Scientific Consensus Reaffirms Two Biological Sexes Amidst Ideological Debate

A recent tweet from City Journal, attributed to author @SwipeWright (Colin Wright), has reignited discussions surrounding one of biology's most fundamental truths: the existence of only two sexes, male and female. The tweet criticizes a "wave of pseudoscientific papers" for attempting to dismantle this established biological reality, highlighting an ongoing debate that has significant implications for medicine, policy, and public understanding.

Biologically, sex is defined by the type of gamete an organism's reproductive system is organized to produce. Males produce small gametes (sperm), while females produce large gametes (ova). This gamete-based definition establishes a binary system, a concept consistently upheld in modern biology. Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, argues that attempts to portray sex as a spectrum or to claim more than two sexes often misinterpret or conflate various biological phenomena, such as intersex conditions or sex chromosome variations, with the fundamental definition of sex.

The debate extends into the medical and policy arenas, as evidenced by recent discussions at a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) workshop. Experts there, including Leor Sapir, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and several medical professionals, voiced concerns over the politicization of science and the use of "pseudoscientific" language in "gender-affirming care." Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist, highlighted how terms like "gender identity" and "sex assigned at birth" are used to deny biological facts, impacting medical decisions and potentially misleading vulnerable individuals.

Critics at the FTC workshop, including Dr. Michael Laidlaw, an endocrinologist, and Dr. Patrick Lappert, a plastic surgeon, emphasized that "gender-affirming care" for minors often lacks robust scientific evidence. They pointed to the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) guidelines as particularly problematic, alleging that they have been influenced by political agendas rather than dispassionate science, leading to recommendations for irreversible medical interventions with insufficient long-term data.

The contention is that blurring the scientific definition of sex for ideological reasons can lead to significant harms, particularly for children. Concerns were raised about the lack of informed consent, the potential for permanent medical damage, and the misrepresentation of risks and benefits associated with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries. The City Journal tweet underscores this critical juncture, urging a return to evidence-based understanding in the face of what it describes as ideologically driven challenges to biological science.