Off-Topic "Scientific" Studies regarding Transpeople

[AnOminous]

Whoever said Asian troons pass better was an idiot.

I'd say the ones who pass (at all even to a half-blind idiot) are disproportionately Asian, which isn't to say that there aren't plenty of brick-faced chink hons out there, like Dong-Gone.

 

[Chandelier]

As promised, here is the second part to that very long 'study' by Simon Sun, the bald Asian troon mentioned in the A&N article.

The language we use about sex greatly affects how we study it and interpret our findings. Here, we critically examine the historical basis of our current terminology and the ways it perpetuates a flawed univariate, binary approach to studying sex. We (re)define and refine these terms to improve the operationalizing of sex, enhancing the precision and inclusivity of our scientific language to better describe and understand the full range of sex diversity.

What are these flaws? Let the estrogen popping troons explain:

The largely binarized terminology of sex in behavioral neuroendocrinology can be traced back to the first seminal studies of hormones and sexual behavior, in which researchers administered hormones of the “opposite sex” and examined their effects on morphology, behavior, and physiology (e.g., Phoenix et al., 1959). These and other works mistakenly refer to androgens as “male hormones” and estrogens and progestins as “female hormones.”

"Mistakenly." What are they if not sex hormones? Sun here takes estrogen to get a 'female appearance'. Why is he taking 'female' hormones if they are not 'female'?

While this terminology was most likely used for simplicity at the time, its continued use has contributed to a false dichotomy extended to other variables beyond hormones, gametes, and gonads. Recently, we have seen the idea of “sex” being a univariate trait institutionally mandated by the very language used in the NIH initiatives created to increase the study of sex differences – i.e., “sex as a biological variable” (NIH, 2015). The title alone states that sex is “a variable”, inherently dismissing the fact that sex occurs at multiple levels of analysis (McLaughlin et al., 2023).

McLaughin is referenced a lot in this paper. It should be noted Colin Wright showed her to be an ideological retard here. I'd love to see Wright take a shot at this one.

Furthermore, the initiative states that studies must include “both sexes”, assuming that there are only two sexes to consider. From this information, it is not clear how we should define sex in our studies or how we should group individuals and populations that fall outside of the binary framework. The solution to this problem is to first clearly operationalize and communicate how we are measuring sex in our studies (Miyagi et al., 2021). How “sex” as a summary category is operationalized in a given study depends on which trait(s) and/or "level(s) of analysis"> (Table 1) are measured and the goal(s) of the current study, as well as past studies. Ideally, a study of sex will include measures of multiple sex-associated variables at several biological levels to examine potential sex variability that may be occurring across levels of analysis, within and between species.

Nowhere in this paper does Sun et al. reference any third sex. They keep using these 'multi associated variables' to prove sex is convoluted and messy, but only show variations WITHIN sex. This does not stop them from making the following claims:

We must expand the terminology used to describe sex to be more precise and inclusive (Miyagi et al., 2021). In Table 1, we provide operational definitions for terms relevant to the study of sex, and we will refer to these terms throughout the paper. While we cannot define all possible relevant terms here, we encourage readers to thoughtfully consider the language being used in their own scientific writing and other forms of communication. Table 2 outlines a few examples of ways to reinterpret and update historically used terms into more inclusive and operational language. For instance, we propose using the term “gonadal determination” instead of the commonly used term “sex determination”.

This begs the question: if they are going to use gonadal differentiation vs sex differentiation, how and why did they get those specific gonads? If there is a third sex, what are their gonads? Sun doesn't explain.

Interpreted literally, “sex determination” refers to a mechanism that determines the sex category of an individual, meaning all sex-associated traits would be determined by such a mechanism.

They are, yet Sun et al. have a problem with this.

Thus, this term forgoes the multidimensionality of sex and continues the conflation of sex as originating by a single factor, reinforcing an immutable binary model. Similarly, some historically used terms suggest a categorical norm for which sex performs a behavior, despite few behaviors being exclusive to one sex. For example, the term “sex-role reversal” can more accurately be described by the actual behaviors that coincide within a population, such as high rates of male parental care and female competition for mates.

Using examples of females being more competitive than males in certain populations does not negate the fact that sperm competition itself relies on males competing for females and her eggs. They're doing the low IQ meme thing again.

Assuming a standard of sex roles is misleading and highlights a bias for how norms are defined (Ah-King and Ahnesjo, 2013). Indeed, paternal care evolved before maternal care (Gross and Sargent, 1985), and describing paternal care as a “reversal” does not add meaningful biological context. Additional examples of reinterpretation of harmful terms used in biology can be found in the EEB Language Project Repository.5 Although these concepts may not directly apply to your own research, we encourage readers to use this exercise when reading other literature. Does re-examining or reframing the language used in published papers change the interpretation or call for a re-evaluation of the findings? This practice will increase awareness of biased language used in our scientific writing and in other media outlets, both for new trainees and well-established members of our field alike. Critical engagement with our own language usage is a foundational step toward improving the quality of our research and recontextualizing past works with present and future discoveries (Massa et al., 2023; Miyagi et al., 2021).

That's right: they only care about 'inclusive language'. Because it's all about not making the troons unhappy. Here are their reocmmendations:

Neuroendocrine studies often encompass several sex-associated variables within and across biological levels and seek to identify the functional relationships and processes among those variables. For example: What neural circuits mediate behaviors that exhibit sex variability? Do specific hormones modulate these circuits holistically, or in specific brain areas to elicit sex variability in behavior? Do the mechanisms differ or change with age or across life stages? Do genotypic differences contribute to neurological sex variability?

Yes, they do. We're different because of our genes. Only troons can say this shit and not have a paper retracted. Imagine throwing out the entire fields of genetics and evolution itself all because you want a new 'framework' to explain how you are a True and Honest Woman.

There is plenty of research on neurological sex differences in the brain. Note not one is ever referenced here.

Do specific environmental conditions modulate the degree of sex variability? This framework can be used to map the variables relevant to a given research question, along with the functional relationships among them. With this framework, studies can be designed with more rigor to better tackle the question at hand without relying on assumptions about sex categorization. For example, Fig. 1A illustrates a map for a hypothetical study conducted in our Dynamic Sex Variability framework. This study focuses on sexually receptive behavior in rodents (lordosis). Importantly, lordosis is mapped as a behavior that greatly varies across sex (high sex variability) and does not explicitly tie the display of lordosis to a sex category or sex role.

Lordosis applies to females taking the 'ready position' for mating. Males don't have to do it because they're the ones depositing their sperm. Of course, the paper Sun is referencing on how this 'behaviour' isn't sex based doesn't agree with him:

An attempt was made to correlate patterns of mounting and lordosis behavior in intact male rats with the presence of steroid hormones in the blood. Groups of intact males were selected according to whether or not they displayed lordosis in response to manual stimulation. In subsequent tests with estrous females no differences in mounting behavior were found between males which did or did not display lordosis. Estimation of both estradiol-17β and testosterone in testicular venous and peripheral plasma by radioimmunoassay showed that there was no relationship between the concentrations of these hormones and the display of either mounting behavior or lordosis elicited by the mounts of stud males. These findings show that sexual performance is not directly correlated with testicular secretion of hormones, and it is suggested that individual differences in mating behavior are caused by some other factor such as individual differences in neural sensitivity to gonadal hormones.

Grabbing the full paper, it continues showing that all of these sex hormones - which Sun insists doesn't exist - play a role:

Recent evidence has also suggested that estrogen may normally play a role in the endocrine control of mounting behavior in male rats [ 1, 7, 12, 13]. In these experiments it was found that treatment with EB in combination with 5c~-dihydrotestosterone activated the mounting behavior of castrated male rats as effectively as treatment with TP. Thus it seems likely that estrogen, which has been shown to be secreted by the rat testis [9] and which is formed from circulating androgen in the male rat hypothalamus [14], may be involved in the regulation of both mounting and lordotic behavior in intact male rats. Although several attempts have been made to correlate dosage of exogenously administered TP with sexual performance in castrated male rats [4, 5, 11, 21, 22], we are aware of no study in which parameters of sexual behavior were correlated with actual blood levels of testicular hormones measured in intact animals. In the present study groups of intact male rats were selected according to whether or not they displayed lordosis in response to manual stimulation. The mounting performance and lordosis quotients as well as the testicular venous and peripheral plasma of estradiol-17/3 (estradiol) and testosterone were subsequently compared in these rats.

TL;DR they injected these rats with estradiol and 'female hormones' to make them behave as females. The male rats did their job trying to fuck them. It is about the influence of sex hormones, not denying it.

Notably, this approach forestalls false binary assumptions and incorrect interpretations, such as the belief that certain behaviors are exclusive to one sex category.

That's not what the paper showed, but whatever.

In this example, lordosis is often described as a “female sexual behavior,” despite decades-long observations of lordosis behavior in male rodents (Södersten et al., 1974; Södersten, 1976; Schaeffer et al., 1990). “Male mounting behavior” is also observed in female rodents (Hashikawa et al., 2017). If using a binary definition of sex, only rodents with ovaries might be included in the study, while rodents with testes may be excluded (Fig. 1D). Thus, the binary discourages the use of other sex categories to explore the biological underpinnings of lordosis. Such binarization also extends to hormones, with androgens often referred to as “male sex hormones” and estrogens and progestins as “female sex hormones” (Table 2; Massa and Correa, 2020). It should be noted that adult rodents possess all hormones to varying degrees that originate from several sources, not exclusively the gonads (Do Rego et al., 2009). Using the proposed sex variability framework (Fig. 1A), the limited utility and explanatory power of binarized sex categorizations is revealed (Fig. 1D), the specific mechanisms of interest are spotlighted, and important potential sex-atypical relationships remain in view. It encourages the inclusion of animals of varying sex categories, ages, and contexts, which are likely necessary to identify the relevant functional relationships between dynamically covarying traits at different biological levels (Fig. 1A, black lines).

See above. The rats displayed typical sexual behaviour; the other rats were injected with estradiol. I doubt Sun even read these papers in their entirety.

This framework is appropriately flexible, allowing it to guide study design for a wide array of research questions on sex, while acknowledging practical limitations in research. For example, the parsing of genetic and gonadal hormone contributions to sex variability is of central interest in neuroendocrinology (Sun and Tollkuhn, 2023).

The paper he is referencing here discusses the role of sex hormones in the brain. Sounds TERFy. Do you think he doubts the existence of sex hormones here? No.

In some species of birds, sex variability in multiple behaviors exhibit complex associations with sex-associated heteromorphs, with differences in gene regulation independent of the gonads, gametes, or gonadal hormones (Horton et al., 2020; Prichard et al., 2022). This instance of sex-associated behavioral variability (Fig. 1B, filled blue box) is captured by the changing relationship between the genomic level of variability (Fig. 1B, filled red box: DNA methylation; Prichard et al., 2022), resulting in differential, sex-variable protein expression (filled yellow box) that drives variation in behavior. Importantly, this framework acknowledges and incorporates the practical limitations every study encounters. In this example, the study focus on the genomic origins of sex variable protein expression does not directly account for anatomical sex differences (Fig. 1B, outline green box) that could also contribute to behavioral variability (Fig. 1B, filled blue box). The same concept extends to aspects of gonadal physiology and endocrine, social, ecological, and environmental factors, which are outside of the scope or study lens (Fig. 1B, outlined boxes connected by gray relationships). Instead of dismissing, ignoring, or collapsing these interacting biological factors, as in the binarized framework (Fig. 1D), these variables and their functional relationships remain present in the conceptual model, even if data at that level are not collected. This approach places study results within their biological context, better informing the interpretation of results and identifying important implications.

Sounds TERFy.

This framework also accounts for the importance of time and its relationship to sex variability (Fig. 1C). Ontogeny, transition, and experience are fundamental for the emergence, maintenance, or convergence of sex variability within a species and sex diversity between species. Temporal differences of developmental steroid hormone signals among mammalian species are thought to contribute to variation in the degree of sexual heteromorphism of brain regions, such as the medial preoptic area (Wallen and Baum, 2002).

I was told, just earlier in the paper, that sex hormones didn't exist, do not play a role, and that 'sex differences' are in air quotes.

Indeed, the predominant guiding model of the neuroendocrine regulation of behavior, the Organizational-Activational Hypothesis (Phoenix et al., 1959), describes two temporally distinct modes of gonadal hormone action on the brain.

Two? Only TWO? Bigots.

While adolescence is marked by the onset of the pubertal gonadal hormone surge and initiation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, other biological processes likely exhibit different dynamics. As adolescence progresses, several variables exhibit increased sex variability, such as gonadal hormones (Fig. 1C, orange filled box at tn and tn+1). Considering which other variables also change over time can illuminate possible functional relationships during maturation, while still acknowledging gaps not directly studied. For example, the gonadal hormone surge (Fig. 1C, orange filled box) could be directing increases in genomic sex variability (Fig. 1C, red filled box) that contribute to differences in neural circuit activity (Fig. 1C, green filled box). In this hypothetical example, the study is not formulated to identify molecular or cellular variability (Fig. 1C, yellow outline box) that may be mediating sex variability in neuronal activity, which may or may not exhibit variation to the same extent as other variables.

