The scientific definition of biological sex

[Dana Michelle]

I've seen people make claims that scientifically, transition does not actually change someone's sex, and that transgender women will always be biological males and transgender men always biological females. I think most of these people are probably assuming instead of researching the science. Does anyone know what the scientific interpretation really is? Is there even a scientifically correct answer? When a biology teacher was discussing the categorization of organisms into kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, she said there is no right or wrong way to categorize. Could it be the same for the definition of biological sex?

[Dana Michelle]

35 minutes ago, MaryMary said:

But if you use the following language : sex = genitals and reproductive organs and gender = the social construct, psychological aspect. Then, no, transition do not change your sex. But, it can certainly have an effect on how well you sexual functions will work... lol

I am asking about the sex of the body not the gender of the mind. One thing I am wondering is if the definition of biological sex is exclusively based on genitals or if it includes secondary sex characteristics. If sex is determined by genitals and if transition does not change sex, does that mean after vaginoplasty or phalloplasty, transgender women's vaginas are still technically penises, and transgender men's penises are still technically vaginas?

[KathyLauren]

I think that biologists would be the first to admit that the classification of sex is very superficial.  A field biologist studying squirrels or foxes or whatever is going to look for visible genitalia.  It is exactly the same as a doctor attending the birth of a human baby: "Congratulations, Mrs. Smith.  It's a boy!"  Same thing: it is a very superficial classification based on what they can see at a glance.

 

Anything more rigorous than that is going to be very specific.  They will say that they are studying chromosomes, or hormone levels, or social interactions.  None of which are the kind of thing that you get from a quick glance.

[Dana Michelle]

In high school biology, a student was doing a presentation on Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. He said the encyclopedia said people with AIS are men because they have a Y chromosome. The teacher discussed things a bit during the presentation and did not correct the student. At another time the teacher said all fetuses start out female because they have female characteristics in the early weeks of pregnancy. However, the Y chromosome still exists at this time, so if chromosomes are the definition, doesn't that still technically make XY fetuses male, even before sexual differentiation? I've heard many, many times that fetuses start out female, leading me to believe that someone with female characteristics but a Y chromosome does not necessarily mean they are technically male.

Long ago I've also read things that made it sound like gonads were the definition of sex. This definition would imply those with AIS are technically male since they have testicles. In any case, I think people who claim that is "basic biology" that transwomen are male and transmen are female should cite scientific sources to back up their claims. I haven't been able to find scientific sources to answer the question, but Wikipedia says, "Anisogamy, or the size differences of gametes (sex cells), is the defining feature of the two sexes. By definition, males have small, mobile gametes (sperm); females have large and generally immobile gametes (ova or eggs)."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction. The rest of the section then describes ordinary dictionary definitions rather than scientific definitions.  Using gametes as the definition of sex does not explain how to categorize those who don't produce gametes.

 

[SaraAW]

Classification is messy and is based on groupings by majority of similar indicators, they typically do not account for all variation.  Sex is no different.  There are species that have little to no sexual dimorphism (differences between sexual groups) and the rest that do have a wide range of levels of variance between groups.  Even with a single sexually dimorphic species, there is typical a wide variety of expression.  Where most people fall down is limiting the grouping to only 2 classifications (male/female).  This is a result of limited scientific knowledge in the past and has become so entrenched in societies around the world, it's hard to get people to update their knowledge.  In species like ours, where there is a lot indicators that allow for grouping into 2 groups, this is based on average indicators based on 2 overwhelming majorities.  In reality there are likely many smaller populations that should have a classification as well, but we run into the problem of where do you draw the line at refining those populations. Do you add intersex and transgender as 2 additional classifications? Or do you further breakdown those groups and add more classifications? What about individuals that are born missing some of the key characteristics used do define any of the groups?  There are people born without gonads, a vulva, a penis, a uterus, etc.  There are people born with many different combinations of chromosomes.  This is why I prefer the sliding scales of gender or sexual attraction (not perfect as they leave out the ability to not even be on the scale), with a large majority of individuals containing most of the characteristics of male/female or hetero/homo  to develop the poles and having the degrees of variation represented in between the poles.

 

So classification of any populations is arbitrary and messy, someone(s) has to select which criteria result in the classification into one of the groups that they decided exist based on their observed data and then convince the majority of people that this is the best system.  For sex, I have seen several different models of classification employed, none are right, none are wrong, it all depends on your data set and the selected sorting criteria. Where people go wrong is in using those classifications for anything other than scientific study or medically relevant purposes.  There is no good argument for policy governing rights to be driven or guided by these classifications, sex, race, gender, etc.  The group we all belong to is homo sapien and all homo sapiens should have the same unalienable rights.

[Susan R]

This is very good descriptive narrative on this difficult subject. You can see why we as children (without the assistance of our parents or some scholar specializing in gender and sexuality) had no chance to figure things out for ourselves. Even at my age, I’m trying to figure out exactly where I fit into this spectrum although it is clearer now than it’s ever been.

 

3 hours ago, SaraAW said:

There is no good argument for policy governing rights to be driven or guided by these classifications, sex, race, gender, etc.  The group we all belong to is homo sapien and all homo sapiens should have the same unalienable rights.

I agree. In a perfect world, you would have to hope this would be the case. For centuries, money, power, and politics have corrupted the system at its core with these ever-increasing classifications to ‘divide and conquer’ it’s citizenry. We’ve seen it used in the past as it is being used today and likely our future.

 

Susan R?