What do you think?
Rate this book
Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth
Binary is the ultimate guide for understanding and dismantling the sex spectrum , the new cultural belief that sex exists on a continuum and that male and female are social constructs.
By analyzing its ten most popular arguments, Zachary Elliott reveals how the tenets of the sex spectrum deny evolution, development, and genetics. Using the primary biology literature, the book provides the reader with a comprehensive scientific understanding of how the two sexes are universal phenomena and how complex genetic networks consistently result in a simple yet profound male or female.
Zachary Elliott is the founder of the Paradox Institute, a research group that specializes in teaching the biology of sex and sex differences to the public. Zach has been researching, reading, and writing about sex differences since 2017 and has written two other books on the subject— Sex A Land of Confusion and The Gender Discrimination and Disparities in the Postmodern Era . He is also a writer and producer of more than twenty animated videos on the biology of sex, using his expertise in motion graphics and design to effectively communicate biological concepts.
By analyzing its ten most popular arguments, Zachary Elliott reveals how the tenets of the sex spectrum deny evolution, development, and genetics. Using the primary biology literature, the book provides the reader with a comprehensive scientific understanding of how the two sexes are universal phenomena and how complex genetic networks consistently result in a simple yet profound male or female.
Zachary Elliott is the founder of the Paradox Institute, a research group that specializes in teaching the biology of sex and sex differences to the public. Zach has been researching, reading, and writing about sex differences since 2017 and has written two other books on the subject— Sex A Land of Confusion and The Gender Discrimination and Disparities in the Postmodern Era . He is also a writer and producer of more than twenty animated videos on the biology of sex, using his expertise in motion graphics and design to effectively communicate biological concepts.
206 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 20, 2023
19 people are currently reading
99 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
December 5, 2025
This book, by an American biologist, addresses, in a readable; accessible yet serious and scientific way, the claims made in recent years that: 'sex is a social construct'; there are many 'non-binary' people who are neither male nor female; there are 57 (or is it 157?) varieties of gender rather than the traditional 2; people can cease to be male or female and become, rather than just take on the form and appearance of, the opposite sex by drugs, surgery or simply announcing that they now identify as a different sex, hence a man can have a womb and give birth, or a woman can have testicles.
There are many aspects and implications to these questions. In this quite short, 200 page book, 'Binary', the author Zachary Elliott concentrates on addressing, by genetics, anatomy, physiology and reproductive function, the underlying biological realities of what sex is, how we can tell what sex someone belongs to and whether it is possible to change it.
Thus, this book discusses chromosomes, gametes and gonads, all of which are defined for non-biologists like me in a helpful Glossary at the end of the book.
There is little here directly on the practical implications e.g. should someone born in a male body but who feels they are really a woman be allowed to compete in women's sports, walk around naked in a women's changing room, or be held in a women's prison if they commit a crime? Nor does it address directly the psychological roles in all this of social media, autogynephilia (worth looking up if you don't know what that is), autism or reaction to past sexual abuse. However, the information in 'Binary' is important background to addressing these questions. (I recommend interesting books on these wider issues at the end of this review.)
Nor does 'Binary' discuss the threats, discrimination, verbal abuse and sometimes violence endured by some on both sides of this debate, both those who consider they are 'trans' and those like JK Rowling in the UK and Riley Gaines in the USA who publicly challenge the claims of the 'trans' movement.
Likewise, this book will not answer a question that I expect will concern future historians, as to whether it is coincidence that the 'trans' issue, previously a fringe concern, suddenly took on such enormous, potentially career and reputation destroying, importance around the same time that George Floyd/ Black Lives Matter similarly exploded in 2019-2020, and that all this coincided with the Covid-19 lockdown.
However, if we are to address those issues, it helps to understand the underlying biological reality. Zachary Elliott's book lets us do that.
While many, especially microscopic, creatures still multiply without sex, male and female sexes as a means of reproduction evolved more than a billion years ago, making them older than the brain. They are found in animals and plants, although some plants, and a few animals such as Earthworms, have the reproductive organs of both sexes in the same individual. Some species of fish, amphibians and reptiles can change from one sex to the other either as a regular part of their lifecycle or in response to changes in their environment.