And why is this happening? Why does a specific puberty take place based on what gonads you have?

To summarize, this integrated multidimensional framework (Fig. 1A) is a heuristic to guide our studies of sex, its variability, and diversity, including study design, data analysis, and interpretation (further expanded upon in Section 3).

It also didn't explain anything. Most of the papers referenced do not agree with them and Sun's other paper EXLCUSIVELY TALKS ABOUT SEX HORMONES ON THE BRAIN. Troon scientists are just the worst.

It emphasizes the need to account for multiple variables to identify the dynamic processes between them, rather than collapsing traits assumed to be associated with sex categories. By actively considering sex variability, biological scale, and time, we are encouraged to recognize and integrate the contextual dependencies of measures and traits used for sex categorization, thereby better capturing the influences and changes of these variables over time. The framework is flexible, adaptable, and acknowledges practical limitations. By explicitly incorporating the dimension of time, the framework further aids in understanding the dynamics of sex variability within and between species and highlights the importance of considering developmental stages and experience. In contrast to a binarized framework (Fig. 1D), this integrative approach fosters a more comprehensive and targeted understanding of the complexities of sex variability and diversity across biological systems.

The framework also doesn't work, because what are you basing your work on? You stated biological sex wasn't a variable and put 'sex hormones' in air quotes. You cannot argue for its importance while simultaneously denying its existence.

To better understand natural variation in sex across the animal kingdom and how sex influences physiology and behavior throughout the lifespan, it is critical that a diversity of organisms with different sexual phenotypes are represented in neuroendocrinology research, both in field and laboratory settings (reviewed in McLaughlin et al., 2023; Smiley et al., 2022).

What other types are there? You cannot use intersex because that has already been solved. They still have a male or female sex.

Moreover, because sex is dependent on the integration of multiple phenotypes and, thus, can have different effects on physiology and behavior (e.g., Munley et al., 2022c; Solomon-Lane et al., 2016; White et al., 2023),

Munley et al is a study on sex-specific endocrine regulation in Siberian hamsters. This is contrasted with Sun's later claim that sex differences cannot be found in animal models.

sex diversity and variability should be regularly incorporated into experimental approaches to enable researchers to disentangle whether and how sex influences each of these individual processes. Although “sex differences” have been investigated for decades (reviewed in Ball and Ketterson, 2008; Bangasser and Valentino, 2014; McCarthy et al., 2012; McCarthy and Nugent, 2015; Trainor, 2011; Yan and Silver, 2016), there is not a consensus on how to study sex in animal models,

See Munley et al above. Plus, the rat study Sun referenced also discusses behaviour in MALE rats.

both with respect to experimental design and statistical analysis. To date, sex diversity and variability in neuroendocrinology has primarily been studied in sex-stable species (i.e., species in which the gonads and related traits, physiological systems, and behavior reaches a steady state after development; Table 1; reviewed in McLaughlin et al., 2023; Smiley et al., 2022). Relatively little is known, however, about how these mechanisms may differ in sex-dynamic organisms (i.e., species in which the gonads and related traits, physiological systems, and behavior exhibit variability based on their environment throughout the lifespan; Table 1).

He's talking about species like clownfish. We already know how their development works. And in species that are sequential hermaphrodites or true hermaphrodites, like slugs, we also know how that works. They are not 'sex dynamic'; they are still part of a species that only has two gametes, they simply underwent an evolutionary process that allows them to switch if environmental conditions allow it.

Spoiler: Much diversity cope

There is also considerable variation in which variables are measured in experiments, how these variables are quantified, and whether and how sex is incorporated into statistical modeling and testing, making it challenging to explicate the role of sex in modulating neuroendocrine mechanisms and behavior. In this section, we provide recommendations for best practices when designing experiments that examine or integrate sex variability and diversity, including: 1) factors and variables to consider measuring, 2) implementing diverse model organisms, 3) mechanistic approaches for studying multi-leveled traits, and 4) integrating sex-associated variables into data and statistical analyses. Collectively, these guidelines will not only allow researchers to answer central questions about how the brain, behavior, and other attributes are influenced by sex, but will also enhance our understanding of how these processes may differ across species with diverse sexual systems.

This is just more cope. They want 'diverse systems' to get another system because the system already in place is one they don't like. These guidelines is just self-defeating bullshit, because they are telling researchers to interpret different behaviours and variations within those sexes as separate sexes.

3.1. Factors and variables to consider when studying sex diversity and variability​

In order to take a truly integrative approach to studying sex-associated traits, we must be aware that the variables we are using to determine sex (e.g., morphological, hormonal, genetic) not only interact with and influence each other (Fig. 1), but also occur and fluctuate in the context of other factors that we may or may not be able to measure.

If you can't measure it, why are you here? Why are you writing this paper?

As integrative biologists who examine multiple traits and factors that relate to sex, we use this framework with the understanding that they are not hierarchical separations of importance (reviewed in MacDougall-Shackleton, 2011). It is important to note that this section is not intended to be an exhaustive list of factors to consider when designing experiments, but as a launching point for discussion and reflection of past and present experimental design which aims to study sex (either as an independent or dependent variable). We also note that in many cases, it will be impossible to control for every factor/variable in an experiment, so part of our aim is to increase awareness of factors/variables that are important in study design and may affect sex-associated traits that are being measured.

Which is to say their work cannot replicate.

3.1.1. Timing factors​

Broadly, we encourage scientists to always consider the role of temporal dynamics in their studies of sex, even when development or experience is not the focus of a study. ‘Post’-developmental time points, such as adulthood, are predominantly considered within a static frame, reinforcing essentialist and reductive interpretations of dynamic biological processes (Dupré and Nicholson, 2018).

What are these 'essentialist' views? Sun doesn't really explain. We're just meant to assume it's 'transphobic', even when the papers he references explicitly discuss it.

In turn, such views of biological stasis congeal with essentialist binary logic described in the previous sections and can contribute to the dismissal of sex variables that are dynamic in nature (Smiley et al., 2022). Instead, all biological processes have temporal components, even though a system may superficially appear static. Our proposed framework emphasizes this point through the explicit consideration of spatiotemporal dimensions within sex variability (Fig. 1). In this view, phenotypically stable – or matured – sex categories, such as male, female, and hermaphrodites,

"Hermaphrodite" is not a third sex, and humans are not sequential hermaphrodites.

can be understood as states of homeorhesis, a steady state (homeostasis) that is actively maintained by ongoing processes extended through time and is robust to certain perturbations (Waddington, 1957), while stages of development and transition are more plastic and dynamic states. Thus, sex variability within a species and diversity across species are natural outcomes of the many dynamic systems involving numerous interacting sex variables (Fig. 1A), which are able to simultaneously exhibit contradictory properties of robustness and plasticity to enable adaptation and evolution (Fabris, 2018).

That's nice. That does not explain why there are no third sexes and why we are an anisogamous species. I'd like to re-iterate that that, too, was used in air quotes or written with a dismissive hand.

For example, during development, the timing of expression of hormonal and other specific transcription factors can fluctuate in a dose-dependent way; therefore, measuring hormonal changes during development may reveal periods of divergence across sexes, such as the appearance of distinct reproductive organs.

What other reproductive organs are there? Again, Sun doesn't say.

Spoiler: Absolute fucking gibberish

Often, experimental timepoints are chosen based on logistical constraints of the experimenter in an attempt to keep time of day consistent. However, conducting fundamental experiments to determine the biologically meaningful timepoints that are relevant to the organism being studied is an essential first step before designing studies and will help reveal periods of divergence between the phenotypes that define sexes.

What does he hope to achieve with this? He's only going to get two results.

For example, in studies investigating endocrine mechanisms during sex change, which is often observed in sex-dynamic organisms (see Section 3.2.2), it is important to determine the timing of when important behavioral and morphological markers appear before deciding the timing for sacrificing animals to obtain tissue samples for molecular markers. Molecular actions can take minutes, hours, or days to manifest; thus, it is critical to determine whether these effects are non-genomic or genomic and act under the appropriate social context before investigating the effects of drugs or specific molecules on sex-associated traits. These considerations become even more important when expensive treatments or molecular tools are being used and may increase the costs of both personnel and other resources. Below, we describe several timing-related factors which should be taken into consideration when designing experiments.

That's very nice. What does this have to do with denying sex?

3.1.1.1. Developmental timing​

The organization, patterning, differentiation, and subsequent specialization of cells that make up multicellular organisms occur at specific times during the life cycle. These processes are orchestrated by suites of regulatory genes that encode transcription factors and signaling molecules, such as the ‘Gene Regulatory Network’ (Li and Davidson, 2009; Emmert-Streib et al., 2014), which are activated by maternal transcription factors during embryonic and perinatal development (Davidson et al., 2002; Paraiso et al., 2019; Poulat, 2021).

Highlight mine. Sun says there is no way we can measure sex hormones or sex itself, yet he uses an entire gene regulatory network associated with females during gestation. Again, all of the papers he references ALL use those terms he says doesn't exist.

There is immense plasticity in these mechanisms during development, even in species in which gonadal physiology is stably determined by chromosomes or genes. For example, the regulatory genes involved in shaping the final expression of sexual characteristics and reproductive organs are ‘dispersed’ in a gradient, and the process of development proceeds in response to the dose-dependent expression of these genes (Barresi and Gilbert, 2023).

Again, all you are going to get are two end results: male or female.

Furthermore, activation of one particular gene typically leads to expression of other downstream genes and may regulate more than one biological pathway based on when it is expressed. For example, the gene Sox9 is responsible for craniofacial and musculoskeletal development, in addition to testis patterning (Vaillant et al., 2001; Leung et al., 2011). Similarly, Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is necessary for ovarian and follicle development later in life (Baba et al., 2017), beyond its role in breaking down the Müllerian ducts. Gene expression is also influenced by other biomolecules that may be present in the endogenous and/or exogenous environment surrounding an embryo or larva (Barresi and Gilbert, 2023). Furthermore, sex variables such as gonadal hormones direct sex differentiation of hormone-responsive neurons throughout development and maturation by regulating gene expression. During adulthood, the same gonadal hormones produce dramatically different responses than during perinatal development (Gegenhuber et al., 2022); thus, other temporally-constrained factors may be interacting with these hormones to regulate sex differentiation at various life stages.

No shit. This is the only remotely scientific part of the article. Those genes only lead to male or female development; Sun never references development of these brand new 'sex variables'.

​

Spoiler: This is a lot of shit so be warned

Many processes, such as growth, regeneration, tissue repair, and cellular function, continue throughout an organism's lifespan and are influenced by its life history. For example, amphibians and insects have complex life history patterns because they undergo dramatic physiological changes that are orchestrated by the reactivation of developmental processes during metamorphosis (Tata, 1993). Similarly, mammals undergo pronounced changes during puberty, when the neuroendocrine processes for reproductive maturity are activated and secondary sexual characteristics begin to develop concurrently with cognitive and emotional changes (Laube et al., 2020; Vijayakumar et al., 2021; Brooks-Gunn and Warren, 1988; Schulz et al., 2009).

And how many secondary sex characteristics are there? That said, I thought secondary sex characteristics didn't exist, because 'sex hormones' were in air quotes?

These processes are regulated by combinations of both endogenous factors and signals from the exogenous environment (e.g., the presence of a possible mate or toxins) that are transduced to modify biochemical signaling pathways and/or gene expression. Explicitly considering the dynamics of these processes during and after significant perturbations, such as environmental toxin exposure, is an important factor to consider in study design. Thus, taking an integrative approach (Fig. 1C) can help identify potential variables and processes that contribute to the expression of sex variability at various life history stages. For example, studies in primate, rodent, and avian species have shown that estrogens have wide-ranging effects in shaping the sex-associated cellular architecture of the developing brain (MacLusky et al., 1986; McCarthy, 2008; Holloway and Clayton, 2001),

And what is estrogen, again? According to Sun it isn't a 'female hormone' - yet he takes it to look like one.

as well as neuronal electrophysiological properties (McHenry et al., 2017). In utero, whether estrogens originate from maternal or placental circulation, or from gonads or brain of the developing embryo itself, downstream signaling mechanisms of estrogens are regulated by receptors located in the nucleus or cytoplasm (McCarthy, 2008). Understanding the simultaneous expression and functional activation of key biomolecules (see Section 3.1.3.1) that initiate the expression of sex-associated traits can provide convergent evidence for the initiation and maintenance of phenotypes.

Yes, Sun, it comes from the ovaries. How are these biomolecules activated, and puberty enacted, without these sex hormones?

3.1.1.3. Biological rhythms​

Biological rhythms, or the natural cycle of change in endogenous chemicals or functions, are predominantly influenced by the master “clock” located in the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the mammalian brain (Gillette and Tischkau, 1999). While it is unclear that a central “clock” is present in all vertebrates, the whole body or cells in specific organs are sensitive to a biological clock that regulates physiological functions and responses in a rhythmic manner (reviewed in Steindal and Whitmore, 2019).

