Biologisches Geschlecht vs. sekundäre Geschlechtsmerkmale (und Fausto-Sterling)

Ein interessanter Twitter-Thread von Yeyo, hier als Text:

Much of the work of Fausto-Sterling and similar charlatans rests on a deliberate confusion of biological sex with secondary sex characteristics. The two are linked, but they are not synonymous.

Secondary sex characteristics, which are sometimes included under the ill -defined term „gender“, are indeed a spectrum and not a binary. These include things like facial hair, muscle mass, voice pitch etc. Characteristics which are linked to sex but don’t define one’s sex.

Bearded women might be unusual, at least compared to bearded men. But neither the bearded woman nor the beardless man constitute a third sex. They are simply males and females with sex atypical characteristics. Same for the male soprano and the female baryton.

Biological sex however refers to role in reproduction and more specifically gamete production. This is not a spectrum since there are only two type of gametes, egg and sperm. There is no intermediate form.

A peacock who never develops a flashy tail will probably remain a virgin for his entire life but if he has testicles for sperm production he is still a male, despite lacking the secondary sex characteristics typical for his species. Same with the bearded woman and beardless man.

As a biologist, Fausto-Sterling of course knows this, she is delibaretly confusing the two concepts in order to serve an ideological narrative. And there are plenty of people in the media and in gender studies departments willing to believe her intentional distortions.

She has devoted her entire scholarship to one of the cardinal sins of science. Deliberately misleading people and spreading falsehoods. In short, she’s a charlatan. She deserves to be remembered as such.

Fasst es noch mal ganz gut zusammen finde ich.