexuality in our closest relatives may also be perceived as less directly threatening to patriarchal hegemony in humans.
Now I haven’t read the whole issue, or any article in great detail, as that would cause severe damage to my alimentary canal. Regardless, this issue, for which papers were solicited, appears to be driven not by a search for truth but by a drive to promote “progressive” ideology. Not only do we see the claim that traditional anthropology has caused great harm (see above about erasing lesbian and bisexual relationships), but that these papers will rectify that harm. The science is mission-driven rather than knowledge-driven.
Other harm appears to come from the claim that sex in humans is binary, with misguided biologists like me recognizing that humans have but two types of reproductive apparatus: those designed to produce eggs or sperm. I’ve defended that position assiduously while recognizing that there is a very low frequency (about 1/5000) of true intersex individuals.
Overall, this shows the growing tendency of biological anthropologists to distort science for ideological ends. The claim that there are more than two sexes, or that sex is a continuum, is of course made to buttress the idea that individuals who feel that they’re not of their natal biological sex will be harmed by the sex binary. It is a way of providing consolation to nonbinary people (I’m talking about gender, not sex.) That idea bogus, of course, but it’s these well-meaning but careerist scientists—those who infuse their “findings” with ideology—who do the real damage.
And of course I make no comment about the other papers in the contents that I haven’t looked at.
h/t: Callum
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Excerpt from
Ozymandias
Percy Bysshe Shelley
11 Jan 1818
The Examiner (original)
See also:
The Poetry Foundation &
The Poetical Works: In Four Volumes
London: Reeves & Turner, 1876
Public domain
Thanks for reminding me of one of my all-time favorite poems!!
An except from another appropriate poem:
“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
…
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
are full of passionate intensity.”
Excerpt from “The Second Coming”
William Butler Yeats
1919 I think.
And a somewhat relevant joke:
How do you tell the gender of an ant?
You throw it into water. If it sinks: Girl ant.
If it floats …
Very good!
Monstrous issue! I can’t wait to read it.
OK, I’ll admit it. Those two female bonobos were having sex.
And in other news from anthropology, an Idaho man just set a new record in catching 20 paper airplanes in his mouth within one minute: https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2026/10/13/guinness-world-records-david-rush-paper-planes-mouth/5211791898743/. Monstrously awesome!
I am not sure why anyone would be surprised at the amount of non-binary sex missionary writing in those articles, though I do understand the disgust. The amount of actual science in that journal seems to be minuscule. And there is a clue for that.
In the sci-fi book series Dune, Frank Herbert tries to the “Butlerian Jihad”—irrelevant to the current discussion save for the name. In our brooks, Judith Butler, the KingQueen (who knows which title they prefer) of gobbledygook writing, uses language to mask the fact that they care nothing for facts. And one can identify nonscientific writing by use of such Butlerian gobbledegook, as we see in every one of the excerpts of those papers. The Butlerian Jihadists have taken over another journal.
Starwolf, that’s the thing that gets me – no concern for actual facts or research, but able to parrot obfuscatory intersectionalist talking points. It’s lazy. Not only is it lazy but it’s poor research methodology. Yet they still continue to get published. Our education system seems to reward regurgitating this type of phraseology over having a thinking brain. In terms of writing, the phrase noted above that “Intersectional feminism and queer theories may also be used to challenge sexist and cisgenderist biases that can harm sex- and gender-diverse individuals. Striving to de-center patriarchal ideology, feminist history highlights the shared goals of gender equality and equity.” could have been pulled from any paper written about any subject by these people nowadays. It is the boilerplate signaling statement for these works.
Jerry, if you see this, or anyone else, can you recommend a book (hopefully not a monster of a read) that will explain to me all this nonsense about sex on a continuum and so on? I have two lesbian daughter (which I am perfectly at ease with) who keep themselves well versed on topics of sex and gender and sometimes I am not very good at communicating with them on said topics (for lack of knowledge on my part).
Many thanks!
There are books pushing the no-sex-binary nonsense, but you don’t need books to refute it. That said, The Trouble With Gender by Alex Byrne is a good one, and I recommend articles by Colin Wright and Richard Dawkins (email me if you need more references).
Many thanks… I will order the Byrne book ASAP. I appreciate how well you interact with your readers.
Oh… and I love Richard Dawkins… it should be easy to find whatever he has had to say.
Here’s one: https://richarddawkins.com/articles/article/race-is-a-spectrum-sex-is-pretty-damn-binary
That is one of the best Dawkins articles (IMHO) and there is plenty of competition.
Thanks for posting the link. I just had to read it (again).
Many thanks!!! I’m printing it off as we speak!
A full account of the origins of 21st century transgenderism is still to be written. One hypothesis goes like this:
Activists succeeded in the campaign for human rights for gay people like your daughters (and the many other gay men and lesbians we all know and love). The activist orgs then needed a new focus not too different from the pursuit of rights for people with different sexual orientations. The obvious choice was rights for people with different ideas about their own sex, thus Human Rights Campaign and other orgs settled on transgenderism. The quest for trans rights is itself a chimera in which fetishistic cross-dressing males attached themselves remora-like to the legitimate public concerns for the well being of gender non-conforming young men (mostly gay) and young women (mostly autistic) whose social lives were overwhelmed by the effects of cell phones, social media, and pornography. Cross-dressers succeeded in convincing activist orgs (and then government, the media, the academy, and the legal and medical establishments) that the existence of “transwomen” and other gender-nonconforming kinds of people must imply that there are lots of sexes thus sex is a continuum or a spectrum. They also successfully argued that “transwomen” imply the natural occurrence of “trans” kids with gendered souls born in the wrong body whose obvious psychological distress was not caused by mental illness but rather by “gender dysphoria” and was not to be relieved by counselling but by hormones and surgery (and if at all possible by puberty blockers that would help “trans kids” avoid going through the “wrong” puberty). To ensure that “trans kids” can grow up to be their true “trans” selves, activists enshrined “trans rights” into educational, medical, and legal practice leading in particular to the disaster of paediatric gender clinics that are closing down all over the USA but still running full-tilt in my own benighted country. I have to stop there because I’m at risk of breaking the air quotes key on my keyboard.