(...)

Thus, animals with different gonadal physiologies (e.g., testes, ovaries, ovotestes) may exhibit distinct degrees of sex variability that covary with the seasons. When individuals are not actively producing gametes, there may be substantially less sex variability in other sex-associated traits, whereas during the breeding season, there may be more nuanced effects of hormones on sex-asscociated traits that do not differ in the same manner as the gonads (Smiley et al., 2022). Similar behaviors can also be regulated by different mechanisms based on the season and may influence, be influenced by, or act independently of gonadal physiology or hormones (Munley et al., 2022b; Pradhan et al., 2010; Quintana et al., 2021).

Ovotestes is not a separate gonad. It's a combination of ovarian and testicular tissue, with one or the other dominating. It goes by a case-by-case basis. 46 XY is male, as they still produce sperm, 46, XX female. According to Sun, we cannot know whether these people are male or female.

​

Other paragraphs are of no major importance; they discuss animal models and testing.

3.1.3.1. Key biomolecules​

To date, two classes of hormones have been a major focus of research investigating sex variability in the neuroendocrine regulation of behavior: neuropeptides (especially the nonapeptides arginine vasopressin and oxytocin) and steroids (reviewed in Balthazart et al., 2018; Caldwell and Albers, 2016; Carter, 2017; Donaldson and Young, 2008; McCarthy et al., 2009; Remage-Healey, 2014). Neuropeptide and steroid production and their signaling mechanisms can be assessed at multiple levels, including the concentration of hormone present, the activity or expression of synthetic or metabolic enzymes, and the abundance of receptors. In general, tissue- and/or region-specific quantification of hormone production or receptors are preferable over systemic measurements (e.g., blood, fecal, saliva, urine, and hair samples), as they provide greater insight into how these metabolic pathways and signaling mechanisms are changing locally within an organism. This concept is especially relevant for neuropeptides and steroids: changes in the production of these biomolecules and their receptors are often restricted to specific tissues, and their underlying mechanisms are plastic and can shift rapidly based on an organism's external environment, which may not be detected using systemic measures of hormones (reviewed in Balthazart et al., 2018; Cornil and Charlier, 2010; Do Rego et al., 2009; Pradhan et al., 2015a; Schmidt et al., 2008).

What other options are there? I am just waiting for a solid answer. All I am getting is information irrelevant to the argument.

​

​

 

[Chandelier]

Double post because I exceeded the word limit.

Spoiler: Moar

3.2.1.1. Type I: Phenotypes which are more prevalent in one sex and less prevalent or absent in the other(s)​

“Sexual heteromorphism” (Table 2) is the occurrence of two (dimorphism) or more (multimorphism) qualitatively distinct morphs in a sexually reproducing species, where a morph is a set of sex-associated correlated or covarying phenotypic traits belonging to an individual (Table 1).

Don't ask me what this means because I have no fucking clue. These terms do not apply to placental mammals.

For example, male manakins (subfamily Piprinae) perform elaborate courtship displays that include colorful plumage and high-speed acrobatics, and these displays are not typically observed in female manakins (reviewed in Fuxjager et al., 2023; Schlinger et al., 2013). In these species, rapid limb movements are regulated by exceptionally fast wing displays that are driven by muscle kinetics, which are likely controlled by steroid receptors and enzymes present in the brain, muscles, and spinal cord (Eaton et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2010; Fusani et al., 2014; Fuxjager et al., 2012, Fuxjager et al., 2016). Female manakins also express the same steroid-related genes in the brain, muscles, and spinal cord as males, but generally show lower levels of expression (Feng et al., 2010; Fuxjager et al., 2012). While they do not naturally perform these complex displays, testosterone treatment can activate acrobatic movements in females to some extent, although not with the complete repertoire observed in males (Day et al., 2007).

Admitting that testosterone doesn't make females stronger than males. Ouch, that's gotta be hurtful to pooners.

These findings demonstrate that physiological sex variability can be subtle and highlight the immense plasticity within the neuroendocrine pathways that modulate the expression of these traits.

They only apply to males or females, you retard.

Type I sex variability is also observed in species with diverse mating systems. For example, jacanas (family Jacanidae) have a socially polyandrous mating system, in which females mate with multiple males simultaneously in one breeding season and males perform the majority of parental care (Emlen and Wrege, 2004). Female jacanas tend to be larger and more competitive than males, but do not have higher levels of circulating androgens (Lipshutz and Rosvall, 2020). Similarly, in the cichlid fish Julidochromis marlieri, females are larger and more territorial, whereas males are primarily responsible for parental care (Schumer et al., 2011). Including model organisms with diverse mating systems and studying differences in traits that span multiple levels of biological organization will be essential for elucidating how mechanistic variation can produce sex diversity and variability.

Sex role reversal does not negate the fact one of these individuals produces ova and the other sperm. That is what we base sex on.

Sex variability in stress responses have been demonstrated in rodents and birds across a variety of contexts, such as social stressors (e.g., social defeat, social isolation) and restraint stress. These responses have also been characterized across life-history stages, from development to adulthood (e.g., Marasco et al., 2012; Spencer et al., 2009; reviewed in Bale and Epperson, 2015; Bangasser and Valentino, 2014; Laman-Maharg and Trainor, 2017; Zilkha et al., 2021), suggesting that these mechanisms may be evolutionarily conserved across species. Collectively, Type II sex variability presents an excellent opportunity to explore how differences in neuroendocrine circuits and their regulation can culminate in diverse physiological and behavioral phenotypes.​

Annnnnnnd where's the third sex?

Although male and female hamsters exposed to short-day photoperiods display equivalent increases in aggression (Munley et al., 2023; Munley et al., 2022c), there is emerging evidence that this behavioral phenotype is associated with distinct changes in steroidogenesis in the adrenal glands and brain. Short-day male hamsters exhibit an increase in 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase activity in the adrenal glands relative to long-day males, whereas short-day females have lower 3β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase activity in the adrenals and anterior hypothalamus than long-day females (Munley et al., 2022c). In addition, while short-day hamsters show similar changes in estrogen receptor 1, aromatase, and 5α-reductase mRNA expression in the arcuate nucleus, a brain region that controls reproduction, there are sex variable effects of short days on gene expression in brain regions associated with aggression (e.g., medial preoptic area, anterior hypothalamus, and periaqueductal gray; Munley et al., 2023). Thus, these findings suggest that male and female hamsters exhibit different neuroendocrine responses that converge at a similar behavioral endpoint: increased aggression during the non-breeding season.

How did they know which one was the male, and the other female? Did they use the same 'sex variability' shit or not?

Characterizing the neuroendocrine control of sex convergent traits will provide valuable insight into how distinct compensatory mechanisms can evolve to maintain social behaviors that are important for survival and reproductive success, despite sex variability in physiology. More broadly, future research that focuses on elucidating these mechanisms will be important for facilitating a shift to a more inclusive and accurate description of sex as a biological phenomenon.

He's using mating patterns and changing behaviours as proof sex should be measured as anything other than a binary. I am not kidding. 'Sex variability' is just variations WITHIN sex, not OF sex.

Complete expression of an alternative gonad, however, involves expression of sex-biased behavior, secondary sex characteristics, and synchronous orchestration of external morphological features. Because these traits manifest at different rates, organisms that change sex exist across a spectrum of phenotypes that are in flux and, over time, arrive at a new steady state. Thus, the expression of sex-associated traits at the molecular, physiological, and behavioral levels, including the rewiring of internal anatomical structures and neural systems, can occur asynchronously (reviewed in Capel, 2017; Gemmell et al., 2019; Todd et al., 2016). To date, few species have been used to study the physiological basis of sex change and its associated phenotypes; thus, sex-dynamic species are currently underutilized as models of sex variability.

Again, he means things like clownfish. And yes he does bring that up:

In most protogynous species, individuals are born with female reproductive anatomy and are capable of transitioning to reproductive males during adulthood. This strategy is the most common form of sequential hermaphroditism in teleost fishes and is especially prevalent in species exhibiting polygynous mating systems, in which there is intense competition between males for mating opportunities (reviewed in Gemmell et al., 2019).

And yes, he does indeed bring it up specifically, as a way of showing sex doesn't exist and isn't binary:

Protandrous species consist of individuals who reproductively mature as males and are capable of transitioning to functionally reproductive females during adulthood. Protandry is generally less common than protogyny and typically occurs in small, stable groups with either a monogamous mating pair or a random mating system (i.e., a system in which an individual is equally likely to mate with any other individual in a population), such that territorial defense and/or intense sperm competition is absent (reviewed in Gemmell et al., 2019; Munday et al., 2006). This strategy has been documented in several species of sea bream (e.g., Acanthopagrus, Sparus, and Lithognathus sp.; reviewed in Gemmell et al., 2019), crustaceans [e.g., mole crabs (Emerita asiatica), Manning grass shrimp (Thor manningi), and prawns (genus Pandalus); reviewed in Chiba, 2007; Ye et al., 2023], and mollusks [e.g., marine snails (family Calyptraeidae), freshwater mussels (Elliptio complanata), and common limpets (Patella vulgata); reviewed in Lesoway and Henry, 2019; Wright, 1988]. The neuroendocrine regulation of protandrous sex change, however, has been most extensively studied in anemonefishes (Amphiprion and Premnas sp.; Casas et al., 2022; Godwin, 2019; Hattori and Casadevall, 2016). Male clownfish (Amphiprion sp.), for example, transition to female when the largest individual in a social group, the dominant female, is lost (Fricke and Fricke, 1977; Godwin, 2019).

NONE of those are placental mammals. And they only go between male or female, and nothing else.

He also notes that hormones - those things that also don't exist - play a role in cells:

Moreover, the effects of hormones on living cells can be assessed using electrophysiology, in which specific cells within a tissue of interest are stimulated and their electrical activity measured (e.g., Remage-Healey and Bass, 2005; Spool et al., 2021), or ex vivo tissue preparations, such as organotypic or slice cultures (e.g., Holloway and Clayton, 2001; Tam and Schlinger, 2007). Because researchers typically focus on one of these levels of analysis, the integration of these tools will be essential for providing a more holistic understanding of the mechanisms underlying variation and fluidity across sex-associated traits. Additionally, it is important to note that many of these techniques provide static snapshots of an organism's internal state and, thus, are unable to account for the dynamics of synthesis, metabolism, and signaling of relevant biomolecules. These limitations must be considered and openly discussed in both experimental design and interpretation.

Here is how he wants to measure it:
View attachment 5840539
And how they want people to write their papers:

The research question(s) will determine how “sex” is treated in subsequent statistical analyses (e.g., independent vs. dependent variable, single vs. multivariate) and the interpretation of the results. For example, finding a statistically significant difference among sexes is descriptive, but not yet causal, with an interpretation such as “males are more likely to exhibit…” or a conclusion that “there is a sex difference” (Gowaty, 2018). Finding a sex difference is a starting point rather than an ending point, and secondary or exploratory analyses can then be conducted to address the possibility of sex variability. These tests can be followed by power analyses to assess categorical sex variability, in line with previous Sex as a Biological Variable initiatives (Diester et al., 2019).

They ask where does sex come from:

By measuring operationally-defined sex-associated variables across levels of analysis, we can apply a more rigorous and unbiased approach to determining how sex-associated traits are influenced by one or multiple variables, in interaction within and across levels (Fig. 1). Such studies have more interpretive power: if “sex” has an effect, by what means? Where do we think that sex variability originates from - genetic factors, hormones, social context, anatomy?

Here's how they want to sort data:

Sex-associated traits may follow a binary, bimodal, or a more complex distribution. If there is an obvious bimodal or multimodal distribution, it may be reasonable to cluster data by eye. The distribution of the data may also be informed by the biology of the organism. For example, in a population of sex-changing fish, there may be two major peaks for gonadal morphology, measured as percent ovarian tissue: approximately 100 % for ovary and 0 % for testis. We would also expect some individuals (e.g., those undergoing sex transition) to have gonads with both ovarian and testicular tissue in more equal balance.

...No, because if you are transitioning, you only have one set of gonads: the one you were born with. As for fish, since they can actively change their sex if the need arises, they don't need a mix and match. They want 'multiple approaches' when they don't work.

Later in the paper, he wants to use clusters instead of separate categories, because that's how sex variability works. Also wants to use logistic regression and other mathematics to make sure sex isn't binary. Wants MANOVA and PERMANOVA used.

Just general gibberish, again.

Alright, now here comes the call to action. Sun would like you to know you need to stop being transphobic:

For the past century, it has been accepted (and on occasion, dogmatically asserted) that sex is a univariate, binary variable.

Aside from all the terms and techniques Sun wants to use - especially his use of clustered traits - he never actually provides any science showing the above as untrue. He'd be hard pressed to - and to find something that replicates. It is not 'dogmatically asserted', it is true, because that is what has been observed.

While many efforts have been put forth to advance the study of sex variability in biomedical and other research fields, we propose an expansion of this framework.

