This is very correct and actually generalizes outside political theories. The further back you go in any field, the more you're going to deal with the fact that the people who originally had a really clever, useful idea also had a bunch of ideas that were ass.
For instance, Isaac Newton basically laid the foundations of physics and also thought he was chosen by God to interpret prophecies from the Bible, and dedicated significant effort to this.
For some reason, learning about force and acceleration doesn't make people learning physics today scrounge the Book of Revelation for prophecies!
[image description: screenshot of writing formatted as a question and answer exchange. headline of piece is: The Proposal to Raise Every Boy as a Girl. (author not listed)
Q. You want to raise every boy as a girl?
Yes.
Q. Why?
A boy will learn to hate girls as long as he is raised in such a way where he is treated as better, and superior to, his girl peers, whenever he is cruel to girls. So, instead, we raise boys as girls.
Q. What if they say they are not a girl, and want to be acknowledged as boy?
Then you know they are a boy, so you must make sure to understand them as boy, and not a girl.
Q. What does it mean to be 'raised as a girl'?
That's up for you to decide. The only difference is that you should not raise boys any differently than you raise girls, since you raise every boy as a girl.
Q. Girls and boys are raised in specific ways for specific purposes, so it does not make sense to raise boys as girls.
If you raise every boy as a girl, then there is no being which is not raised as a girl, so anyone raised as a girl necessarily must learn to do anything and everything to grow up, without restrictions on tasks, labours, or interests.
Q. But boys and girls are different.
All two girls are different, and raising girls in one specific way destroys this individuality in favour of moulding girls to serve the same master. Still, the girls resist to live life on their own terms. If girls can be raised such that they know they can do anything they want, including not being girls, so too will boys raised as girls.
Q. Why not raise every girl as a boy?
Because if a girl does not exist among boys, then the girl is made.
Q. Why not raise girls and boys as themselves?
The self must be made in a world where girls and boys can first and foremost be themselves. One step towards this goal is to raise every boy as a girl.
Q. The way people raise girls is cruel, so why would you raise boys with that cruelty?
If you raise girls with cruelty, then you should stop being cruel to girls.
I simply do not believe that our bodies are anything other than our bodies. I don't really attach any worth beyond that, there is nothing one can do in a male body that they can't do in a female body. They can be leaders or homemakers or wear dresses or wear pants or adorn themselves in any way or do anything. The only difference is the neutral fact of our sex. I have a female body and all that comes with it and a male has a male body and all that comes with it. Some people have bodies encased in pink-white skin, some are in skins that are shades browner than mine. Some people are tall, some are short. Their experiences in relation to their bodies is unique to them, and that is also something neutral, none of our bodies are good or bad.
I have yet to find extreme body modification that is not rooted in deep insecurity or maladaptations of our society like fatphobia or racism or sexism. Most of it is just misogny tbh, boob jobs and bbls and FGM and foot binding and sex changes. Societies that are not this defective do have body modifications, but they are not this destructive. Tattoos and piercings are as extreme as we get before we start having some bullshit beauty standards. We can not have body modifications beyond that, especially not to mimic actual living people without it being weird as fuck.
I love the radical feminist community because it is full to the brim with cycle breakers.
Desi women who have been raised to see them, their sisters and their mothers stripped of their personhood in tightknit patriarchal families, and who have decided they will break with the tradition.
Closeted ex-Muslim women from countries like Pakistan, Iran and Somalia who quietly work towards a life of freedom in apostasy, risking shame and estrangement from their entire families for doing so.
Eldest born daughters who recognise that they should have never had to absorb the rage of their dysfunctional family, and who learn to find the balance between taking care of those they love, and taking care of themself.
Women who grew up around loveless marriages, domestic abuse and crime, who commit decades of their adult life to growing into a healthier person, pursuing a life free of fear, addiction and violence â to provide a better life for their children.
