Even as the British Medical Association has called for a pause on such implementation, NHS England has published a detailed plan to overhaul care of gender-distressed youth over the next two years.
I think that the suicide narrative--that trans kids will kill themselves unless they receive hormones and blockers--is perhaps the most poisonous aspect of this issue. It makes everyone afraid, and allows activists to push the most maximalist policies because, after all, the alternative is that kids will die. Nobody wants that, right? Wouldn't you rather have a live son than a dead daughter?
Advocates for same-sex marriage never pushed that story. Advocates for the Civil Rights Act never did, either. These movements didn't need to, as the arguments against them were weak. Gender ideologues, who have no real evidence on their side, need every advantage they can get; hence, the suicide narrative.
We asked 41 universities to state whether or not it is possible to change sex. To date none has provided an answer.
I can see only three reasons for not answering
1. They do not know the answer (which I doubt as Sussex University, where Prof was persecuted gor her 'Gender Critical' views, confirmed that it was not the University's position that a male observed at birth could become a biological female
2.They are ideologically captured and do not want to state biological reality
3.They do not want to put off prospective Gender Identity prosletysing students.
I have the utmost contempt for these universities as a clear consensus position from them that it is not possible to change sex would stop 'gender affirming care' in its tracks as abusive quackery. .
A thorough and commendable effort -- though I wonder about who, exactly, is the author "Myself" in that last article you linked to. 😉🙂
However, your insistence that "sex is binary and immutable" is flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions for the sexes. They stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For example, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexLESS eunuchs -- hardly "immutable". 🙄
For example, see the Glossary definitions in this article (2014), by Parker [FRS] and Lehtonen, in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction (MHR) — titled, “Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes”:
MHR: "Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
You might actually try reading how reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries define the sex categories. And not rely on the folk-biology and outright claptrap peddled by various so-called biologists -- like Colin Wright -- and so-called philosophers -- like Alex Byrne. But, for example, see the Oxford Dictionary of Biology (tweet, Patrick Killeen);
The current production of gametes -- note the "produces" in all of those definitions -- constitutes the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as male or female. No gametes or no gonads means no sex. The sexes are not "immutable identities 🙄" -- which is what you and too many other scientific illiterates are trying to turn them into. Biologically speaking, the sexes are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities; they're just "life-history stages" as philosopher of science Paul Griffiths puts it. For elaborations on those themes, see my open letter to the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell which had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
Both of them are peddling quite unscientific definitions for the sexes that are flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions promulgated by more authoritative sources.
In particular, you might read that open letter of mine to Cell magazine, particularly since Byrne gets star billing. You might also read "What are biological sexes?" by Paul Griffiths, a philosopher of science -- which Byrne is most certainly not:
I wonder if the NHS has any clear understanding of the profound differences between sex and gender. And whether they plan on so stipulating as an essential preamble.
But confusion over which has bedeviled the whole issue right from square one. They might consider this article in the British Medical Journal as a reasonable starting point:
BMJ: "Distinction is critical for good healthcare
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. ...."
Why would one require medicine and or surgery to comport to “behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits”?
Gender is a performance of what you believe are certain traits (behavioral, cultural, psychological) — what do any of these have to do with the physical body?
??? I'm most certainly not arguing in favour of using surgery "to comport with psychological traits".
In fact, I think it an absolute medical scandal that a bunch of so-called doctors are saying that, for example, some boy -- i.e., male -- with some feminine behavioural traits -- i.e., gender -- should have his genitalia mangled into some ersatz or Frankensteinian replica of those typical of girls -- i.e., females.
But there are significant differences, on average, in the personalities and behaviors of men and women that are largely, or to a significant degree, the result of significant biological differences between the sexes. "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" as a popular book once argued. Those behavioral differences have a great deal to do with "the physical body" -- that is certainly where they start from, even if socialization may add significant modifications to them.
I think that the suicide narrative--that trans kids will kill themselves unless they receive hormones and blockers--is perhaps the most poisonous aspect of this issue. It makes everyone afraid, and allows activists to push the most maximalist policies because, after all, the alternative is that kids will die. Nobody wants that, right? Wouldn't you rather have a live son than a dead daughter?