In mammals, including humans, the key genetic determinant of being male is the presence in every cell of the body of a 'Y' chromosome, males normally having 46 Chromosomes including an X and a Y, while females normally also have 46 Chromosomes but with two Xs. [This is why 'Tortoiseshell' cats, really a combination of black and ginger tabby, are almost always female. The genes for black fur and ginger tabby are both carried in the same part of the X chromosome. Hence, tomcats, who only have one X chromosome, may be either black or ginger tabby, but only female cats, with their two X chromosomes, can be both at once.] Birds have a similar but different system involving so-called W and Z chromosomes.
However, the author argues that while X and Y chromosomes are very important in determining sex, they are not the same as sex.
While rare, it is possible for humans to be born with one chromosome more or less than normal. Combinations of XXY, XYY or a single X or Y are possible. Occasionally, also, someone is born with a normal combination of XX or XY chromosomes, but other genetic abnormalities mean there is a drastic under or overproduction of chemicals called hormones that affect the body's development as male or female. Thus, about 1 in 20,000 men actually have two X chromosomes and no Y.
These unusual combinations, between them amounting to up to 1.7% of births, are genetic reproduction misfiring. They are often associated with inherited health problems and sometimes infertility. However, Zachary Elliott denies that anywhere near that number are neither male nor female. In only about 0.02% of cases, do such abnormalities result in genitals so unusually sized, shaped or positioned (including being located inside rather than outside the body) that one cannot tell a baby's sex by external observation.
The author contends that even among this anomalous 0.02%, sex can almost always be biologically determined as male or female by gonadal tissue (the part of the body that makes either eggs or sperm), genes or internal genitalia.
Reproduction is so essential to the survival of any species, and sex is so crucial to reproduction in vertebrates, that the author believes over the last billion years our bodies evolved so that even if born with almost any possible genetic abnormality, we develop down either one path or the other, and become, in reproductive potential, either male or female, but not both, and not neither.
None of that by itself tells the morally right thing to do if a man called Stan puts on lipstick and suspenders and announces 'I am now Loretta the lady' and becomes upset or threatening unless addressed as such and allowed to use the Ladies' Washroom and changing room and compete in women's sports.
What it is in the interests of Stan/Loretta, other users of the Ladies' Washroom, and of society, to do in this situation, and how to balance these interests, is partly a question of courtesy, practicality and safety for all concerned, not just biology.
However, a starting point to get to the right answer surely is, as Zachary Elliott writes:
'One's sense of self-determined sex cannot even be tested with scientific method. It uses the veneer of science.'
Thus, Stan will in reality always to science be a man, even if he likes to behave in a way traditionally considered feminine, and even if the last Editor of the Scientific American had difficulty seeing this.
******
Good books on the wider social and moral implications include 'Trans' by Helen Joyce and 'Unfair Play' (about effects in sport) by Sharron Davies. It is also worth searching for the testimonies both of detransitioners, such as Chloe Cole's interview on YouTube with Jordan Peterson, and of 'trans widows', including Shannon Thrace's book 18 Months. Also good are JK Rowling's Tweets on the issue and the 'Stan wants to be Loretta' scene from the Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' film.
Frankly, I have not yet come across anything as impressive putting the 'trans' side of the argument. If I do, I shall add details to this review for balance.
There are many aspects and implications to these questions. In this quite short, 200 page book, 'Binary', the author Zachary Elliott concentrates on addressing, by genetics, anatomy, physiology and reproductive function, the underlying biological realities of what sex is, how we can tell what sex someone belongs to and whether it is possible to change it.
Thus, this book discusses chromosomes, gametes and gonads, all of which are defined for non-biologists like me in a helpful Glossary at the end of the book.
There is little here directly on the practical implications e.g. should someone born in a male body but who feels they are really a woman be allowed to compete in women's sports, walk around naked in a women's changing room, or be held in a women's prison if they commit a crime? Nor does it address directly the psychological roles in all this of social media, autogynephilia (worth looking up if you don't know what that is), autism or reaction to past sexual abuse. However, the information in 'Binary' is important background to addressing these questions. (I recommend interesting books on these wider issues at the end of this review.)
