Dr. Agustin Fuentes (pictured) wrote a piece for the Scientific American this week arguing that “sex” is not binary
The prestigious Scientific American has come under fire after publishing an editorial claiming that human sex is not binary.
In the piece entitled “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary,” Princeton University anthropologist Dr. Agustin Fuentes argues that viewing biological sex as binary is “bad science.”
He argues that the use of biological sex in cases such as the prison a person is placed in or in sports cases is the same logic used for discrimination similar to slavery.
Biologists have criticized Dr Fuentes’ assessment, with some fearing that one of the world’s leading scientific journals is now pursuing a “wake up” agenda.
Dr. Jerry Coyne, a biologist at the University of Chicago, told DailyMail.com that the magazine “imposes a progressive leftist agenda” on readers who just want to learn about science. [Dr Fuentes] imposes its ideology on nature,” said Dr. Coyne.
In the article, Dr. Fuentes says that production of reproductive material is not the only thing to consider when determining a person’s sex, and that it is not a binary sex.
The article, published on May 1argues that the typical biological distinction between “male” and “female” is not based solely on the reproductive material a person produces.
Dr. Fuentes believes that when legally defining sex for sport and medicine, more should be considered than whether a person produces sperm or eggs.
In his piece, Dr. Fuentes said that a misrepresentation of biology was used to justify slavery, deny women’s rights, racism and other forms of discrimination.
He argues that because the distinction between sexes is not as clear-cut in some animals as in others, it belongs on a spectrum rather than a binary.
He mentions some fish that can change from a sperm producer to an egg producer under certain circumstances.
“Given what we know about biology in animals and humans, attempts to represent human sex as binary based solely on the gametes one produces is not about biology, but about trying to narrow down who counts as a full human.” in society,” he writes.
However, many leading biologists disagree with Dr. Fuentes’ assessment.
Dr. Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist and author, wrote in a comment the Scientific American: ‘When biologists say sex is binary, we mean something simple: there are only two sexes. This applies to the entire plant and animal kingdom.’
“This is the biological definition of sex that all biologists adhere to,” said Dr. Coynes.
‘The sex of an organism is determined by the type of gamete (sperm or egg cells) it has to produce.’
Experts also fear that claims that people who believe in basic biology look like bigots are dangerous.
‘This applies to all animals and applies to almost all plants. It’s a binary number because there’s no middle sex,” Dr. Coyne.
This fact has been believed by biologists for many years. This fact is denied by ideologues.’
Dr. Carole Hooven, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University, told DailyMail.com, “One should challenge evidence and refrain from attacking the character of their opponents.”
‘I’m sure there are some bigots trying to weaponize science; but that doesn’t change the scientific facts.
“They exist and are not going away, and we must learn to respectfully debate their implications.”
In response to these comments, Dr. Fuentes told DailyMail.com: ‘I specifically argue against using what kind of gametes someone produces (eggs or sperm) as the basis for legal and societal classifications and rights.
“The main point is that eggs don’t make a woman and sperm don’t make a man in a legal or biological sense, so they shouldn’t be used as a legal basis.”
Dr. Coyne fears that this kind of editorial in a mainstream scientific publication is bad for science in general.
“Learning that there are no two sexes in humans distorts the facts of nature. You distort people’s understanding of reality,” he said.
Dr. Coyne claims the article pushes an “authoritarian progressive leftist agenda.”
“It’s a politically neutral magazine used as a political tool and that’s a pity,” he said.
“Scientific American publishes fascinating articles about the latest scientific research, and often this work is relevant to important and topical issues,” Laura Helmuth, the journal’s editor-in-chief, said in response to DailyMail.com.
We hope the articles we share, many of which are written by leading experts, help readers understand our world. That’s my only agenda.’
He said he agrees with many of his readers and collaborators who call the magazine the “unscientific American.”
DailyMail.com contacted the Scientific American and Ms. Helmuth directly for comment.
Dr. Hooven warns against these arguments that obscuring the gender binary could endanger women.
Dr. Colin Wright (pictured), an evolutionary biologist, said some authors are deliberately trying to blur gender distinctions
“Sometimes sex is important, and sometimes it’s not. If so, that could matter a lot, especially for women,” she explained.
‘Men are on average taller and stronger than women and commit by far the most rapes and murders. Most men could kill most women with their bare hands.
“These facts have led to the creation of laws and social policies that protect spaces for women, especially those where women are in vulnerable positions, such as where they sleep or shower (for example, prison cells and changing rooms).
“Historically, female sports categories have excluded men, given the average differences in size, strength and power, so that women can compete on a relatively level playing field.”
When asked for comment, Dr Fuentes told DailyMail.com: ‘Both Dr Coyne and Dr Hooven are well aware of the history of the misuse of false ‘biology’ as an ideology to remove rights.
‘I do link the actual sex biology to that, but I do link the specific application of one [sex] as indicators of human worth and the definition of human for those historical wrongs.’
Dr. Wright said articles like Dr. Fuentes confusing the conversation about gender and sex.
“Gender ideology attempts to portray sex as so incomprehensibly complex and multivariable that our traditional practice of simply classifying people as male or female has become obsolete,” he writes.
‘[It instead] should be abandoned for a revolutionary concept of ‘gender identity’.
“This means that men are not excluded from women’s sports, women’s prisons or any other space previously segregated according to our supposedly outdated notions of ‘biological sex,’ as long as they ‘identify’ as women.”
The Princeton expert also notes that in some mammal species, the males lactate before their offspring, which is usually associated with females.
Dr. Hooven said that Dr. Fuentes misrepresents sex and the characteristics an animal has.
‘No serious scientist would argue that properties are binary; it’s sex that’s binary,” she explained.
‘Sex differences in hormones, strength, size etc. are not the same as sex but are strongly associated with it, just as an interest in construction equipment or dolls are traits associated with but not the same as being a boy or a girl.
“In mammals there are two sexes and only two. One can change their sex characteristics such as hormones, dress style, muscle mass, even voice, but one cannot change the gender.
“The point is that biologists and others understand that while men and women are binary sex categories based on gamete size, and the bodies and behaviors of boys and girls, men and women are very diverse, there are some circumstances in which sex matters .’
Dr. Fuentes disagrees with the biologists’ assessment.
‘There are genders and differences between them are important. That is not in dispute. But the overlaps between genders also matter and are enough to make the frame of a “gender binary” misleading and hinder better research and analysis,” he said.