When I was an undergrad, in 2017, I read an online article about a trans person's experience in life. I found myself struggling to understand this kind of life - why and how would someone choose to make such drastic changes to themselves? And for such (perceived) little benefit? My STEM education up to that point offered little as an answer (surprise surprise). I was curious, so I went to the library on campus and picked up a copy of "Trans* in College: Transgender Students Strategies For Navigating Campus Life and the Institutional Politics of Inclusion"1 by Z. Nicolazzo.
I'd never read anything like it before, but it opened my view to a life I'd found completely different from my own. Immediately I devoured more research on the subject. First I read books on the differences of neurobiology, like Cordelia Fine's "Delusions of Gender". Other times, my focus was on one specific end of the spectrum (usually masculine). I would spend time reading works such as "Amateur" by Thomas McBee or "The Will to Change" by bell hooks.
I'm not here to give you my reading list, though. By honestly engaging with that first book, Nicolazzo's work, my curiosity exploded. Previously, I'd never considered gender a form of expression but an immutable part of my being. So closely was gender itself held to my body that I found it indistinguishable from my form. Once I'd overcome that initial view, an entirely new palette of colors became available to me. Life could be expressed through gender itself, a new art form completely separate from any other like it. Gender was a playground to find oneself in, but it also could work as a brush. By using gender, artists can poke at the very bones of society itself. This is hardly a new realization. Cross-dressing and androgyne presentation both are commonplace in literature and theater. Hell, just buy a copy of Mrs. Doubtfire.
Recently, discussions surrounding gender identity and expression have become a cornerstone of American politics. As more and more people become comfortable in their bodies, expressing themselves in ways new and old, there has been a nasty reaction. Actors who believe an immutable, original, and "pure" gender have revolted against those who correctly identify it as an expression. Some of these actors don't try to use logic as an argument, but point to things like religion or tradition to offer a counter argument. I am not a theologist or a traditionalist, so this means nothing to me. It's the actors that use a different tool that begets my interest. It's actors who use "science" that pique my interest.
An article came out from the Scientific American recently accurately describing the non binary nature of sex. Author Agustín Fuentes writes2:
"The animal kingdom does not limit itself to only one biological binary regarding how a species makes gametes. Scientifically speaking, animals with the capacity to produce ova are generally called “female” and sperm producers “male.” While most animal species fall into the “two types of gametes produced by two versions of the reproductive tract” model, many don’t. Some worms produce both. Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other, and some switch back and forth throughout their lives. There are even lizards that have done away with one type all together."
This conception of sex and gender being more than just binary descriptors of all humans caused an insane backlash on twitter, mostly from the usual suspects. Still, some "experts" regarded the words of Fuentes as incorrect. They contend that science demands a binary - that humans are tied only to male and female. Human sex, they argue, is only tied to reproductive pathways and gamete production. Anyone can change their gender, but sex should always remain as an immutable truth that would never truly change. This belief is "bioessentialism" - the belief that our innate traits and being come from our biology.
These people are wrong. Sex is not binary - the very existence of intersex humans should be enough to dispel that notion. I don't need to really examine the counter argument: Agustin Fuentes' piece is powerful enough on its own to explain the nature of human sex, as we are far beyond a simple yes/no complexity. There is no possible way that you could use only characteristics determined by chromosomes to describe every woman as female - some women don't have uteruses. Some women will never produce an oocyte. Somewhere, a female infant child had corrective surgery of their genitalia to look like a vagina, but will later in life learn they are actually capable of producing sperm. All of these things have happened, are happening, and will continue to happen. It's the beautiful chaos of life.
I could go on and on, but the simple truth is, they are wrong. They are wrong from the construction of their arguments, but even more so, they are wrong in their application of science. In essence, these "scientists" intend to create a theory from nothing. Their argument, that sex defines all humans as A or B, is categorically incorrect because it cannot apply to all humans. Instead, they point to idealistic interpretations of the human body. Without science, these "scientists" instead sound more like Plato's students of ancient Greece: somewhere, in the aether, there exists perfect humans who develop perfectly. These humans have all of the "correct" gamete development and reproductive pathways.
True science recognizes that developmental pathways do not determine correctness, they are only more likely than others. Most Americans are overweight - do we seek to increase the weight of those otherwise? Many people need glasses for their eyesight - does this not violate their true nature of poor vision? If genes determine everything, then children born with type 1 diabetes should lexpect an early grave. These developments are not "incorrect", in the sense that there is no "correct" way for biology to form. Some of it makes us live longer, some of it doesn't. By prescribing to correct-ness, to one "ideal body", these would-be biologists close their minds to a universe of possibilities.
