Ideological Capture

How Denial of the Sex-Binary Corrupts Academic & Scientific Media & Institutions

2024-06-17

A review of several academic and scientific publications, articles which reveal an alarming disregard for scientific rigour and which promote pseudoscience by denying the binarity of biological sex.

Sommaire en français Une discussion de plusieurs publications académiques et scientifiques, des articles qui révèlent un mépris alarmant de la rigueur scientifique et qui promeuvent la pseudoscience en niant la binarité du sexe biologique.

As is well known (or at least was, until recently when groupthink conquered all), sex is a binary biological phenomenon, defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ovum) which the individual can produce. Male and female are the only sexes. Even rare “intersex” individuals represent anomalous conditions in which one or both sexes are inconsistently implemented, not some intermediate sex. And yet, it has become fashionable to assert the falsehood that sex is on a continuum, a spectrum, or that it is arbitrary, nothing more than a social construct. One particularly bizarre expression of this pseudoscientific claim is the allegation that sex is “assigned at birth” when in reality the sex of a foetus can be monitored during gestation and the sex of the baby is observed at birth.

Those who deny the sex binary (i.e. who promote what I call “sex-binary denialism” or “gender ideology”) propagate several false ideas about this issue.

  1. They lump sexual orientation, i.e. gay men and lesbians, with gender dysphoria, i.e. trans persons, thus conflating two populations and two issues which are very distinct from each other.
  2. They conflate biological sex, which is strictly binary, with gender, whose definition is not biological and refers to human behaviour in terms of social roles stereotypically or traditionally associated with men and/or women. Biological sex is not on a continuum, but gender may be considered so. Judith Butler is one philosopher who explicitly encourages this confusion.
  3. They use very rare intersex conditions as an excuse to reject the sex-binary, when in fact these conditions are simply anomalies in the development of one or both sexes.

    4. They claim that saying sex is binary harms human rights, in particular the rights of trans persons. This is nonsense.

  4. They claim that saying sex is binary harms human rights, in particular the rights of trans persons. This is nonsense. In fact, the opposite is true. If sex is not binary but rather arbitrary, just a social construct, then the terms “man,” “woman” and “sexual orientation” lose their meaning, compromising the rights of women, lesbians and gay men. Furthermore, this erasure of sex also erases trans persons, because if “male” and “female” are arbitrary constructs, then what is the purpose or result of transitioning from one to the other?
  5. They claim that only right-wing or far-right religious fanatics defend the sex binary. This is patently false. Although opposition to homosexual rights comes mainly (but not exclusively) from religious conservatives, criticism of sex-binary denialism comes from across the political spectrum and from many non-religious people. In other words, sex-binary denialists conflate the sex-binary with support for regressive, rigid gender roles and stereotypes.

There are two major themes running through the above false ideas: (1) the straw-man fallacy, i.e. sex-binary denialists criticize their opponents for things those opponents do not say; and (2) virtue-signalling, i.e. the denialists think they are being good moral people and are ostentatiously signalling their supposed morality to other denialists.

The implication of the above falsehoods, especially the last two, is that if one dares to affirm the sex binary, then one is a bad, immoral, right-wing scumbag who hates sexual minorities. This accusation is, of course, utterly baseless. Nevertheless, whether through stupidity or cowardice, some people who really should know better have swallowed the non-binary propaganda. This is unfortunate, but it gets worse: several academic and scientific media and institutions have themselves capitulated to this emotional blackmail. Here are some examples.

Anthropologists in the USA & Canada

In 2023, the American Anthropology Association (AAA) and Canadian Anthropology Association (CASCA) issued a joint statement “No Place For Transphobia in Anthropology” which attempts to justify the cancelling of a session on biological sex at the AAA/CASCA 2023 conference, accusing the cancelled speakers of promoting the notion that “sex and gender are simplistically binary.” I doubt very much that those speakers would make the foolish mistake of conflating sex and gender; that foolish mistake is made by the AAA and CASCA.

…the real reason for the cancellation is not scientific, but moralistic. […] They are terrified of being accused of transphobia.

The joint statement accuses critics of gender ideology of having the same perfidious agenda as promoters of “race science” a century ago, that is “to advance a ‘scientific’ reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people, in this case, those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex / gender binary.” Thus, we see that the real reason for the cancellation is not scientific, but moralistic. The AAA and CASCA are simply signalling their (alleged) virtue and their (very real) cowardice by capitulating to fashionable nonsense. They are terrified of being accused of transphobia.

The Lancet

The once venerable medical journal The Lancet, founded two centuries ago, has evidently degenerated, if the recent article Confronting the anti-gender movement by Angela Saini is any indication. The article is a diatribe condemning any criticism of gender ideology and lumping all such critics into the same category: hate-filled, patriarchal, right-wing religious fanatics and conservatives who oppose abortion rights and same-sex marriage. This is simply an extreme example of the straw-man fallacy.

Saini refers to gender ideology as “an umbrella term for everything that undermines notions of the heterosexual family in which a woman’s role is primarily as a mother.” It must be pointed out that it is she herself and her ilk who have installed that umbrella, by slandering all her critics as bigots.