Advocates for same-sex marriage never pushed that story. Advocates for the Civil Rights Act never did, either. These movements didn't need to, as the arguments against them were weak. Gender ideologues, who have no real evidence on their side, need every advantage they can get; hence, the suicide narrative.
Benjamin
We asked 41 universities to state whether or not it is possible to change sex. To date none has provided an answer.
I can see only three reasons for not answering
1. They do not know the answer (which I doubt as Sussex University, where Prof was persecuted gor her 'Gender Critical' views, confirmed that it was not the University's position that a male observed at birth could become a biological female
2.They are ideologically captured and do not want to state biological reality
3.They do not want to put off prospective Gender Identity prosletysing students.
I have the utmost contempt for these universities as a clear consensus position from them that it is not possible to change sex would stop 'gender affirming care' in its tracks as abusive quackery. .
Here is a link to our last status report
https://mneill.substack.com/p/isbi-update-18-jul-2024?r=zfazk
Here is a link to our initiative.
https://mneill.substack.com/p/isbi-is-human-sex-binary-and-immutable
A thorough and commendable effort -- though I wonder about who, exactly, is the author "Myself" in that last article you linked to. 😉🙂
However, your insistence that "sex is binary and immutable" is flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions for the sexes. They stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. For example, transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexLESS eunuchs -- hardly "immutable". 🙄
For example, see the Glossary definitions in this article (2014), by Parker [FRS] and Lehtonen, in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction (MHR) — titled, “Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes”:
MHR: "Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
@steersman, you seem confused. Sex is binary on the basis of:
1. Male, the sex whose contribution to the reproductive process is small mobile gametes (Spermatozoa)
2. Female, the sex whose contribution to the reproductive process is large immobile gametes (Ova).
You might actually try reading how reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries define the sex categories. And not rely on the folk-biology and outright claptrap peddled by various so-called biologists -- like Colin Wright -- and so-called philosophers -- like Alex Byrne. But, for example, see the Oxford Dictionary of Biology (tweet, Patrick Killeen);
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441
The current production of gametes -- note the "produces" in all of those definitions -- constitutes the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as male or female. No gametes or no gonads means no sex. The sexes are not "immutable identities 🙄" -- which is what you and too many other scientific illiterates are trying to turn them into. Biologically speaking, the sexes are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities; they're just "life-history stages" as philosopher of science Paul Griffiths puts it. For elaborations on those themes, see my open letter to the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell which had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category
Colin Wright has a PhD in evolutionary biology. Alex Byrne is a professor of philosophy at MIT.
So what? You think they walk on water thereby?
Both of them are peddling quite unscientific definitions for the sexes that are flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions promulgated by more authoritative sources.
In particular, you might read that open letter of mine to Cell magazine, particularly since Byrne gets star billing. You might also read "What are biological sexes?" by Paul Griffiths, a philosopher of science -- which Byrne is most certainly not:
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Of particular note therein are some "trenchant" and "pithy" criticisms of Byrne and his ilk.
@steersman, not @steersman
*Professor Kathleen Stock
I wonder if the NHS has any clear understanding of the profound differences between sex and gender. And whether they plan on so stipulating as an essential preamble.
But confusion over which has bedeviled the whole issue right from square one. They might consider this article in the British Medical Journal as a reasonable starting point:
BMJ: "Distinction is critical for good healthcare
Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically. These categories describe different attributes that must be considered depending on the purpose they are intended for. ...."
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
Something which Merriam-Webster endorses, at least in their saner moments:
MW: "gender: 2b) the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender#usage-1
Why would one require medicine and or surgery to comport to “behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits”?
Gender is a performance of what you believe are certain traits (behavioral, cultural, psychological) — what do any of these have to do with the physical body?
Of course you cannot answer this.
??? I'm most certainly not arguing in favour of using surgery "to comport with psychological traits".
In fact, I think it an absolute medical scandal that a bunch of so-called doctors are saying that, for example, some boy -- i.e., male -- with some feminine behavioural traits -- i.e., gender -- should have his genitalia mangled into some ersatz or Frankensteinian replica of those typical of girls -- i.e., females.
But there are significant differences, on average, in the personalities and behaviors of men and women that are largely, or to a significant degree, the result of significant biological differences between the sexes. "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus" as a popular book once argued. Those behavioral differences have a great deal to do with "the physical body" -- that is certainly where they start from, even if socialization may add significant modifications to them.