Nor does 'Binary' discuss the threats, discrimination, verbal abuse and sometimes violence endured by some on both sides of this debate, both those who consider they are 'trans' and those like JK Rowling in the UK and Riley Gaines in the USA who publicly challenge the claims of the 'trans' movement.
Likewise, this book will not answer a question that I expect will concern future historians, as to whether it is coincidence that the 'trans' issue, previously a fringe concern, suddenly took on such enormous, potentially career and reputation destroying, importance around the same time that George Floyd/ Black Lives Matter similarly exploded in 2019-2020, and that all this coincided with the Covid-19 lockdown.
However, if we are to address those issues, it helps to understand the underlying biological reality. Zachary Elliott's book lets us do that.
While many, especially microscopic, creatures still multiply without sex, male and female sexes as a means of reproduction evolved more than a billion years ago, making them older than the brain. They are found in animals and plants, although some plants, and a few animals such as Earthworms, have the reproductive organs of both sexes in the same individual. Some species of fish, amphibians and reptiles can change from one sex to the other either as a regular part of their lifecycle or in response to changes in their environment.
In mammals, including humans, the key genetic determinant of being male is the presence in every cell of the body of a 'Y' chromosome, males normally having 46 Chromosomes including an X and a Y, while females normally also have 46 Chromosomes but with two Xs. [This is why 'Tortoiseshell' cats, really a combination of black and ginger tabby, are almost always female. The genes for black fur and ginger tabby are both carried in the same part of the X chromosome. Hence, tomcats, who only have one X chromosome, may be either black or ginger tabby, but only female cats, with their two X chromosomes, can be both at once.] Birds have a similar but different system involving so-called W and Z chromosomes.
However, the author argues that while X and Y chromosomes are very important in determining sex, they are not the same as sex.
While rare, it is possible for humans to be born with one chromosome more or less than normal. Combinations of XXY, XYY or a single X or Y are possible. Occasionally, also, someone is born with a normal combination of XX or XY chromosomes, but other genetic abnormalities mean there is a drastic under or overproduction of chemicals called hormones that affect the body's development as male or female. Thus, about 1 in 20,000 men actually have two X chromosomes and no Y.
These unusual combinations, between them amounting to up to 1.7% of births, are genetic reproduction misfiring. They are often associated with inherited health problems and sometimes infertility. However, Zachary Elliott denies that anywhere near that number are neither male nor female. In only about 0.02% of cases, do such abnormalities result in genitals so unusually sized, shaped or positioned (including being located inside rather than outside the body) that one cannot tell a baby's sex by external observation.
The author contends that even among this anomalous 0.02%, sex can almost always be biologically determined as male or female by gonadal tissue (the part of the body that makes either eggs or sperm), genes or internal genitalia.
Reproduction is so essential to the survival of any species, and sex is so crucial to reproduction in vertebrates, that the author believes over the last billion years our bodies evolved so that even if born with almost any possible genetic abnormality, we develop down either one path or the other, and become, in reproductive potential, either male or female, but not both, and not neither.
None of that by itself tells the morally right thing to do if a man called Stan puts on lipstick and suspenders and announces 'I am now Loretta the lady' and becomes upset or threatening unless addressed as such and allowed to use the Ladies' Washroom and changing room and compete in women's sports.
What it is in the interests of Stan/Loretta, other users of the Ladies' Washroom, and of society, to do in this situation, and how to balance these interests, is partly a question of courtesy, practicality and safety for all concerned, not just biology.
However, a starting point to get to the right answer surely is, as Zachary Elliott writes:
'One's sense of self-determined sex cannot even be tested with scientific method. It uses the veneer of science.'
Thus, Stan will in reality always to science be a man, even if he likes to behave in a way traditionally considered feminine, and even if the last Editor of the Scientific American had difficulty seeing this.
******
Good books on the wider social and moral implications include 'Trans' by Helen Joyce and 'Unfair Play' (about effects in sport) by Sharron Davies. It is also worth searching for the testimonies both of detransitioners, such as Chloe Cole's interview on YouTube with Jordan Peterson, and of 'trans widows', including Shannon Thrace's book 18 Months. Also good are JK Rowling's Tweets on the issue and the 'Stan wants to be Loretta' scene from the Monty Python's 'Life of Brian' film.