TLR the solutions offered is just tranny nagging for logistical regression and other analyses of data sets that he hopes will give him his third sex. He wants phenotypes to be presented as separate genotypes, for example.

Sex can be expressed across multiple biological levels, many of which are interconnected and dependent on context and other environmental factors.

Such as? He doesn't really give an example; at least, not pertaining to humans.

Answering our scientific queries on the role sex plays in the expression of multiple phenotypes requires an integrative perspective that investigates how multiple sex-associated variables interact to influence specific phenotypes. By applying this integrative framework to our experimental approaches, we will gain invaluable insight into the unique ways that sex variability influences physiology and behavior over an organism's lifespan. Ultimately, we suggest that this multidimensional perspective of sex will better inform our understanding of the fundamental processes of biology: reproduction, development, adaptation, and evolution.

Just to let you know: Sun pops those estrogen pills just so he can look like a 'woman', a collection of traits he can apply to himself because he is going off of phenotype.

As a first step, we need to acknowledge that sex is a rich, various, and diverse phenomenon that can – and should – be measured across multiple levels of biological organization and can be variable within an individual, within a species, and across different species (Fig. 1). The study of sex diversity and variability in the animal kingdom has been hindered by imposing binary assumptions and limitations on what sex is, or can be, across species. By simply acknowledging that sex can, and does, exist outside a strict binary framework, we can evolve and improve how we define, measure, and analyze “sex” in our research.

Even the species he referenced all have a male or female sex. He does not give any evidence for a third or fourth sex. He also does not give any examples of 'non binary' hormones - because they do not exist.

On the importance of language:

We must also be conscientious of the social responsibility we hold as members of a scientific society, as experts in neuroendocrinology, and as producers of scientific knowledge. We must be aware that our research will be used by others (e.g., politicians and activists) to justify the use of “binary sex” in laws and other regulations that impede on the lives and rights of our peers, particularly those in LGBTQIA+ communities. We must vocally and materially counteract those who use science to discriminate and oppress, as has historically occurred (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Gould, 2006; Lewontin et al., 2017; Gill-Peterson, 2018) and continues to this day (Sudai et al., 2022; Sun and Ashley, 2023). Our work has immense impacts on how our culture understands both sex and gender, so we must be precise and appropriate in our usage, neither conflating the two nor outright dismissing their complex relationships (Garcia-Sifuentes and Maney, 2021; Miyagi et al., 2021).

That's right, use this bald troon as an expert. Be sure to ask him that if he doesn't think 'female hormones' don't exist why is he taking them to 'resemble' a woman.

On wanting to force researchers to be more complicated than they need to be:

Although sex variability can result in sexual heteromorphism, in which pronounced differences in physiological and behavioral phenotypes are observed, this variation is nuanced, may only be revealed under certain social contexts, environmental conditions, or at certain time points, and varies based on the reproductive strategy and sexual system of the study species. Thus, to increase the likelihood that any sex variability that is present is detected experimentally, sex-associated traits should ideally be quantified at multiple levels of biological organization after careful consideration of timing and contextual factors that may influence the emergence of these traits.

Such as? I'm still waiting for an answer.

Finally, experiments must not only be rigorously designed and executed, but must also be statistically analyzed in a way that is appropriate for the variables measured, accurately reflects the research question, and accounts for the life history of the model organism used. Collectively, the complexities of sex variability and diversity make the selection of experimental approaches, animal models, and statistical testing especially important and contributes to responsible interpretation and dissemination of our work

Right, until it gets replicated. Then all of those 'sex variables' associated with either two groups, because they got those variables because of their genotype in the first place.

BTW, here's another graph they want used:
View attachment 5840554

On demanding peer reviewers be nice to troons:

Likewise, we encourage grant reviewers to be more open and advocate favorably when reviewing this boundary-pushing work in non-model species. If we take care not to anthropomorphize our species, we can appreciate the biology of the wide range of study species and the broad applicability of the questions we are asking, including their relevance to humans.

Of course, we have to end it on troons bragging about their accomplishments:

This paper brought together 8 early career researchers from U.S. universities who identify as cis- and trans- gender women and/or nonbinary at the time of formulating, discussing, and drafting this work. These scientists are graduate students, postdoctoral scholars, and faculty who have been trained in neuroendocrinology within the past 15 years – a period that has experienced a movement in institutional research initiatives and experimental design to include females (e.g., SABV).

What is a 'female'? A bundle of undefinable traits, according to Sun.

This paper developed out of the recognition that a radical re-evaluation of “sex” is necessary not only to continue this progress, but to increase awareness of the diversity and complexity of sex and to advance the surrounding scientific discourse. The process of writing this paper has helped the authors, many of whom had never collaborated before, to grow intellectually through recognizing and re-considering their traditional ways of thinking, critically reshape and extend their vocabulary and concepts, and inspire new avenues of inquiry and discovery. We encourage fellow scientists to continue challenging and revising the conventional ways we ask scientific questions. We also encourage scientific societies, institutions, and funding agencies to continue investing in opportunities that support these efforts.

"Support us or we will send you death threats to get any dissenting scientist fired."

To conclude, we believe these operationalized, integrative research approaches that move beyond the normative, essentialist, and reductive notions of the past will bring forth a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of sex. Sex is not merely a form of biological reproduction, but a natural phenomenon that explores the full variety of a species' phenotypic space that could emerge from a genotype to generate the vast, undeniable diversity throughout life as it adapts, explores, and evolves in the future.

Biological essentialism = behavioural genetics. That's all it is. These troons want you to believe sex isn't binary and that male and female don't exist, but that they are women because the nebulous traits that exist for us is concrete for them.

 

[Incredible Mister]

Its honestly pretty terrifying that people so obviously biased and delusional are taken seriously in the sciences. though the irony of troons writing a 50000 word, paper of gobbledygook saying that hormones are not related to biological sex, while they all consume opposite sex hormones in an attempt to show opposite sex characteristics is pure gold.

 

[Positron]

For all their logorrhea about "multiple variables" at "several biological levels", the troon never demonstrates how attending to these -- which might entail doing multiple complicated tests on each lab mouse, instead of just looking at their nether regions -- will result in truer, more accurate, more biologically relevant findings. And for all the talk about "operationalization", he never tells us how it is done, or cite a study to show us how it can be done.

Worse, studies that "operationalize" sex through "multiple variables" and "several biological levels" in mice cannot be generalized to humans, which presumably have their own set of sex-associated "variables" and "biological levels". No mice, as far as I know of, has a predilections for the Ikea shark, yet some humans regard the possession of a Ikea shark as being one of the sex-associated "variables" at the behavioural level.

The "lordosis vs mounting " argument is a strawman. The former is regarded as "female sexual behaviour" and the latter "male sexual behaviour" because of the empirical observation that one sex tends to display one type of behaviour. There has never been an assumption of exclusivity: no scientists has ever believed that just because lordosis is called "female behavior", it cannot occur in males, ever. To claim so is to fall pray to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

 

[Chandelier]

Here is yet another opinion piece demanding that scientists bend over backwards to implement their recommendations to find these separate sexes. What I found interesting was the mini citation box, that references Julia Serano's Medium article on how transwomen are not biological males, and Jess McLaughlin again. Another source they add is how JKR's use of biological sex is, I shit you not, 'white supremacy'.

I'll start with posting their reference guide. This is the only scientific part of it; the rest are all book and film recommendations on intersex individuals, none of which are involved in hard science.



They basically had a symposium where they invited intersex activists and decided the sex binary had to go:

As addressed in the complementary article in this symposium collection, “Sex, Science, and Society: Reckonings and Responsibilities for Biologists,” the paradigm of binary sex needs a revolution. This paradigm is embedded in the institution of science: in scientific research, in science education, and in the norms and expectations of the production of scientific knowledge.

You also need something called PROOF. Without it, and without replicating your work, all of these demands for a new 'paradigm' will not go anywhere. Even physicists know they may have to go back to the drawing board if their equations don't work.

The ongoing erasure of intersex in our classrooms and curricula is not only a disservice to our students but furthers the medical, legal, and political harm committed against intersex communities, which is grounded in beliefs about the threat or impossibility of human sex trait variation. Here, symposium participants reflect on the binary sex paradigm and how science and culture co-create each other. Participants’ initials are used throughout to indicate specific reflections made during the symposium roundtable.

This entire paper uses the tired fallacy that karyotypes are separate sexes. Despite being told multiple times this isn't the case, they are dedicated to it.

Science has historically played, and continues to play, an unignorable role in the social, political, and medical oppression of queer, transgender, and intersex communities (Lewis and Sharpe 2023). Sex and gender are both complex and multifaceted, and they each need to be approached with much more nuance than academic biology typically offers. There is a remarkable level of diversity within and between sexes and sex traits of individuals across phyla, and this is typically framed as “other,” deviating from the binary, and deviant, rather than complex, multifaceted, and diverse (e.g., Rosario 2009; Roughgarden 2013). Ignoring the complexity of sex and gender does an incalculable disservice to a discipline that aims to understand the complexity of life on this planet.

Ironically Roughgarden, the very same John/Joan Roughgarden, proto-science troon, doesn't think there are more than two sexes.

The models that we are using to come up with questions about animal biology are thoroughly rooted in our cultural assumptions (McLaughlin,et al. 2023). As AEK noted in our roundtable discussion, “Cultural norms can be so pervasive that it’s almost as if they are ‘common sense,’ so it is hard for people who see them everywhere they look not to project them onto the biology that they’re studying.” Furthering this point, JFM added “When we are looking at systems like sexual selection with birds or lizards, and we are coming from a cultural background of ‘sex is binary,’ we’re asking questions like ‘why do we have different types of males that do different things’ or ‘why are these sex roles reversed between male and female.’ These are inherently rooted in the fact that we have a culture that looks at this as a binary, but birds and lizards don’t care!”

There's McLaughlin again. She's referenced a lot in these circles. In any case, lizards whose sex change based on temperature doesn't mean binary sex is wrong. It simply means sex determination, for them, is different. There is no debate over this. We are warm-blooded placental mammals that give birth to live young. Our sex is fixed. If we were capable of sex reversal, needless to say all those years of misogyny and sex-based violence would have been flipped on its head.

Experience and bias shape the questions asked by scientists, and in particular, by biologists. The dominant paradigm has been shaped by cisheteronormative culture, but this is rarely recognized as an actively subjective perspective. However, this is not the case for queer perspectives. For example, when queer, transgender, and intersex biologists push back against this paradigm, this is responded to as projecting our/their own perspectives onto non-human organisms. JFM continued, “I’ve had people be more pointed about it at me: ‘Well, you’re nonbinary, so you’re just projecting your own thing onto the animals,’ but if you’re cisgender and not interrogating the role of the binary in the questions you’re asking, you’re coming in with your own biases and your experience is shaping the questions you’re asking–it’s just that you don’t have to account for that in the same way as those of us who live outside those binaries do.”

Whoever said that nailed it right on the head. They are absolutely shoving their own personal biases onto the field; that they being trans means that all of human evolution is wrong. Recall how Sun argued that there were no 'male' or 'female' hormones despite taking estrogen to get a female appearance.

Primate research is one place that has been particularly victim to projections of human cultural assumptions onto science (Haraway 1989; Kralick 2023). For example, there is a tendency to project the expectation that males will ideally be larger and stronger than females but her research on orangutan skeletons complicates this assumption, a topic that she has further explored in her publications (e.g., Kralick et al. 2023).

Note about Kralick: she did not prove that sex wasn't binary in male orangutans. Her research actually showed how flanged vs unflanged males behave, especially juvenile males in the presence of older, dominant males. According to her, the juveniles who never developed the flange are suddenly no longer male.

It also isn't an expectation. It's observable reality.

A.E.K. notes that, while cultural norms are pervasive, queer experiences challenge what we are told are immutable, objective truths. Presenting the perspectives of queer people and diverse scientists can help everyone take such viewpoints into account and build approaches to biology that are more inclusive and equitable.

See? Only their truths are immutable and without change. Everything else relies on nebulous definitions.

They want language to become more inclusive, and for scientists to dump the fact of sexual dimorphism:

A common term in biology is “sexual dimorphism,” which refers to a distinct or systematic difference between two sexes of a species. “Dimorphism” implies binary phenotypes, yet across populations two or more modes may exist, and those modes can have a range of relationships from overlapping to disjunct. Sex differences can also be fluid or dynamic over time, as sex phenotypes may shift during the natural aging process or even fully interconvert as in sequential hermaphroditism. Given this range of variation, there may be a need to consider different terminology. Many alternatives have been proposed, such as sex differences, sexual difference, sex variation, sex polymorphism, and sexual heteromorphism (reviewed in Kralick et al. 2023). A.A. shared that he uses “sexual heteromorphism,” for example, because “I think that’s more inclusive because it conveys there’s that wider range, and it also makes room for those multimodal traits” (Anderson and Falk 2023; Anderson and Renn 2023).

"We need to scrap something that is observable in reality because certain individuals may not act the way we want."

