Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

I mean none of those situations have changed at all but ok.

[Josquius]

Tyr what else is there to somebody's sex than chromosomes? You might mean gender.

A lot. Sex is bimodal rather than binary.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

And you say people shouldn't just decide one morning they are women and be able to compete in women's sports so I don't think you are on a different opinion here than the ones you criticise.

No. That's the strawman they use to make it easier to attack trans rights. Nobody actually believes that though. Nobody thinks a random guy can show up to a woman's sports event and go "I'm a woman now, you have to let me compete" however somebody who is very definitely trans, full psych eval in place, is taking treatment, etc.... they shouldn't be excluded from women's social events.
This is where this thing is able to become so toxic, so many people aren't interested in genuine solutions and compromise. Those who get worked up about it think THEM are trying to give trans people the rights to do whatever they want whilst they want to block trans people from doing anything.
There obviously is a line somewhere, but nobody cares about finding it.

Laugh all you want. You're basically telling XX people who want a space where they can excel as athletes "get good".

Oh, you were being serious? I honestly thought you were joking because that's such a cliched off the shelf TERFy bad faith argument, the whole "No, you're the sexist/racist/whatever!" defence of people indulging in hate.
This has very little to do with people who want to excel at a sport, its dishonest to focus on this extreme. Its about people fundamentally taking part in sport, having options to socialise and keep in shape. Picked on because its such a minor part of life where they believe they can find a chink in the armour of LGBT rights where they can drive in a wedge.

[Valmy]

Tyr what else is there to somebody's sex than chromosomes? You might mean gender.

A lot. Sex is bimodal rather than binary.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

Yes. 1% of the population has intersex characteristics. I don't think anybody was saying otherwise. But nowhere in there does it say sex and chromosomes don't exist only for 1% of the population it is more complicated. But so what?

No. That's the strawman they use to make it easier to attack trans rights. Nobody actually believes that though. Nobody thinks a random guy can show up to a woman's sports event and go "I'm a woman now, you have to let me compete" however somebody who is very definitely trans, full psych eval in place, is taking treatment, etc.... they shouldn't be excluded from women's social events.

But we are not talking social events. We are talking about competitive sports where careers and money and opportunities are on the line. And there is no requirement, that I am aware of, that a trans person has to take treatments or get a psych evaluation. You seem to be the one making strawmen.

Laugh all you want. You're basically telling XX people who want a space where they can excel as athletes "get good".

Oh, you were being serious? I honestly thought you were joking because that's such a cliched off the shelf TERFy bad faith argument, the whole "No, you're the sexist/racist/whatever!" defence of people indulging in hate.
This has very little to do with people who want to excel at a sport, its dishonest to focus on this extreme. Its about people fundamentally taking part in sport, having options to socialise and keep in shape. Picked on because its such a minor part of life where they believe they can find a chink in the armour of LGBT rights where they can drive in a wedge.

I don't hate anybody. I am not being dishonest. You are free to launch every personal attack you want. I am just pointing out the issue with big time athletics. If we are separating serious competitive Olympic type sports into men's and women's groups for social reasons that makes no sense and should stop. Besides most social sports leagues I have ever played in have both men and women competing because, you know, most people like to socialize with their friends and family of all genders. If we are doing it because it is unfair for XX people to compete with XY people then why are we letting XY people compete? What is the purpose of having big time women's sports? Not to mention the fact that at the highest levels of competitive sports people will cheat in every way they can possibly find, the stakes are just really high.

But yeah if we are just talking about the woman's croquet club then yeah I don't think anybody trying to make a big deal about trans people has any reasonable ground to stand on.

This is one tiny fringe issue that has nothing to do with anything else trans people want to do. It only impacts like 0.05% of trans people (well probably much lower, though they are probably famous trans people so there is that). But it is an issue for those of us who care about sports.

