Anyways, I've only ever heard cartoons with fictional anatomy and trans people referred to by this word, most often transgender women due to the presence of a penis and breast development from their hrt. Certain people consider these bodies to be abominable and outside nature, so call them by a term that is equally as exaggerated and outside the realm of reality. It's never been applied to real, living breathing intersex persons. I'm not sure why there's such a large campaign around shielding us from a word that is not directed at us (negatively), and it probably does more harm than good to tell artists to tag their hermaphrodite characters "intersex" and unnecessarily conflate it even further.

By: Frederick R. Prete

Published: Mar 1, 2024

A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece that appeared on the Substack, Reality’s Last Stand. My intent was to compliment and complement Dr. Wright’s critique of Ian Copeland’s (erroneous) claim that biological sex (which is different from “gender”) is non-binary. Copeland’s somewhat tired arguments were based on a misunderstanding of genetic aneuploidies (errors in chromosome number), and poorly reasoned analogies to the fact that some fish change sex over the course of their lives. I’d like to revisit and expand a few of my points here.

As usual, Wright’s analysis was thoughtful and accurate. However, I wondered out loud how much of this long-suffering debate is shorn up by repeated attempts to engage in it with evermore biologically detailed counter arguments — a thankless task in which I, too, have participated. Although I have the utmost respect for those with the patience to remain in the argumentative fray, I don’t think reason will ever change what is, in effect, an ideological point of view. But, again, I admire those who try.

As I said in the piece, we need to recognize that some arguments are just wrong. So wrong, in fact, that a reasoned rebuttal is not only futile but beside the point. In those instances, we should be honest. I know from decades of teaching that sometimes I have to say to a student — always in a kind and respectful way — that while I appreciate their point of view, it is simply mistaken… It doesn’t jibe with anything that I know about the natural world. In such instances, this is the most honest and effective response, and it allows the discussion to be reset on a more reasonable foundation.

To be clear, even very smart, well-meaning people come up with far-fetched ideas born out of fundamental misunderstandings, or ignorance about a particular topic. (That would be the case, for instance, if I tried to diagnose what’s wrong with your car, a topic about which I know absolutely nothing.) In these instances, it makes little sense to debate the erroneous argument and then rebut the person’s attempts to support their misconceptions with additional unfounded speculations (often ad infinitum). So, if I claim that an animal’s sex is determined by radio waves beamed down from the planet Zenon by unicorns, it would be a waste of your time to explain to me that unicorns couldn’t make radio transmitters with their little hoofs, or that Zenon (wherever it is) is too far away to communicate with us earthlings. If you did offer up this rebuttal, I’d simply come up with some counter argument about unicorn dexterity or the superior strength of unicorn radio technology. That would be a total waste of our time. At some level, I suppose, it’s also disingenuous to pretend that the unicorn argument merits a reasoned response. I think it would be more honest (and effective) just to dismiss the unicorn theory out of hand rather than fueling — and thereby giving credence to — an unending back-and-forth.

That’s how I feel about the recurring claims that disorders of sexual development (DSDs), or genetic aneuploidies represent unique sexes. Frankly, these claims are so discordant with the realities of biology that they will never be refuted successfully by logic, reason, or data. To argue that biological anomalies represent unique sex categories makes no more sense than claiming a syndrome such as CDC (which can result in penile duplication) gives rise to ‘new types’ of men. These arguments are simply wrong. End of conversation.

And, please, just ignore those ridiculous — but supposedly instructive — analogies to animals. Let’s be honest. Animals do a lot of weird things. They enslave other animals, eat their offspring, cannibalize their lovers, kill their newborn twin sisters, and devour their siblings in the womb. Does anyone want to justify slavery or sibling cannibalism because animals do it?

And, how about those strange animal mating behaviors? Consider the male argonaut (a genus of octopus). He grows a sperm carrying third left arm in a pouch under his eye which — when he’s ready for love — explodes out of its sheath, detaches from his face, swims away all by itself, latches onto a female, and then wriggles its way into her mantle cavity to drop off a packet of sperm. Do you think we humans should invent a face-mounted, free-flying phallus to enhance our love-life? After all, it works for the argonaut. (By the way, I don’t think you should add that suggestion to your online dating profile.)

Well, If a free-flying phallus doesn’t seem like a good idea, why would anyone think that the sexual behaviors of other aquatic animals — like sex-changing clown fish — reveal some profound philosophical insights into the human condition?

Even more exasperating is the fact that the people who keep harping on sex-changing fish never get the story straight. The truth is that the sex changes that occur in about 20 families and seven orders of fish are the result of neuro-physiological and hormonal events triggered — depending upon the species — by ultimate body size, perceived social status, or (in the monogamous clown fish, Amphiprioninae) after the big breeding female has disappeared. In addition, the large, dominant, newly-minted female is viciously aggressive to any fish outside of her immediate family. So, if we’re taking our cues from clown fish, let’s not be hypocrites. Let’s go all the way: Only really large, domineering, hyper-monogamous humans who are particularly xenophobic should consider changing sex, but only after all the females in the neighborhood disappear. Does that even make sense? (You know I’m being facetious, right?) It’s a silly analogy. Is it worth debating?

In the previous essay, I also brought up an obvious (but consistently ignored) point of fact: Fish live in the water. People live on land. This makes all the difference in the world when it comes to sex. If you live in water, you can spray your eggs and sperm (gametes) into the liquid environment and let them drift around until they hook up. That’s because, in water, they won’t dry out and die. And, neither will the resulting embryos because they’ll be in the water, too. That’s why some fish can produce eggs or sperm at different times in their lives. It doesn’t take any special external body parts to squirt gametes into water. All you need is a gonad to make the gametes and an orifice to let them out.

However, if you’re a terrestrial mammal (living on dry land), you have a problem. You can’t squirt your gametes on the ground and hope for the best. They’ll shrivel up and die. So, male terrestrial animals evolved special external body parts with which to insert sperm directly into females (where it’s warm and moist), and females evolved body parts designed to accept that protuberance. In addition, female mammals (except for a few monotremes) evolved a chamber in which to hold the developing embryo until it’s ready to face a potentially desiccating life on land. Equally important, both males and females evolved complementary behavioral patterns that allow them to court and mate successfully. Frankly, it doesn’t make any difference if you’ve got the external body parts but you don’t know how to use them. (Get my drift?)

That’s why terrestrial mammals can’t change sex like fish. Doing so would require females to magically sprout some kind of tube to deliver sperm internally, and males would have to spontaneously develop a complementary orifice. In addition — and more importantly — males and females would have to develop all the necessary internal ‘plumbing’ and mating behaviors necessary to operate their new equipment. So, a mammalian sex change requires more than altering the external structures. That’s the easy part. It can be done surgically, even on your pets.

Becoming a male terrestrial animal would require developing a complex duct system linking the gonads to that new, external tube, and internal glands to secrete a carrying fluid and nutrients for the sperm (i.e., the Wolffian duct system, prostate, and bulbourethral glands). Becoming a female would require developing some kind of internal tube that would catch the eggs when they’re released into the abdominal cavity, hold them until they meet some sperm, and house the developing embryo (i.e., the derivatives of the Müllerian duct system).

Obviously, none of this could happen. When it comes to mammals, the die is cast prenatally. In other words, whatever fish do is their business. It has no grand implications for terrestrial mammals. So, let’s drop the clown fish and Asian sheepshead wrasse analogies. Anybody who brings them up simply doesn’t understand evolutionary or developmental biology. It’s not worth the debate unless, of course, you’re one of those people who thinks that because some animals are parthenogenic, we should simply stop having sex altogether and hope for the best.

I also want to clear up two more points. The first is sort of minor. It has to do with the large gamete/small gamete dichotomy between male and female animals: Females produce large gametes; males produce small gametes. This is frequently cited as evidence that there are just two sexes, easily differentiated by gamete size. Although generally true, I want to point out (yet again) that there are always exceptions in biology. Unfortunately, those exceptions are often the fuel that ignites these recalcitrant debates about sex when someone ‘discovers’ the exception and then claims it to be a new, profound revelation upending all prior knowledge. The odd exception to which I’m referring here is the colossal size of the fruit fly sperm. You probably didn’t know — few people do — that the tiny fruit fly, Drosophila bifurca, produces sperm that are 58 mm (~2.25 inches) long. That’s about 20 times longer than its entire body and over 300 times longer than a female’s egg is wide. In fact, these sperm are thought to be the longest sperm of any animal on the planet. So, I’m sure that at some point, someone will use this fact to argue against the large gamete/small gamete dichotomy between the sexes. It will be a silly argument, of course. I just want you to be forewarned.

The second point has to do with reptile sex determination. I have heard this phenomenon described inaccurately by people on both sides of the sex binary debate. It comes up almost as frequently as the clown fish analogy. Frankly, it’s a bit misleading to the lay reader to say that turtle (or alligator) sex is ‘determined’ by temperature. Although this is the common way it’s phrased in the biological literature, it should be made clear that sexual development in reptiles and amphibians is a product of the same types of genetic and physiological processes that operate in other animals. Saying that reptile sex is ‘determined’ by temperature makes it sound like the whole process is much more capricious than it is. While “a narrow range of incubation temperatures during a thermosensitive period of embryonic development” can affect the underlying genetic, physiological, and biochemical processes in ways that alter the sex ratios (i.e., the relative numbers of males and females) in a cohort, the most proximate causes leading to a turtle or alligator being male or female are physiological. In the end, it’s all genes, hormones, and molecules just like it is in other animals. And, the ultimate developmental outcome is binary.

The take-home message

So, here’s the upshot: You should just be you… and I’ll just be Frederick. We don’t need to ask flies, fish, or turtles for permission to be what we are, or what we hope to be… they’ve got their own problems to deal with. Capisci?

Epilogue

As I said in the previous essay, I have a deep understanding of, and great compassion for those people — which includes me — who don’t match the accepted stereotypes of any particular category or group. Over the years, I have been the target of what seemed to be an unrelenting stream of criticism for the fact that I was never (and still am not) perceived as representative of the norm (whatever that is). Consequently, I grew up defending those who were similarly targeted, and I believe that each of us should be continually mindful and accepting of the rich diversity of the human condition. Each of us should actively and consciously strive to be as compassionate, accepting, supportive and inclusive as we can. Denigrating, harassing or bullying anyone for any reason is reprehensible and unacceptable as far as I am concerned.