Even in systems where dioecious gamete production has been historically considered a fundamental binary, this allows for the description of a wider range of sex morphs, and distributional differences between gamete type and other traits.

Dioecious species still only produce large or small gametes. There is no third gamete.

However, the term “sexual dimorphism” has been used by researchers for a long time and many understand the way the term fails to reflect the diversity of sex traits and sex expression, but are unsure how to incorporate a different term. A.E.K. explained “Something we can do as a community beyond just suggesting new terminology, is to model how to use alternative terminology in our own science, call people in for these discussions rather than call them out, and create space for them to work through how this makes sense for them and in the work that they’re doing.”

Sexual dimorphism already does that; it just covers the variations WITHIN the two sexes. These people want a brand new term so they can feel better as queer trannies.

As a result, the embedded assumption that a fundamental and organic sex binary exists in nature continues to be passed on from instructors to students without attentiveness to the cultural and political genesis of this paradigm. When biology curricula only discuss sex as a binary, gender as a culturally mediated extension of sex, and sexuality as always heterosexual and reproductively oriented, this reinforces the implicit belief that these are the only normal, natural, and biologically codified ways for organisms to exist. I.C. points out “This has another layer of importance because of the political implications for this, as well, when it’s transferred to humans, which we do so readily.” The absence of queerness and sex variation in research and pedagogy within academic biology furthers political arguments that these characteristics are unnatural and in need of eradication.

Yeah but you're still gonna need to PROVE sex variation EXISTS. IF YOU CANNOT PROVE IT YOUR THEORY IS JUST A SOCIAL THEORY.

Science cannot afford to be ignorant to LGBTQIA+ contributions, including related to gender and sex. We must be aware of how language is used, by ourselves, by our colleagues, and by those outside of academic science. Our language shapes knowledge production, and that knowledge production is leaned upon by political and cultural actors.

Skullface was right. Change the way people speak, you change the way they think. That's why they want to use 'menstruating person' and not woman.

HL commented “I’d love to see scientists and knowledge makers organizing with each other to do things like get in the media and denounce appeals to ‘science’ and ‘biology’ in denying intersex and transgender people healthcare and civil rights.” Legislators writing bills often demand data. For example, in bills that proposed to delay medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex babies and children, legislators requested data to support the proposed bills. H.L. recommended that scientists follow the lead of intersex leaders and activists by “importing those sorts of language ideas. . ., working alongside community organizations like InterACT, Intersex Justice Project, The Houston Intersex Society, and other folks who are collaborating with researchers on these topics and of course just speaking up for these ideas, challenging these paradigms.” The paradigm of binary sex must be challenged by scientists working with those who are queer, trans, and intersex and creating opportunities for members of these communities to prevail in STEM fields themselves as well.

That's not what the bans are for. You can surely get bans passed IN FAVOUR of intersex kids because those are surgeries performed without the child's knowledge or consent. But these bans are for trans people - who INSIST they need that care or else they'll die. Intersex people don't get the same attention as trans people and it shows; unfortunately, them teaming up with troons will only turn more people against them.

Academic biologists whose bodies and lives are not consistently called into question by the heteronormative and binary paradigms recapitulated in disciplinary pedagogy may be unaware of their pervasiveness. While collective engagement is necessary for structural transformation, providing clearly defined additions or modifications to standard lessons can make it easier for a broader swath of instructors to begin creating change in their classrooms. Sharing resources and language swaps can help assuage concerns that substantial expertise or perfected fluency are necessary for bringing about a more queer, trans, and intersex inclusive perspective to biology classes. Several members of our roundtable offered specific texts (see Table 1), strategies, and learning objectives toward these ends.

AKA "change your language and your field of science to suit our needs, you fucking bigot."

A.K.L.: In my 100-level interdisciplinary gender, biology, and health course, I use Viloria and Nieto’s book The Spectrum of Sex: The Science of Male, Female, and Intersex (2020) to introduce sex during the first week of the semester.

The book is co-written by a scientist. Maria Nieto, who teaches biological sciences. Must be nice to lie.

The first discussion about sex, gender, and bodies centers Hida Viloria’s experience as an intersex person. In this same class period, we discuss terminology, and I tell them why I use specific, accurate terms, rather than gendered or sexed terms to refer to anatomical or physiological traits.

AKA these feminists are going to reduce you to your reproductive body parts, despite them saying how misogynistic that is. You are a 'uterus owner' and 'menstruator', they are the full human.

When I teach about the development of sex traits, we talk about how variable sex traits can be at any given moment and throughout a lifetime. I refer to the dominant paradigm as the binary sex paradigm and to this work as part of the sex-diverse paradigm. We also explore feminist psychology and feminist neuroscience where there are lively (and related) debates about binary sex and gender essentialism. Later in the semester, students read two of Cary Gabriel Costello’s Intersex Roadshow blogposts (Costello 2011a, b) and explore the InterACT website (InterACT: advocates for Intersex Youth) and read their FAQs and brochures.

That's nice, but how does that show sex isn't binary? We gotta double check these professors, man.

The life experiences and biological realities of queer, trans, and intersex people are frequently treated as strictly cultural phenomena or broadly erased (in the case of intersex individuals), precluding their consideration by academic biologists. However, in order to bring about recognition of and freedom from oppression for these populations, invested collaborations between biologists, humanities scholars, and community members are critical. As BS pointed out, the failure to consider LGBTQIA+individuals as equally natural, normal, and biological within cultures shaped by European colonial influence “is possible because academia is filled with disciplinary silos. I think that the more interdisciplinary we can be in historicizing what we do in our classrooms and in our research, students will understand how scientific knowledge is produced, and it will go a long way toward breaking some of these assumptions.” H.L. echoed a similar sentiment, “There is so much diversity of human thought, but science exists within culture, so what are you going to do besides work toward shifting culture? They work together in tandem.”

AKA they want scientists to undergo a struggle session to support them. Tranny terrorism, if you will.

While scientific research and teaching are often presented as objective, value-neutral, and devoid of social context, science is constitutively shaped by social, cultural, political, and historical factors. Our work interrogates these dynamics and intentionally includes perspectives from populations historically harmed and excluded through biomedical and evolutionary research on sex and sex diversity. This paper was co-authored by a group that includes both academics and activists, several of whom are members of the LGBTQIA+community. As such, we recognize that the dialogue of the roundtable and these resulting recommendations have been informed by our various experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, and identities. We draw on intersex activist work, as well as the fields of feminist science studies, gender studies, biology education, and comparative biology in our dialogue and recommendations.

"We are not true scientists, but we're gonna make demands of you anyways."

---

The second paper is from someone named Stacey Ritz, a professor of pathology and molecular medicine who claims there is no way to determine sex. The paper is here.

At the most basic biological level, sex is defined by gamete size. In species where the gametes are different sizes (called anisogamy), individuals producing the smaller gamete are defined as male, and those producing the larger gamete are female [11]. Anisogamy is often (though not always) associated with variation in other structures and traits, such as chromosomal complement, endocrine function, reproductive and sexual tissues and organs, and secondary sex characteristics, as well as other physiological and morphological variations not directly related to reproductive function (such as height or body composition). We offer definitions in Table 1 but emphasize that any attempt to pin down these complex and contested terms is inherently provisional, inevitably imperfect, and open to refinement.

Anisogamy is pretty cut and dry. Variations within sex - again - are not variations OF sex.

Although sex is typically categorized as male and female, it should be emphasized that no single attribute is necessary or sufficient to define the sex of an individual—not even gamete size.

And what is sex, then? What is sex based around? It wouldn't be...gamete size, would it?

Every trait associated with sex shows some degree of variation between individuals. Some scholars have conceptualized sex as being comprised of multiple ‘layers’, only one of which is represented by the configuration of external genitalia [14]. In other words, sex consists of numerous characteristics, factors, and processes that stretch across multiple levels of biological organization, and which have normal degrees of inter- and intra-individual variation over the developmental life course. Even sex chromosome complement is not absolutely definitive. There are forms of aneuploidy that generate combinations other than XX or XY, and genetic variants can mediate reproductive development in diverse ways, as in androgen insensitivity syndrome, XX male syndrome (de la Chapelle syndrome), congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and persistent Mullerian duct syndrome, among others. Further, loss of the Y chromosome in a proportion of cells is a known occurrence with age in otherwise healthy males [15]), and many of these traits vary within the same individual across the lifespan.

Again with the intersex argument. it appears even professional scientists cannot let it go. Karyotypes are not separate sexes. Even with these 'conceptual layers', these layers still have to be slotted into one of two slots. Tall males and short males are still male, even though there is a spectrum of height.

Rather than thinking of sex as indicating distinct, clear-cut binary categories of male and female, it may be more accurate to consider clusters or constellations of sex-related traits instead: constellations are collections of stars that humans have grouped together as meaningful and identifiable, but no single star itself defines the constellation, nor is any single star defined by its role in the constellation; likewise, no single trait is a definitive marker of sex, and nor is any individual trait the exclusive domain of one sex.

I have no idea why scientists say this with absolute confidence. If you cannot define what sex IS, you have no room to argue the need for 'diverse perspectives' regarding trans people because they aren't basing their identities on anything. If you cannot define sex, then you can't argue about things like reproduction, because that is determinant on sex - literal and figural. Even constellations of stars are classified into distinct categories.

It is common to see estrogen referred to as a ‘female hormone’, in spite of the fact that estrogens are present and serve vital biological functions in all bodies (influencing fat metabolism and fluid balance, DNA repair mechanisms, cognitive function, expression of coagulation factors, and increasing muscle mass, as well as spermatogenesis and libido in males) [16].

Yes, we know. We also know females produce more of it than males thanks to ovarian development.

Nor are estrogen levels clearly distinct between males and females. Prior to sexual maturation and after reproductive senescence, estrogen levels are very similar in males and females. Even in females during estrus or menstrual cycling, typical estradiol levels during certain stages overlap with the normal distribution of estradiol levels in males [17]. To use another example, even though it is often referred to as the ‘female chromosome’, the X chromosome is present and functional in every body [18]. Thus, it is misleading and not accurate to describe many traits like these as ‘female’ or ‘male’.

Not after puberty they don't. This paper has some pretty graphs explaining it.

Both males and females have an X chromosome, females just have an extra one. It is not inaccurate or misleading at all to point out certain traits are more common in males and vice versa.

Moreover, reliance on male–female binary conceptualizations of sex ignores the important realities of trans individuals and those with intersex variations and differences in sexual development (DSD), who represent a non-trivial proportion of the population [19,20,21]. Understanding ‘sex’ as a constellation of various elements and holding conceptual space for biological sexes that do not conform to hegemonic norms actually helps us to better understand the influences of sex-related factors on health: by reducing our reliance on a male–female binary, we not only make our scientific work more inclusive of the various configurations of bodies, but we also enhance our understanding of the functions of all bodies by directing our attention to mechanism rather than category.

Again, dumping developmental biology because the troons are upset. Even if we obey Ritz's rules, we are still going to have male and female intersex people.

Her stance on gender:

We feel it is crucial to emphasize that gender is much more than gender identity. Activism, heightened visibility, and recognition of trans and gender diverse people over the last decade has led many people to understand that sex observed and assigned at birth is not the same as one’s gender identity.

Spoiler: Sex vs gender sperging

Gendered experiences and ways of being in the world have material, biological impacts on the body with clear health implications. Fausto-Sterling has offered the example of bone density to illustrate this [23]. Since bones seem to be clearly biological and are affected by gonadal hormones, it can be tempting to attribute male–female differences in bone density to sex-related factors. However, there are also many gendered factors that influence bone density. Gendered occupational roles and recreational norms that can affect the type, intensity, and frequency of weight-bearing activities in which an individual participates. Similarly, exposure to sunshine stimulates vitamin D synthesis, which is important in bone homeostasis, and a wide range of gender-related factors influence sun exposure such as gendered clothing norms and religious veiling practices, health-seeking behaviors such as the use of sunscreen, and participation in outdoor occupations and recreation.

So Ritz just spent a few paragraphs telling you there is no such thing as male or female, before diving right in and arguing bone development is due to gender. Because Vitamin D access varies because if you wear a hoodie too much.

Even sex hormones themselves are affected by gender. Though our cultural narratives lead many people to believe that there is a one-way relationship where hormones drive behavior, the evidence indicates clearly that there are bidirectional influences. For example, behaving in competitive, dominant, or aggressive ways has been shown to increase testosterone [24,25,26,27], while engaging in nurturing behaviors decreases it [28,29]. In other words, the routes linking cells and society are short, and the ways that social influences permeate the body and get under the skin are myriad. Table 2 provides several examples of how gender-related influences can be translated into biology and have implications for health. Like the nature-nurture debate, it is rarely sex or gender determining the health outcome, as it is much more often both sex and gender interacting.

Except we know this is true based on our non-human primate cousins. Testosterone increases aggression and causes chimpanzees to rip each other's throats out without ever needing 'gender roles' reinforced by chimp society. These people really want everything to boil down to society and how restrictive it is.