[Valmy]

The thing that always gets forgotten in this is that its not just a case of whether trans people can compete. Sports governing bodies have long grappled with this problem given that we know that gender isn't a binary and when you get to the very top level of sports then slight genetic advantages can really make the difference so women with heavy intersex features pop up more than you might think.

Ok well sports should have nothing to do with gender, that is stupid why should sports have anything to do with gender? Why do you have to identify as a gender to play sports? The only identification you should have to have is that of athlete.

If the top women have intersex traits anyway why not just have one sports league for everybody? Why have separate men and women's leagues? What purpose does that serve?

[Josquius]

A lot. Sex is bimodal rather than binary.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

Yes. 1% of the population has intersex characteristics. I don't think anybody was saying otherwise. But nowhere in there does it say sex and chromosomes don't exist only for 1% of the population it is more complicated. But so what?
[/quote]
Chromosomes exist for them. XX will 99 times out of 100 mean someone is a woman. But this isn't an automatic fact. And even for those who are XX and are women many of them will have features that are more typical of males.

But we are not talking social events. We are talking about competitive sports where careers and money and opportunities are on the line.

We're talking about sports.
For the majority of people taking part in sport its not life or death career driving stuff. Its about socialisation and fitness.  Focussing on the absolute edge case of competitive level stuff is being dishonest about the issue.

And there is no requirement, that I am aware of, that a trans person has to take treatments or get a psych evaluation. You seem to be the one making strawmen.

I'm not the world's biggest expert on what trans people go through, however I do know that its not the casual affair that transphobes seem to think.
It differs even from state to state in the US I believe. In the UK before trans people can get any help there is the gatekeeper of seeing a psychologist. To change their legal gender they have to prove they've lived for 2 years as this gender.

I don't hate anybody. I am not being dishonest. You are free to launch every personal attack you want. I am just pointing out the issue with big time athletics. If we are separating serious competitive Olympic type sports into men's and women's groups for social reasons that makes no sense and should stop. Besides most social sports leagues I have ever played in have both men and women competing because, you know, most people like to socialize with their friends and family of all genders. If we are doing it because it is unfair for XX people to compete with XY people then why are we letting XY people compete? What is the purpose of having big time women's sports? Not to mention the fact that at the highest levels of competitive sports people will cheat in every way they can possibly find, the stakes are just really high.

Except sex isn't a simple xx/xy thing. Watch the video I posted a few posts ago, it really is interesting. Professional athletics have struggled for years in deciding who is allowed to compete in women's events.
There is clearly a line somewhere. This line does not mean any man can just rock up in a dress and sign up for the woman's event, but nor does it mean anybody who doesn't 100% match a genetically pure 'standard template' woman should be banned from taking part in sport at any level.

But yeah if we are just talking about the woman's croquet club then yeah I don't think anybody trying to make a big deal about trans people has any reasonable ground to stand on.

This is one tiny fringe issue that has nothing to do with anything else trans people want to do. It only impacts like 0.05% of trans people (well probably much lower, though they are probably famous trans people so there is that). But it is an issue for those of us who care about sports.

Agreed. Looping back to why this discussion first emerged in the thread here... Its because its such a non issue that gets blown up massively.

[Tamas]

When we say professional athletics struggled with it, are there any known examples other than that South African lady who has this bimodal thing going, has the physical build and muscles of a man, looks like a man, has a wife/girlfriend, but insists on competing among women because that's where she would dominate?

[Josquius]

When we say professional athletics struggled with it, are there any known examples other than that South African lady who has this bimodal thing going, has the physical build and muscles of a man, looks like a man, has a wife/girlfriend, but insists on competing among women because that's where she would dominate?

And most importantly is a woman, was raised as a woman, and I've seen no signs that she ever knew she had this genetic abnormality going on until her success became controversial. Also odd to mention the wife part, I don't think being gay factors into anything.

