Say, science as a whole made progress toward understanding that despite what seemingly should be a binary result when taking in account chromosomes and anatomy alone toward determining a gender,
No, sir. I am told gender is a social construct.
Therefore anatomical and chromosomal differences can't be the issue.
Don't you believe gender is a social construct?
But If we're talking about biological sex, then the discussion must take the aforementioned into account.
the reality is much more complex on a pure biological point of view which is, in fact, undeniable.
As a bonus from a place of good faith, I'll even link educational material made by biologists
Yes, made by
some biologists. No , wait!
This isn't very important, but just to clear matters, let me tell you the host is Hank Green, whom I'm very familiar with. He's a published author. His
Wikipedia entry has this to say:
"William Henry "Hank" Green II (born May 5, 1980) is an American video blogger, internet producer, musician, author, entrepreneur, and CEO."
I can't find the word "Biologist" in there.
But weren't you talking about gender? Why are you linking to a video about sex? Are the two terms interchangeable to you?
That's funny, because the video starts out by drawing what in his mind at least is a clear distinction between sex and gender.
You are deeply confused.
But let's go though the video:
First off, he uses the Strawman of a high-school biology class, as though it were ever at the bleeding edge of science and not stand as an introductory course that concerns itself with the rudiments.
Secondly, the video cites a figure of nearly 2% of abnormal cases, DSDs cases. That figure, conveniently, is not the lowest, not even the mean, but the highest estimation (
source) . But for the sake of argument let's accept that figure, which , conversely, translates to more than 98% of typical cases. More than 98% is an overwhelming majority that certainly warrants a legitimate generalization. How would you describe a distribution where more than 98% falls within two extremes and less than 2% is said to do it on a continuum?
Thirdly, DSDs have been discussed for long. The terminology has changed but the rudimentary concept has been around for quite a while now (
source).
Fourthly, is the scientific consensus that the human species is not sexually dimorphic?
"
Humans are sexually dimorphic"(source)
"Generally, the five factors are either all male or all female. Sexual ambiguity is rare in humans" (
source)
"
HUMANS ARE A SEXUALLY DIMORPHIC SPECIES, meaning that each sex appears and acts differently than does the other in many ways. "(
source)
Sixthly, when talking about the overlap in phenotypes, he provides no numbers, no stats, no categories, nothing. I'll help him and you out. I'll provide figures for genetic deviation. These are the words of he World Health Organization:
"Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies).
" (
source)
I'm sure you can work out the math of what percentage constitutes "a few births per thousand".
Seventhly, he miraculously forgets to mention some of these manifest themselves devastating defects. For example,
"The median age of survival was 77.9 years for controls and 67.5 years for 47,XYY persons, corresponding to a loss of median lifespan of 10.3 years. Kaplan-Meier survival graphs in 47,XYY compared to an age-matched male background population.
" (
source)
Yes, on average this condition robs the patient of a decade and here we have this individual describing it as thought it were just a difference in eye colour. Is he really conflating genetic abnormalities with a sexual continuum?
Eighthly, he mentions Turner Syndrome and Klinefelter Syndrome , both of which are very rare and more importantly both of which by his own admission have severe adverse effects. My goodness, again, is he really presenting those as evidence sex is on a continuum rather than that genetic anomalies occur? This is absurd.
Ninthly, he goes on to mention mosaicism and genetic chimerism . That's odd given that the first translates to a mild phenotype (
source). As for microchimerism, "
People who retain higher numbers of cells genetically identical to their mother's have been observed to have higher rates of some autoimmune disease "(source) In his infinite wisdom, he doesn't mention that "
Most people are born with a few cells genetically identical to their mothers' and the proportion of these cells goes down in healthy individuals as they get older"(
source)
Again, this is a a genetic accident that is relatively rare, and can have adverse consequences. It cannot be described as a healthy condition proving sex is on a continuum.
Tenthly, he goes on to talk about sexual development. He recruits a number of genetic processes such mutations to elaborate on the complex interactions between genes and sexual differentiation. One should reiterate the very salient point that mutations and syndromes aren't terribly helpful when making the case sex is on a spectrum with regard to healthy individuals.
The final point, and the most important one, is that this has little to do with trans-people. His claim is that "
People with DSDs do report high rates of gender dysphoria". Let's look at those pesky things called numbers:
"
Gender dysphoria generally affects between 8.5–20% of individuals with DSDs, depending on the type of DSD." (
source)
That's an average of 14,25%. So the descriptor "high rates" is not accurate, is it?
By having the following understanding, I would then assume that by simply following JKR's output, one could form a frame of why her stance is problematic
You have been proven wrong thoroughly .
She's been doing this for years, claimed being knowledgeable which doesn't mean she can't be wrong, always backpedal or have an excuse and seems to, again, tolerate trans women (while still not considering them as women) but not trans men
Your reply seems to be another iteration of the usual smear campaign, whereby a difference of opinion is portrayed as transphobia. I know the drill. To the authoritarian, one can't possibly hold a different but sincere and honest view. No. It has to be maligned and vilified as hatred.
People who accuse others of transphobia sometimes don't know what a phobia entails or do so to try to silence others in good old authoritarian fashion.
The first tweet of her is a statement about her reading through the literature. The second is about sex being a biological reality. It is.
The third is about women and only women menstruating. The fact transmen menstruate doesn't invalidate the fact only women menstruate
She's a terf. Nothing to be irked about, just how it is. She never made any good argument to begin with
Being a Terf, even if that were true, wouldn't disqualify her arguments. Arguments are not wrong by virtue of the person presenting them.
I'm not really interested in continuing this interaction. Your post is awful , resorts to the usual insinuations and is entirely inconsistent with what she actually tweeted and you chose to quote.
Just know smear campaigns will be called out.
