Laura Favaro: gender studies ‘groupthink is forcing scholars out’

With all this pretty acrimonious debate on this isssue, I have not seen anyone weighing in who actually researches the biology of "sex determination". And since we all start sex-indeterminate as early embryos, the eventual sex of any individual must become determined. This requires tremendously complex and progressive processes of differentiation changes, which involves a multitude of sex-diverging steps that eventually takes in the structures and functions of all cells in all tissues of every organ (including the brain -and some of its functions). The typical outcomes of some of these divergencies are major and obvious, like the morphology of the external genitalia. These are typically the signal features used as sex-defining by traditionalists. Some sex-related divergencies are covert, like sex-related relative differences in metabolism of cells even in tissues that superficially seem not to be sexually divergent. Some are even more subtle, like the neurally based sense of self. These changes are enacted in one tissue or another over a long period, from early embryo to post-puberty. In an idealised textbook scenario this results in a bimodal female/male pattern of divergence because the outcome of (nearly) all these strands of divergent differentiations are "in synch" in the one individual. But this is certainly not always the case. In some individuals one or another strand (or strands) at one or another stage(s) does not carry out divergent differentiation to the extent, or even in the direction, as other strands. Depending on the extent, tissue and stage this generates a huge diversity that cannot be shoehorned neatly into the traditional female or male categories. It seems to me that the protagonists in these disputes both want to use this shoehorn to categorise in a bimodal female/male way but differ, often violently, dismissively and disrespectfully, in the somewhat arbitrarily choice of features that they claim defines sex. Perhaps, for the enlightenment of all, those involved should define exactly what feature(s) they are choosing to define sex, then justify specifically why they choose this rather than some other sexually dimorphic feature, and describe exactly why the choice of any other feature will lead to some huge and objectively definable societal or personal disaster. And finally, just cool down and consider throwing away the shoehorn.

Mediocrity has certainly seeped into the system because a lot of these newly developed 'disciplines' are subjective and not intellectually based. Universities should return to quest for knowledge and support only true academic disciplines that approach research and scholarship objectively.

There is one inescapable biological fact that no amount ot transgender reassignemnent, surgery even, can change. The weakest decile of men has about the same physical strength as the strongest decile of women (you can check this easily on the Internet). That is why, in sports involving physical strength, trans-women should never be allowed to compete with born-as-women (not the same foir games like chess). This should also make us question wheteher trans-women should be allowed in some spaces where assaults can occur with born as women, like public roilets, prisons. I have no issue with trans, cross-dressing, whatever, do your thing, except I do not agree with outrageous panto-type x dressers beong foisted pon very young children at school - which may actually make it harder for ordinary trans-dressers (men as women) so that is discrimminatory too.

I have one question: whenever trans issues are discussed the focus seems to be solely on the place of trans women in society. What about trans men... and those who are nonbinary? Nobody seems to be interested about where they fit in.

Accurate numbers are hard to come by, but there do seem to be many more trans-identified males than trans-identified females. We don't hear much, do we, about f-to-m trans people trying to get into male sports, changing rooms, etc. Or demanding the right to be incarcerated in male prisons. I suggest that the reasons are pretty obvious.