Frankly, I have not yet come across anything as impressive putting the 'trans' side of the argument. If I do, I shall add details to this review for balance.
November 20, 2023
Worth reading: Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth
An excellent book that clearly describes what sex is, how sex is defined and how sex has evolved over more than a billion years. The author uses numerous examples to show why sex is binary rather than spectral, and brilliantly demonstrates the weaknesses and shortcomings of sex spectrum myth. The reader does not need to have a strong biological background or expertise, but the examples are written in such a way that they can be understood by the layperson. A timely book that every teacher and parent should read because it provides science and research-based information on sex and why sex is binary.
An excellent book that clearly describes what sex is, how sex is defined and how sex has evolved over more than a billion years. The author uses numerous examples to show why sex is binary rather than spectral, and brilliantly demonstrates the weaknesses and shortcomings of sex spectrum myth. The reader does not need to have a strong biological background or expertise, but the examples are written in such a way that they can be understood by the layperson. A timely book that every teacher and parent should read because it provides science and research-based information on sex and why sex is binary.
September 10, 2023
If this book was written in any other time and context I would think "so what? What a highly repetitive book". But unfortunately this book is necessary; needed now more than ever. It is well written and well argued. The only downside is it repeats itself a lot. The author goes through 10 common sex spectrum arguments, taking the most popular exemplars from social media, science magazines, and peer-reviewed journals and debunks them. But because these 10 arguments always fail to define the sexes and decouple traits from reproduction as well as a few other fallacies the authors basically makes the same point over and over.
April 21, 2025
A grifter with no credentials capitalising on the Popular Thing ✨ . If you're buying this thinking he's an authority on the subject, you couldn't be more wrong. Maybe rethink what you believe in if this is only calibre of author that panders to it
Oh and Paradox Publishing/Institute? It's literally the author self-publishing under a more serious sounding name 💀
Oh and Paradox Publishing/Institute? It's literally the author self-publishing under a more serious sounding name 💀
December 11, 2023
Delicious Debunking
A book that everybody should read. A passionate but entirely professional, and as a result a genuinely profound study of the categorisation of the male and female sexes in all of its complex biological scientific and stunning detail. Recommended.
A book that everybody should read. A passionate but entirely professional, and as a result a genuinely profound study of the categorisation of the male and female sexes in all of its complex biological scientific and stunning detail. Recommended.
July 20, 2024
Clear and easy to follow (even for someone like me who didn't even do biology at GCSE), while also providing a lot of important detail on the reality of binary sex in humans and the various ways this truth has been misrepresented. A really useful and important read.
April 23, 2025
Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth is presented as a scientific examination of sex and biology, but it quickly becomes apparent that the author, Zachary Elliott, does not hold formal academic credentials in biology, medicine, or related scientific fields. Nevertheless, the book adopts the tone and language of scholarly work, creating an impression of scientific authority.
The book is self-published through a label called Paradox Press, which—like the associated Paradox Institute—is a personal project rather than a recognized academic or research institution. As such, the work has not undergone peer review or been subject to academic oversight, and its claims have not been externally validated through scientific channels.
While the book incorporates technical terminology and mimics the aesthetic of scientific literature, much of its content reflects an ideological stance aimed at challenging contemporary understandings of sex and gender. These arguments frequently diverge from established scientific consensus and sometimes rely on selectively presented data or studies lacking full context.
The book is also being promoted as an educational resource and cited in broader public discussions and political debates. This raises concerns about the influence of material that has not been vetted by experts, particularly when it intersects with policy decisions affecting marginalized groups.
In summary, Binary should not be considered a scientifically authoritative source. It is a self-published work that reflects the author's personal viewpoints rather than a consensus-based understanding of biology or gender. Readers seeking reliable, evidence-based information may wish to consult peer-reviewed literature and sources supported by academic and medical institutions.
The book is self-published through a label called Paradox Press, which—like the associated Paradox Institute—is a personal project rather than a recognized academic or research institution. As such, the work has not undergone peer review or been subject to academic oversight, and its claims have not been externally validated through scientific channels.
