hairybobbins

> If someone thinks biological sex is binary, that shows they're uninformed. Like gender, it is essentially a point cloud in n-dimensional space - largely bimodal, but with a few other notable clusters.

Not really though - if someone has carefully considered this topic and still regards the sex binary as the most appropriate model to apply, it's more likely to indicate they are considering function over form in their reasoning. In particular, reproductive function - i.e. why we all have sexed bodies in the first place.

With this model, sex isn't just an assortment of bodily features, but is based on the reproductive function around which several related aspects of our bodies have evolved, with male and female being the two types of anatomical pattern appropriate to each reproductive role.

However, I do understand that to those who want to believe that sex can be changed through pharmaceutical and surgical interventions, this view of sex as a functional biological system isn't as compelling as the 'point cloud' model, which comes with the implication that if these points can be changed somehow, then sex is too.

You might disagree with this point of view, but that doesn't make it unreasonable.

As Wright notes in https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum, this view of sex as a binary system is based on the concept of male and female being the two discrete halves of the reproductive system in humans (and other anisogamous species):

"Biological sex [...] is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system."

Surely this is not an unreasonable starting point for an evolutionary biologist to extrapolate from?

It's not, you have confused several different groups. Those you refer to as 'TERFs' are the feminists with a gender critical viewpoint, who are focused on women's rights and ending sex-based oppression.

I mean, can you imagine a Nazi, or someone in the other groups you mentioned, signing this declaration: https://www.womensdeclaration.com/en/declaration-womens-sex-...? It's an entirely different ideological perspective.

This is a good article on where the gender critical feminists are coming from, and the rationale behind their activism: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/08/04/woman-2

I meant generally as in, most people, who don't take an active interest in this topic.

I know it's controversial to those who do. But I think that in itself is worth challenging.

I mean, in the comment at the top of this thread, we have someone who became extremely offended at even the mere mention of someone with an opposing viewpoint to their own. In an article that isn't even about that topic. Does that seem a reasonable reaction?

This article, by Colin Wright, is a good introduction to the 'sex realist' viewpoint, and the arguments it addresses: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum

A good example of an opposing point of view to 'sex realism' is this article (and one that's most often cited in online discussions of this particular topic): https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony...

I know it's a controversial topic. I'd rather it wasn't, and that, given the wide-ranging impact on policy and law, people could discuss this freely without e.g. getting banned from online payment services and social media sites, being doxxed by activists, and so on.

'TERFs' are just feminists who want to retain female-only spaces.

This is not a viewpoint that's even remotely comparable to Nazism, whose adherents are a distinct group with a set of beliefs that are inherently contradictory to feminism.

Why do you find this offensive?

Wright's key points regarding 'sex realism', as I understand them, are that sex is not a spectrum (as many people are claiming these days) but a male-female binary, and that sex is still an important characteristic in many circumstances, such that it cannot realistically be supplanted by 'gender identity' or similar.

Seems like a reasonable viewpoint to me, and not one that would generally be considered offensive for others to mention.