But that there aren't many of them really just shows how much this is a niche nerdy sports issue and shouldn't be allowed to become a political issue . There's a very good argument that even sports bodies shouldn't concern themselves too much with drawing up specific rules and should look at things on a case by case basis.

Ewa Klobukowska and Dutee Chand are the two other really prominent examples that are discussed in the video I linked to. The way professional athletics defines who counts as a woman has changed many times over the years.

[Tamas]

But if you say biological men should be allowed into women's sports because trans rights then you are also politicising sports.

[Oexmelin]

And if we start politicizing sports, where will that end?

[Josquius]

But if you say biological men should be allowed into women's sports because trans rights then you are also politicising sports.

I don't think men should be allowed into women's sports.
And trans people being allowed in sport and it being up to the sports governing body to determine under what conditions is the current default.
Rejecting those who want to change this and introduce unnecessary laws that go down to the lowest level of sport is quite the opposite of politicising it. Just because it doesn't seem to be something important doesn't mean we should roll over for those who have decided to pretend it is a big deal they need to act on.

[Valmy]

And if we start politicizing sports, where will that end?

Well good point.

[garbon]

And if we start politicizing sports, where will that end?

Hopefully with many of them banned.

[Jacob]

Tyr what else is there to somebody's sex than chromosomes? You might mean gender.

Have a look at this twitter thread: https://twitter.com/sciencevet2/status/1035246030500061184?lang=en

So. Hi new people! Apparently, we're gonna talk about sex. Like physical sex! Because... there's some confusion.
First, sex defined: We're talking physical sex here, not gender. Body parts, hormones, and genetics (and more).
BLUF: BIOLOGICAL sex is a spectrum

Ok, everyone's super familiar with the XX/XY dichotomy, right? Yeah, what we all learned in like... 4th grade? And that's great, it gives you a starting point. But it's... well it's only the very starting point.
The IDEA is, XX is girl, XY is boy, right?

Welllll... that's not totally right. There are XY people, who have ovaries! And give birth! AH! And XX people who have male bodies and functional sperm! Double AH!

These are usually written off as "abnormalities" and indeed, some cases have medical issues. But many don't (like the XY woman giving birth). And this is really only the very very tip of the iceberg of "wait, that doesn't fit into our M or F box unless we make it bigger"

There's a WHOLE HOST of things that can cause all sorts of "weird" things to happen, ranging from genetic (XXY, XYY, Y, X, XX with translocation, XY with deletion) to hormonal (Androgen Insensitivity, Estradiol failure), and disruptors like dioxins.

So, you're a scientist, and you want to research stuff, right? Which means you have to categorize stuff. Without categories, data is hard! So you take allll these people, including the "weird" ones and you plot them on a graph. Logical!

You use all the differences there are, different genetics, different responses to hormones, different effectiveness in signalling pathways, different sizes in Aanteroventral periventricular nucleus (AVPV) (yeah that's a thing) and give everything numbers, add them up.

You get what's called a bimodal distribution (mostly, we'll get to that later) Which looks like this. Those two big peaks are what we call "male" and "female" (even conveniently colored pink for boys and blue for girls - we are using victorian gender colors right?)



Now, when you're trying to look at data, we often group stuff. When we do that with a plot like this, it's called a "histogram." Basically we're breaking down a curved line into discrete "bins." Like this (image stolen from the web).



Traditionally, we've used REALLY BIG bins for this when talking about sex. Basically you either group everything vaguely near a peak into the peak, or you just pretend there's nothing else but the biggest peaks. This makes it super easy, because 2 is simple to do data with.

However, as we've gotten to know more and more about signaling and brains and hormones and started to pay more attention to the outliers where standard stuff just didn't seem to work, we discovered that this isn't a great model to use.

Now I'm not talking feelings here. I'm talking about data. As you start to look at anything interesting, like say the effects of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-P-dioxin on animals, you start to realize that a 2 bin model doesn't predict your results well.