While the book incorporates technical terminology and mimics the aesthetic of scientific literature, much of its content reflects an ideological stance aimed at challenging contemporary understandings of sex and gender. These arguments frequently diverge from established scientific consensus and sometimes rely on selectively presented data or studies lacking full context.
The book is also being promoted as an educational resource and cited in broader public discussions and political debates. This raises concerns about the influence of material that has not been vetted by experts, particularly when it intersects with policy decisions affecting marginalized groups.
In summary, Binary should not be considered a scientifically authoritative source. It is a self-published work that reflects the author's personal viewpoints rather than a consensus-based understanding of biology or gender. Readers seeking reliable, evidence-based information may wish to consult peer-reviewed literature and sources supported by academic and medical institutions.
February 25, 2024
Zachary Elliott aborda la creciente tendencia a considerar el sexo como un espectro, una noción que si bien es popular en ciertos círculos académicos y mediáticos, dista mucho de ser científicamente rigurosa. Los defensores de esta teoría se basan en tres principios, según Elliott. Estos son:
• Principio biológico del espectro sexual. Biológicamente, el sexo no es simplemente «macho» o «hembra», sino que existe en un continuo.
• Principio social del espectro sexual. Las distinciones entre hombre y mujer, o entre macho y hembra, se consideran más como construcciones sociales que como categorías fijas y claras.
• Principio político del espectro sexual. Políticamente, lo que cada persona siente sobre su propio sexo o género (identidad de género) es lo que define su sexo, más allá de las características biológicas o sociales.
Publicaciones de renombre como Nature, quizá la revista científica más prestigiosa de todos los tiempos, y la otrora respetada Scientific American han publicado artículos que apoyan el punto de vista del espectro sexual, proponiendo una redefinición del sexo más allá de las tradicionales categorías binarias XX y XY. Sin embargo, aunque pienso que el principal problema es semántico, esta perspectiva ha distorsionado radicalmente lo que es el sexo y cae en el terreno de la pseudociencia por una razón fundamental: la metodología.
La ciencia, en su esencia, se basa y parte de la observación imparcial de datos y evidencias, seguida de la formulación de teorías que se ajusten a estas observaciones. Este proceso está siempre abierto a la revisión y la refutación a la luz de nuevas evidencias. Por el contrario, al igual que las ideologías, la pseudociencia comienza con una conclusión predeterminada, seleccionando y priorizando los datos que la apoyan mientras descarta los que la contradicen. Este enfoque es inherentemente sesgado y contrario a los principios de la investigación científica.
Elliott sugiere que la promoción del sexo como un espectro no parte de una curiosidad científica genuina y argumenta que no tiene su origen en un análisis objetivo de la biología humana, sino en agendas políticas y sociales que pretenden remodelar la comprensión pública del sexo. Este enfoque ignora la gran mayoría de evidencias científicas que definen el sexo en términos biológicos claros y bien establecidos. Tal alejamiento de la metodología científica convierte a esta teoría en pseudociencia, además de ser bastante errónea.
En su análisis, Elliott se enfrenta a la reiterada confusión que rodea al debate sobre el espectro sexual, una confusión que radica en la incorrecta distinción entre los mecanismos que determinan el sexo y el propio sexo. Este malentendido es un tema recurrente en la argumentación de quienes promueven la idea de un espectro, donde se tiende a exagerar la importancia de las anomalías cromosómicas y genéticas, usando estas variaciones como base para defender la existencia de un espectro más amplio de identidades sexuales, de sexos. Por ejemplo, los defensores de esta teoría suelen basarse en condiciones médicas específicas, como los síndromes de Klinefelter (XXY), Turner (XO), Jakob (XYY) y triple X (XXX), entre otros, para apoyar la noción de que el sexo es un espectro. Sin embargo, Elliott argumenta que este enfoque es fundamentalmente erróneo. Los cromosomas y los genes son, en efecto, cruciales en la determinación del sexo, pero no deben confundirse con el sexo per se. Son, más bien, los mecanismos a través de los cuales se establece el sexo.
