In the wake of a Supreme Court judgement ruling that references to sex in the Equality Act, it’s worth remembering that, in February 2023 the Daily Telegraph published an article by Ellen Pasternack, an Evolutionary BiologyPhD student at Oxford, aggressively misrepresented the science and claimed that there were exactly two biological sexes. She used the reputation of #OxfordUniversity to make claims that inflame bigotry and which have no basis in science. Almost everything in her article was directly contradicted by this piece in Nature seven years earlier which, given it directly related to her field of study, she has no excuse for not reading.

At the time, I wrote to Tim Coulson, the head of the Biology department, to point out that the 20th century has a long history of people misrepresenting biology to push an agenda that marginalised or killed people. If they have learned anything from history, I asked that the department publish an official correction or ask the student to retract her article.

Professor Coulson argued that this was a free speech issue and refused to take any action.

With this in mind, I would urge anyone considering a PhD in #Biology, or attending any events to avoid #Oxford. They clearly value bigotry more than they value science and so do not deserve a place in the scientific community.

@david_chisnall Sex is explicitly defined as sex chromosome XX = female, and sex chromosome XY = male. I kind of get how people can get confused on the issue of "gender", but there being two biological sexes is settled science.

@david_chisnall
"either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures" ~~ Merriam Webster

"either of the two categories (male or female) into which most organisms are divided" ~~ WordNet 2006

etc.
I'm not even talking about issues of gender in a social sense, I'm talking about biological sex.

@golemwire Wait, just to confirm:

You're trying to contradict an article in Nature, the most prestigious Biology journal, written by biologists, by citing a dictionary?

I bet you also 'did your own research' and concluded that the Earth if flat as well.

@david_chisnall Yes, I'm contradicting them by citing a dictionary (multiple, actually). Sometimes the most educated people make the silliest decisions. It doesn't matter who contradicts basic facts. How many different sets of reproductive organs do humans have? Two. If you say otherwise, you're forgetting your basic definitions.

"and concluded that the Earth if [sic] flat as well" No, the Earth is round :)

@golemwire @david_chisnall You are so wrong you fail biology forever.

You might have heard that all humans don’t have the exact same gene sequences. There is also not a straight line from gene sequences to protein production and then phenotype. If there was, we would always be producing all proteins full speed all the time.

The existence of intersex people disproves you in the easiest way possible, but there are more subtle ways things can vary.

@ahltorp @david_chisnall I recognize the existence of intersex. But humans are considered bipeds, even though someone can be born with a missing leg.
Point is, there are, objectively, two distinct sets of reproductive organs. You can tell the two sexes by that (check the dictionary). It is true, though, you can be malformed such that you have a cross of the two. Still, the two categories the mix-up is made of is pretty clear.

@golemwire @david_chisnall Check dictionaries from a hundred years ago. “Races” were defined then, and “mix” between them was frowned upon. Does that make it right? Of course not. Also check entries for homosexuality while you’re there.

Many people would have said that “interracial children” were malformed. Trevor Noah was “objectively” a “mix-up” in South Africa, and therefore illegal.

Definitions are, always, social constructs. There is no such thing as a definition that is given by nature.

@ahltorp
I checked a dictionary from a hundred years ago (https://dict.org/ ; search "race" and scroll down to the Gcide 1913 Webster entry), and races were defined similar to how they are now. It doesn't mention a "mix" between them being frowned upon. (You won't see me frowning upon "interracial" marriage either.)

@ahltorp
Mixing of "races" don't result in biological error, so it doesn't mean they're malformed. However, basic understanding of human reproduction reveals that intersex doesn't make sense functionally (so, one considers it to be a deformity, unlike with races).

@golemwire There is no “biological error”. It’s only in your mind, because your definitions are unusable in a modern biological context, just as phlogiston is in modern chemistry. Binary sexes are a gross simplification, and not reality. It’s a wish to simplify more than it should be simplified.

Do you also still go around and talk about homosexuality as a “deformity” or “biological error”? Your same exact arguments can be used then, and you’d be just as wrong.

@ahltorp I don't talk about homosexuality as a deformity or biological error. I'm not sure you understand what I'm trying to say.