Underdog women who were made to feel that they could never amount to anything, because they were working class, a âtrouble childâ, disabled, undesirable to men, or struggled with their mental health, who then put in the work to psychologically disentangle their self-worth from these false messages.
Women who looked at the unfulfilled lives of their mothers and grandmothers, and who decided that the cycle ends with them; that they will commit themselves to knowledge, personal growth, compassion, fulfilment and adventure, to live the lives that their foremothers couldnât, for those foremothers.
Cheers to all the cycle breakers out there. In case anyone hasnât told you today, youâre doing great, keep it up. đ„
This Doonesbury abortion cartoon was originally written by Gary Trudeau in 2012, in response to a Texas law requiring women to have an ultrasound before an abortion. It was banned from many major newspapers, and they ran syndicated cartoons in its place.
Now seems like an appropriate time to bring these cartoons back, with the passing of Texasâ new law requiring the burial or cremation of miscarried or aborted fetal remains. I guess weâll have to wait and see if Trudeau decides to write the sequel.
I think a lot of people don't realize how shameless and opportunistic a truly lazy, entitled man can be. like the amount of work that can be put into avoiding washing dishes might sound crazy so that you believe no one would do that, but they're banking on you being sane like that. you think "what's one dish to wash" and he thinks "I will kill myself before I wash a dish." I know. I know! he could just wash the dish and not kill himself, but he would rather kill himself than wash a dish so he can't be reasoned with. he'll fake an injury and do money laundering and pretend he's a puppy dog before he washes a dish. I know. surly not, you think. but yes. he will lie that he has bone cancer just so you wash dishes for him. he'll live in filth when you stop washing dishes just so you'll wash dishes for him. he will tell you his mom was an emotional abusive bitch and he has brain trauma because of it, and it's truly just because he'd rather kill himself than wash a dish. I know, I know...it's just one pot. It's just one pot! why kill yourself? I don't know!! but he'd rather kill himself than wash a dish, so he's gotta do all this work not to wash a dish. but kief, that can't be. it is. I'm sorry. He would rather kill himself than wash a dish. It's crazy, I know.
when i was a kid i was so mad all the time bc i thought someday i'd have to be somebody's wife i didn't know it was optional. is everybody reminding the young girls in their lives that it's optional.
Reducing the calories does not inherently increase the healthiness of your food.
Reducing the fat content does not inherently increase the healthiness of your food.
Reducing the sugars does not inherently increase the healthiness of your food.
The only way to increase the healthiness of your food is by adding additional nutrients to it.
I saw a video of someone complaining that fucking chicken tikka masala "wasn't healthy" so they made a "healthier version" that was, in fact, LESS HEALTHY. Because they made it with only fat free dairy products, rendering many of the vitamins they would have otherwise gotten from that meal utterly useless, because the body needs fats in order to absorb them properly.
Two tbsp of brown sugar does not render a meal "unhealthy." Full fat dairy products do not render a meal "unhealthy." Calorically dense foods do not render a meal "unhealthy."
If you're really concerned about your health, add more nutrients. Eat extra veggies or extra protein. But you're not actually worried about your health. You're worried about your weight.
You're worried that in the process of eating a homemade meal with lean protein and veggies and a rich, delicious sauce you will consume more energy than you can use today.
You're worried that energy might be stored so that your body can use it when it needs to later.
You're worried that your relationship with gravity might change. You've been taught to worry about that. You've been taught to misconstrue manufacturered body issues as being "health conscious." But you're not doing things to promote health. You're just trying to reduce your energy consumption no matter what.