At first you say, "Well it was just weird." So you redo it, and it still doesn't work. So you look at your model and you say, "Well ok, what if the model's wrong?"
But the model sort of... almost predicts a lot of things, and it worked for years, so...

Some enterprising soul says, "Hey, remember that histogram where we said we'll just model using the peaks?" And everyone goes, "Uh, yeah?" And they say, "What if we... USED that data?" And everyone groans, because complicated data is hard.

But someone sits down and does the work, and lo, wow the model starts to work again. Where TCDD was "randomly" turning some boys into girls but then some girls into boys, now you can see there's a subgroup of what you'd called "female" that responds like the "male"

What's important here is that you haven't MISLABELED males as females. These are functional "females" who can do all the usual "female" things like gestate babies. But they respond to this one endocrine disruptor in a "male" way.

So you add another two categories, call them "Male2" and "Female2" and go on, happy that your model works! You've got 4 sexes now, but you don't really have to tell anyone that, right?

Exceeeept then you remember you've got those XY people that gestate babies. So you add "Intersex1" And then the XX people with penes... and ovaries? Ok, "Intersex2" because all these groups respond differently with signalling and brains when you get into the weeds

And the more you look, the more we LEARN, the more we're able to separate out those fine differences. Depending on what we're doing, we may not care. If a doc is giving you aspirin, it probably isn't a big deal.

But if they're using a steroid on you? Or treating dioxin poisoning? THAT SHIT COULD BE IMPORTANT. It's like saying, "the light's off so the power must not be flowing." It really matters if the light's off because the bulb blew.

If we go back to that histogram plot, we can keep breaking down your biological sex into smaller and smaller differences in brain areas, hormone levels, signalling differences, genetic variances. There's nothing stopping us from binning EVERY INDIVIDUAL into their own bin.

Technically, this wouldn't be "infinite sexes" but 7.4 billion sexes is functionally close for our brains. Now, our medicine isn't advanced enough for THAT level of detail to make any difference. BUT IT MIGHT BE in the future. Individualized medicine!

The thing to remember is that this isn't "new." We're not 'inventing sexes' here. Sex has ALWAYS been this curve. We were just using REALLY BIG bins. And now we're realizing that that's not representative of biology, it's inhibiting understanding of medicine and biology

In case anyone's curious, this isn't ideology. This is because I had to figure out why my data didn't match the prediction. Those rats I mentioned? Yeah, my lab. And lab rats are a really pure genetic monoculture, and they STILL don't fit the two peak model well.

Yes, we looked at other things we could do to make our data fit the existing model, that's how science works! The ONLY way the data fit was if we let "sex" be more than just those two narrow peaks.

Models purpose in science is to predict. If they don't predict correctly, first we check if we've measured the data correctly, and repeat the experiment a couple more times. If it still doesn't fit, we have to look at the model.

Intersex! Because I didn't specifically mention this above.
"Intersex" is a term used to collectively speak of the "middle ground" of biology where people can't easily be binned into those two big "male" and "female" peaks. It can include a large range of biology

It is worth noting that I never talk about transgender in this thread. Intersex is not the same as transgender. You can be one without the other, or be both.

For people who think this is just "outliers"
Current estimates are that the intersex population is at least 2%. We know that's low because there are a lot of "invisibly intersex" people. That means AT LEAST 150 million people in the world.

I apologize for the failure to use the word "intersex" higher up in the discussion. Many people in the middle ground (including the XY person who can carry a child, for example) use this term. I cannot go back and edit the thread, and apologize for my overly clinical description.

Part of the purpose of the thread, which may have failed, was to point out that "intersex" is not a condition, it is not a disease. It's natural with a bimodal distribution. Science not only supports this, it suggests that ignoring intersex people makes your conclusions wrong

Here is a solid explanation of the embryology of sex organs and how that relates to a sex spectrum and intersex people. http://intersexroadshow.blogspot.com/2011/01/phalloclitoris-anatomy-and-ideology.html

A human result of the scientific conclusion that sex is a spectrum and intersex people are a perfectly normal result of nature, is that there is no scientific rationale for medically (or culturally) forcing people into those two peaks.

