Celebrating gender dysphoria?!? Never in the history of Trans parenting has that ever happened. Gender expression is affirmed (not dysphoria) and often with over zealous enthusiasm (understandably as the child faces violence at higher rates). But the dysphoria remains a painful and pathological condition of the trans experience.
I appreciate how you attempt to create a space for a middle way between the hyper abstractions and biological essentialism. But this is not the story. The story is that we are hated. The story is that too many want us eradicated. Your words reflect that we deserve love and respect, so I feel you are on the right path with this, but you missed the mark.
Thanks Jessica, this is an important distinction and one I could have made better - the difference between trans parenting and the lived experience of trans people vs the cultural enforcement of theories related to that experience - I’m focusing on the latter but appreciate it’s an important nuance to highlight
Yes, you are focusing “On the latter” which is the problem. As you focus on the 12 people screaming that trans women should compete in MMA, denying biological reality, you’re missing the broader story. The only real binary is that we either are offered the right to exist in public space or we are not. And right now, the story is moving in the direction of “not.” There are hundreds of bills in US State congresses, increased violence, poverty and marginalization on the increase. There is a tipping point where we just become unhire-able as employers just don’t want the trouble. While you are integrally finding your nuance, this is the reality. Trans women have never been an imposition on cis women other that a few edge cases, and that’s because people are shitty and trans people are people. So ya, sometimes.
Well researched and documented as ever Ali. The thing is, all writing and thought is abstraction, including this piece and my response. Our bodies and our environment are real as far as we understand (through more abstraction).
But I still have to take issue with this idea that postmodernism says “all truth is relative”. First of all there is no agreed understanding of what constitutes “postmodern” philosophy. Foucault is more concerned with power dynamics, Derrida more with language, but both are lumped into the category of “postmodern”. This itself is another abstraction of the truth that lies underneath.
And this is what Foucault and Derrida and Lyotard and others are getting at (as far as I always understood it). They were seeking to strip away all projections, all social conditioning to arrive at what was fundamentally real. And they really went for it full throttle. The irony of course is they created another layer of abstraction.
And it arrives at the work of Judith Butler on gender. I think few understand that what is being outlined is that even how we think about biological sex is socially conditioned. It is an abstraction.
That is not to say a uterus is not a uterus, it is to ask why we view that as the fundamental definition of what it means to be the social abstraction of the word “woman”.
Real people’s real relationship with their real bodies are affecting how they interact with society. Their real relationship with their real bodies is itself socially constructed, so there is infinite regression and infinite projection forward into future reality.
All I’ve written is an abstraction and of course there’s a part of me that reaches for the simplicity of binary this or that, man or woman. And for the most part such binaries serve us in negotiating the physical reality which is so much a projection of personal, generational and social ideas about the “actual” or “real” world.
It seems to me the psychedelic experience can serve as a model for understanding just how much of what we consider reality is a projection of ideas that have been foisted on us since birth as well as consensus ideas that create the maps through which we understand this reality.
And you’re right, those maps are changing, some of the most persistent, as in the post-Enlightenment science of biological categorisation (which ironically is far more complex than a male-female binary) are doing everything to resist such revolutionary change in how we talk about reality.
I do hope I can make it to your talk with Mr Emerald Podcast 😊 and I know Selwyn so that sounds like an interesting day as well.
We may see these things differently, but if we’re serious at arriving at some intrinsic truth underneath the abstractions, then we have to be entertaining ideas from others that might challenge our fundamental idea about reality. And since that last sentence is also an abstraction and projection, I’ll leave it there 😊
I have to agree with Jessica Gold, Ali. You have missed the mark with respect to the trans experience as many well-intentioned people often do. If you’re going to talk about the reality of biology, the trans (and I’ll add intersex) experience is much more complicated and nuanced. You have to consider not just primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but also the stuff we can’t see such as hormone levels and other biochemical factors that occur in utero. These play a role, not only in the physical development of the human, but in its interoceptive experience of gender identity. Interoception determines how I internally experience my body. If what I feel about my body and what I expect to see in the mirror are radically different, this can generate intense feelings of dysphoria. This originates in the brain and nervous system due to hormonal and biochemical organizational factors in utero. In summary, there is plenty of research out there that supports the fact that transgender and nonbinary gender identity is not just an abstraction, but biological.