Such discourses lead us to make generalizations such as “men are taller than women” or “females have lower hemoglobin than males”. Such generalizations are usually based on differences in means between populations of males and females but can obscure the fact that the actual distributions of those traits overlap considerably, may not be consistent across the lifespan, and that there is substantial heterogeneity within the categories of male and female. All of these aspects are important for biomedical researchers to consider in research design, analysis, and reporting.

This is that low IQ meme again: when you make a claim that men are taller than women, because of generalizations based on observable data, these retards will come in and go, 'But I know tall women!' It doesn't matter if there is overlap - the base claim does not change.

She outright denies the data here:

The actual distribution of such data rarely supports a neat division of males and females into distinct groups.

Yes it does, you fucking retard.

Indeed sex- and gender-related difference “commonly takes the form of average differences between females and males but with considerable overlap in distributions” [30]. In many instances, the sex or gender category of an individual is not a strong predictor of that individual’s behavior, expression of a trait, or response to a treatment [30,31].

Why was there a paragraph saying GENDER DIFFERENCES do just that?

While often worthy of noting, a male–female comparison showing a statistically significant difference in means does not, in itself, suggest that males and females function in fundamentally different ways, require distinct forms of treatment or intervention, or indicate that such differences are innate or natural.

"Fuck that data, it's transphobic."

Rather, it is a signal that alerts us to the presence of sex- and/or gender-related factors or processes that influence the outcomes of interest, and should motivate further investigation into relevant mechanisms [32]. Ultimately, any application of that knowledge can then be directed to the mechanism itself rather than to a sex or gender category. Indeed, there are parallels between the conceptualization and operationalization of sex/gender and race, in that researchers often treat(ed) race as though it were a simple categorical variable and failed to account for the mechanisms driving racial disparities in health (principally marginalization, discrimination, and stereotyping—in other words, racism—rather than biological or genetic endowment) [33].

You know this argument: blacks are sick because racism and 400 years of slavery, not because of their genetics. Gotta score both points, eh liberal white woman?

Here is the discussion on 'sex contextualism':

Richardson has articulated an alternative way of operationalizing sex in health research that she calls sex contextualism [35]. Under sex contextualism, it is possible and important to recognize and “attend to variation related to sex-differentiated developmental pathways” (p17). However, she also calls on researchers to determine which sex-related factors are relevant in their particular research context, and to operationalize them appropriately for the experimental setting. For example, Richardson discusses research funded by the US Department of Defense that examined the potential use of estradiol to protect against sepsis. A sex contextualist approach to this research could extend beyond a male–female comparison by testing the effect of estradiol treatment in a sepsis model in different hormonal milieux, by looking at males, females after reproductive senescence, females in different phases of the estrus cycle, pregnant mice, ovariectomized mice, or other states with varying estrogen levels.

But you're still using male and female mice, just in varying life stages.

On the 'every cell has a sex' factoid:

Work with in vitro cell cultures may particularly benefit from a sex contextualist approach. A report commissioned by the US Institute of Medicine in 2001 articulated the claim that “every cell has a sex” [36], principally associated with chromosomal endowment. In saying that ‘every cell has a sex’, the implication is that sex is a property that exists at the level of individual cells. However, if we understand sex as an entire constellation of traits, structures, and processes across multiple levels of organization, individual cells removed from their dynamic bodily context and grown in a homogeneous population in the closed system of a flask can only embody some aspects of what we mean by sex [37].

Yet they are still going to embody traits of that sex - the thing you say doesn't exist - BECAUSE THEY HOLD THE GENETIC INFORMATION FOR THE CODING OF THOSE TRAITS YOU WANT MEASURED DIFFERENTLY.

In experimental animal models, sex contextualism impels us to think beyond the male–female binary. Although it is important and useful to include both male and female animals in many cases, sex contextualism also asks what mechanisms could be driving male–female difference and calls for experimental designs that allow for manipulation or measurement of those causal pathways. Biomedical researchers (and health researchers more generally) should ask these kinds of questions at the hypothesis-generation stage of the research process, informed by a careful examination of the existing literature; this will allow us to build experiments that can shed light on these mechanisms, either through controlled manipulation of the pathways of interest and/or the collection of data that will shed light on mechanism.

> Says she wants to move past the male-female binary
> cannot find evidence of traits that go beyond said binary

Here's one recommendation:

For example, an allergy researcher could consider whether the human gender norms of discouraging girls from getting dirty while playing could affect allergy risk [41] by designing an experiment in which young mice are exposed to soil bacteria in their environment prior to implementing an experimental model of allergic sensitization.

That does not explain how those girls got those allergies in the first place, but whatever.

There is often a tendency to use phrases such as “sex-specific”, “sex-dependent”, or “sexual dimorphism” when describing the comparison of data from male and female groups, but in many cases these phrases may be overstating the case [42]. The words ‘specific’, ‘dimorphic’, and ‘dependent’ all evoke the idea of two distinct groups where an effect is seen in one group but not the other, but this is rarely the case for most instances where males and females are compared. “Sex difference” is also a common phrase used when comparing data from males and females. Although ‘difference’ does not evoke the idea of a clear binary with quite the same force, it is probably valuable to articulate the specific nature of the difference observed and to offer some discussion about potential mechanisms. Most often where a male–female comparison indicates some difference, it is a difference in means, and this should be specified and reflected in the wording.

Wanna know something funny? Her own data plots were categorized into two neat little plots. A binary. You have to love it.

The phrases “the influence of sex” or “the effect of gender” tend to suggest that ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are simple, singular entities. In our work, we have found it useful to use the phrase “the influences of sex- or gender-related factors” because it explicitly reminds the audience that sex and gender are complex constructs composed of multiple elements. In many cases, if asked about how sex or gender might influence a given outcome, it would be common to default immediately to a male–female comparison. In contrast, if asked to think about what sex- and/or gender-related factors might influence a given outcome, one is explicitly directed to think about mechanisms, processes, and interactions, rather than categories. This is useful for biomedical scientists not only because it reduces reliance on male–female binaries, but also because it helps to direct attention to the relevant variables that could be incorporated into experimental designs.

Sex is a construct, but also we need to implement these complex variables because we need to test for something that doesn't exist.

Here is the data Ritz says won't be sorted into neat little binary graphs:



Notes on gender:


Annnnnnnnnnd where do those differences in immune function and musculoskeletal differences come from? Not playing enough basketball?

 

[Positron]

As addressed in the complementary article in this symposium collection,” the paradigm of binary sex needs a revolution."

If you use Kuhn's terms, you should at least read what Kuhn wrote. A "paradigm shift" or a "scientific revolution" does not happen because of a bunch of philosophers and queer studists say it needs to happen. It happens when the previous paradigm has generated too much anomalies that cannot be explained away with auxiliary hypotheses. This lead to a "crisis" which only gets resolved through a "paradigm shift" or "revolution".

Is there a crisis about binary sex? Are there findings within sexual biology that cannot be explained by male-female dichotomy? Such observations that "Some male birds incubate eggs" or "Some female mice mounts conspecifics" can be easily accommodated with auxiliary hypotheses. Perhaps there are indeed "crises" in binary sex, but I suspect these are personal rather than scientific in nature, and can better be resolved with a length of rope.

no single star itself defines the constellation.

And they think that is a sensible rebuttal to binary sex?! Yes, scientists often talk about "a constellation of traits /symptoms/ etc", But to think that because scientists use the constellation metaphor, the phenomenon or disease that underlie those traits or symptoms must be an artificial construct is to succumb to crass linguistic determinism: Sapir-Whorf strikes again!

 

[Incredible Mister]

The more i think about this the more i realize how counterproductive their language is, they constantly claim that intersex conditions destroy the sex binary, but no one with normal chromosomes has ever identified as having Klinefelter or turner syndrome. all these attempts to destroy perfectly functional terminology will accomplish is allow them to pretend that they are "totally real men/women" and act as though the term "biological woman" never existed, ironically everything they do affirms the binary.

 

[Chandelier]

For the longest time I wondered how troons in the biological sciences would reconciliate their beliefs with hard evidence. As it turns out, they don't: they readily complain and say they are being erased. I'll let them speak for themselves. Article here.

There is a lot of talk about 'master narratives', that is, the dominant mode of thinking. This paper is less a scientific one than an opinion piece, and it gets better as it goes along.

Highlights below are mine.

Plant biology stumps biology students? Weird. It's pretty obvious they still produce only two gamete types.


Troons find STEM difficult? Say it ain't so.

Troons fail to stay in class because it is too triggering:


Hmm, the identities of these people surely won't impact what they're writing, right?

Identities of Those Conducting the Study​

This study was performed by a team of STEM education researchers, including an assistant professor in biology, an assistant professor in biology education, a STEM education research scientist with a background in biology, a gender and orientation educator, and an undergraduate student majoring in psychology who has a background in biology. All three faculty and scientist members of the research team have seven or more years of experience performing STEM education research and also have experience teaching undergraduate biology courses. Within our research team, queer gender, queer orientation, and cisgender identities, as well as white and Hispanic-Indigenous racial and ethnic identities are represented. Our identities provided us with a range of insider and outsider perspectives regarding orientation and gender identities; student and educator perspectives; and different racial, ethnic, and cultural perspectives. Collectively, our diversity of identities helped us to interpret students’ experiences from a range of perspectives.

So...no actual scientists, and a bunch of struggle sessions. BTW, they didn't actually include any diverse students. They only recruited from a single Hispanic queer school:

We recruited students with queer genders from a single Hispanic-serving institution. These students attended an urban university in the southeastern United States that draws the majority of its students from the surrounding three counties and is primarily a commuter school.

Diversity. And there were only five picked. This paper is based on the opinion of FIVE people of gender. There were three Latinos, one white, one Hapa, and one Asian. No blacks or Indigenous. 3 are involved in a somewhat heavy science, being biomedical engineering, biological sciences, and women's studies with a focus on biomed.

Here is how the troons felt about their biology courses:

Gender Essentialism.​

The master narrative of gender essentialism manifested in two primary ways in the classroom when topics related to sex and gender were discussed, such as sex chromosomes, gametes, plant reproduction, animal reproduction, and sex determination. First, students described the absence of any discussion around variation that exists in biology outside the gender essentialist pathway: There were no discussions of sexes beyond the binary, there rarely were discussions of gender roles beyond traditional gender roles, and there were no discussions of gender and its relationship to sex during class or in out-of-class assignments. For example, Student 1 shared this about discussions of animal diversity:



We just focus on how the male species appeals to the female species by flapping their feathers. Very heteronormative … like, if you identify as male then it’s your job to go after the woman. It’s your job to like this, and this, and that…

OK, premed queer, you don't 'identify' as a male. You are or you aren't. Birds don't have a goddamn gender identity so I don't know why they're getting fussy over this. The fact their feathers are bright and colourful is because of sexual selection.

This discussion, which limited who males should be attracted to and how they should behave, reinforced ideas of gender as binary and the naturalness of traditional gender roles. Student 1 found the same limited perspectives in out-of-class assignments:



I would definitely say that the narrative is very binary. The way the professor translates information, it’s very binary. The worksheets, the application projects: really binary. Just like on a scale of one to ten, ten being super clear and super cool, they’ll probably fall around three.

Like yikes, dood. How dare species outside of superior humans not perform the roles you want them to.

A second way the gender essentialism master narrative manifested was that biology professors demonstrated explicit support of the notion that there are only males and females. Students 1, 2, and 3 all described instances of hearing explicit messages from biology professors upholding binary conceptions of sex and gender. For example, Student 2 shared:



[My biology professor] would share her opinions on it and it made me want to stay silent…. She disagreed with the fact that people change their gender identity. She thinks whatever you were born, you should stay and that’s who you are don’t try to change it.

What a TERF(and very based). I want to meet her.

Student 3’s professor also explicitly upheld the sex binary as an immutable biological fact: “My professor said there are only two [sexes] and that’s according to biology and it’ll never change.” Another way instructors supported the binary was through the design of activities that reinforce it. Student 1 experienced such an activity. They were in a biology class where “the professor [said,] ‘Let’s divide into groups … just like all the boys go over here and the girls over here’… and there isn’t a category for me.” This instructor assumed every student fit into one of two categories, and this activity demonstrated that belief by leaving no room for students who did not identify as “boy” or “girl.”

It is immutable, because you haven't provided any solid evidence otherwise. Still waiting for troons to take up on the offer to find the third gamete.

The students wanted the professors to blather on about trans rights:

Instructor silence around sexes and genders beyond binary man and woman was a common manifestation of the narrative of attempted neutrality. Students perceived that their instructors considered these sexes and genders to be controversial or too political. This motivation for silence was exemplified by Student 4’s perception of instructor choices around what to talk about: “[Biology professors] they’re really neutral, they just choose not to speak about [sex and gender beyond the binary]. They think it’s touchy and they want to be politically correct.” Student 5 shared their perception of why this silence occurs:



There was a concerted effort to simply just stay away from [conversations about gender and sex outside the binary], to be safe. It was intentional in the fact that they [the instructor] didn’t want to offend or hurt anybody but they would simply stay away, just drop the topic, but they wouldn’t necessarily go either/or in terms of invalidating it or in terms of making a point to reaffirm it.