La analogía propuesta por Elliott es esclarecedora. Comparar los mecanismos de determinación del sexo en los humanos (como los cromosomas) con el sexo en sí es tan erróneo como afirmar que en algunos cocodrilos la temperatura del agua, que determina su sexo, es el sexo, lo que, bajo esa lógica, implicaría una multiplicidad indefinida de sexos en estos reptiles. A pesar de la diversidad de combinaciones cromosómicas posibles, como XXY o XO, la realidad biológica de estos individuos sigue siendo binaria: macho o hembra. Las variaciones genéticas o cromosómicas —o ambientales en el caso de los cocodrilos— no crean nuevos sexos, sino que son variaciones dentro de la estructura binaria existente del sexo biológico. Este es un punto central repetidamente defendido por Elliott que subraya la necesidad de atenerse a una comprensión científica exacta del sexo y alejada de interpretaciones ideológicas que pretenden expandir su definición más allá de los fundamentos biológicos.
La discusión sobre el espectro sexual, tal y como se presenta en ciertos círculos, también tiende a centrarse excesivamente en la diversidad y complejidad de las características sexuales, usando esta diversidad como argumento para cuestionar la validez de las categorías binarias de macho y hembra. Pero este enfoque omite un aspecto crucial de la biología: la función reproductora inherente a estas características. Del mismo modo que carecería de sentido hablar de los glóbulos oculares sin reconocer su finalidad en el proceso de la visión, o hablar de los riñones únicamente en términos de su estructura sin considerar su papel vital en la filtración de la sangre, resulta insuficiente y engañoso describir las características sexuales sin atender a su función reproductora primaria. Las variaciones en las características sexuales, aunque son interesantes y dignas de estudio, no invalidan la distinción fundamental entre macho y hembra. Los órganos y las características sexuales no deben considerarse aisladamente como entidades independientes, sino como partes integrantes de un fenotipo cuya finalidad es la reproducción. Ignorar este hecho central en la discusión del espectro sexual lleva a conclusiones erróneas y reduce la complejidad biológica a meras anomalías o curiosidades, desviándose de una comprensión científica sólida.
Así pues, es importante saber qué es el sexo. Desde una perspectiva evolutiva, la definición y la comprensión del sexo deben basarse en los papeles reproductivos que han emergido y se han «perfeccionado» a lo largo de la historia evolutiva de las especies. Es decir, los fenómenos biológicos, incluidas las variaciones y complejidades sexuales, solo pueden comprenderse plenamente a través del prisma de la evolución y el desarrollo de los sexos. Este marco evolutivo es esencial para poder contextualizar el sexo en una amplia gama de organismos, desde las hienas y los peces payaso hasta los caballitos de mar, las babosas, las plantas con flores, los seres humanos e incluso los hongos. Según este enfoque, la distinción entre los sexos reside en el fenotipo para la producción de gametos: el sexo masculino se define por el fenotipo para la producción de gametos pequeños (espermatozoides) y el sexo femenino por el fenotipo para la producción de gametos grandes (óvulos). Esta diferenciación se mantiene a pesar de las variaciones genéticas, ambientales o individuales que puedan existir, incluida la infertilidad o la incapacidad de algunos individuos para reproducirse.
Hasta ahora no hemos encontrado un tercer fenotipo reproductivo. El debate sobre el «espectro sexual» descuida con frecuencia esta perspectiva evolutiva, sugiriendo que cualquier desviación de la norma pone en tela de juicio la validez de las categorías biológicas de macho y hembra, ya sea afirmando un tercer sexo o eliminando la línea divisoria entre ambos sexos. Pero como Elliott señala convincentemente a lo largo de su obra, esta interpretación es errónea. La biología del sexo, incluso con su diversidad inherente, descansa firmemente en estos dos fenotipos reproductivos fundamentales.
La insistencia del autor en reiterar sus argumentos refuerza este punto de vista, y garantiza que el lector salga con una comprensión clara y precisa del concepto biológico del sexo. Este enfoque no solo refuta la noción de un espectro sexual indefinido y que no puede sostenerse, sino que también subraya la importancia de los principios evolutivos en la comprensión de la biología sexual. Esta es una lectura para quienes busquen una explicación científica de los sexos.
• Principio biológico del espectro sexual. Biológicamente, el sexo no es simplemente «macho» o «hembra», sino que existe en un continuo.
• Principio social del espectro sexual. Las distinciones entre hombre y mujer, o entre macho y hembra, se consideran más como construcciones sociales que como categorías fijas y claras.
