Scientifically, how many genders there are
Are there many genders or two?
The debate raised in western societies by transgender activists about the alleged existence of a multitude of different sexes is addressed by Colin M. Wright and Emma N. Hilton in a commentary for the Wall Street Journal entitled "The Dangerous Denial of Gender", calling on biologists and Doctors to counter the uncertainty in society vigorously.
Because we are increasingly dealing with a “dangerous and anti-scientific trend to a complete denial of biological sex”: “Biologists now believe that there is a wider range of sexes than just binary female and male,” an article announced in 2015 in the science journal “Nature” with the headline “The idea of two sexes is too simple”. In 2018, a New York Times headline promised to explain "why gender is not binary." The argument was based on the existence of intersex people in whom ambiguous sexual characteristics developed during their prenatal developmental stages. Therefore, the categories “male” and “female” are only the endpoints of a “spectrum” and thus only “social constructs”.
A wrong line of argument in every respect
However, such reasoning is in every possible way wrong, according to Wright and Hilton. Because in humans, the biological sex of an organism corresponds, as in most animals or plants, to “one of two clearly different forms of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sexual cell types - sperm or egg cells - and biological functions in the associated with sexual reproduction. In humans, reproductive anatomy at birth is clearly male or female in more than 99.98% of cases ”.
Medicine, sociology, education, language: valuable analyzes provide orientation for dealing with gender politics.
The function of these two anatomies is to support reproduction by fusing the sperm and egg cells. That is why there is “no third form of sexual cell type in humans, and that is why there is also no gender“ spectrum ”and no additional genders beyond male and female. The gender is binary ”. Intersex people are extremely rare and they are "neither a third gender nor proof that gender is a 'spectrum' or a 'social construct'".
Serious human rights concerns
The denial of the real existence of a biological gender and its replacement by a subjective “gender identity,” Wright and Hilton continued, “is not just an eccentric academic theory. It raises serious concerns about the human rights of vulnerable groups, including women, homosexuals and children ”.
Women are entitled to gender-based legal protection “because of the ubiquitous threat from male violence and sexual assault”. In addition, due to the greater physical performance, a separation of men's and women's sports is necessary. The different productive roles of men and women also require laws to protect women from discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere: "The lie that gender is anchored in a subjective identity rather than an objective biology" makes the implementation of these gender-based rights impossible. The denial of the biological sex also eradicates the existence of "homosexuality, since without the difference between the sexes, same-sex attraction becomes irrelevant".
Children are most at risk
Most at risk, however, are children: “If you teach them that gender is based on identity rather than biology, the gender categories can easily merge with retrograde stereotypes about masculinity and femininity. Masculine girls and feminine boys might get confused about their own gender. The dramatic increase in the 'gender disphorie' among adolescents - especially among young girls - in the clinics credibly reflects this new kind of confusion ”. Because the vast majority of young people suffering from gender dysphoria “grow out of their sense of dysphoria at some point during puberty”, and many then described themselves as homosexual.
Hence, Wright and Hilton urge, "The time of politeness on this question is over." They demand: “Biologists and medical professionals must stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex. If authoritative scientific institutions do not recognize or even deny the empirical fact in the name of social adjustment, it is an outrageous betrayal of the scientific community they represent. It undermines public confidence in science and it is dangerously harmful to the most vulnerable in society ”.
The print edition of the daily mail completes the latest news on die-tagespost.de with backgrounds and analyzes. You will receive the current issue free of charge
Get it here for free!Your opinion on this topic on the homepage
- How can I calculate my final grade
- What does max voc mean in acetone
- Should I eat 40 proteins a day
- Women like to wear fully fashionable socks
- How do people control you
- What salary does L T
- Web developer, what is your annual salary
- What is brunch in the kitchen
- Who is the youngest great grandparent of all time?
- Can teachers tell if students are wrong?
- What is the simplest pleasure in life
- Which animal has the saddest expression?
- What do Amazon employees hate about Amazon
- Spanish Greeks and Italians are considered black
- When did people start smiling in photos?
- What is the role of a Tahsildar
- Boys like introverted girls as friends
- Can we change bad habits permanently?
- Who is following or monitoring the prosecutor?
- What determines the pitch of a sound
- Has anyone taken a world cruise
- Why do some cockroaches fly
- Could romantic movies ruin romantic relationships?
- At what age should children start using deodorant
- Who is the richest person in Nepal
- What is the history of Great Britain
- Great Britain is really great
- What is GCM 5 Level in Atos
- Entrepreneurs are exempt from some taxes
- What is the purpose of the story
- How do drugs harm society?
- What's your way of emphasizing food
- What is the carbon footprint on the internet
- What can you buy with Monero