I wonder why they'd think that. It couldn't possibly be because of the mouthy, entitled Latine saying biology is offensive. These professors can lose their jobs because of these people.

Student 1 had a similar experience. Another student asked about how the content related to being transgender, and the instructor “was like, we’re not gonna talk about that in this class.” Some of the students in our study believed this avoidance of queer sexes and genders was motivated by instructors trying to not offend any students. Student 3 discussed how this avoidance impacted them, because it led to a lack of clarity about how safe it would be to reveal their gender identity to their professors: “[Students] definitely have to guess. It’s not very clear or apparent what [biology professors’] opinions are.”

I can clock you right away.

Spoiler: They complain about not belonging

Students’ sense of belonging in biology was negatively impacted by curriculum reinforcing binary sex and gender (gender essentialism master narrative) and uncertainty about what instructors and peers believed about genders beyond man and woman (neutrality narrative). Students described a range of experiences that cumulatively harmed their sense of belonging, including feelings of exclusion, cognitive dissonance, lack of identity safety, and reduced ability to form relationships with instructors and peers.

That's right: any discussion harms them, but they want open discussion, and neutral discussion still offends them. This is why biology is getting more and more pozzed.

Exclusion was the experience of feeling unwelcome or different in biology courses because of a student’s queer gender. Exclusion manifested for Student 4 when the professor discussed topics that reified sex and gender as a binary; this feeling of exclusion was furthered by their peers’ apparent agreement with the gender essentialist narratives being taught in class.

Human evolution is triggering to these people.

The moment that [sex and gender topics] come up in class, I look around and people are in agreement with it.… If the professor said [the color] is red, it’s red. They’re not looking to challenge these ideas. They’re not looking into the exception; they’re not asking these questions…. It makes me extremely uncomfortable around my peers. I’m not close with my peers in my science classes as much as I am close with my peers [in other classes].

If I was the professor, I'd ask these little border hoppers that they can prove the existence of these other sexes any time. Get your data and your work and let's replicate it. See if it sticks.

Exclusion also occurred through the design of course activities, such as the activity in which Student 1’s class was split into teams of boys or girls, and Student 1 did not have a team to go to (discussed in Theme 1). Student 1 also experienced a second course activity, a course survey, as exclusionary due to its design:



You fill out contact information forms … and there’s gender identity, and it goes woman, man, other. Why would you “other” someone? Like really like other? So I’m an other.… That’s just … really dehumanizes people. In that sense, and I’ve experienced that in a lot of classes in science classes and we have to do like you know questionnaires or so fill in forms or whatnot.

You can immediately clock this person as female. Like??? Dehumanizes people? Ugh.

Reinforcement of binary sex also led to experiences of cognitive dissonance, or mental discomfort due to navigating conflicting beliefs. Student 3 discussed how the cognitive dissonance between their experience of gender and what their biology instructor taught them about sex as a binary during a discussion of cell division made them feel discomfort in class:



I felt a little bit overwhelmed and kind of confused because … what he was saying and what I was feeling were very contradictory … [and] it kind of stuck with me, obviously. I usually trust whatever my professors say; I don’t even, like, look too into it. But … he was so adamant … and I was like: I don’t know if I agree. I didn’t know how else to verify I was correct, because the professor [was] telling me this like I should … trust him. But I just didn’t. I didn’t feel right about it.

Did you hear that? Talking about CELL DIVISION caused these troons to undergo cognitive dissonance and literally shut their brains off. "I just don't trust my professor?" well then I guess you need to go find other troons to validate your delusions, eh?

While explicitly exclusionary views expressed by instructors and peers were harmful, students also discussed the stress created by not knowing what people thought. Students assumed they were not safe while staying continually alert for cues about what others believed about queer gender identities. All participants mentioned this lack of identity safety, the experience of not being sure whether one’s queer gender will be accepted in the biology community. Student 5 described this uncertainty:



If you don’t see the safe zone sticker, if [professors] don’t initiate the conversation, can we really share who we are with them? …Cis-het students have it so much easier because … they don’t have that barrier of having to … come out to [their] Professor. Are they going to accept me? They don’t have to do that.

Talking about biology literally threatens them. If you need concrete proof of them being histrionic little bitches, cite this paper.

TL;DR little troons actively get upset over CELL DIVISION and undergo cognitive dissonance because the basic science of human reproduction makes them feel unsafe. I am not joking.

It does not get better:

Master narratives in biology also influenced students’ interest in the discipline—both their interest to continue in the major as well as their more specific interest in the content. Student 4, who started college as a biology major, described how her lack of belonging and the lack of content on her identities in biology reduced her interest in pursuing biology.



I feel like there’s just like … a lack of piqued interest because they always talk about [sex as a binary]. It would have been interesting if they [added] a little spice…. I think that, looking back, I can say that I felt less accepted and more invisible. I had to hide my identity more, so in that sense [biology] didn’t have the extra “oomf” effects my [new major’s] classes did that meant want to keep going and learning and sticking to it … If they did say more about gender and did teach more about the spectrum, then I would have been more likely to stay…. I think I could confidently say that, but also who knows.

"Talking about the sex binary literally threatened my life. I want professors to change because otherwise I'll die."

Student 5’s quote exemplifies how content that went beyond the binary—hermaphroditic (i.e., monecious) plants—increased their interest:



The one that I always think about is talking about all the hermaphroditic plants…. These variances, um, can be found in in all of nature in all animals … I found that really interesting that I guess the way in which it’s described as like maybe just a human phenomenon, or some a select subgroup of people want to do their own thing and think their own thoughts and this is so weird when it’s ubiquitous in nature. However, students in our study rarely, if ever, described having experiences like this in their biology classes.

That's nice lil dood...but those plants don't disprove the binary. The very term 'hermaphrodite' means presence of both.

Importantly, students in our study believed that the reduced interest due to binary representation of sex was experienced by all students, not just students with queer genders.

These are only FIVE shits saying this, btw.

Finally, students with queer genders also recognized how biology classes were missing an opportunity to educate students about diverse sexes and genders. This impacted them and their cisgender peers. Student 1 directly called out the importance of integrating queer identities and the diversity that exists within biology into the curriculum for the knowledge of all students in the class.



You’re teaching a class of people who are going to be scientists, people going to be researchers, people who’re gone to be healthcare providers. It brings a huge effect … to a lot of other people’s lives, and I would expect with them to be aware [of] that. I felt like that was such a good opportunity. To go over… and to reconstruct what gender and sex is in society, but I guess the professor just didn’t, wasn’t really aware of that.

No, you are just demanding that the professor get buck broken and listen to your bitchy demands, demands that aren't even based on anything rational because, to their own admission, they did not pay attention in class.

Exemplifying Student 1’s point about the importance of curriculum in educating all students about the spectrum of genders and sexes, the lack of education in biology classes impacted Student 3’s personal understanding of gender: “I was like, what is the difference between sex and gender? What is gender? What is sex? I don’t know. I never learned that. They never told me what gender was.”

You're in a biology class, not a gender studies class, pendejo.

Biology class literally threatens them:

Experiencing a lack of acceptance and safety outside the classroom impacted what some students need inside the classroom to feel like they belong or are safe. Several of the students described how—without explicit signals of safety—they did not assume a space was safe; instead, they often assumed the opposite. Student 1 explained succinctly: “If you’re not setting a clear line, you’re building more ambiguity and it in turn reinforces heteronormativity and cisgenderism.” Student 1 also described how this ambiguity related to their experiences of safety in the classroom:



I think subconsciously in almost every biology class that I’m taking the first instinct is to hide.… I wait until someone takes the initiative or you know something is mentioned [in class] regarding my identity, then I feel a little bit seen … but waiting doesn’t mean that it will happen because a lot of times it doesn’t.


Similarly, Student 3 shared that without explicitly being given a reason to feel like they belong, they felt disconnected in their biology classes: “I don’t really feel like I have a reason to belong. I’m kind of floating around. There is no link. I don’t belong, I don’t not belong.”

Jesus fucking Christ.

GIMME GIMME GIMME

I want there to be a space open that’s not necessarily only in the binary. I want people to know that there’s other things beside the binary and like we should discuss these things in biology. It should be taught … inclusive. That’s something I didn’t experience.

More on nutty students:

In contrast to the experiences of Students 3 and 4, Students 1, 2, and 5 did experience some content in their biology courses that challenged the master narrative of gender essentialism. These examples included plants that produce both eggs and sperm, lions with same-sex sexual behavior, lizards and fish that change sex over their life spans, and chromosome combinations beyond XX and XY. Instructors did not seem to intentionally hold these examples up to counter gender essentialism, but some of the students used them to bolster personal alternative narratives. For example, Student 5 described how they found the discussion of hermaphroditic plants interesting, particularly because sex and gender beyond the binary are often framed as only a human thing.

Karyotypes are not separate sexes (ad nauseum). And we are not fish.

My professor … was talking about hermaphroditic plants, so it was really interesting because it’s something I never knew of and seeing how [queer sex and gender topics] that often seem just human are really just like ubiquitous in all of nature, even within plants … seeing the reality of hermaphroditic species in plants is really interesting. Because you see that sexual and gender variance, um, well sex, even within plants, who are so like the opposite of us.

You may not be a plant, but that doesn't stop me thinking and concluding you're as retarded as one.

On being asked if being gay was genetic, another student had a mental breakdown:

This is illustrated by an incident described by Student 2. Student 2 was placed in an uncomfortable situation when a fellow student asked their instructor if being gay was genetic during a discussion of Mendelian genetics and Punnett squares. This question made them feel uncomfortable, because they felt like sexual orientation was being distilled into a simple dichotomy, and the teaching assistant did not use the situation as an opportunity to discuss the complexity of polygenic traits.

Again, this was based on interviews of FIVE students, and each example is them almost literally crying over being exposed to new ideas. Cell division? Threats on zhem's life. Anisogamy? Genocide. Asking if being gay is genetic? Holocaust.

Professors are literally stepping on egg shells with these people. And when they aren't doing that, they're trooning out and writing opinion pieces saying sex doesn't exist.

 

[Positron]

I have one issue that must get out of my mind at once. Under the "multiple variables and levels" paradigm, how do troons know their own sex? However they define sex, they must accept that sex is ontologically real, because they act pretty offended when other people deny their proclaimed sex. Yet they never say, "I know I'm a woman because of this laundry list of biological variables"; it is always just "It's MA'AM!!!!!". Troons like Colin Montegomerie love to retort people "If you haven't seen your chromosomes l, how can you tell you're a woman?". If troons think this is adequate rebuttal against "terves", I am sorry to inform them that it would be a stronger rebuttal against their own side, if human sex were not solely determined by chromosomes, but by a basket of variables.

And how would " misgendering" be a crime, if the troon never disclose his basket of biological variables and othet people have no way of knowing about them?

Re: Biological Essentialism. It is wrong to posit that observed variations within a biological category as evidence against Biological Essentialism (the belief that some "essence", such as genes or development network, inheres in each and every member of a biological category, such as species or sex, snd define that category). As Michael Dewitt argues in his book Biological Essentialism, an essence explains how an organism develops normally in "normal" environment, just as well as how the organism develops abnormally in an abnormal environment. For a factitious, purely illustrative example, a 46XY human, under normal conditions, develops into an adult who calls himself a "man" and desires sexual relationships with a 46XX human. Put him under an abnormal environment, such as an all-you-can-watch diet of sissy hypno, he'll develop into an adult who calls himself a "woman" who likes to spin in his dress. And the important point is: both outcomes are partly attributable to the Y-chromosome, since XX women won't get bimbo-fied by sissy hypno!

 

[AnOminous]

Is there a crisis about binary sex?

Not really. The prevailing theory still explains everything that matters to sane people. Males have motile gametes, females have stationary and larger gametes that are fertilized by male gametes.

Everything troons claim is pure hallucination and delusion. No males with motile gametes fertilize the motile gametes of other males resulting in offspring. It doesn't happen because it's physically impossible. Some faggot changing his Twitter pronouns doesn't cause it to happen.

Only a male and female gamete can produce offspring. Bill Nye the troon cult guy can gibber and drool all he likes. It won't happen without both an ACTUAL male gamete and an ACTUAL female gamete. Retards can "identify" however they like. Reproduction will not occur because some pervert "identifies" as some "gender" that he isn't.

There's no crisis in biological reality about this at all.

The only crisis is the mental crisis of severely mentally ill lunatics who are deeply disturbed by the reality that says they're full of bullshit.

 

[SimplyScrumptious]

'inclusive language

Ah yes, the two sexes. Androgen & Estrogen. With their two determined gonads, penis and vagina. We used “sex” fine before this movement so whatever to that suggestion. Estrogenisation/androgenisation would just come to mean feminisation/masculinisation due to the link with your sex that was determined at birth by visual confirmation of gonads. Sex variability is already known and, as pointed out by the “in specific comparisons”, its purpose depends on the study’s intent.

Honestly? Researchers don’t have the time to sort through study participants and run all the extra tests, most of the troons would be binned as their results wouldn’t meet their criteria anyway. So often he fails to give explanations or solutions to these new and improved terminologies. All this rambling for “inclusive and non-binary” language just reinforces the binary, except different words are used. It seems that he wants to encourage rather lengthy sentences to explain something simple.
“A biological female” becomes “a determined vagina-haver at birth”.
“A biological male wants to start female hormone therapy for feminisation and transition to female” becomes “a determined penis-haver at birth wants to undergo estrogen hormone therapy for estrogenisation to transition”

Kudos to you for managing to read this paper lol. In typical Troon fashion it looks like studies weren’t actually read and the ‘supporting’ evidence was plucked in the hope that no one can be bothered to read more.

And once more them screaming that sex and gender are different, and neither exist or are binary, and that’s sex hormones are all the same, just smashes their previous statement that hrt and surgery to transition to the opposite sex is a necessary and should be free. Without this binary there would be no euphoria. Everything they fucking say is a contradiction. And nothing is ever good enough as they keep recreating their inclusive terms list. (Eventually we will be reduced down to a human presenting entity with observed phallic like gonads at birth, who identifies as a non-phallic observed at birth human entity, that is taking estrogenisation therapy… which will then be replaced by another overly complicated thing)

Honestly these cunts are so fucking loud and obnoxious that I genuinely think they could be using their voices and reach for good & incite positive and real change, yet they want to die on this fucking anthill. I’m surprised they don’t claim transdisablism and transracialism for maximum oppression points lmao.

 

[thefreshmaker]

“A biological female” becomes “a determined vagina-haver at birth”.
“A biological male wants to start female hormone therapy for feminisation and transition to female” becomes “a determined penis-haver at birth wants to undergo estrogen hormone therapy for estrogenisation to transition”

It's the exact same thing that happens in every other sphere with euphemisms; a word is considered in poor taste as a direct reference to some taboo, a euphemism is applied, and then the euphemism becomes taboo and the cycle starts again.

What's strange about it this time though is that no one but these crazy fools think using the words various that refer to men and women (or males and females of any species) are just generally offensive and must be stamped out. Things like not being able to say "male and female", "men and women", "boys and girls", but then "he/him/his" or "she/her/hers" being mandatory is giving severe whiplash to most people and making them angry. People don't like using words like "chest=feeding" (especially when a "chest" cannot give milk). It's entirely artificial, and artificial movements need people to get behind them to be successful amongst the population. See: retard/special, handicapped/disabled, etc.

Honestly these cunts are so fucking loud and obnoxious that I genuinely think they could be using their voices and reach for good & incite positive and real change, yet they want to die on this fucking anthill. I’m surprised they don’t claim transdisablism and transracialism for maximum oppression points lmao.

They could have just said they only want your weird uncle to not get looks in public when he wears a wig and people would not have occurred. They die on the hills they do because the goal is societal division in the main. This is just the current weird obsessive issue to do it.

 

[cybertoaster]

I think the term SRS should be changed for PGS.

That is:

Plastic
Genital
Surgery

Because that's what transpeople are getting, there's no "gender reassignment", it doesn't exist, and part of ending this mass delusion that is trans "culture" is not using their propaganda terms anymore.

 

[Incredible Mister]

It's the exact same thing that happens in every other sphere with euphemisms; a word is considered in poor taste as a direct reference to some taboo, a euphemism is applied, and then the euphemism becomes taboo and the cycle starts again.

What's strange about it this time though is that no one but these crazy fools think using the words various that refer to men and women (or males and females of any species) are just generally offensive and must be stamped out. Things like not being able to say "male and female", "men and women", "boys and girls", but then "he/him/his" or "she/her/hers" being mandatory is giving severe whiplash to most people and making them angry. People don't like using words like "chest=feeding" (especially when a "chest" cannot give milk). It's entirely artificial, and artificial movements need people to get behind them to be successful amongst the population. See: retard/special, handicapped/disabled, etc.

a lot of progressive academia is focused on the redefining of words and control over language, its been tried with racism (P+P=R) and now its being tried with gender. this has never done anything but reduce the utility of perfectly functional terminology. i don't like to be that guy, but its like they read 1984 and thought newspeak was actually a really Kewl idea

 

[Positron]

we’re asking questions like ‘why do we have different types of males that do different things’ or ‘why are these sex roles reversed between male and female.’ These are inherently rooted in the fact that we have a culture that looks at this as a binary, but birds and lizards don’t care!”

I suspect they don't about your language games either.

I feel sorry for the Biology students who have nutty classmates who hog the instructor's time, likewise those instructors who are put on the spot by those who are unqualified to study Biology (indeed study anything . It is deplorable that academia rewards willful ignorance, and speaking the truth, or even launching a well-considered opinion, will land you in their kangaroo court. In a sensible world the instructor could have said, "Both homosexuality and transsexualism are learned behaviours. When learned behaviours become established, they are very hard to change and therefore give the illusion of being 'innate' or 'born that way'. The evidence that either has a biological basis is very weak. BTW animals can exhibit learned behaviours too; those who own a pet will know. Enough. We are talking reproduction in plants, so lets go back to our discussion: what do you think are the evolutionary pressures that led to the reduction of the gametophytes in angiosperms?"

 

[thefreshmaker]

i don't like to be that guy, but its like they read 1984 and thought newspeak was actually a really Kewl idea

Can't wait for the 11th edition of the Newspeak Dictionary, only 26 years away!

In a sensible world the instructor could have said, "Both homosexuality and transsexualism are learned behaviours. When learned behaviours become established, they are very hard to change and therefore give the illusion of being 'innate' or 'born that way'. The evidence that either has a biological basis is very weak. BTW animals can exhibit learned behaviours too; those who own a pet will know. Enough. We are talking reproduction in plants, so lets go back to our discussion: what do you think are the evolutionary pressures that led to the reduction of the gametophytes in angiosperms?"

It's column A and column B. You can absolutely have cases of "learned" homosexuality, eg: prison culture, but that does not discount the evidence for sexuality (and attraction in general) being "innate" as well. If these things were simply learned then you could replace Big Brother's face with cocks and YOU ARE WATCHING GAY PORN everywhere and have 90% of the population gay in a few years. The reality is unlikely to be that way; you'll get a not insignificant social contagion of people trying to match societal expectations or trends, and the vast majority will ignore it or only temporarily indulge in it if they go for long periods without any other form of release or stimulation. You'll certainly get a couple percentage points of people saying "wow I never knew cocks could look so great" but ultimately it will be negligible, like all abnormalities. Likewise, the prevalence of homosexuality increasing with each new spawn as a woman has more male children is unlikely to be purely genetic or "innate" factors. It is, like many things, a spectrum of influences coming together and causing the oddity.

Not everyone who gets molested becomes a fag, and not every family with three or four sons have gay kids.

 

[Hassou Tobi]

Good overview of current knowns and unknowns about puberty blockers.

https://quillette.com/2024/03/25/banning-puberty-blockers-bernard-lane/

“Baxendale’s paper had previously been rejected by three other journals—not because of any fault with the science, but because anonymous reviewers were uncomfortable with its findings, which suggest that there is little evidence to support the benefits of puberty blockers.”

 

[Chandelier]

This paper from 2021 boasts about breaking the binary. References feminist and gender theory. I'm sure that'll go over well. Paper here.

Right off the bat we have 'eugenicist ideas'. That's right: talking about 'normalcy' means you want to kill all blacks and 6 million Jews.




They later reference Ainsworth, who later admitted she never said there were more than two sexes. Admits that breaking the binary means eliminating white male hegemony:


Talking about sex differences is bad because it makes troons feel bad:


First of all, male and female infants do not have the same levels of testosterone. Males already get a burst of it during mini-puberty, and this remains high until puberty proper. The paper he is referencing discusses testosterone spikes in fathers, not infants.

The author goes on to say estrogen is not a 'female' hormone, and testosterone is not a male hormone.

Normal people don't threaten suicide over not getting breast implants or Viagra. Women who actually need HRT are told to wait in line or that they don't matter because troons say they need it more.

Damn you white males, you and your cissy science!

Has a bit on sex differences in the brain and IQ, which was actually pretty good. It did not take long for it to spiral downwards, however:

Calls Caster Semenya a 'cisgender female', when Caster has 5-ARD, meaning he has internal testes that produce testosterone. Unsure if the rumours about him siring a kid are true, but if he produces sperm, yes, he is 100% male.

Oh, and don't deadname a corpse. Respect their gender identity.

There are no sex differences in cortisol levels. Don't assume a biological basis; assume sexism instead.


It discusses sex hormones in women, despite insisting that sex isn't binary and estrogen is not a female hormone:

A bit on 'minority stress', which, btw, was tested and found not to replicate. AKA it doesn't exist.



They plan to unpack that. How? By using Black feminist theory and critical race theory, of course!


They admit it's all about intersectionality:


Despite saying there is no such thing as 'male or female' hormones, the authors stress they are indeed important, while also saying there are no differences because both males and females have testosterone and estrogen.

They admit they want to 'destabilize' the debate around sex being binary:

And do you think they actually unpacked anything? That would be a no. There was no evidence showing that their conclusions were true or that the evidence backed them up. The bit on mini puberty was wrong as well; females get a spike of estrogen at 2 years of age; males get a spike of testosterone at 24 weeks in utero and again at 6 months. This paper goes through the clear differences - and they are actually measured. Take a look at how this paper is written compared to the one above:

During minipuberty, an increase in the number of Sertoli cells [31] and germ cells [32] is observed in the testicles. As Sertoli cells do not express an androgen receptor during infancy, the rise in testosterone during minipuberty does not induce spermatogenesis [33]. However, the postnatal transient activation of the HPG axis seems to play an important role in fertility in boys. Several studies in cryptorchidic boys showed an insufficient maturation of gonadocytes into type A-dark spermatocytes [34]. Even after timely orchidopexy, there is a risk of infertility (38% in bilateral cryptorchidism [35]), but an improved fertility index can be obtained after treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog during the first year of life prior to orchidopexy [36]. This supports the hypothesis that cryptorchidism is not the cause of infertility, but rather a sign of a disturbed HPG axis. According to this hypothesis, the abnormal HPG axis and ensuing defective minipuberty influence future infertility. The current European guideline for urology from 2016 therefore suggests offering treatment with a GnRH analog to boys with bilateral undescended testes to improve their fertility outcome [37]. On the other hand, there are studies showing a higher rate of germ cell apoptosis in adults after prepubertal human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) treatment for cryptorchidism [38]. As there is a lack of evidence of long-term efficacy to improve fertility by hormonal treatment, the current guideline of the American Urology Association from 2014 [37] and the consensus of the Nordic countries from 2007 [39] do not recommend hormone therapy. Further studies evaluating adult fertility and the potential side effects after preoperative GnRH therapy during the first year of life are therefore urgently required. In animal models, Li et al. [40] (using LC-MS/MS) and Chen et al. [41] (using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay [ELISA]) showed that the postnatal transient testosterone surge influences gonocyte transformation and testicular function in male rats and mice.

In girls, there is less evidence to support the influence of minipuberty on fertility and development of the genital organs, buta positive correlation of the mammary gland diameter and estradiol (RIA) at the age of 3 months has been described [42]. Furthermore, in preterm girls, a positive correlation between urinary estradiol (LC-MS/MS) and uterine growth as well as mammary gland diameter has been observed [19]. There are no data available concerning longer-lasting effects of estradiol concentration during minipuberty on fertility or breast and uterine development in adult women.

And they say none of these things matter.

 

[Wallace]

Incidence, Complications, and Long-term Outcomes of Gender-affirming Phalloplasty: Analysis of a Large Statewide Population-based Dataset​

Objective: To evaluate the incidence of gender-affirming phalloplasty and postoperative complications in a large population-based dataset.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study was done using the California Department of Health Care Access and Information datasets which include patient-level data from all licensed hospitals, emergency departments, and ambulatory surgery facilities in California. Adult patients 18 years or older undergoing gender-affirming phalloplasty in California from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 were included. We examined phalloplasty-related complications using International Classification of Disease diagnosis and procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology codes. Unique record linkage number identifiers were used to follow patients longitudinally. Statistical analysis included Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis.

Results: We identified 766 patients who underwent gender-affirming phalloplasty in 23 facilities. Of 475 patients with record linkage numbers, 253 (55.3%) had subsequent re-presentations to the inpatient, emergency department, and ambulatory surgery settings related to phalloplasty complications. Survival analysis indicated that 50% of patients re-presented by 1year post-phalloplasty. Asian/Pacific Islander patients had lower risk of complications, and California residents had higher risk of complications.

Conclusion: This population-based study confirms that gender-affirming phalloplasty has a high complication rate, and demonstrates for the first time an association with high rates of return to hospitals, emergency departments, and ambulatory surgery centers. These findings provide additional higher-level evidence that may aid patient counseling, shared surgical decision-making, and institutional and government policy.