54 - Restoring Truth in Science
“While scholars can, of course, be activists and activists can be scholars, combining these two roles is liable to create problems and, when a political stance is taught at university, it is apt to become an orthodoxy, which cannot be questioned.” ~ Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay
Gender ideology is perhaps the most stunning example of activists carving out an unquestionable orthodoxy in a variety of scientific fields. The notions that “sex is a spectrum” and that “sex is assigned at birth” are widespread in medicine, education, and sociology. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist who should be familiar to readers of R4R.[1] He has been appalled at the lack of truth regarding the reality of humans existing as two distinct sexes, and on Nov. 4th his commentary “Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes” was published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior.
In this paper, Wright “debunks five activist-inspired models that try to redefine sex:”
1. Mating-type model – confuses microbial compatibility types with sexes.
2. Karyotype model – mistakes chromosomal variations for additional sexes.
3. Spectrum model – misuses DSDs to claim sex is continuous.
4. Polythetic model – redefines the sexes as “clusters” of traits rather than categories rooted in reproductive function. (this model is self-refuting, read the paper to understand why)
5. Multilevel model – wrongly distributes “sex” across traits (genes, hormones, behavior) instead of gametes. (this model is also self-refuting)
Karyotypes are the number of sex-based chromosomes[2] (XX, XY, etc.). DSD refers to disorders of sexual development.[3] Polythetic means the following:
A polythetic category is one in which members share overlapping characteristics, with no single feature necessary or sufficient for membership. Inclusion is based on “family resemblance”: Each member shares enough traits with others to be recognized as part of the set, even though not all members share the same combination of traits (Needham, 1975; Wittgenstein, 1953).[4]
Here is the reason why this idea applied to sex is nonsensical:
…the polythetic approach is logically self-refuting (Griffiths, 2021). Traits are labeled “male-typical” or “female-typical” because they correlate with males and females already identified independently—ultimately by reference to gametes. In other words, the model presupposes the binary categories rooted in gametes it seeks to replace and then infers those categories back from their correlates. As a descriptive framework for trait variation, a multivariate summary can be useful; as a definition of sex, it is nonsensical.[5]
Wright notes in the conclusion of his commentary:
Across anisogamous taxa, males and females are defined by gametic dimorphism. Proposals to redefine sex in terms of karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, behavior, or other correlates are incoherent and invariably presuppose this foundation, because the categories “male” and “female” are intelligible only by reference to sperm and ova.[6]
The reality of our being created as male and female has been something we’ve taken for granted until the onslaught of activists promoting gender ideology. (The idea that one’s inner sense of “gender” takes precedence over their physical body.) Wright’s paper provides an academic resource for those seeking to defend the truth, which will hopefully be restored throughout the scientific world soon.
Whenever we encounter any of these fallacies being used, it is good to note that these concepts are false. For example, if I see “sex assigned at birth” on a form, I cross it out. If possible, I try to find someone in authority over the use of such propaganda on the form and kindly ask them to reconsider. Now we can cite the article[7] that Wright has written to help clarify reality.
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Philippians 4:8
[1] Medical and Legal Nonsense,R4R, Feb 02, 2021; Male and Female - Understanding Chromosomal Differences, R4R, Dec 18, 2020; Indoctrinating and Confusing Children Through the Education System, R4R, Jun 03, 2021; Speaking Up About Gender Ideology in the Workplace– Part II, R4R, Jun 25, 2024
[2] Male and Female - Understanding Chromosomal Differences, R4R, Dec 18, 2020
[3] “Disorders of Sex Development” (DSD): In 2006, a consensus statement by medical experts recommended the use of “Disorders of Sex Development” (DSD) as a new, less stigmatizing medical term. This term became widely accepted in the medical and academic community.
“Differences of Sex Development” (DSD) / “Variations of Sex Characteristics” (VSC): The word “disorder” within the 2006 terminology was still considered problematic by many intersex activists and advocacy groups, who argued that it implies something is “wrong” and needs to be “fixed”, which has led to medically unnecessary surgeries on infants. In response to this advocacy, alternative terms such as “Differences of Sex Development” (retaining the DSD acronym) or “Variations of Sex Characteristics” (VSC) are now also used, reflecting an ongoing shift toward more neutral, rights-based language. The World Health Organization’s ICD-11 now references DSDs as “intersex traits or conditions”. (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3272549/)
[4] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
[5] Ibid.
Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes
6 months ago · 104 likes · 5 comments · Colin Wright
[7] The citation: Wright, C.M. Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes. Arch Sex Behav (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
