Long 🧵
In his article entitled “Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity,” Princeton anthropologist Agustin Fuentes informs us that “Science points to a more accurate and hopeful way to understand the biology of sex…
sapiens.org
In his article entitled “Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity,” Princeton anthropologist Agustin Fuentes informs us that “Science points to a more accurate and hopeful way to understand the biology of sex…
sapiens.org
that is more conducive to respect and flourishing.” What is this new take on the biology of sex that should replace the “sex binary,” and how will it promote respect and flourishing? Neither question is clearly answered in his essay. What is clear is that Fuentes thinks
"the belief that biology creates two types of humans”—a “sex binary”—is not only wrong, but bad for humanity. Evidently, better beliefs about biology and the binary should be informed by an appreciation for the diversity of genitalia, hormones, and behaviors across male and
female animals.
For example, some females are aggressive and have huge, penis-like clitorises (hyenas), some fish change sex (e.g. clownfish), and “when it comes to raising kids, humans don’t come in two kinds.” Instead of a binary, “there are multitudes of ways to be a male or
For example, some females are aggressive and have huge, penis-like clitorises (hyenas), some fish change sex (e.g. clownfish), and “when it comes to raising kids, humans don’t come in two kinds.” Instead of a binary, “there are multitudes of ways to be a male or
female or both.” If you’ve seen the awesome movie the Wicker Man, you’ll have an idea the size of the straw person he is arguing against. Humungous. Some fish can indeed change sex and men can be devoted parents. Nobody’s claiming sex is immutable in every species or that
sex-related traits like parenting are strictly dichotomous.
The “sex binary” is usually understood as the claim that sex itself (even in humans) is a dichotomy (binary). The typical rejection of the binary involves claims like “sex is on a spectrum,” or
The “sex binary” is usually understood as the claim that sex itself (even in humans) is a dichotomy (binary). The typical rejection of the binary involves claims like “sex is on a spectrum,” or
“sex is multidimensional continuum.” But the sex binary is real, even in clownfish. They actually illustrate the binary beautifully: their sex changes because the type of gamete they produce changes. “Male” and “female,” roughly, are the words describing those with the capacity
to produce sperm or eggs, respectively. Two gamete types, two sexes. (Fuentes doesn’t include a definition of “sex” nor “sex binary.” And “gamete,” “egg,” “sperm” fail to make an appearance, while some form of “diverse” appears five times.)
Fuentes seems to be trying to convince
Fuentes seems to be trying to convince
us that part of the reason we should reject the sex binary is because believing it restricts social acceptance of gender diversity. I’m not upset with Fuentes because I think some of his scientific claims are wrong. I’m upset about what’s happening to the practice of science,
the credibility of scientists and the work we do. Let me explain.
At the end of his article, Fuentes gets personal: “instead of listening to people who are misogynistic, sexist, or homo/transphobic; incels; or politicians who base their ideologies on a biological sex binary and
At the end of his article, Fuentes gets personal: “instead of listening to people who are misogynistic, sexist, or homo/transphobic; incels; or politicians who base their ideologies on a biological sex binary and
myths about its evolution, we can and should be open to a serious understanding of biology and its better options for human flourishing.” Don’t listen to those bigoted, biased people who are weaponizing science and twisting facts to support their nefarious social agendas.
Instead, listen to those who better understand biology and how we can use it to support admirable social agendas.
Ideally, citizens of a liberal democracy should have equal access to information relevant to social and political issues, and scientists can play an important role
Ideally, citizens of a liberal democracy should have equal access to information relevant to social and political issues, and scientists can play an important role
by adding to the common pool of knowledge. Crucially, in class and in public, we should steer clear of suggesting that only certain scientific views are morally acceptable. Doing otherwise, as exemplified by Fuentes’ article, limits our ability to discover how the world actually
works, reduces our authority as unbiased providers of information, and sends the message that there is straight line from scientific facts to social policy. Instead, let’s welcome all good-faith questions and views into the marketplace of ideas, and teach our students how to
evaluate claims, listen to the opposition, consider implications of what they learn, and arrive at their views in light of facts rather than ideology. And finally, I’ll support the rights of gender minorities no matter what anyone tells me about clownfish.
Loading suggestions...