Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science

You’ve probably seen this viral thread by ScienceVet floating around the internet. The thread goes into great detail about how, according to science, biological sex is a spectrum. This is coming from a scientist who specializes in molecular biology, biochemistry, and endocrinology. So for anyone who wants to respond to this maybe make sure you’re operating above a Kindergarten Cop, “Boys have a penis, and girls have a vagina” level. There’s another great related thread where a Biologist Explains The Complexities of Biological Sex. Sex is really not as black and white as we were taught in grade school, no matter what all the random uneducated people on the internet claim. Anyway, here is the thread about how biological sex is a spectrum (not to even mention gender):

Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
(BLUF is a military acronym that stands for bottom line up front.)
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science

Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science

Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science
Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science

Source: ScienceVet

6 thoughts on “Biological Sex Is a Spectrum According to Science

  1. Well, you certainly confirmed you know nothing about biochemistry or molecular biology. Variations within sexual characteristics of any individual in a sexually dimorphic species doesn’t remotely prove your hypothesis. You even cite a chemical shown to inhibit sexual development as evidence? Are you suggesting that victims of Thalidomide are natural occurrences? You make an incredible assertion that intersex rates are at 2% yet cite nothing on this. If the rates of genetic error creating XXY and other intersex combinations are now THAT common, it isn’t natural and there’s an environmental factor in play. You acknowledge that external factors can alter or inhibit development, yet ignore such things as phytoestrogens, hormonal birth control contamination, hormones in cattle, BPA, etc. which can all easily explain away developmental differences.

    I have an hypothesis too. If we use hormone therapy that matches the genotype of an individual, normal dimorphic development should progress and transgender goes away except in extreme, intersex cases.

  2. The prevalence of true intersex conditions, in which chromosomal sex does not match phenotypic sex, is only about 0.018%. The 2% number comes from Anne Fausto-Sterling, who included DSDs (Differences of Sexual Development) such as Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome in her numbers, which is problematic because the vast majority of DSDs occur in either males or females. These conditions do not make them anything other than males or females; they make them males and females with conditions that affect their reproductive systems. People with DSDs are not what we commonly think of as intersex, i.e., a person with ambiguous genitalia. As stated, that number is vanishingly small and It no more proves that “sex is a spectrum” than people born with one leg prove that humans are not bipedal.

  3. Damn, if you two are gonna come that hard with the fire, at least warn us to get the sun screen, Kevlar and Nomex…

Leave a Comment