Princeton Prof Argues that Biological Sex in Humans is not Binary
“simplistic explanations for human sex biology are either wholly incorrect or substantially incomplete”
He made this argument in an article for Scientific American. That’s where we are now.
Campus Reform reports:
Princeton professor: ‘Human Sex Is Not Binary’
Princeton University professor Agustín Fuentes recently published an article in the Scientific American, arguing that biological sex in humans is not binary.
The article, titled “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary,” was published in response to an April Wall Street Journal article, titled “A Biologist Explains Why Sex Is Binary.”
According to Fuentes, the idea “that human sex rests on a biological binary of making either sperm or ova…” is “bad science.”
“For humans, sex is dynamic, biological, cultural and enmeshed in feedback cycles with our environments, ecologies and multiple physiological and social processes,” argues Fuentes.
Fuentes claims that there exists significant evidence to support his argument.
“Plentiful data and analyses support the assertions that sex is very complex in humans and that binary and simplistic explanations for human sex biology are either wholly incorrect or substantially incomplete,” he said.
To Fuentes, a traditional view of biology has far-reaching negative consequences for issues such as abortion and transgenderism.
“Over the past few centuries this process of misrepresentation of biology was, and still is, used to deny women rights and to justify legal and societal misogyny and inequity, to justify slavery, racialization, racism and to enforce multiple forms of discrimination and bias,” said Fuentes.
“Today dishonest ascriptions of what biology is are being deployed to restrict women’s bodily autonomy, target LGBTQIA+ individuals broadly and, most recently, attack the rights of transexual and transgender people,” he added.
Fuentes expressed cynicism regarding those who believe that biological sex is binary.
“…efforts to represent human sex as binary based solely on what gametes one produces are not about biology but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society,” he said.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
1: Scientific American is an oxymoron. It is neither scientific nor American.
2: Sex is determined by gametes which go on to determine the hormones and other accoutrements needed by the specific sex.
3. Some individuals who are unwell suffer from gender dysphoria. These unwell individuals should not dictate to the rest of us things we should and should not do to accommodate their illness.
If he substituted “sexual preference” every time he used the word ‘sex” he might have had a shred of credibility.
Once upon a time, SciAm was a great magazine. Cancelled my subscription 20 years ago – it was going sour back then. All this guy did was hand-wave, he said nothing of substance.
Perfect writer for Scientism Americanistan.
And I thought I was the only one.
This is why “Listen to the experts” and “Follow the science” have become mere code for, “Shut up and do what you’re told!”
And yet when I say “follow the science,” they balk because it is real science and not their brand of fake science.
>> “Plentiful data and analyses support the assertions that sex is very complex in humans and that binary and simplistic explanations for human sex biology are either wholly incorrect or substantially incomplete,” he said. <<
Why do I suspect that after making this statement, that absolutely zero evidence or citations were presented to support it.
When a liberal says "common knowledge," I have learned to hear "doesn't exist."
Science tells me that this bullet consists of mostly empty space… as does an anthropology professor.
Prof. Agustín Fuentes, bull you-know-what. You are the epitome of the stupidity college education has brought us. SHUT UP!
Normal humans have two eyes at birth, and visual acuity is considered normal if it is measured 20/20 in each eye.
That doesn’t mean we mock those who do not have 20/20 in each eye.
But we do not have to feel as if we’ve committed a mortal sin if we do not allow blind people to pilot commercial airliners.
There have always been folks who have varying degrees of sexual attractions to various things.
So what.
Nobody cares.
What feels “End Of Times” is the attempt to normalize
(1) classroom discussion of sexual ambiguity with somebody else’s children;
(2) drag shows involving children (why would anyone want to perform pelvic gyrations in front of a child?)
(3) step by step homosexual grooming in books on display in school libraries
Etc
But the thing is: These people who promote all these things as acceptable … they know what they’re doing.
And it cannot end well.
– – – – –
Maybe it really is time to get out while we still can. Where to? Idk maybe Poland especially if you’re Catholic. Maybe to Finland or maybe to Hungary if you’re Protestant. And maybe Israel if you’re Jewish.
Other interesting options exist, obviously, but forgive me if it’s hard to see how any of these trends can possibly end well IDK I hope I’m wrong
Professor at Princeton? Well, if you were considering Princeton for college, this is reason to consider elsewhere.
Sadly, with the almost universal wokeinsanity prevalent on campuses, we are on the verge of running out of elsewheres to consider
The problem, as usual, is that the professor is deliberately confusing ‘biological sex’ (i.e, physical characteristics), with ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender expression,’ which are both aspects of behavior. Sex is strongly dimorphic, with only a minuscule group of individuals who are clearly ‘intersex,’ which correlates almost entirely with genetic anomalies. Gender expression and sexual orientation (especially the latter) are obviously learned and may be modified over the individual’s life, particularly in adolescence and early adulthood. These demonstrate a broad range of manifestations. But sex, which is a matter of chromosomes and the hormones and other chemicals they may activate, is not.
By deciding to substitute the use of ‘gender’ for ‘sex,’ out of squeamishness for the other use of the word ‘sex’ as a synonym for sex acts twenty and more years ago, the media and much of society (probably unwittingly) paved the way for the radicals’ current position that sex can be acquired or mechanically modified, which by definition is absurd. This academic is (a) trying to broaden social acceptance of all less-typical manifestations of gender and sexual preference by naming these behaviors as all instances of some infinitely malleable innate characteristic in lieu of biological sex as properly understood, and (b) is trying to cozy up to campus radicals, who insist upon total conformity to whatever ideological nonsense they are spouting this week.
“. . . efforts to represent human sex as binary based solely on what gametes one produces . . .”
But that is exactly how ‘sex’ is defined!!!
Fuentes teaches anthropology, not biology. Go to princeton.edu and type his name into the search field.
Being as he’s a Princeton prof, I’m sure he’s also an expert on foreign policy and motorcycle repair.
Even perverts require a male and a female to reproduce. It is necessary, whether it is sufficient in their minds or not.