Good older books on the subject are “Trans” by the mathematician and journalist Helen Joyce, “Material Girls” by the lesbian philosopher Kathleen Stock, and “Irreversible Damage” by the journalist Abigail Shrier.
[edit: I replied at the same time as Jerry; agree the Alex Byrne book is good; sorry for the long comment but hope it’s helpful for Phil]
No need to apologize. I thoroughly enjoyed reading what you wrote and appreciate the book ideas. Many thanks!!
I would add to this excellent summary only one other factor: careerism in the groves of academe. The gimmickry of “postmodernism” and “postcolonialism” was used by a cohort of fakers as a substitute for subject knowledge in various fields, constructing an academic fashion. [Example: “Gender Studies” á la Butler as a substitute for Biology.] The process was similar to that by which Lysenkoism became a fashion (and worse) for a while in the USSR. It will have effects in several fields similar to those the Lysenkovshchina had on Genetics in the galaxy far away.
“The gimmickry of “postmodernism” and “postcolonialism” was used by a cohort of fakers as a substitute for subject knowledge in various fields…”
But those fields were virtually all humanities disciplines in which there is almost no “subject knowledge” anyway, but lots of interpretation. I was also surprised to read that Gender Studies is a substitute for Biology, since Biology — at least at the universities I know best — is a robust, thriving field. I would have thought it more accurate to propose that “Gender Studies” is an effort to introduce Psychology into humanities disciplines, and suffers from the usual problems of amateurs trying to adapt another, radically different discipline, to its purposes.
To the extent that “postcolonialism” is a social science sub-field, I have found it to be a useful way to characterize political and economic movements in former colonies, so I am not sure what you think the “gimmickry” is. I’ve been working in West Africa for about 50 years, with many “postcolonial” societies and countries, and I have found much of the literature in that subfield to be useful in understanding the half-century history of those societies that I have seen unfold first-hand.
As for “postmodernism,” I am not sure why an attitude of skepticism toward master narratives (in Lyotard’s classic formulation) is gimmickry, since it is the backbone of historiography and other social sciences. But that may be another discussion.
In regard to postcolonialism, see this example: Decolonizing the Undergraduate Chemistry Curriculum: An Account of How to Start
Caroline E. H. Dessent * ; Ruhee A. Dawood; Leonie C. Jones; Avtar S. Matharu; David K. Smith * ; Kelechi O. Uleanya
Author & Article Information
J. Chem. Educ. (2022) 99 (1): 5–9.
In regard to postmodernism, see “Fashionable Nonsense” by Sokal and Bricmont (1998), everything they refer to, and plenty of more
recent verbiage in academe that goes far beyond skepticism of master narratives.
How deeply crazy and very stupid this all is. I’m unsure of the impact of this journal though – Is it a serious one?
Well, if it was, it isn’t anymore.
Somebody should tell Colin Wright about this. We’ll never hear the end of it! hehehe
D.A.
NYC
As I was reading thru the first sample articles, I was thinking: ‘But what about the Bonobos! Surely, there will be something about the queering of Bonobos!’.
And a little farther down, of course there was.
Late-stage affluence. People focused on basic needs and reproduction have no time for such institutional idiocy and would give these people neither platform nor paycheck. We can call it the collateral damage of capitalism wedded to a long-standing reticence to judge those who we once deemed our own.
Some with leisure once produced high culture; others unlocked mysteries long hidden. Tearing it all down is so much easier; preserving it, too conservative.
Here’s the first statement in the abstract of Rachel Voyt’s above-linked text: “Scientific research is a political enterprise[.]” – Given this premise, scientific theories become political ideologies. Paul Feyerabend wrote half a century ago that…
“[S]cience has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it once had to fight.”
“Science is just one of the many ideologies that propel society and it should be treated as such (this statement applies even to the most progressive and most dialectical sections of science).”
(Feyerabend, Paul K. “How to Defend Society against Science.” 1975. Repr. in Knowledge, Science and Relativism: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 3, ed. by John Preston, 181-191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. pp. 182+187)
These articles got me thinking. Perhaps just as there is no clear boundary between sexes, there is also no clear boundary between humans and felines? Just finding a skeleton of a human or a cat tells us nothing about their true identities. We know of cases of humans identifying as cats, and some cats may identify as humans (or in other cases, dogs). Heck, this line of reasoning calls into question the entire field of biological anthropology. Who is to say a presumed human skeleton really belonged to someone who identified as human? Perhaps the entire discipline should be dismantled!
No joke – in Switzerland a man spent 10 days in jail for the following: “In response to a December 2022 post by a Swiss politician, Brünisholz wrote on Facebook that digging up LGBTQI people after 200 years would reveal only male and female skeletons.”
Shocking but not surprising about the Swiss bloke.
The ones who supposedly identify as animals are generally known a “furries”, but there is another more serious group of those type. But they know they are human, it’s just a cos-play, and they know it. They do have fun pretending to be serious to the credulous, though. It’s for a laugh.
BUT give it time, and I will bet a beer of your choice that postmodern academia will spin up a yarn about taking furries seriously even when the furries aren’t themselves being serious.