Well yes, that’s how that works. Sex is defined around the the type of gametes your body is organized around producing. It doesn’t matter how you present.
Their point is that an intersex individual with XY gametes can develop ovaries. By jk’s definition that person is a woman. Which is wrong.
And that is the simplest of examples, before we ever get to more complicated genetics.
And THAT is only talking about gametes and chromosomes, which is distinct from the social construct of gender identity (all of the behavioral and psychological stuff which is potentially influenced by, but not solely defined by, those genetic things)
I agree that gender identity is separate, but as far as the biology goes, sex is defined by gametes, and determined by chromosomes. Various DSDs like Swyer/Klinefelter/etc are variations within a sex.
I never said otherwise. What is your point? We are discussing JK Rowling’s erroneous claim.
I think you should do some self reflection on why it’s so important to you that this conversation shift away from the OP towards everyone acknowledging your point the definition of biological sex. Nobody here ever disagreed with you on the meaning of the words in scientific contexts.
You were incorrect to state this, and why I clarified:
By jk’s definition that person is a woman. Which is wrong.
Some people want to define woman as something other than “adult female human”, but it’s incorrect to rely on a redefinition of the word to declare her wrong, when she wouldn’t agree with that redefinition in the first place.
TBH the meme in the OP is silly anyways, because it’s clear that she was talking about humans in this context, unlike the original “behold a man” reference. When talking about about humans, Rowling is entirely correct.
No. She’s very much wrong. Human men can be born with non-functional ovaries. Her statement is factually inaccurate. She didn’t say anything about gametes or chromosomes. She said “born with egg producing equipment, even faulty”. That is a VERY specific phrasing and she is wrong.
You are obviously just trying to force a conversation about term usage and insisting that the words we use for both gender and sex should only ever be considered under the sex-based definition.
Language changes constantly. It’s all made up, literally. Words mean what the populace uses them to mean.
Lastly, nobody in this thread is arguing the science. If you’re talking to me, talk to me instead of building a straw man that’s easy to feel superior to. I get that calling trans women women makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. Stop trying to shift the conversation to a framing that puts you on sturdier ground when it isn’t what people are talking about.
JK Rowling’s a TERF. She makes factually inaccurate statements (e.g. the tweet in the OP). That isn’t up for debate. It’s self evident. If you want to have a conversation about science deniers, do it somewhere else. Because nobody here is denying the science except Rowling.
Language changes and that’s great. It’s intellectually dishonest to rely on a redefinition that someone wouldn’t agree with to “prove” them wrong. You’re essentially saying “If I define equals as not equals, then your statement that 1 + 1 = 2 is clearly false, ha!”
Our language changing doesn’t affect the reality of biological sex, and relying on a redefinition of “woman” that isn’t based on biological sex to “prove” someone wrong that wouldn’t agree with that redefinition in the first place isn’t a serious argument. She’s clearly using the common definition as “adult female human” that most people still use.
No, that’s not clear at all and you’re the only one here who thinks she’s talking about chromosomes and gametes. YOU’RE doing that. She is a fucking TERF, has shown it repeatedly, and she doesn’t think trans people are real or have a right to exist. She won’t use preferred pronouns for someone who identified as a gender that doesn’t match their sex.
We’ve been using “man” and “woman” to talk about gender and sex for a long, long time. YOU don’t get to decide that only one half of that reality is valid and tell people “you can’t use ‘woman’ to talk about your gender. That’s reserved for sex now”
I’m not really sure how you can say “She’s a TERF” and also “She’s not using the sex-based definition” with a straight face. Clearly she’s using that definition, because she’s a TERF. How is that something to argue over?
The core idea she’s presenting is wrong, (even in your interpretation) because biological sex is not binary. Computers are binary, biology rarely is.
There are biological males, biological females, and there are perfectly normal people who fit into ‘biologically neither’ (intersex people). Just because you have ovaries, does not make you female. Women typically have ovaries, but not always. Women typically have cells containing two X chromosomes, but not always. According to the current definition and overwhelming scientific consensus in the relevant fields, having neither of those things does not preclude you from being a female or a woman.
JKR seeks to rewrite terminology to exclude a significant swath of the population from the definition, not the other way around. From many, many statements and actions she’s taken, her primary drive to do this seems to be hatred and bigotry.
Sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. The overwhelming consensus in the field of biology is that sex is entirely defined by gametes and nothing else. Intersex people are either male or female with DSDs. Here’s a biologist stating the obvious
Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology. […] Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates.
That’s the point of separating the idea of gender from sex. Gender captures the complex social aspects of sex, which remains binary and immutable.
