You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Science’ category.
Need a response to the biology and sex denialists? Use at your leisure.
Human sex is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and anatomical factors, and extensive scientific research supports the view that it is both immutable and binary—male or female—at the biological level. A foundational study by Jost (1947) established that the presence or absence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome directs the development of gonadal tissue into testes or ovaries, initiating a cascade of hormonal signals that shape sexual differentiation. This process results in distinct reproductive anatomy and gamete production: testes produce small gametes (sperm) in males, while ovaries produce large gametes (eggs) in females. Research published in Nature Reviews Genetics (2001) by Goodfellow and Lovell-Badge reinforces that this genetic switch is fixed at fertilization, with rare exceptions like intersex conditions (e.g., 0.05–1.7% of births per Sinclair et al., 1990) still aligning with male or female developmental pathways rather than constituting a third sex. Once established, these biological markers—chromosomes, gonads, and gametes—remain constant throughout life, unaffected by social identity or medical intervention.
Further evidence for the immutability and binary nature of sex comes from endocrinology and developmental biology. A 2016 study in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism by Bao and Swaab details how prenatal androgen exposure locks in sexually dimorphic brain structures and physiological traits, such as genitalia, which cannot be fully reversed postnatally. While hormone therapies and surgeries can alter secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., breast development or voice pitch), they do not change the underlying chromosomal or gonadal sex. For instance, a 2020 review in Biology of Sex Differences by Arnold highlights that even in transgender individuals undergoing transition, the production of gametes (or lack thereof post-intervention) remains tied to the original sex, underscoring that biological sex is not malleable at its core. This binary framework is evolutionarily conserved across mammals, as noted in Wilson and Reeder’s Mammal Species of the World (2005), with males and females defined by their roles in sexual reproduction.
Opponents might point to gender identity or intersex conditions as challenges to this binary, but research distinguishes between gender as a social construct and sex as a biological reality. A 2018 paper in Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology by Joel et al. explores brain mosaicism—mixtures of “male” and “female” traits—but concludes it operates within a binary reproductive system, not beyond it. Intersex individuals, often cited as evidence of fluidity, typically have disorders of sex development (DSDs) like Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia or Klinefelter Syndrome, yet these are variations within male or female categories, not a spectrum of sexes (Houk & Lee, 2008, Pediatrics). Overwhelmingly, the scientific consensus—spanning genetics (e.g., Science, 2017, McCarthy et al.), anatomy, and reproductive biology—affirms that human sex is an immutable, binary trait rooted in the objective reality of gamete type and chromosomal inheritance, distinguishing it from the fluidity of gender expression.
If there was such a thing as a “female brain trapped in a male body” that demographic group would exhibit a criminal offending pattern consistent with that of women rather than men.
We’ve had data since 2011 showing that men who have their genitals surgically removed and take cross-sex hormones continue to exhibit the same criminal offending pattern as all other men.
Humans cannot change sex and no human was ever born “trapped in the wrong body.”
Assuming we don’t have empathy for them is decidedly uncharitable.
Where is that young woman’s empathy for women and little girls who don’t deserve to be subject to sex crimes in female spaces?
Voyeurism is illegal for good reason and nobody can legalize it or make sexual consent decisions on anybody else’s behalf about who is allowed to see us naked.
Surprise surprise. To actually make recycling effective it relies on the decisions of individuals to use less in the first place, and that is the only way as of yet to reduce the amount of waste produced.
The recycling narrative remains powerful, but its bullshit and needs to be empirically reviewed. Let’s make science relevant again.
Proud to be an Albertan today!
Another common tactic of the woke activist left is to argue that concepts that seem straightforward are actually not and are “complex”. A deeper higher level of understanding is necessary to properly understand the topic – strangely enough this added complexity always points toward the ideological pre-conclusions the activist has in mind.
Let’s set the scene. An individual asks a question to clarify an elected officials understanding of biology.
The elected official responds with some unrelated word salad thinking that this red herring is somehow getting closer to the truth. I’m not sure what field she is a scientist in, but it isn’t biology for sure.
Emma Hilton, an evolutionary biologist picks up the mantle and responds with the empirical facts of the matter. She explains the obvious first and details the erroneous filler Representative Taylor offered up. It is succinct and to the point.
The complexity angle arrives!
Drew is an idiot and a woke activist. Please notice the framing of Drew’s assertions. “Traditional binary view of sex” “doesn’t acknowledge the biological complexity and diversity in sex determination”.
Good gravy! Become extra skeptical once you see phrases and words like this – they are almost always indicative of the bullshit being spread thick and wide. Drew also gets bonus doofus points for trying to correct an evolutionary biologist on sex differentiation.
Emma’s response.
Drew is now on the receiving end of a very impressive fuck around and find out moment, as neither his bullshit facts nor his attempts at social coercion are working.
The moral of the story is that facts not feelings should win the day – every damn time. This isn’t the case in society at large though as the activist feelings crew have made impressive strides to quell dissent and silence people speaking the truth. Be like Emma, not Drew.
Bonus bullshit round! – No scientific discussion would be ‘complete’ without some douche bringing in an irrelevant social constructionist assertion.
You can’t make this shit up folks. :/
Because the IOC can’t seem to bring itself to administer a simple cheek swab test we have to continue to put up with this rolling travesty against women.
The last two days have been a revelation for me having gone down the Social Media rabbit hole on the males in female sport issue. What was most jaw dropping was the absolute conviction and dedication to a narrative that is most likely false. Both boxers Khelif and Lin Yu-ting did not meet the requirements for being female. Link here.
So, if one were to follow the available evidence a reasonable assumption could be made that both Khelif and Lin Yu-ting are male. They may present as female, but a male with a disorder of sexual development remains male. The ARD5 DSD is a likely diagnosis as detail by Dr. Emma Hilton:
So, the evidence available points toward both boxers being male. You would think though that if they were female they would submit the cheek swab that would end all of this controversy for good. Yet neither has. Funny how that works.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…