And I am begging you to consider, that this is not actually a "health conscious" mindset at all.
maybe y'all didn't notice but fat people who don't hate ourselves sure did notice that people were obsessed with shitting on fat people in the late 90s and early 2000s (conservative political time) and now are again (fascist political time), coincidentally while the market for weight loss has become a 90 billion dollar industry due to glp1s.
you are not immune to propaganda. it makes some people a whole hell of a lot of money for you to hate fat people and fear becoming (or staying, I think like 70% or something of the US is fat) one of us.
a lot of the fearmongering over fatness comes from studies directly funded by the weight loss industry...i think people don't really realize or think about the fact that research can absolutely be influenced and skewed by its funding. there is also research that shows that an amount of the negative health outcomes for fat people come from anti-fat bias. if you go to the doctor with concerns and the doctor simply tells you to lose weight, your problem is neglected and you may not even bother going to the doctor with the next problem.
every fat person you know for the most part probably has a story like this, of medical neglect. many of the stories i've heard personally are when the complaint or the doctor wasn't related at all, like being told to lose weight at the ear nose and throat doctor or at the dentist. it's straight up just bias. it's such a thing that in the show Shrill it's portrayed, when Aidy Bryant goes to the gynecologist and her doctor suggests she get gastric bypass.
the studies on health and fatness are simply not that black and white and there is basically no research that shows that more than an incredibly tiny minority of people can lose weight and keep it off for more than like 2 years. bodies have set points that they gravitate towards, it's not a personal failure. this also is how the weight loss industry succeeds so well - repeat customers.
some of the harm associated with fatness is also due to weight cycling, which is very hard on your body and is even worse if you get off a GLP1, which according to a recent study causes weight to be regained at a rate that is 4x faster than without taking a GLP1.
you don't have to hate yourself. you don't have to hate other people for their body type either. it makes me so sad to see the thinspo tag going around again in 2026 a lot like it was back in the day.
A study spanning almost four decades and involving more than 100,000 adults in Denmark found that those with an 'overweight' body mass index
there's so much crazy shit once you go down the rabbit hole. for example, BMI was not invented by anyone with a medical background. it was never meant to measure individual health.
Recently read an article about surrogacy that differentiated between the "genetic" mother and the "biological" mother, and i really like this terminology. After all, isn't the biological mother the one who builds the baby from her own body?
I love myself so deeply. Iâll never shave my legs again. The hair is so pretty, but also just a completely neutral part of my perfectly female, perfectly mammalian, adult human body.
Could you do a post on whether sex is binary or not please? Love your blog and appreciate how much effort you put into it!! Huge respect.
Thank you!!
Sex is Binary
Despite efforts to confuse matters, there's one simple fact that underlies the sex binary in animals: anisogamy.
Anisogamy refers to the difference in size of the two types of gametes [1, 2]. Gametes are the sex cells (eggs and sperm), which are combined during sexual reproduction [2]. By definition [3, 4], the females produce the larger gamete (the egg or ova) and males produce the smaller gamete (the sperm).
There are no intermediate gametes; therefore, there are no additional sexes. No human has ever produced both ova and sperm; therefore, every human is either female or male.
Importantly, the sex binary is not equivalent to sexual differentiation or sexual dimorphism. (Although they are strongly correlated.)
Sexual Differentiation
Sexual differentiation refers to the process in which "male and female sexual organs develop from neutral embryonic structures" [5].
Every embryo has both precursor structures: the MĂŒllerian duct, which can develop into the female organs, and the Wolffian duct, which can develop into the male organs. Once sexual differentiation begins, one of these precursor structures will develop into maturity, and the other will atrophy. [5]
In humans, the process of sexual differentiation is controlled by various hormonal secretions by the embryo at specific times during development. These hormonal secretions are determined by the genetic makeup of the fetus. For example, the SRY gene, found on the Y chromosome, regulates the expression of multiple genes which together result in the differentiation of Sertoli cells. In the third month of development, the Sertoli cells secrete MĂŒllerian inhibiting hormone, which initiates the atrophy of the MĂŒllerian duct. [5, 6]
Importantly, therefore, the process of sexual differentiation depends on biological sex. Or, as this article [1] puts it, sexual differentiation is a consequence of biological sex. In a healthy organism, the embryo has the genetic instructions necessary to initiate the process of sexual differentiation that will ultimately result in the production of either ova or sperm (which defines biological sex). This expected capacity or "developmental trajectory" allows us to categorize an organism's sex even in the absence of successful gamete production. Put simply, the organism's biological sex is defined by the gamete they would have produced, had they been capable of producing a gamete.