I have had numerous clients tell me that once they begin gender-affirming hormone therapy, they begin to feel “better in their brains.” Their thoughts and emotions begin to make more sense. I’ve heard this from clients of all ages; adolescents to folks transitioning in their 60’s. If HRT is followed up with gender-affirming surgery as an adult or when the individual is deemed medically of age to give consent, the dysphoria is drastically reduced because outer reality matches inner reality.
So what is it to be “embodied” when if pre-transition being embodied is experienced in some trans folks as a living hell? I would not wish that on anyone and as a parent, the last thing I would do is celebrate it in my trans child. I would want to get them relief as quickly as possible which has, until recently, included some mix of medical and mental health interventions. The oft-cited Cass Report, which has been widely debunked, resulted in bans in the UK on medical affirming care, essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater by implementing a one-size-fits-all protocol on trans children and adolescent care. My heart breaks for trans children and their parents in this current state of affairs.
For information on the biochemical factors that contribute to homosexual and transgender identities, please see the work of Dr. Kate O’Hanlan.
Thanks for this thoughtful response Leslie - as always you were on my mind as I wrote this piece so I’m grateful you’ve replied with this level of detail - I think we’re working off different data with regard to this so I’m looking forward to reading O’Hanlan’s work - I notice there’s a big difference in stances around this in the medical establishment in the UK compared to the US as well, for example few medics here would see the Cass Review as debunked - but your point around hormones and embodiment is a very important one, and your reminder of the agony of embodiment and gender dysphoria - I’ll have a think about the implications of that.
For me intersex people are a different and important example that would support my argument, in that their physical bodies are non-binary, but you might disagree that the distinction is that clear cut. As I replied to Jessica, my focus was on the way these issues have been codified into culture and law and I may have lost some important nuance around lived experience in the process.
I’ve also argued that the Internet is an otherworld. I just gave a presentation on it at The Philosophical Research Society, based on a chapter of my book.
Awesome - where can I find your book? I didn't realise it was out. I have a chapter on it in my book too, and Josh Schrei talks about it - could be an interesting Substack Live conversation...
Yes the need for embodiment is behind the immigration debate and farmers/food topic. A process of embodiment also heals trauma; so we need it to help those who’ve been so damaged by over abstraction.
And the abstract / embodiment distinction could shed light on our relationship with our cultural history …embodiment lands us and roots us in our past . Those lost in abstraction seek to disown this. Similarly a person with body dismorphia seeks to disown the lived reality of their body. I’ve worked with many young women with eating disorders and to heal , the body image needs to be replaced by the felt sence and the feeling of empowerment and strength that owning your presence brings.
I think it's problematic to throw around phrases like 'more real than...' without any attempt to define terms or recourse to (philosophical, scientific, mythological) literature. There's nothing in the definition of (what's typically studied in) biology that makes it 'more real' than (what's typically studied in) social sciences, and I don't think it's kosher to assume this prima facie.
There's some peer-reviewed stuff coming out on the 'sense of reality' and how this intersects with technology, mental health, psychedelics etc, which might be an interesting angle for this. Also Alan Levinovitz's book Natural touches on the question of 'what is nature?' in interesting ways (fleshing out a lot of contradictions).
On a separate note - I don't think it's actually right to say that there are (only) two sexes. I found the following on Facebook and haven't fact checked, but...
"Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes:
Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread]
If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...
Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?
Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?
A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...
Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??
“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...
...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...
Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?
It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...
The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.
Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?
Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.
Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.
Here's some biology that wasn't found on Facebook:
"A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. (e.g., Ref.[1, 3, 6, 26-28]) or that biological sex is a social construct.[2] These notions very much reflect our own anthropocentric view. In fact, femaleness or maleness is not defined by any of these features that can, but do not need to be associated with the biological or gametic sex.
