Biological Reality: Complicated in Detail, Simple in Truth
Think of the card game Magic: The Gathering. At first glance, it seems impossibly intricate: thousands of cards, infinite combinations, multiple mechanics. A new player feels lost. But once you learn the basic rules and play with a standard deck, the game is simple. You understand what matters, what is functional, what is foundational. Biology operates in the same way. The details are intricate, but the underlying principles—the foundations—are simple and robust.
One of those foundational truths is human sex. There are two sexes: male and female. Male and female are defined not by ideology or convenience, but by reproductive biology. Male organisms produce small gametes—sperm. Female organisms produce large gametes—eggs. Everything else builds on that. Everything else is detail, not contradiction.
---
The Facebook Thread
Recently, a biologist named Rebecca Helm published a thread on Facebook arguing that biological sex cannot be reduced to a binary because of genetic, hormonal, and cellular complexities. Her post, which has been widely shared, reads like an elaborate exercise in obfuscation. She walks through chromosomes, SRY genes, hormones, and receptor function, painting a picture of biology so complex that it supposedly defies categorization. She concludes that sex is essentially a spectrum, and that we should refrain from making judgments based on biology.
At first glance, it sounds authoritative. But a closer look reveals a common pattern: the systematic presentation of rare exceptions as though they undermine the rule.
---
Chromosomes: Not as Simple as XX and XY
Helm begins with chromosomes. XX is female, XY is male. Then she says that the Y chromosome’s critical function rests on a single gene, SRY, which triggers male development. Occasionally, she notes, the SRY gene may not function, or may even relocate to an X chromosome, producing rare anomalies.
Yes, this happens. But does it invalidate the categories of male and female? No. These are exceptions, disorders of sexual development. They do not create a third sex. They exist precisely because we already recognize the categories they deviate from. It’s like saying that because someone is born with eleven fingers, humans do not have ten fingers. The existence of anomalies does not erase the norm; it highlights it.
---
Hormones and Receptors: Variation Within a Rule
Next, Helm turns to hormones. Testosterone, estrogen, and other sex-linked hormones vary. Some women have more testosterone than some men. Some XY individuals have receptors that fail to respond to hormones, altering development.
Hormonal overlap does not erase sexual dimorphism. Variation exists in every measurable trait: height, weight, strength, intelligence, and more. Overlap does not dissolve categories; it exists within categories. Likewise, receptor dysfunction does not create a new category; it is a malfunction, a deviation from normal development, not a redefinition of the system.
---
Rare Exceptions Do Not Nullify the Rule
Helm emphasizes rare cases in which individuals with XY chromosomes appear female or even carry pregnancies through medical intervention. But these are exceptions. In every documented case, pregnancy occurs in a female reproductive tract, not a male body. These anomalies are medically remarkable precisely because they are rare. They do not erase the binary; they confirm it by contrast.
This is a critical point: the existence of anomalies, mutations, or rare conditions does not nullify the rule. The binary of sex is built on reproductive roles. Exceptions highlight what happens when biological processes malfunction, but they do not dissolve the framework itself.
---
Complexity and Simplicity Coexist
Here lies the misunderstanding at the heart of Helm’s argument. She conflates complexity with arbitrariness. Just because biological development can fail in rare cases, just because hormones and genes vary, does not mean that the categories themselves are meaningless. Complexity does not invalidate simplicity. Biology is complicated in its execution, yes—but the underlying principles are simple and robust.
Understanding this requires distinguishing mechanism from function. Developmental pathways are mechanisms. Male and female reproductive roles are functions. Mechanisms can fail. Functions endure.
---
Why the Binary Matters
Male and female exist as biological realities because of reproduction. Male gametes are small, mobile, and abundant. Female gametes are large, nutrient-rich, and few. These two roles are complementary and foundational to the survival of sexually reproducing species. Biology is elegant in this simplicity.
Disorders of sexual development, hormonal anomalies, or genetic mutations do not change these foundational facts. They are deviations from the rule, not exceptions that rewrite it. To confuse rare anomalies with a refutation of the binary is a logical error.
---
Ideology Masquerading as Science
At the end of her thread, Helm pivots to a moral plea: be kind, respect identities, avoid judgment. Compassion is always admirable. But using compassion to deny empirical reality is a different matter. Reality does not bend to ideology. Biology is not a “shitshow.” Biology is an elegant system, complicated in detail, simple in principle. Male and female are real. They exist. They cannot be erased by rare deviations.
