jen van outer

The New Richmond High School, already under fire for a secret policy allowing boys in girls’ bathrooms, is now posting MAPS—for biological girls—to single stalls. These maps are taped to doors outside classrooms and restrooms. Girls who refuse to share private spaces with males are being singled out and humiliated. Well, now parents have more evidence for the @CivilRights and @usedgov !

Some of what you say at the beginning of your post is correct, but most of what you have written is cherry picked and flawed. #1. Let’s start with embryology, and the “everyone begins the same” claim. You correctly describe the early undifferentiated stage (genital ridge, Müllerian/Wolffian ducts, nipples forming before hormones). You overstate that this is evidence against a binary. Genetic sex is determined at conception when our genome forms. The SRY gene on the Y chromosome triggers male development; its absence leads to female development. Both pathways involve active genetic/hormonal orchestration. It is not a neutral “default” that routinely produces mismatches. Yes, variations exist, but they are exceptions, not the rule. Sex is binary in mammals because reproduction depends on two gamete types. Your framing implies typical trans identities are just natural “overlaps.” This is not supported by developmental biology. #2. Intersex conditions and the 1.3 million UK figure. This is your most misleading claim. You cite ~1.3 million intersex people in the UK (~2% of the population). This echoes Anne Fausto-Sterling’s erroneous 2000 1.7% estimate. This figure has been repeatedly debunked. It includes common, non-ambiguous conditions (CAH, Klinefelter, Turner). These are not intersex. True prevalence of intersex conditions is ~0.018% (about 1 in 5,500 births). These conditions are so rare that the numbers are too small to publish reliably. Most people with DSDs identify with their natal sex and do not identify as transgender. Intersex conditions are medical disorders, not proof that sex is non-binary. Using DSDs in this way is a classic trans activist tactic: conflate rare medical anomalies with self-identified gender identity. #3. Brain sex differences and the cited 2019 Nature paper. Your post claims a 2019 Nature Reviews Neuroscience paper which claims transgender women’s brains resemble female patterns. It’s nonsense. Here are the facts: - Human brain sex differences are small, show massive overlap between sexes, and are not dimorphic enough to classify any individual brain as “male” or “female.” - Most trans brain studies use small samples, often after cross-sex hormones (which alter brain structure), and don’t account for homosexuality. - No neuroimaging can diagnose gender identity; claims otherwise overinterpret correlational data. Yes, brain organization is influenced by prenatal hormones, genetics, and environment, but this does not prove a “female brain in a male body.” You suggest there is settled proof that trans identity is “rooted in biology, not imagination.” No evidence supports this. #4. Historical/cultural “third genders” and the suicide/care claims. Citing hijra, Two-Spirit, or fa’afafine is common but misleading. These were culturally specific social roles—often for same-sex attracted males, eunuchs, or ritual figures—not modern transgender medical transition with hormones and surgery. Equating them is wrong. You cite the Trevor Project’s 2023 survey claiming a 73% reduction in suicide attempts with GAC. This was a self-selected online survey from an advocacy organization, not a controlled clinical study. It cannot establish causation. In contrast, the Cass Review and its systematic evidence reviews found the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in youth “remarkably weak.” Multiple high-quality longitudinal studies (Sweden, Denmark, Finland) show no reliable long-term mental health benefits and elevated suicide risk persisting after transition. Bottom line. Your assessment is partisan and scientifically sloppy. It treats rare developmental variations and overlapping brain traits as justification for a medical model that recent rigorous reviews deem poorly evidenced, especially for minors. Biology shows human sexual development is unquestionably binary with rare disorders. It’s not a spectrum.