One reason for this misconception of the biological sex lies in biomedical practices, in which mammalian sex chromosomes or sex-associated phenotypes are widely used to define sex (see e.g., Ref.[29]; Figure 1). It is this definition that is targeted by critics of the fact that there are only two discrete sexes (reviewed by Ref.[30]). However, sex chromosomes or sex-associated phenotypes do not qualify to define biological sex, as there are many species that do not have sex chromosomes at all. Whereas in mammals, birds, or butterflies sex chromosomes trigger sexual differentiation, in many other organisms, environmental factors, such as temperature or social regulators, initiate sex determination or sex change (reviewed by Ref.[31, 32]). Hence, sex chromosomes or other sex-determining systems cannot generally define sex. Instead, as the philosopher Paul Griffiths pointed out, “they are operational criteria for sex determination underpinned by the gametic definition of sex and valid only for one species or group of species”.[33] Sex chromosomes, temperature gradients or social cues from group members can all be ways of making a sex, but they do not define it.
As explained above, basically every sexually reproducing species produces two distinct types of gametes which are either large (eggs in animals, ovules in plants) or small (sperm in animals, pollen in plants). Neither are there “speggs” or “pollules” (gametes of intermediate size) or five different biological sexes as postulated by Fausto-Sterling,[34] nor are the male and female sex “context-dependent categories with flexible associations to multiple variables”.[6] All there is are two reproductive strategies based on two distinct categories of gametes that fuse to make offspring.[9, 17, 35] As Joan Roughgarden, a biologist who identifies as a transgender person, put it: “[…]‘male’ means making small gametes, and ‘female’ means making large gametes. Period!”.[36] Moreover, it is important to note that the fundamental definition of the biological sexes (based on gamete size) must be distinguished from any operational usage of the term, for example that based on chromosomes or genes, etc., because fundamental and operational definitions are not equivalent."
Celebrating gender dysphoria?!? Never in the history of Trans parenting has that ever happened. Gender expression is affirmed (not dysphoria) and often with over zealous enthusiasm (understandably as the child faces violence at higher rates). But the dysphoria remains a painful and pathological condition of the trans experience.
I appreciate how you attempt to create a space for a middle way between the hyper abstractions and biological essentialism. But this is not the story. The story is that we are hated. The story is that too many want us eradicated. Your words reflect that we deserve love and respect, so I feel you are on the right path with this, but you missed the mark.
Thanks Jessica, this is an important distinction and one I could have made better - the difference between trans parenting and the lived experience of trans people vs the cultural enforcement of theories related to that experience - I’m focusing on the latter but appreciate it’s an important nuance to highlight
Yes, you are focusing “On the latter” which is the problem. As you focus on the 12 people screaming that trans women should compete in MMA, denying biological reality, you’re missing the broader story. The only real binary is that we either are offered the right to exist in public space or we are not. And right now, the story is moving in the direction of “not.” There are hundreds of bills in US State congresses, increased violence, poverty and marginalization on the increase. There is a tipping point where we just become unhire-able as employers just don’t want the trouble. While you are integrally finding your nuance, this is the reality. Trans women have never been an imposition on cis women other that a few edge cases, and that’s because people are shitty and trans people are people. So ya, sometimes.
Well researched and documented as ever Ali. The thing is, all writing and thought is abstraction, including this piece and my response. Our bodies and our environment are real as far as we understand (through more abstraction).
But I still have to take issue with this idea that postmodernism says “all truth is relative”. First of all there is no agreed understanding of what constitutes “postmodern” philosophy. Foucault is more concerned with power dynamics, Derrida more with language, but both are lumped into the category of “postmodern”. This itself is another abstraction of the truth that lies underneath.
And this is what Foucault and Derrida and Lyotard and others are getting at (as far as I always understood it). They were seeking to strip away all projections, all social conditioning to arrive at what was fundamentally real. And they really went for it full throttle. The irony of course is they created another layer of abstraction.
And it arrives at the work of Judith Butler on gender. I think few understand that what is being outlined is that even how we think about biological sex is socially conditioned. It is an abstraction.
That is not to say a uterus is not a uterus, it is to ask why we view that as the fundamental definition of what it means to be the social abstraction of the word “woman”.
Real people’s real relationship with their real bodies are affecting how they interact with society. Their real relationship with their real bodies is itself socially constructed, so there is infinite regression and infinite projection forward into future reality.