• Principio político del espectro sexual. Políticamente, lo que cada persona siente sobre su propio sexo o género (identidad de género) es lo que define su sexo, más allá de las características biológicas o sociales.
Publicaciones de renombre como Nature, quizá la revista científica más prestigiosa de todos los tiempos, y la otrora respetada Scientific American han publicado artículos que apoyan el punto de vista del espectro sexual, proponiendo una redefinición del sexo más allá de las tradicionales categorías binarias XX y XY. Sin embargo, aunque pienso que el principal problema es semántico, esta perspectiva ha distorsionado radicalmente lo que es el sexo y cae en el terreno de la pseudociencia por una razón fundamental: la metodología.
La ciencia, en su esencia, se basa y parte de la observación imparcial de datos y evidencias, seguida de la formulación de teorías que se ajusten a estas observaciones. Este proceso está siempre abierto a la revisión y la refutación a la luz de nuevas evidencias. Por el contrario, al igual que las ideologías, la pseudociencia comienza con una conclusión predeterminada, seleccionando y priorizando los datos que la apoyan mientras descarta los que la contradicen. Este enfoque es inherentemente sesgado y contrario a los principios de la investigación científica.
Elliott sugiere que la promoción del sexo como un espectro no parte de una curiosidad científica genuina y argumenta que no tiene su origen en un análisis objetivo de la biología humana, sino en agendas políticas y sociales que pretenden remodelar la comprensión pública del sexo. Este enfoque ignora la gran mayoría de evidencias científicas que definen el sexo en términos biológicos claros y bien establecidos. Tal alejamiento de la metodología científica convierte a esta teoría en pseudociencia, además de ser bastante errónea.
En su análisis, Elliott se enfrenta a la reiterada confusión que rodea al debate sobre el espectro sexual, una confusión que radica en la incorrecta distinción entre los mecanismos que determinan el sexo y el propio sexo. Este malentendido es un tema recurrente en la argumentación de quienes promueven la idea de un espectro, donde se tiende a exagerar la importancia de las anomalías cromosómicas y genéticas, usando estas variaciones como base para defender la existencia de un espectro más amplio de identidades sexuales, de sexos. Por ejemplo, los defensores de esta teoría suelen basarse en condiciones médicas específicas, como los síndromes de Klinefelter (XXY), Turner (XO), Jakob (XYY) y triple X (XXX), entre otros, para apoyar la noción de que el sexo es un espectro. Sin embargo, Elliott argumenta que este enfoque es fundamentalmente erróneo. Los cromosomas y los genes son, en efecto, cruciales en la determinación del sexo, pero no deben confundirse con el sexo per se. Son, más bien, los mecanismos a través de los cuales se establece el sexo.
La analogía propuesta por Elliott es esclarecedora. Comparar los mecanismos de determinación del sexo en los humanos (como los cromosomas) con el sexo en sí es tan erróneo como afirmar que en algunos cocodrilos la temperatura del agua, que determina su sexo, es el sexo, lo que, bajo esa lógica, implicaría una multiplicidad indefinida de sexos en estos reptiles. A pesar de la diversidad de combinaciones cromosómicas posibles, como XXY o XO, la realidad biológica de estos individuos sigue siendo binaria: macho o hembra. Las variaciones genéticas o cromosómicas —o ambientales en el caso de los cocodrilos— no crean nuevos sexos, sino que son variaciones dentro de la estructura binaria existente del sexo biológico. Este es un punto central repetidamente defendido por Elliott que subraya la necesidad de atenerse a una comprensión científica exacta del sexo y alejada de interpretaciones ideológicas que pretenden expandir su definición más allá de los fundamentos biológicos.
