The Anti-Science Disaster of Gender Ideology in the Schools

By Carol Dansereau

Generally very good essay there on

Carol Dansereau's Substack

, and my comment there follows after a few additions and elaborations not covered there.

However, as I’ve argued there, I think she starts off on the wrong foot by using definitions for the sexes that are incompatible and inconsistent with the standard ones endorsed by various reputable biological journals. In some cases, the differences between those two sets of definitions don’t have much impact or relevance, but in many others they lead to some profoundly problematic contradictions.

More particularly, while Carol has some justification for touting “Project Nettie” — which at least acknowledges that “sexual reproduction is … the reproductive strategy of all higher animals and plants, including the mammalian class to which humans belong” — I’m not sure that either Carol or biologist Emma Hilton, co-creator of that project, realize that their “non-functional" definitions basically turn each sex into a binary or a spectrum of three. For example, because of the nature of various species of fish, the infamous clownfish in particular, Wikipedia at least is obliged to differentiate between two types of males, and two types of female, i.e., functional and non-functional ones:

Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female.

So, in effect, newly hatched clownfish are both non-functional males AND non-functional females, some of whom turn into functional males and non-functional females, and some of them eventually change into non-functional males and functional females. Bloody ridiculous at best, and quite unscientific at least as it knocks the whole concept of “sequential hermaphrodites” into a cocked hat.

But while it is great that Carol calls on “biologists, doctors, and other scientists” to “fight to get Gender Identity Indoctrination out of K-12 schools”, she can’t reasonably expect biologists to endorse definitions that lead to some rather risible contradictions when applied to other species.

However, somewhat more problematic is that while I will readily concede, and have argued elsewhere, that much of gender ideology is so much anti-scientific claptrap that needs to be anathematized in no uncertain terms, the unscientific definitions Carol uses precludes her recognizing that the hated “gender ideologues” may have a point or two. While it would take us too far afield to address them all here, one in particular seems to stick out like the proverbial sore thumb and should at least be genuflected towards if not emphasized. More particularly, Carol asserts that:

(Note that the [Austin Texas] school believes that intersex people are not male or female which is wrong, as will be discussed below.)

For one thing, it is not a matter of belief but one of the logical premises — i.e., definitions — one starts from. As I’ve noted in my comment, Carol starts from the premise that simply having either of two types of gonads — testicles or ovaries, whether they’re functional or not — is sufficient to qualify a person as male or female whereas the standard biological definitions start from the premise that those gonads actually have to be functional — by which those intersex without either are, ipso facto, sexless.

The latter of which is exactly what those “gender ideologues” are arguing, though how they reach that conclusion is maybe moot, but where they go off the rails and into the weeds is in apparently arguing that that justifies the claim that the sexes are a spectrum. But “sexless” is NOT a sex; it’s the absence of both “male” and “female”.

In any case, without further ado, my comment (#11059512) follows:

Wow. What an essay, what a thoroughly damning indictment of far too much of “Gender Ideology”. Though at a 78 minute read, I have to admit I’ve only skimmed much of it so far – the rest on the back burner waiting time for a more thorough perusal – but it seems to make some pretty solid points.

However, while I quite agree with much of what seems to be a common thread running through your essay – “a scientific mindset demands clear definitions”,  “definitional chaos”, and “the gutting of rational definitions for sex-based words”, “male” and “female” in particular – I’m not sure that you realize that the definitions for the sexes that you subscribe to – those of Dr. Stevens, in particular, i.e., “Biological sex is fundamentally defined by male and female reproductive anatomy” – are NOT at all those endorsed by mainstream biology.

Unfortunately or not, there are any number of definitions for the sexes that we might “reasonably” agree on. Too many don’t seem to realize that our definitions for categories – “male” and “female” in particular – are “socially constructed”. We can define them any way we wish – pay the words extra as Humpty Dumpty suggested – though some are better than others. Moses didn’t bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z so there are NO definitions which carry the imprimatur or signature of Jehovah – Himself.

For example, in ancient times “female” meant “she who suckles” – by which Bruce Jenner and his ilk might qualify as such. And “male” and “female”, in the context of plumbing and electrical connectors, mean “has convex mating surface” and “has concave mating surface”, respectively, by which various transsexuals might reasonably be said to have changed sex:

https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners

Though rather risible that Wikipedia uses “gender” instead of “sex” to describe those – what a bunch of prudes – although they at least use “male” and “female” to denote the different types.

So our definitions are hardly cast in concrete or can be considered as “gospel truth” in any way, shape or form. Though there is some merit in Stevens’ definitions, not least because they comport with what might be called “folk-biology”. In addition to which, they’ve also been “promulgated” by “biologists” Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright in a letter published by the UK Times. A fairly credible newspaper but hardly what one would call any sort of a peer-reviewed journal of biology, but to wit:

"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, - regardless of their past, present, or future functionality - are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."

Emma Hilton @FondOfBeetles

Pinning this temporarily. It may be useful.

However, those rather unscientific if not anti-scientific definitions of Stevens and Hilton conflict rather profoundly with the standard biological definitions which have, in fact, been published in various reputable biological journals – Theoretical Biology, and Molecular Human Reproduction (MHR) in particular – and which are, in fact, also endorsed by Oxford Dictionaries. To wit:

"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.

Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female

https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male

Absolutely diddly-squat there in either set of definitions about “developed anatomies” or “reproductive anatomies”. By those biological definitions, the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as male and female is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless – a term which probably encompasses about a third of us at any one time.  

You in particular might be interested in seeing that that MHR article is fairly popular on Twitter, being tweeted thither and yon by all and sundry -- to the general discomfiture and chagrin of various transgender activists, spectrumists, and assorted grifters, charlatans, and scientific illiterates:

https://oxfordjournals.altmetric.com/details/2802153/twitter

But the bottom line is that, as you quite reasonably argued, “a scientific mindset demands clear definitions” – “amen” to that. However, it seems clear that the only reasonable and scientifically justified definitions for the sexes are those by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Don’t think we’re going to resolve the transgender clusterfuck until we are prepared to draw a line in the sand – the MHR definitions being a rather “bright” if not lambent one – and let the chips fall where they may. And regardless of who might be “offended” by the logical consequences of those definitions.