All I’ve written is an abstraction and of course there’s a part of me that reaches for the simplicity of binary this or that, man or woman. And for the most part such binaries serve us in negotiating the physical reality which is so much a projection of personal, generational and social ideas about the “actual” or “real” world.
It seems to me the psychedelic experience can serve as a model for understanding just how much of what we consider reality is a projection of ideas that have been foisted on us since birth as well as consensus ideas that create the maps through which we understand this reality.
And you’re right, those maps are changing, some of the most persistent, as in the post-Enlightenment science of biological categorisation (which ironically is far more complex than a male-female binary) are doing everything to resist such revolutionary change in how we talk about reality.
I do hope I can make it to your talk with Mr Emerald Podcast 😊 and I know Selwyn so that sounds like an interesting day as well.
We may see these things differently, but if we’re serious at arriving at some intrinsic truth underneath the abstractions, then we have to be entertaining ideas from others that might challenge our fundamental idea about reality. And since that last sentence is also an abstraction and projection, I’ll leave it there 😊
I have to agree with Jessica Gold, Ali. You have missed the mark with respect to the trans experience as many well-intentioned people often do. If you’re going to talk about the reality of biology, the trans (and I’ll add intersex) experience is much more complicated and nuanced. You have to consider not just primary and secondary sexual characteristics, but also the stuff we can’t see such as hormone levels and other biochemical factors that occur in utero. These play a role, not only in the physical development of the human, but in its interoceptive experience of gender identity. Interoception determines how I internally experience my body. If what I feel about my body and what I expect to see in the mirror are radically different, this can generate intense feelings of dysphoria. This originates in the brain and nervous system due to hormonal and biochemical organizational factors in utero. In summary, there is plenty of research out there that supports the fact that transgender and nonbinary gender identity is not just an abstraction, but biological.
I have had numerous clients tell me that once they begin gender-affirming hormone therapy, they begin to feel “better in their brains.” Their thoughts and emotions begin to make more sense. I’ve heard this from clients of all ages; adolescents to folks transitioning in their 60’s. If HRT is followed up with gender-affirming surgery as an adult or when the individual is deemed medically of age to give consent, the dysphoria is drastically reduced because outer reality matches inner reality.
So what is it to be “embodied” when if pre-transition being embodied is experienced in some trans folks as a living hell? I would not wish that on anyone and as a parent, the last thing I would do is celebrate it in my trans child. I would want to get them relief as quickly as possible which has, until recently, included some mix of medical and mental health interventions. The oft-cited Cass Report, which has been widely debunked, resulted in bans in the UK on medical affirming care, essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater by implementing a one-size-fits-all protocol on trans children and adolescent care. My heart breaks for trans children and their parents in this current state of affairs.
For information on the biochemical factors that contribute to homosexual and transgender identities, please see the work of Dr. Kate O’Hanlan.
Thanks for this thoughtful response Leslie - as always you were on my mind as I wrote this piece so I’m grateful you’ve replied with this level of detail - I think we’re working off different data with regard to this so I’m looking forward to reading O’Hanlan’s work - I notice there’s a big difference in stances around this in the medical establishment in the UK compared to the US as well, for example few medics here would see the Cass Review as debunked - but your point around hormones and embodiment is a very important one, and your reminder of the agony of embodiment and gender dysphoria - I’ll have a think about the implications of that.
For me intersex people are a different and important example that would support my argument, in that their physical bodies are non-binary, but you might disagree that the distinction is that clear cut. As I replied to Jessica, my focus was on the way these issues have been codified into culture and law and I may have lost some important nuance around lived experience in the process.
This is great, a common theme in your conversations. Is the one with Andrea Hiott up anywhere yet so I can share it?
Thanks! Andrea is up for paid subs if you check the Kainos chat, and Andrea also posted a version to her Substack
oh okay i see
I’ve also argued that the Internet is an otherworld. I just gave a presentation on it at The Philosophical Research Society, based on a chapter of my book.
Awesome - where can I find your book? I didn't realise it was out. I have a chapter on it in my book too, and Josh Schrei talks about it - could be an interesting Substack Live conversation...