Disorders/differences of Sex Development (DSD, Intersexism)
The complex process of sexual differentiation can be disturbed at various points, which can result in disorders/differences of sex development (i.e., intersexism). Importantly, however, every embryo starts out with the capacity to produce only one type of gamete. [5]
Further, the development of the ovary is not a "default pathway" [6, 7]. Instead, ovarian development is an active process that necessitates the activity of many factors. The mere absence of complete instructions for male development does not mean a fetus will undergo normative female development.
In other words, each embryo has the genetic instructions necessary to develop the capacity to produce either sperm or ova. However, genetic mutations in many different genes can disrupt this normative development, typically resulting in the absence of any gamete production. These individuals still have a biological sex of either male or female; it is simply determined by which gamete they would have produced had they not had their genetic mutation(s) and instead undergone normal sexual differentiation.
Astonishingly, despite the many possible points of disruption in sexual differentiation, the frequency of genuine intersex conditions is extremely low. Based on the definition of biological sex and our understanding of sexual differentiation, we can describe intersex conditions as conditions in which an individual undergoes some degree of sexual differentiation that is inconsistent with the differentiation for their expected gametic production.
In practical terms, this means that intersex conditions include cases where an individual's chromosomal sex is inconsistent with their phenotype (primary sex characteristics) or they have an ambiguous phenotype. Using this definition, we can estimate that approximately 0.018% of the population has an intersex condition. [8]
And allow me to emphasize again, that these individuals are still either male or female. Their sex can be identified by what type of gamete they would have been capable of producing, had they not had a genetic condition that disrupted their sexual development.
Another way to think of this is that, had these individuals actually been the opposite sex, their genetic mutation would not have impacted their sexual development. For example, people with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (CAIS) have a genetic mutation that means their "cells do not respond to testosterone or other androgens", leading to female-typical external genitalia.
This genetic mutation only disrupts the sexual differentiation of biological males. If this person had been biologically female, their sexual differentiation would have proceeded normally. It is possible they may have some other health condition, but they would not have an intersex condition.
Further, the occasional disruption of a biological process does not negate the validity of that process for the species. For example, normative human development results in the development of two (complete) arms and legs. However, some humans are born missing part or all of one or more limbs, which is called limb reduction. In fact, the frequency of this is estimated at 0.05%, which is almost three times greater than intersex conditions. Despite this, we understand that the statement "humans have two arms and two legs" is accurate and does not imply the absence of non-normative phenotypes. [9]
And, in addition to all of this, people with access to modern medicine do not go their "whole life" without knowing they are intersex. Intersex conditions that are not associated with ambiguous genitalia will generally be identified at the onset of puberty or when investigating the cause of infertility. If you were not identified as having an intersex condition at birth, you underwent typical puberty, and you are not having fertility issues, you are not intersex. If you did not undergo typical puberty and/or you are infertile, you may have an intersex condition, but there are also many other more common conditions that cause these issues.
People (now or in the past) who did/do not have access to modern medicine may not have been identified as having an intersex condition if it was not physically obvious at birth/puberty. However, these individuals would present with later health issues, including, but by no means limited to, infertility.
Sexual Dimorphism
Most of the arguments suggesting sex is not binary are based on the assertion that either (1) humans are not sexually dimorphic or that (2) the partial overlap in dimorphic traits suggests a continuum in human sex. Neither of these is true.
First, I've recently made a post on sexual dimorphism, describing a sample of the many ways humans are sexually dimorphic. Hopefully, that is sufficient to refute the first assertion.
Second, I state in that same post that:
It's important to note that it is not necessary for there to be absolutely no overlap between the sexes for any particular characteristic to be considered sexually dimorphic. It is merely necessary for there to be an average difference on the population level. We should also note that, due to the many, many traits in which humans are sexually dimorphic, an individual with an opposite-sex-average trait will typically still be same-sex-typical for the many other traits.