And if you don’t like that guy, here’s a statement affirming the same signed by lots of people:
Your first reference is Colin M Wright, whom is a conservative anti-trans activist. Why would I believe him to be a good source? The second blog link is for a petition by two other anti-trans activists - Emma Hilton, a founding member of Sex Matters, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Matters_(advocacy_group)) and Ms Jenny Whyte, NZ activist whom I can only find notable for denying her group had involvement with vandalizing a local MPs office with anti-trans graffiti… (Won’t bother linking it).
I don’t really understand how you can assert a binary system exists, when there are many individuals (between 0.018% to 1.7% depending on definition of intersex) that simply do not fit the binary definition, having a genotype that doesn’t match male XY or female XX. That’s not what a ‘binary’ is.
Colin Wright and Emma Hilton are well-qualified to talk about the biological basis of sex, with phds in evolutionary biology and developmental biology, respectively. Project Nettie isn’t about who started it (though Emma Hilton is certainly qualified), it’s about collecting signatories with relevant credentials, which you should feel fee to peruse. The great thing about science though is that you don’t have to trust credentials. The linked paper conveniently cites many other works to support every claim, and in fact cites and refutes several of your links:
Hodgepodge of silly arguments that fall into the above bucket, and also some that aren’t even science like “A definition of sex that begins and ends with anisogamy is going to be simply not very useful because it will exclude people who need to be included”
Relies on people with the credentials of “transgender activist” and “independent scholar” (will you disregard those like you do “anti-trans activists”?). It also cites Anne Fausto-Sterling, who is deeply unserious. When called out on her bullshit, she claimed she was just being tongue-in-cheek and ironic:
Shes also the source of your 1.7% intersex claim (also seen as “intersex is as common as redheads”) and was completely wrong on that as well and should have known better. She’s a clown.
Again, genotype is simply not how sex is defined. Those intersex people still fall within the binary definition because sex is defined by gametes, not genotype. They’re examples of variations within the sex binary. Sex is binary because there are precisely two types of gametes in anisogamous species. Even your links acknowledge this indisputable fact.
Also here’s Jerry Coyne commenting on the paper and adding additional insight:
Well yes, that’s how that works. Sex is defined around the the type of gametes your body is organized around producing. It doesn’t matter how you present.
Their point is that an intersex individual with XY gametes can develop ovaries. By jk’s definition that person is a woman. Which is wrong.
And that is the simplest of examples, before we ever get to more complicated genetics.
And THAT is only talking about gametes and chromosomes, which is distinct from the social construct of gender identity (all of the behavioral and psychological stuff which is potentially influenced by, but not solely defined by, those genetic things)
I agree that gender identity is separate, but as far as the biology goes, sex is defined by gametes, and determined by chromosomes. Various DSDs like Swyer/Klinefelter/etc are variations within a sex.
I never said otherwise. What is your point? We are discussing JK Rowling’s erroneous claim.
I think you should do some self reflection on why it’s so important to you that this conversation shift away from the OP towards everyone acknowledging your point the definition of biological sex. Nobody here ever disagreed with you on the meaning of the words in scientific contexts.
You were incorrect to state this, and why I clarified:
Some people want to define woman as something other than “adult female human”, but it’s incorrect to rely on a redefinition of the word to declare her wrong, when she wouldn’t agree with that redefinition in the first place.
TBH the meme in the OP is silly anyways, because it’s clear that she was talking about humans in this context, unlike the original “behold a man” reference. When talking about about humans, Rowling is entirely correct.
No. She’s very much wrong. Human men can be born with non-functional ovaries. Her statement is factually inaccurate. She didn’t say anything about gametes or chromosomes. She said “born with egg producing equipment, even faulty”. That is a VERY specific phrasing and she is wrong.
You are obviously just trying to force a conversation about term usage and insisting that the words we use for both gender and sex should only ever be considered under the sex-based definition.
Language changes constantly. It’s all made up, literally. Words mean what the populace uses them to mean.
Lastly, nobody in this thread is arguing the science. If you’re talking to me, talk to me instead of building a straw man that’s easy to feel superior to. I get that calling trans women women makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. Stop trying to shift the conversation to a framing that puts you on sturdier ground when it isn’t what people are talking about.
JK Rowling’s a TERF. She makes factually inaccurate statements (e.g. the tweet in the OP). That isn’t up for debate. It’s self evident. If you want to have a conversation about science deniers, do it somewhere else. Because nobody here is denying the science except Rowling.
