Nowadays, there is a lot of attention on genders. Where the concept of “sex” once only had two possibilities, namely male or female, there are now on top of that a number of genders. Non-binary could be one of them, but it is also an umbrella term, as all genders essentially deviate from the binary biological sex, in the sense that biology is no longer considered decisive for someone’s gender by everyone. But what, then, is the role of (biological) sex?

That role is twofold. On one hand, biological sex remains important because all genders are related to a need to belong to one’s own, the other, no gender, or both. Without using the concept of sex, it is almost impossible to define a gender. If a woman does not exist, how could a biological man, for example, want to or be able to become a trans woman? At the same time, the role of biological sex is diminishing due to the greater importance attached to diversity, equality, and self-identification.

Recently, the balance has shifted towards wanting to deny the role of biological sex as much as possible. After all, if it does not exist, or if it turns out to be as varied and flexible as the gender classification, then we no longer need to take it into account or have difficult discussions about it. It is tiring to constantly hear that it is actually very simple and that you can only be male or female. And that is why Rebecca Helm, a biologist and assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, shared the response shown here.

Summary

Rebecca makes a point that the development into male or female is much more complicated than most people think. A lot can also go “differently,” resulting in no “typical” male or female outcome. The core of her argument is that you can assess sex in many ways and sometimes get different outcomes. We have also seen this at the Olympic Games. If you look at hormone levels, you sometimes come to different results than when you look at DNA.

For me, it was new that the main gene responsible for male development, the SRY gene, sometimes lies on the wrong chromosome, namely on X instead of Y. A missing SRY gene on the Y chromosome would indicate femininity. And so Rebecca arrives at a genetic, chromosomal, hormonal, and cellular (receptor) classification. They can all say something different, and some results can also be non-binary (somewhere in the middle). This results in many possible combinations. Biological sex is therefore also complex (Rebecca even calls her field, biology, a “shitshow”), and you should therefore never discriminate based on it.

Mistakes

At first glance, this story seems very reasonable, but it always proves worthwhile to check a few things. Because the fact that someone is a professor is no guarantee for scientifically responsible statements, especially when they are made outside of scientific publications. And in this case, a bit of curiosity, some reading, and common sense were enough to see the serious errors in the argument.

  1. When an SRY gene is on the wrong chromosome, it has no effect on sex. The development in the male direction is still triggered. If something goes wrong in this development, it is not due to this gene, but due to errors in or the absence of other sex genes. The claim that a misplaced SRY gene in itself indicates something feminine (“A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female”) is therefore patently incorrect.
  2. Nowhere is there mention of how often such complications occur. It turns out that the translocation of the SRY gene only occurs in 1 in 20,000 cases, or 0.005% of individuals with a male appearance. In the majority of these cases, it does not concern XY, but XX chromosomes. The SRY gene has not actually jumped over, not even figuratively, because there is no Y chromosome where it actually belongs. This “gene from nowhere” causes the so-called “XX male syndrome.” There is nothing feminine about this either, as it involves the suppression of female characteristics.
  3. You could say that science has discovered that the SRY gene is more decisive for initial sexual development than the XY chromosome. But the differences between the two approaches are minimal. It mainly concerns cases of: male (in terms of appearance and hormones) but infertile (no sperm formation). And in those cases, as mentioned, the other genes play a larger role than the SRY itself. For total male development, the XY chromosome is still the most decisive.
  4. Hormonal and cellular abnormalities, so-called “differences in sex development” (DSD), occur once in 5,000 cases, or in 0.02% of births. This includes Turner, but excludes Klinefelter syndrome. Both are actually genetic abnormalities of the X and Y chromosomes. It includes Swyer syndrome, which can be caused by an abnormality of the SRY gene. Other hormonal disorders, particularly CAH and 5-alpha-reductase deficiency, are related to enzymes that are produced in insufficient quantities due to a defect in autosomal (non-XY) genes. In cellular insensitivity to hormones, it mainly concerns AIS (androgen insensitivity syndrome), caused by a defect on the X chromosome. We see that in most of these rare cases, it concerns a non-standard male development, mainly caused by defective genes on the X and Y chromosomes, plus some genes located elsewhere that are still important for full development as a man.