In other words, sexual dimorphism is not equivalent to biological sex, but a consequence of it. Biological sex normally determines sexual differentiation which in turn determines sexually dimorphic traits. However, while there is some degree of overlap in sexual dimorphism (e.g., a man may be as tall as the female-average), there is no overlap in biological sex (i.e., a human cannot produce both eggs and sperm).
(Also, for the Anon who sent a video from an "advanced biologist". See the above for the difference between the sex binary and sexual dimorphism and the relevance of intersexism.)
I hope this helps, Anon!
References under the cut:
Goymann, W., Brumm, H., & Kappeler, P. M. (2023). Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles: Denying biological sex is anthropocentric and promotes species chauvinism. Bioessays, 45(2), 2200173.
Sexual Reproduction. Britannica, 15 Feb. 2025, https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-reproduction.
Sexual Differentiation. Britannica, 3 Dec. 2018, https://www.britannica.com/science/sexual-differentiation.
P A, Aatsha, et al. âEmbryology, Sexual Development.â StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, 2025. PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557601/.
Witchel, S. F. (2018). Disorders of sex development. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 48, 90-102.
Sax, L. (2002). How common is lntersex? A response to Anne FaustoâSterling. Journal of sex research, 39(3), 174-178.
Genuinely asking not trying to play devilâs advocate. How do you define sex when it comes to people who phenotypically are neither XX nor XY? When you say intersex peopleâs sex is defined by the gamete they would produce if they didnât have an intersex condition, how do you know? Letâs say someone has only one X chromosome, how do you know if she is missing another X chromosome or missing a Y chromosome? If someone is XXY are they male with an extra X or female with a Y? I assume the answer would be along the lines of what matches their phenotype but that just doesnât seem to match up with the definition of âwhat gamete they would have produced.â
and if youâre only referring to androgen insensitivity, does that mean you are defining people with complete androgen insensitivity as male? Because if they didnât have that condition they would be male - but they do, and so they develop like a female. Throughout history they would have been seen as women. Only very recently has the framework and our understanding changed so that we can say âA woman is XX and a man is XYâ rather than âA man has a penis and a woman has a vulva.â But that person would still be raised as a girl, experience misogyny etc. even most kids with partial androgen insensitivity would. So it seems unfair to class them as males.
again Iâm genuinely asking for your input not trying to argue since you clearly know more about these things than me.
No worries!! That part of my post (copied below for reference) wasnât completely clear:
In other words, each embryo has the genetic instructions necessary to develop the capacity to produce either sperm or ova. However, genetic mutations in many different genes can disrupt this normative development, typically resulting in the absence of any gamete production. These individuals still have a biological sex of either male or female; it is simply determined by which gamete they would have produced had they not had their genetic mutation(s) and instead undergone normal sexual differentiation.
I think the easiest way to understand this is to divide the process into primary and secondary sex determination. (This explanation is somewhat of an oversimplification, but I wanted to keep it to a manageable length as it got very long!) Primary sex determination controls the development of the gonads, and it is determined by the genes. Secondary sex determination concerns the rest of the organismâs phenotype (here we will focus on the development of the primary sex characteristics), and is controlled primarily by the gonads (which were developed in the primary step). [1-3]
Every healthy human embryo starts out with a bipotential mammalian gonad, which can be differentiated into either testes or ovaries. An embryo with a Y chromosome in this gonadal tissue* has the genes necessary to induce testes development and suppress ovarian development, no matter the number of X chromosomes that are also present. Following their development, the testes secrete both testosterone (which induces Wolffian duct differentiation) and anti-MĂŒllerian hormone (which causes the regression of the MĂŒllerian ducts). As a result of this, an embryo with a Y chromosome will develop testes and then male sex characteristics.
*And importantly, this is specifically about gonadal tissue, which is relevant to human chimeras/mosaics. [9] (I won't be expanding on this here, since that would probably double the length of this post!)