Let's do it! Book forthcoming. Will just publish what I've presented publicly now.
Yes the need for embodiment is behind the immigration debate and farmers/food topic. A process of embodiment also heals trauma; so we need it to help those who’ve been so damaged by over abstraction.
And the abstract / embodiment distinction could shed light on our relationship with our cultural history …embodiment lands us and roots us in our past . Those lost in abstraction seek to disown this. Similarly a person with body dismorphia seeks to disown the lived reality of their body. I’ve worked with many young women with eating disorders and to heal , the body image needs to be replaced by the felt sence and the feeling of empowerment and strength that owning your presence brings.
Is this, perhaps, what Rilke was saying 100 years ago when he wrote in his first Duino Elegy,
“the knowing animals are aware
that we are not really at home in
our interpreted world. Perhaps there remains for us
some tree on a hillside, which every day we can take
into our vision” (tr. Stephen Mitchell)?
Is dysmorphia the body’s sense of not fitting in our interpreted (abstracted) world?
Thanks for the article!
I think it's problematic to throw around phrases like 'more real than...' without any attempt to define terms or recourse to (philosophical, scientific, mythological) literature. There's nothing in the definition of (what's typically studied in) biology that makes it 'more real' than (what's typically studied in) social sciences, and I don't think it's kosher to assume this prima facie.
There's some peer-reviewed stuff coming out on the 'sense of reality' and how this intersects with technology, mental health, psychedelics etc, which might be an interesting angle for this. Also Alan Levinovitz's book Natural touches on the question of 'what is nature?' in interesting ways (fleshing out a lot of contradictions).
On a separate note - I don't think it's actually right to say that there are (only) two sexes. I found the following on Facebook and haven't fact checked, but...
"Rebecca Helm, a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville US writes:
Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread]
If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...
Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?
Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?
A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...
Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??
“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...
...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...
Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.
What does this all mean?
It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.
Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?
Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...
The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.
Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?
Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.
Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.
Biology is a shitshow. Be kind to people."
Here's some biology that wasn't found on Facebook:
"A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. (e.g., Ref.[1, 3, 6, 26-28]) or that biological sex is a social construct.[2] These notions very much reflect our own anthropocentric view. In fact, femaleness or maleness is not defined by any of these features that can, but do not need to be associated with the biological or gametic sex.
One reason for this misconception of the biological sex lies in biomedical practices, in which mammalian sex chromosomes or sex-associated phenotypes are widely used to define sex (see e.g., Ref.[29]; Figure 1). It is this definition that is targeted by critics of the fact that there are only two discrete sexes (reviewed by Ref.[30]). However, sex chromosomes or sex-associated phenotypes do not qualify to define biological sex, as there are many species that do not have sex chromosomes at all. Whereas in mammals, birds, or butterflies sex chromosomes trigger sexual differentiation, in many other organisms, environmental factors, such as temperature or social regulators, initiate sex determination or sex change (reviewed by Ref.[31, 32]). Hence, sex chromosomes or other sex-determining systems cannot generally define sex. Instead, as the philosopher Paul Griffiths pointed out, “they are operational criteria for sex determination underpinned by the gametic definition of sex and valid only for one species or group of species”.[33] Sex chromosomes, temperature gradients or social cues from group members can all be ways of making a sex, but they do not define it.
As explained above, basically every sexually reproducing species produces two distinct types of gametes which are either large (eggs in animals, ovules in plants) or small (sperm in animals, pollen in plants). Neither are there “speggs” or “pollules” (gametes of intermediate size) or five different biological sexes as postulated by Fausto-Sterling,[34] nor are the male and female sex “context-dependent categories with flexible associations to multiple variables”.[6] All there is are two reproductive strategies based on two distinct categories of gametes that fuse to make offspring.[9, 17, 35] As Joan Roughgarden, a biologist who identifies as a transgender person, put it: “[…]‘male’ means making small gametes, and ‘female’ means making large gametes. Period!”.[36] Moreover, it is important to note that the fundamental definition of the biological sexes (based on gamete size) must be distinguished from any operational usage of the term, for example that based on chromosomes or genes, etc., because fundamental and operational definitions are not equivalent."
Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173