The conclusion must be that you cannot treat the genetic, chromosomal, hormonal, and cellular as if they are separate dimensions, whose combinations lead to a multitude of biological sexes, just as we know a multitude of genders. Almost always, these four aspects align neatly. Moreover, any hormonal and cellular abnormalities are usually grouped together as DSD. And these abnormalities are again strongly related to genetics, often specifically to the X or Y chromosomes.

  1. Therefore, the claim that someone can be “physically” or “bodily” non-binary does not hold up. We have seen that occasionally a complete development as male or female does not occur. In all those cases, the body has tried. It is not as if non-binary is simply one of the three functional outcomes. Although I would never want to call a non-binary person (in terms of gender) dysfunctional, because then much more must be going on (and even then I would avoid that word), we must be somewhat stricter when it specifically concerns reproduction. Unfortunately, there can be all sorts of things in our body that do not function or do not function well, and the development of sex is one of them. That can be painful, but it does not help to immediately deny that pain by creating a third option in terms of sex. Note, I am still speaking about biology here, not about gender experience or gender expression.
  2. The argument of the small numbers of not clearly male or female persons is not adequately refuted. This is done anecdotally by pointing out what could happen if Rebecca were to have her students do a DNA test on the spot. They might find out that their chromosomal sex does not match their physical sex. That would be a shock! But above we saw that both the SRY gene and most other conditions do produce an important part of the male sexual characteristics. These are not to be expected in someone with XX chromosomes, but in that case, there are abnormalities such as the absence of beard growth, short stature, no deep voice, and/or breast development. The chance is very small that this has not yet been investigated in those few students. In short, dramatization is used here to deny the binary nature of biological sex, despite the very small number of deviations.
  3. If we are not able to point out an absolute cause for our biological sex, then it would not be fair to judge someone based on that. I assume what is meant here is: to condemn. That is, of course, never the intention. Rebecca also talks about discrimination, being unkind, and showing a lack of respect in this context. We should simply believe what someone says about themselves. But without wanting to be unkind, why should we believe something that the person themselves cannot substantiate? I also fear that by now the concepts of sex and gender identification are being confused. That is actually unworthy of a biologist. I can have respect for someone’s feelings and thus gender, but it becomes difficult for someone’s denial of their own biology.
  4. Finally, it is argued that sex cannot be binary because, besides XX and XY, there are also XXY and XXYY chromosomes and many more such variants. Well, that last part is not so bad, and much of it has already been discussed above. XXY is also known as Klinefelter syndrome and occurs in about 0.2% of male births. XXYY is a variant of that and occurs much less frequently. Both can be very well regarded as deviations from the XY pair and develop as male, although there are some more female characteristics. From the many cognitive, behavioral, and health problems in these variants, we can deduce that there is no normal and healthy development. We can therefore still assume a binary classification, namely either female (XX without SRY gene) or male (XY, XXY, XXYY, XX with SRY). That is not so difficult.
  5. The suggestion is always that biology is so complex that there must also be a good explanation for the different genders, we just do not know it yet. Unfortunately, Rebecca’s story does not contribute to this, except for the introduction of the concept of non-binary, which does not really have added value within biology. This while a better understanding of genders from biology could indeed help to improve treatments and guidance and increase the acceptance of transgender people. Even if it would have to be admitted that genders can only be explained from psychology, this would help to make treatments more targeted. But unfortunately, none of this.
  6. An even simpler and more direct way to show that biological sex is binary, is to point to the types of cells we use to reproduce. There is a sperm, an egg and nothing else.

Conclusion

The human body is indeed complex, and precisely for that reason, it is such a great wonder that it often goes well, even in the development of biological sex. Scientists with an ideological agenda unfortunately often neglect a piece of common sense. They then no longer know what it means that exceptions prove the general rule. Various facts taken out of context are used to fight a supposed enemy, who in reality is often only concerned that people with gender dysphoria are becoming too far removed from their own biological reality. It does not do science any good. And the misuse of science as a polarizing weapon by and for activists does not do the relationships in society any good either.

Sources:

This post is also available in: Dutch