For an embryo without a Y chromosome in their gonadal tissue, a complex set of genes induces the differentiation of the ovary, meaning ovary development is not a âdefault pathway.â That being said, this pathway is only possible in the absence of a Y chromosome. Further, the secondary sex determination process (i.e., for other primary sex characteristics) can be conceptualized having a female-as-default path. In other words, whereas a male embryo requires the presence of testosterone and anti-MĂŒllerian hormone to develop a normal male phenotype, the mere absence of these hormones (which is normal for an XX embryo) results in the development of a normal female phenotype.
So, in other words, for approximately 99.98% of the population [4], an embryo will follow one of two paths:
Presence of a Y chromosome -> normative testes development -> normative male phenotype development
Absence of a Y chromosome -> no testes development (ovary development assuming no other genetic mutations) -> normative female phenotype development
Given this, we can say that someone with a Y chromosome is male and someone without a Y chromosome is female. This is what I meant by "each embryo has the genetic instructions necessary to develop the capacity to produce either sperm or ova." The presence of a Y chromosome indicates the embryo has instructions to develop sperm; the absence of a Y chromosome indicates the embryo has instructions to develop eggs.
This also means that the vast majority of people have an unambiguous sex. That is, they will follow one of two patterns:
Presence of a Y chromosome â testes â male genitalia
Absence of a Y chromosome â ovaries â female genitalia
In other words, for most people, their actual phenotype (gonads and genitals) will match their expected phenotype as based on their genotype (chromosomes). Further, the type of external genitalia is highly correlated with both the internal sex organs and the presence/absence of a Y chromosome.
---
So, what about sex chromosome aneuploidies?
The sex of people with a sex chromosome aneuploidy (and no other concurrent DSD) is unambiguous, as their phenotype (gonads and genitals) will match their genotype (presence/absence of a Y chromosome).
A man with a sex chromosome aneuploidy can have an abnormal number of X or Y chromosomes (e.g., XXY, XXXY, XYY, XXYY, etc.). An embryo needs only one Y chromosome to have the genetic instructions necessary to produce sperm, so a man with extra X or Y chromosomes is still biologically male. (Their sex organs may be considered âatypical,â but they will still be recognizable as male.) Furthermore, while these men are commonly infertile, they can produce sperm cells [5]. Infertility can result from reduced sperm production, insufficient motility, or other functional issues, but the production of the gametes themselves is possible. As such, the preceding clause, âabsence of any gamete production,â does not apply in this situation.
Women with a sex chromosome aneuploidy cannot have a Y chromosome, because the Y chromosome determines male sexual development, but they can have an abnormal number of X chromosomes. The most common conditions are Turner syndrome (XO) or Trisomy X (XXX). Once again, the sex of these women is unambiguous because their genotype (absence of a Y chromosome) matches their phenotype (female genitalia). Furthermore, women with Turner syndrome initially develop normal gametes (i.e., egg cells) but these eggs die prematurely [6]. Women with Trisomy X have normal egg cells and are usually fertile [7]. So, once again, the clause concerning the âabsence of any gamete production,â does not apply here.
So, in all of these cases, these individuals have the genetic instructions necessary to produce either sperm or eggs, and that capacity is what determines their sex.
---
So, what about other DSD mutations where the genetic instructions present do not match the person's phenotype?
These sorts of conditions â which include complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS) â are the sort of condition I was referring to in that portion of my post, as many of these conditions preclude gamete production. (Although, I found during my research, not always [8].)
That being said, I donât actually disagree with the points you make here.
First, using your example, a person with CAIS will present with female-typical external genitalia (but not female internal sex organs). However, a karyotype will show the presence of a Y chromosome. This condition results when there is a genetic mutation in a gene involved in the personâs response to androgens (i.e., testosterone). That mutation means the proteins created based on that gene are non-functional, so they will not respond to androgens. Due to the lack of testosterone response, the Wolffian (male) structures cannot develop correctly. (But the MĂŒllerian structures do atrophy correctly.)