La discusión sobre el espectro sexual, tal y como se presenta en ciertos círculos, también tiende a centrarse excesivamente en la diversidad y complejidad de las características sexuales, usando esta diversidad como argumento para cuestionar la validez de las categorías binarias de macho y hembra. Pero este enfoque omite un aspecto crucial de la biología: la función reproductora inherente a estas características. Del mismo modo que carecería de sentido hablar de los glóbulos oculares sin reconocer su finalidad en el proceso de la visión, o hablar de los riñones únicamente en términos de su estructura sin considerar su papel vital en la filtración de la sangre, resulta insuficiente y engañoso describir las características sexuales sin atender a su función reproductora primaria. Las variaciones en las características sexuales, aunque son interesantes y dignas de estudio, no invalidan la distinción fundamental entre macho y hembra. Los órganos y las características sexuales no deben considerarse aisladamente como entidades independientes, sino como partes integrantes de un fenotipo cuya finalidad es la reproducción. Ignorar este hecho central en la discusión del espectro sexual lleva a conclusiones erróneas y reduce la complejidad biológica a meras anomalías o curiosidades, desviándose de una comprensión científica sólida.
Así pues, es importante saber qué es el sexo. Desde una perspectiva evolutiva, la definición y la comprensión del sexo deben basarse en los papeles reproductivos que han emergido y se han «perfeccionado» a lo largo de la historia evolutiva de las especies. Es decir, los fenómenos biológicos, incluidas las variaciones y complejidades sexuales, solo pueden comprenderse plenamente a través del prisma de la evolución y el desarrollo de los sexos. Este marco evolutivo es esencial para poder contextualizar el sexo en una amplia gama de organismos, desde las hienas y los peces payaso hasta los caballitos de mar, las babosas, las plantas con flores, los seres humanos e incluso los hongos. Según este enfoque, la distinción entre los sexos reside en el fenotipo para la producción de gametos: el sexo masculino se define por el fenotipo para la producción de gametos pequeños (espermatozoides) y el sexo femenino por el fenotipo para la producción de gametos grandes (óvulos). Esta diferenciación se mantiene a pesar de las variaciones genéticas, ambientales o individuales que puedan existir, incluida la infertilidad o la incapacidad de algunos individuos para reproducirse.
Hasta ahora no hemos encontrado un tercer fenotipo reproductivo. El debate sobre el «espectro sexual» descuida con frecuencia esta perspectiva evolutiva, sugiriendo que cualquier desviación de la norma pone en tela de juicio la validez de las categorías biológicas de macho y hembra, ya sea afirmando un tercer sexo o eliminando la línea divisoria entre ambos sexos. Pero como Elliott señala convincentemente a lo largo de su obra, esta interpretación es errónea. La biología del sexo, incluso con su diversidad inherente, descansa firmemente en estos dos fenotipos reproductivos fundamentales.
La insistencia del autor en reiterar sus argumentos refuerza este punto de vista, y garantiza que el lector salga con una comprensión clara y precisa del concepto biológico del sexo. Este enfoque no solo refuta la noción de un espectro sexual indefinido y que no puede sostenerse, sino que también subraya la importancia de los principios evolutivos en la comprensión de la biología sexual. Esta es una lectura para quienes busquen una explicación científica de los sexos.
June 2, 2024
Very informative and helpful. A little repetitive at times.
The universal biological definition of sexes:
Male sex-is the phenotype that produces smaller gametes (sperm)
Female sex- the phenotype that produces larger gametes (eggs)
(Not chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, etc- although these quite importantly play a role)- but
Sex IS binary. There is not a third type of gamete that is possible.
The universal biological definition of sexes:
Male sex-is the phenotype that produces smaller gametes (sperm)
Female sex- the phenotype that produces larger gametes (eggs)
(Not chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, etc- although these quite importantly play a role)- but
Sex IS binary. There is not a third type of gamete that is possible.
August 27, 2024
Overall, this was excellent--a little repetitive in places but other than that, it's probably the best book available on this topic.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 11, 2025
Easy to read and debunks many false arguments about sex being a spectrum and other nonsense. Because of the nature of the book and the arguments, it feels a bit repetitive, but since it is not a long book it is ok. Once you read this book you will not fall for all those arguments like "what about people with xxy chromosomes?"
Read
April 22, 2025To whom it may concern, the author of this book Zachary A. Elliott is not a biologist and has no experience in biology.
he is a fourth year architect student, who has been pushing an anti-lgbt agenda for a long time.
he is a fourth year architect student, who has been pushing an anti-lgbt agenda for a long time.
December 26, 2023
A bit repetitive but easier to keep in my head.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews