A remarkable story on Newsroom
Newsroom ran an article by Dr Chris Pook and Dr Julia Schaletzky. He is a trained biologist and she is a professor of molecular therapeutics. Now not unusual to run an article by two academics.
What is unusual is they were “allowed” to say something that once was verboten! They write:
Newsroom recently published an article claiming that MP Jenny Marcroft’s proposed definition of “woman” and “man” “fails basic science”. Yet the article itself does not accurately describe basic science.
It asks readers to believe that the two sexes are an eighteenth-century European adoption, that XX and XY chromosomes were merely “allocated” to women and men, that rare developmental disorders demonstrate a spectrum of sexes, and that scientists increasingly reject male and female as biological categories. …
These false claims blend developmental biology, social identity, historical speculation and advocacy terminology until a political position appears to be a scientific conclusion.
Human sexual development involves chromosomes, genes, hormones, gonads and anatomy. Its molecular machinery is complex. That doesn’t mean it’s indeterminate.
Humans reproduce through two gamete types: ova and sperm. The sexes, female and male, designate the corresponding reproductive organisations. Children, infertile adults and postmenopausal women remain male or female because their reproductive systems are organised around one pathway, whether or not they currently produce gametes.
There is no third human gamete and no continuum between sperm and ovum. Hormones, anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics may vary, but variation in traits does not create additional reproductive classes.
The article mistakes variation in sex-associated traits for variation in sex itself. Variation within categories does not abolish them. Polydactyly, the presence of more than five fingers or toes, does not make five digits an arbitrary convention; congenital heart defects do not mean there is no normal organisation of the heart.
Basically they write (convincingly) that sex is real, unchangeable and binary.
I think that trans activist have done immeasurable harm to their cause, by trying to argue that sex is not real, is not binary and can be changed. For decades people were very accepting of others whose gender identity differed from their biological sex. Georgina Beyer was elected a small town Mayor and rural MP, because people were open minded and accepting.
There is a huge difference between social acceptance, courtesy, and recognition – and trying to argue that sex is not real. This has generated so much of the backlash.
Incidentally I would also say that some in the “gender critical” community also do their cause no good by trying to deny that gender identity is also real, and that we should not make any legal allowance at all for those who do transition their gender (identity).
My position is simple. Sex is real. Any argument that tries to convince people sex is not real, is not binary, and is changeable will fail. But likewise I think gender dysphoria is very real, and the answer to that isn’t to just say “Tough”, but to look at what we can do as a society to allow people to live their lives as they want – while recognising in some areas (such as women’s sports, prisons) there are competing interests that have to be balanced out.
Anyway what is remarkable is that Newsroom published an article, that a few years ago I suspect they never would have allowed. I do note though they were not quite brave enough to allow comments on it!