Language changes and that’s great. It’s intellectually dishonest to rely on a redefinition that someone wouldn’t agree with to “prove” them wrong. You’re essentially saying “If I define equals as not equals, then your statement that 1 + 1 = 2 is clearly false, ha!”
Our language changing doesn’t affect the reality of biological sex, and relying on a redefinition of “woman” that isn’t based on biological sex to “prove” someone wrong that wouldn’t agree with that redefinition in the first place isn’t a serious argument. She’s clearly using the common definition as “adult female human” that most people still use.
No, that’s not clear at all and you’re the only one here who thinks she’s talking about chromosomes and gametes. YOU’RE doing that. She is a fucking TERF, has shown it repeatedly, and she doesn’t think trans people are real or have a right to exist. She won’t use preferred pronouns for someone who identified as a gender that doesn’t match their sex.
We’ve been using “man” and “woman” to talk about gender and sex for a long, long time. YOU don’t get to decide that only one half of that reality is valid and tell people “you can’t use ‘woman’ to talk about your gender. That’s reserved for sex now”
I’m not really sure how you can say “She’s a TERF” and also “She’s not using the sex-based definition” with a straight face. Clearly she’s using that definition, because she’s a TERF. How is that something to argue over?
The core idea she’s presenting is wrong, (even in your interpretation) because biological sex is not binary. Computers are binary, biology rarely is.
There are biological males, biological females, and there are perfectly normal people who fit into ‘biologically neither’ (intersex people). Just because you have ovaries, does not make you female. Women typically have ovaries, but not always. Women typically have cells containing two X chromosomes, but not always. According to the current definition and overwhelming scientific consensus in the relevant fields, having neither of those things does not preclude you from being a female or a woman.
JKR seeks to rewrite terminology to exclude a significant swath of the population from the definition, not the other way around. From many, many statements and actions she’s taken, her primary drive to do this seems to be hatred and bigotry.
Sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. The overwhelming consensus in the field of biology is that sex is entirely defined by gametes and nothing else. Intersex people are either male or female with DSDs. Here’s a biologist stating the obvious
That’s the point of separating the idea of gender from sex. Gender captures the complex social aspects of sex, which remains binary and immutable.
And if you don’t like that guy, here’s a statement affirming the same signed by lots of people:
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Your first reference is Colin M Wright, whom is a conservative anti-trans activist. Why would I believe him to be a good source? The second blog link is for a petition by two other anti-trans activists - Emma Hilton, a founding member of Sex Matters, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Matters_(advocacy_group)) and Ms Jenny Whyte, NZ activist whom I can only find notable for denying her group had involvement with vandalizing a local MPs office with anti-trans graffiti… (Won’t bother linking it).
I don’t really understand how you can assert a binary system exists, when there are many individuals (between 0.018% to 1.7% depending on definition of intersex) that simply do not fit the binary definition, having a genotype that doesn’t match male XY or female XX. That’s not what a ‘binary’ is.
Several major biology publishers agree with me.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
https://cen.acs.org/biological-chemistry/genomics/Scientists-reject-binary-view-human/102/i33
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/medgen-2023-2039/html
Colin Wright and Emma Hilton are well-qualified to talk about the biological basis of sex, with phds in evolutionary biology and developmental biology, respectively. Project Nettie isn’t about who started it (though Emma Hilton is certainly qualified), it’s about collecting signatories with relevant credentials, which you should feel fee to peruse. The great thing about science though is that you don’t have to trust credentials. The linked paper conveniently cites many other works to support every claim, and in fact cites and refutes several of your links:
Hodgepodge of silly arguments that fall into the above bucket, and also some that aren’t even science like “A definition of sex that begins and ends with anisogamy is going to be simply not very useful because it will exclude people who need to be included”
Relies on people with the credentials of “transgender activist” and “independent scholar” (will you disregard those like you do “anti-trans activists”?). It also cites Anne Fausto-Sterling, who is deeply unserious. When called out on her bullshit, she claimed she was just being tongue-in-cheek and ironic:
Shes also the source of your 1.7% intersex claim (also seen as “intersex is as common as redheads”) and was completely wrong on that as well and should have known better. She’s a clown.
Again, genotype is simply not how sex is defined. Those intersex people still fall within the binary definition because sex is defined by gametes, not genotype. They’re examples of variations within the sex binary. Sex is binary because there are precisely two types of gametes in anisogamous species. Even your links acknowledge this indisputable fact.
Also here’s Jerry Coyne commenting on the paper and adding additional insight:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/11/06/once-again-why-there-are-two-sexes-and-no-more/