Recent research has found trans men to be developing prostate gland-like tissue in the vaginal canal.3 So similar are these tissues, that most of them (69%) produce PSA - Prostate Specific Antigen. In another study, researchers found trans women's neovaginal canal to be differentiating4 into a state similar to the vagina of a cis woman5. These patients are beyond the sex binary in any way it can help them. Medication can affect women differently than men, but what about men who have vaginas that have prostate tissue? What about women with differently specialized vaginal tissue? The sex binary would fail these people. More so, it would deny access to even learning about them. These individuals would be categorized by a reducing factor, maybe chromosomes, maybe even secondary sexual characteristics.
Trans individuals aren't the only ones harmed by bioessentialist thinking. Life is a chaotic and beautiful thing - it's hardly certain that our chromosomes are going to be simple. In fact, many people reading this probably have weirder chromosomes than they expect. For example, some people develop 45 X, 46 XY mosaic disorder. In this scenario, individuals have cells with both XX and XY expression. Most of them are male (19 out of 20) and many of them are infertile, but it's not a guarantee. Women with this condition usually express Turner's syndrome (an XO chromosomal disorder) but not always - in fact, one woman was able to birth a child while having XX-XY mosaicism. But it doesn't stop there! Some individuals with this condition have a ring shaped Y chromosome or double length Y chromosome. Some of them will even have a third cell line with XYY or XYYY cells replicating too, technically making their sex chromosomes 45 X, 46 XY, 47 XYY.
Let's make it a bit simpler and limit ourselves to individuals who only have XX or XY combinations. Individuals with these chromosomes aren't immune to life's chaos. A mutation of CYP21AS, a gene that encodes a small little protein, can determine much of what we call biological sex. XY individuals with this mutation will have an enlarged clitoris, fused labia, and even possibly ovaries. Medication for these individuals is estrogen that seeks to restore and promote female characteristics! For our XX pals, we can look no further than the SRY gene. It may be present on the X chromosome, instead of the usual Y, which will lead to the fetus to develop into a male. This condition is called "XX male syndrome".
To reduce all of reality to such a simple concept is horrible and unscientific. We limit our minds, prescribing human limitations on the curious infinity that is biology. Life is strange and expressive. The number of permutations of life, of even one species like humanity, is endless. This canvas of life is beautiful. It's diverse beyond description and it's the joy of scientists everywhere that we can paint a microcosm of its vast, chaotic, and wonderfully complex portrait.
The people who argue sex is binary, that the science is settled and biology has given us our straight answer, do not care about science. If they did, they could see the wide range of definitions and descriptors they ignore. Rather, the thin veneer of science is what they seek. By pointing to some deep intellectual truth beyond humans, these "scientists" can say whatever they'd like. Closer to a hedge wizard than a geneticist, bioessentialists conjure prophecy from data. They can pluck any work from anywhere, regardless of its author's intent or even publication date. Powerful soundbites and well written (but out of context) citations act as chanting spells and words of power, but to a scientist, it's a smokescreen. The truth is, the distinction of sex is beyond science. It is a menagerie of changes that are impossible to quantify without losing accuracy and precision.
That is the true loss of bioessentialism. This wide variety of life is lost - cast away for a rigid system that fills our Western ideology. It closes out the reality of sex to humanity and it destroys that beautiful brush of gender. If we followed the claims of the bioessentialists then we lose so much possibility in research about human life and development. It's not unlike people arguing for creationist only teaching - shutting down an entire study of biology because it violates traditionalism. Fortunately for us, science cares little for these arguments. It will forge on regardless, fostering free and unique thought. Most of all, science will not be inhibited by faulty scientists. It will move on - and they will be forgotten.
Hey, there’s a lot of horrible shit going on in the USA right now. I’ve added some links to organizations that are helping LGBTQ+ groups, especially in areas of the US that are being hit hard with horrible legislation. If you have a penny, drop one or two in their direction:
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/
https://greatnonprofits.org/org/equality-florida
https://www.equalitytexas.org/
https://greatnonprofits.org/org/centerlink-the-community-of-lgbt-centers
All things aside, this title is VERY long
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
Anderson, W. J., Kolin, D. L., Neville, G., Diamond, D. A., Crum, C. P., Hirsch, M. S., & Vargas, S. O. (2020). Prostatic metaplasia of the vagina and uterine cervix. American Journal of Surgical Pathology, 44(8), 1040–1049. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000001486
Differentiating, for a cell, means to specialize into a certain group of cells. This makes tissues, which then make organs :)
Grosse, A., Grosse, C., Lenggenhager, D., Bode, B., Camenisch, U., & Bode, P. (2017). Cytology of the neovagina in transgender women and individuals with congenital or acquired absence of a natural vagina. Cytopathology, 28(3), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/cyt.12417