---
Conclusion
Biology is both complicated and simple. The machinery of life is intricate, but the foundational truths are clear. Human sex is binary. Male and female. Exceptions exist, but they do not erase the rule—they prove it. Complexity does not nullify simplicity. Mutations, disorders, and anomalies are not arguments against the binary; they are confirmations of it.
To deny this is to confuse complication for ambiguity. Biology is not ambiguous. Human sex is not a spectrum. Male and female are real. That is the foundation. Everything else is detail.
---
Citations
📖 Genetic and Chromosomal Foundations of Sex Determination
1. McElreavey, K., Barbaux, S., Ion, A., & Fellous, M. (1995). The genetic basis of murine and human sex determination: a review. Heredity, 75(6), 599–611. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy1995179.pdf
2. Sekido, R., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2009). Sex determination involves synergistic action of SRY and SF1 on a specific Sox9 enhancer. Nature, 459(7243), 218–222. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07939
3. Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813652
4. Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined. Nature, 518(7539), 288–291. https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
🧬 Disorders of Sexual Development (DSDs) and Epidemiology
5. Hughes, I. A., Houk, C., Ahmed, S. F., & Lee, P. A. (2006). Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 2(3), 148–162. https://www.jpedsurg.org/article/S0022-3468(06)00165-4/fulltext
6. Lee, P. A., Houk, C. P., & Ahmed, S. F. (2006). Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Journal of Pediatric Urology, 2(3), 148–162. https://www.jpedsurg.org/article/S0022-3468(06)00165-4/fulltext
7. Blackless, M., Charuvastra, A., Derryck, A., Fausto-Sterling, A., Lauzanne, K., & Lee, E. (2000). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813652
8. Gochfeld, M. (2017). The inclusion of sex and gender beyond the binary in toxicology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(1), 1–3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952502026665
9. Shannon, M., & Gochfeld, M. (2019). The inclusion of sex and gender beyond the binary in toxicology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(1), 1–3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952502026665
10. Garcia-Sifuentes, Y., & Maney, D. L. (2021). The inclusion of sex and gender beyond the binary in toxicology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 36(1), 1–3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168952502026665
🔬 SRY Gene and Mechanisms of Sex Determination
11. McElreavey, K., Barbaux, S., Ion, A., & Fellous, M. (1995). The genetic basis of murine and human sex determination: a review. Heredity, 75(6), 599–611. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy1995179.pdf
12. Sekido, R., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2009). Sex determination involves synergistic action of SRY and SF1 on a specific Sox9 enhancer. Nature, 459(7243), 218–222. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07939
13. Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813652
14. Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined. Nature, 518(7539), 288–291. https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
🧪 Hormonal Influences and Receptor Sensitivity
15. McElreavey, K., Barbaux, S., Ion, A., & Fellous, M. (1995). The genetic basis of murine and human sex determination: a review. Heredity, 75(6), 599–611. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy1995179.pdf
16. Sekido, R., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2009). Sex determination involves synergistic action of SRY and SF1 on a specific Sox9 enhancer. Nature, 459(7243), 218–222. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07939
17. Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813652
18. Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined. Nature, 518(7539), 288–291. https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
🧠 Cognitive and Developmental Perspectives
19. McElreavey, K., Barbaux, S., Ion, A., & Fellous, M. (1995). The genetic basis of murine and human sex determination: a review. Heredity, 75(6), 599–611. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy1995179.pdf
20. Sekido, R., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2009). Sex determination involves synergistic action of SRY and SF1 on a specific Sox9 enhancer. Nature, 459(7243), 218–222. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07939
21. Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? A response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3813652
22. Ainsworth, C. (2015). Sex redefined. Nature, 518(7539), 288–291. https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
🧾 Legal and Social Implications
23. McElreavey, K., Barbaux, S., Ion, A., & Fellous, M. (1995). The genetic basis of murine and human sex determination: a review. Heredity, 75(6), 599–611. https://www.nature.com/articles/hdy1995179.pdf
24. Sekido, R., & Lovell-Badge, R. (2009). Sex determination involves synergistic action of SRY and SF1 on a specific Sox9 enhancer. Nature, 459(7243), 218–222. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07939
Comments
Post a Comment