…self-identification allows any person (male or female, predator or not) to hack the system very easily…

Saini even quotes Judith Butler approvingly and displays, below her article, the cover of Butler’s most recent opus Who’s Afraid of Gender (2024) which, according to the publisher’s overview, indulges in the same straw-man fallacy as Saini. Saini quotes Butler complaining about critics who insist “that trans women are male predators in disguise, or that they could be” and then adds “It does not take much to appreciate how unfair it is to damn all trans women this way.” What? I do not think than any critics of gender ideology—not even the religious bigots—say all trans women are male predators. What we are saying, rather, is that self-identification allows any person (male or female, predator or not) to hack the system very easily by simply claiming to be trans. Have Saini and Butler never heard of the concept of cheating? Or that controls to prevent or reduce cheating are often a good idea?

According to Butler, the gender-critical movement “demonizes struggles for equality, fuels aggressive nationalism, and leaves millions of people vulnerable to subjugation.” And, like all good post-leftists (i.e. the woke), Butler associates such critics with “authoritarian regimes” and “fascist formations” of course. However, Saini and Butler fail to mention that affirming the sex-binary also causes earthquakes and anal warts, just as Quebec Bill 21 does.

Scientific American

The once respectable publication Scientific American (SciAm), almost as longstanding as The Lancet, has published several articles denying the sex binary. Some articles end with a disclaimer, saying that it is an opinion piece not necessarily endorsed by the editors. But SciAm published them, so the editors are not innocent.

…if sex is arbitrary or on a continuum, then being trans becomes meaningless.

A 2019 blog entitled Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia fails to distinguish adequately between sex and gender. Its author angrily rejects the sex-binary without even mentioning gametes which define sex, concentrating instead on chromosomes and hormones which do not. The blog also alleges that affirming the sex binary leads to “the dehumanization of trans people.” Worse, it makes the bizarre claim that “the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real.” Thus, the blog’s author is clearly signalling two things: (1) that their real concern is moralistic, not scientific, and (2) that they hold the preposterous belief that asserting the sex binary is equivalent to denying the existence of trans persons. As explained above, the very opposite is true. A trans person is an individual who wishes to transition to the opposite sex. But if sex is arbitrary or on a continuum, then being trans becomes meaningless.

The 2018 article Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic (originally published in 2015) is entirely devoted to discussion of various intersex conditions, which the author calls “disorders of sex development” (DSD), used as an excuse to attempt, unsuccessfully, to deny the sex-binary. But none of these conditions disproves the sex-binary; in fact, they all illustrate the sex-binary as each involves some mixture of male and female or an incomplete development of one or both sex types. The real purpose of the article is revealed in the following paragraph:

“…more than half a century of activism from members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community has softened social attitudes to sexual orientation and gender. Many societies are now comfortable with men and women crossing conventional societal boundaries in their choice of appearance, career and sexual partner. But when it comes to sex, there is still intense social pressure to conform to the binary model.”

…the authors foolishly believe that one must deny the sex-binary in order to reject rigid, traditional sex roles.

The above statement is irrelevant to the definition of biological sex. Whether sex is binary or not is a scientific question, not a social or political issue. Rather, the statement reveals that the authors foolishly believe that one must deny the sex-binary in order to reject rigid, traditional sex roles.

A 2023 article entitled Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary is particularly ridiculous. The author argues that saying sex is binary is equivalent to a “misrepresentation of biology” whose purpose is to deny women’s rights, to “attack the rights of transexual and transgender people” and even to promote slavery and racism, no less! The stupidity of this article is outrageous. SciAm editors should be ashamed of publishing such drivel, even if it does have a disclaimer.

National Geographic

On a more positive note, a recently updated article How Science is Helping Us Understand Gender by Miles Griffis on the National Geographic (NatGeo) website makes a number of valid points, corresponding to arguments frequently made by critics of gender theory. It acknowledges the importance of correct diagnosis of gender dysphoria, mentioning the danger of social contagion by asking “whether too many young children, at too early an age, are being encouraged to socially transition in the first place.” It recognizes that among children who express discomfort with their birth sex (the article unfortunately uses the term “birth gender”) but do not transition, many “will eventually identify as gay or bisexual.”

The article mentions the importance of fully understanding that behaviour need not conform to traditional gender roles, regardless of sex. One must not assume that a child or adolescent is trans simply because of their non-conforming behaviour. The article also acknowledges the strong correlation between gender nonconformity and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

…the NatGeo article also raises legitimate ethical concerns about the medical treatment of intersex persons

Finally, the NatGeo article also raises legitimate ethical concerns about the medical treatment of intersex persons who are sometimes subjected to irreversible surgical procedures without their informed consent or even without their knowledge.

However, the article fails to distinguish adequately between sex and gender, referring frequently to rejection or acceptance of the “gender binary” whereas it is sex, not gender, which is binary. The simultaneous discussion of intersex individuals and trans persons suggests some important connection between them, when in reality the former are very rare and the two populations are largely unrelated. Particularly dubious is the article’s approval of the use of “puberty-blocking drugs that can buy time for gender-questioning children,” affirming that “the effects of puberty suppression are thought to be reversible.” On the contrary, the reversibility of the results of such medication is not well established.

The NatGeo article also uses the expression “gender assigned at birth” several times, an expression which is nonsensical except for rare intersex individuals.

American Psychologist

A long paper, The Future of Sex and Gender in Psychology: Five Challenges to the Gender Binary, available on a website of the American Psychological Association (APA), completely misses the point. The paper refers repeatedly to the “gender binary” or the “gender/sex binary,” while failing completely to distinguish between sex and gender. The authors even declare,

“In this paper, the term gender/sex is frequently used, to recognize that the biological and the sociocultural are typically inseparable […]. The term sex is used here to refer to biological systems involving the X and Y chromosomes, pre- and post-natal sexual differentiation, and hormones that influence sexual differentiation of the external genitals, which in turn serve as the basis for sex assignment at birth.”

Thus, the authors evidently do not even know what sex is!

Thus, the paper gives sex and gender a shared definition which is incompatible with the correct definition of sex. Chromosomes, hormones and genitals are expressions of sex, manifestations of sex, but they do not define sex. For mammals, the definition of sex is based on the type of gamete (ovum for females, sperm cell for males) which the individual produces or has the potential to produce, but the authors of this paper do not even mention gametes. Thus, the authors evidently do not even know what sex is! They also use the untenable expression “sex assignment at birth.”

The Consequences

All of the articles discussed above display the deleterious effects of the pseudoscientific claim that sex is not binary. Even the least objectionable article, from NatGeo, uses jargon imposed by that pseudoscience. I personally find it difficult to understand how any otherwise reasonable person, especially a scientist or science journalist, could fall for such folly.

One of the most obvious consequences of sex-binary denialism is the practice of self-identification, whereby an individual can simply define himself or herself to be of the opposite sex and thus be immediately legally recognized as such, with no control whatsoever. This is obviously a dangerous recipe for abuse. Of course male predators will take advantage of this gaping loophole (and some already have done so), by claiming to be trans and demanding admission to women-only spaces. Critics of gender theory are right to point out the injustice of allowing biological men to compete in women-only sports or to use women-only refuges.

…the indoctrination of children and adolescents, convincing them that their gender nonconformity implies that they must be trans[…]

Probably the worst consequence of gender theory is the indoctrination of children and adolescents, convincing them that their gender nonconformity implies that they must be trans (and can literally change their sex), and encouraging them to submit to invasive, irreversible medical treatments—medication or surgery—whose long-term effects can be very serious indeed and to which a minor is too immature to give informed consent.

Conclusion

The general pattern of ideological capture is the following. Denounce anyone who disagrees in any way with XYZ or their allies as an evil bigoted XYZ-ophobe, cancel anyone who dares to disagree, and intimidate everyone else until they either fall silent or capitulate. The safest route, for the most cowardly, to avoid any denunciation, is to grovel by making a fulsome declaration of agreement with XYZ. That is what most of the media and institutions discussed above have done in the case of trans activism.

It is impossible to change from male to female or from female to male literally, but such a change can be emulated[…]

Gender dysphoria is probably a much rarer medical condition than current controversies would lead us to believe. Those who suffer from it want to change sex, but we know that such a change can be cosmetic only. It is impossible to change from male to female or from female to male literally, but such a change can be emulated with medication, hormones and surgery. We need to be honest with trans persons and not lie to them by claiming that they can literally change sex.

Sex change procedures should only be performed when the gender dysphoria diagnosis is certain and the patient expresses a strong, unwavering, long-term desire for the change, because the result is cosmetic only and the procedures may have several negative side effects.

What are the origins of this false notion that sex is not binary? I identify two major sources. Firstly, I blame radical, postmodernist, anti-Enlightenment philosophers such as Judith Butler and Michel Foucault, so obsessed with deconstructing everything that they even deconstruct reality—such as biological reality—and throw it away. This is the post-leftist (or “woke”) aspect of gender theory, based on that toxic mix of ideologies which blames Europeans for all that is evil in the world. Secondly, I blame the wishful thinking of the most extreme trans activists who apparently wish that it were literally possible to change sex, so they have distorted the science to fit their wish. The unscrupulous philosophers have enabled the delusional activists.

To defend human rights, including the rights of trans persons, homosexuals and women, we must defend science, in particular the binarity of biological sex.

The bottom line is this: To defend human rights, including the rights of trans persons, homosexuals and women, we must defend science, in particular the binarity of biological sex. The movement for homosexual and trans rights, henceforth belaboured with the intractable moniker LGBTQ+ (and who knows how many more letters), as well as its ever-more-complicated “pride” flag, has become a bad joke, an object of shame and derision, and gender ideologues are largely responsible for this situation. The movement has now become associated, in the minds of many people, with censorship, ideological dogmatism, authoritarianism and abuse of human rights. I cannot stress this enough: those who deny the sex-binary, who defame anyone who differs from their dogma, are largely responsible for this degradation and for the growth of right-wing conservative movements for whom wokism is a windfall because it has turned what used to be called the “left” into a laughingstock.

Further Links about Biological Sex

Next blog: La couleur de sa chemise