Across the natural world, male and female are defined by reproductive function, describing the contribution of small gametes (like sperm) or large gametes (like ova), respectively, to the next generation.
In healthy humans, there are two anatomical body types, each corresponding to one of the two reproductive functions. That is, in humans, there are two sexes.
In utero, males and females develop sex-specific primary characteristics pertinent to function during reproduction.
Healthy male anatomy comprises testicles, internal genital structures like the vas deferens and an external penis and scrotum.
Healthy female anatomy comprises internal ovaries, internal genital structures like a uterus and vagina, and an external vulva incorporating the clitoris.
The sex of a baby develops in a coordinated set of processes and is routinely and reliably observed at birth by visual and palpable (“touch, feeling”) assessment of external genitalia.
Such definitions and descriptions of sex are uncontroversial, appearing in dictionaries, key biology and medical textbooks, academic publications and medical consensus statements like that issued by the Endocrine Society in 2021.
In fact, academic publications defining sex, actively researching sex or incidentally dependent on these understandings of sex are too numerous to consider.
For example, a search on PubMed for only “male [AND] sperm” (that is, nowhere near an exhaustive search) retrieves over 100,000 results, including multiple publications from Nobel Laureates in Physiology or Medicine, and from a huge array of biology and medical disciplines.
By the above standard definitions and descriptions of sex, transwomen are biologically male.
It is scientifically accurate to describe them as such, and necessary in some discussions to discriminate people by their sex.
Here is a graphic of changes in muscle and strength in transwomen pre- and post- testosterone suppression (12+ months), compared with baseline metrics from demographically matched females.
The original data is presented in Hilton and Lundberg, 2021 (Table 4).
The graphic was created by me for a policy paper I coauthored with Professor Jon Pike @runthinkwrite and Professor Leslie Howe @usask for the Canadian think tank The MacDonald Laurier Institute.
I recently tweeted about people who think I believe humans are asparagus.
This bad faith take stems (ha ha) from an analogy I’ve used to illustrate that the phenomenon of male/female is not limited to the constructions of the human brain.
Like many plants, and like humans, (some) asparagus strains are dioecious - they exist as individuals male and individual female plants. In animals, we call this set up ‘gonochorism’.
Asparagus can reproduce via the fusion of one small and one large gamete (sometimes, they reproduce asexually).
Biological convention denotes the plant morph producing the large gamete, found in the ovules, as ‘female’.
Systematic differences between the two sexes of a gonochoristic species of a physical characteristic (or set thereof), not including reproductive anatomy.
Some sexually dimorphic characteristics are non-overlapping (e.g. deer antlers) while some are very overlapping (e.g. human height).
The extent of overlapping observation/measurement is irrelevant. The only requirement is a robustly-detectable difference between sexes.
Many female humans are taller than many male humans, yet the population descriptions of height in humans consistently reveal that males as a sex class are taller than their demographically-matched female peers.
Height in humans is a sexually dimorphic characteristic.
@xandvt@MumpGorithm@refined_devon@BBCMorningLive@BBCiPlayer I am honestly appalled by your behaviour here. You are a medic and a public communicator, and you seem unable to use basic and commonly-understood words when discussing concepts like population health screens.
@xandvt@MumpGorithm@refined_devon@BBCMorningLive@BBCiPlayer The WHO make it clear that an ethical population screen uses clear language that will maximise capture of the target demographic. Who are the target demographic for prostate screens?
@xandvt@MumpGorithm@refined_devon@BBCMorningLive@BBCiPlayer To define the population demographic for prostate screening as ‘those with prostates’ lacks any explanatory value. It’s a linguistic dead end. Replace ‘prostate’ with a less well-known structure, and then consider how effective a screening campaign will be….
First, there is the stuff about how to classify CAIS and there is discussion within this thread about the dev bio, endocrinonlogy etc.
@WackyPidgeon@JamesVSD1@zaelefty@JuliaMasonMD1@madadhruadh@hoovlet I have never hidden my developmental biology understanding of sex, which is centred not on chromosomes (or any other determination mechanism) but on gamete type, which is in animals a product of gonad type.
@tomhfh Tom. Promise me you will never teach statistics.
The graph you have posted clearly shows two overlapping normal distributions.
Each normal distribution is associated with either the female sex or the male sex.
@tomhfh As you correctly point out, short males are not female.
Yet a very short male may appear in the little area of overlap highlighted, because they are at the far left of the male normal distribution, not because they are magically ‘intersex’ or ‘a bit female’.
@tomhfh The X axis in the graph is not ‘sex units’. The graph is not mapping sex. It is a mapping schematically a characteristic associated with sex, like testosterone levels (in some concentration unit).
Sex is why you have a bimodal distribution of testosterone levels.