A note here that I am muting the thread, not because I don't want to respond but because I did not expect it to blow up so much, and I have family and work to take care of. I'll try to wander back, but can't guarantee how much it will be.

Another addition, because a couple people have asked about it.
It's important to note that there are other people who traditionally haven't fallen into the "intersex" category, but also don't fall into the clearly defined peaks either.

For example: XX people with female secondary sex characteristics, and ovaries who won't menstruate and can't carry a child without adding external (exogenous) estrogen. People like this often have difficulties finding good endocrinology care.

[Tamas]

Thanks Jacob. If I wanted to be sceptical I would want to know just how these "assigned numbers" are weighted when deciding on how "intersex" somebody with an unusual chromosome pair vs unusual hormone balance is, and if the 2% estimated intersex contain these non-typically hormoned people. But I definitely am not interested enough so I am just going to accept this as true.

But then, what does this establish about the problem at hand? Should people who want to compete in a given competition (for Tyr's benefit, I am talking about professional sport with actual stake, not Sunday leagues and such) be required to match some genetic and health requirements? That's already the case isn't it, at least in athletics.

[Jacob]

Thanks Jacob. If I wanted to be sceptical I would want to know just how these "assigned numbers" are weighted when deciding on how "intersex" somebody with an unusual chromosome pair vs unusual hormone balance is, and if the 2% estimated intersex contain these non-typically hormoned people. But I definitely am not interested enough so I am just going to accept this as true.

No problem. It's sort of fascinating, but yeah I'm not digging any deeper either

But then, what does this establish about the problem at hand? Should people who want to compete in a given competition (for Tyr's benefit, I am talking about professional sport with actual stake, not Sunday leagues and such) be required to match some genetic and health requirements? That's already the case isn't it, at least in athletics.

It establishes that sex isn't a simple binary biological truth, which is one of the "facts" some people are basing their arguments on.

It doesn't inherently suggest a clean and obviously logical solution to the situation, though. I guess there are a few core issues at hand:

If someone has physiological characteristics that puts them outside the archetypal sex characteristic groupings of our traditional sex model, to what degree should that influence their ability to participate in men's/ women's sports?

I expect it'd to centre around characteristics that'd give undue competitive advantage, but how do we determine whether an advantage is "undue" compared to other physical differences?

Like is "you're super tall because you have some intersex characteristics so you can't play women's basketball, but she's super tall for some other reason so that's cool" reasonable or not? Then what about "this other person has the same intersex characteristics as the tall person we disqualified for undue intersex advantages (or whatever you want to call it), but they're not super tall (so no undue advantage) because of it so if they are good at basketball they can still play on womens' teams?" Or is it "yeah, this intersex characteristic sometimes creates a height advantage we consider 'undue', so if you have it you can't play - even if that particular advantage doesn't manifest"? Does it become "this list of intersex characteristics are immaterial to being allowed to compete in womens' sport, but traits on this other list is considered to confer undue advantage and so prevent participation"?

Whereever the line is drawn, how intrusive do we make any inquiry into someone's sex status? Does "you must submit to this batch of tests to prove you're sufficiently female to participate" become standard? That sounds potentially pretty awful to me.

And then bringing it back to trans people. Some of them may be trans because they're really intersex and were put in the wrong binary sex bucket from their perspective. Or maybe not.

I don't have any specific pitch for where to draw the line or how to solve for this, but I think we should try to resolve in ways that are as unbigoted and as fair as possible.

All that said, I think the scenario of "regular dude dresses up as chick just so he can win" is up there with "so now any guy can go into womens' washroom to oogle our daughters just by saying 'I'm really a girl, lol' " as being a constructed scenario (or deliberate trolling action) primarily used to fuel culture war positions.