If this person did not have the mutation in the gene controlling their response to androgens, they would have developed following the normal male pathway (i.e., developed testes, produced sperm, etc.). This is because their cells contain the genetic instructions necessary to induce male sexual development. In fact, they only have the potential capacity to develop sperm, because the presence of the Y chromosome (in the gonadal tissue) prevents the development of ovaries/eggs. As such, we can conclude that this person is biologically male. In fact, this mutation only disrupts sexual development in people who are male; a female person with this same mutation would follow a normal female development trajectory (i.e., have no DSD).
However, you are correct that throughout history, these individuals would have been believed to be (infertile) women. Even today, these individuals may not be identified until puberty (when menstruation does not occur) or at all (in areas without modern medical resources). I fully agree that these people are (and should be) treated as women in almost every area of life. (One area where they should not be is their medical care, as ignoring their biological sex and DSD can cause them harm.) I discuss this in another post, which may help clarify this topic further; my conclusion was essentially âif someone would be recognized and treated like a woman prior to the advent of modern medical technology, they should be considered a woman now.â
I also recently added on to an additional post that may help. In it, I discuss how the âassigned female/male at birthâ terminology is specifically for situations in which a personâs sex is not correctly identified. In other words, a biologically female person who was correctly identified as female based on her primary sex characteristics is not âafab,â she is just female. On the other hand, a biologically male person with female-typical primary sex characteristics at birth would be âafab.â She is not biologically female, but she should still be (and usually is) considered a woman.
I hope this is all clear?
References under the cut:
Gilbert, S. F. (2000). Chromosomal sex determination in mammals. In Developmental Biology. 6th edition. Sinauer Associates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/
Rey, R., Josso, N., & Racine, C. (2000). Sexual differentiation. In K. R. Feingold, S. F. Ahmed, B. Anawalt, M. R. Blackman, A. Boyce, G. Chrousos, E. Corpas, W. W. de Herder, K. Dhatariya, K. Dungan, J. Hofland, S. Kalra, G. Kaltsas, N. Kapoor, C. Koch, P. Kopp, M. Korbonits, C. S. Kovacs, W. Kuohung, ⊠D. P. Wilson (Eds.), Endotext. MDText.com, Inc. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279001/
P A, Aatsha, et al. âEmbryology, Sexual Development.â StatPearls, StatPearls Publishing, 2025. PubMed, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557601/.
Sax, L. (2002). How common is lntersex? A response to Anne FaustoâSterling. Journal of sex research, 39(3), 174-178.
What are common symptoms of klinefelter syndrome (Ks)? | nichd - eunice kennedy shriver national institute of child health and human development. (2024, January 9). https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/klinefelter/conditioninfo/symptoms
Finlayson, C., Fritsch, M. K., Johnson, E. K., Rosoklija, I., Gosiengfiao, Y., Yerkes, E., ... & Cheng, E. (2017). Presence of germ cells in disorders of sex development: implications for fertility potential and preservation. The Journal of urology, 197(3 Part 2), 937-943.
DiNapoli, L., & Capel, B. (2008). SRY and the standoff in sex determination. Molecular Endocrinology, 22(1), 1-9.
the current twitter discourse du jour is cervical smear tests for some reason and here is my take: there absolutely is a widespread assumption that if you have a vagina and are over a certain age you'll be habituated to vaginal penetration and this is self-evidently heteronormative and sexist and im honestly amazed that more people don't seem to register it fdkjghfdjk
it's not just an issue w smear tests. was investigated for PCOS not too long ago and when i was referred for an ultrasound absolutely nobody thought to mention that it would be a transvaginal ultrasound. if i hadn't happened to do my own research i would literally have found out on the day of the appointment?? i remain baffled by this
anyway a lot of people on twitter responding to 'actually smear tests are painful for some people' with 'oh well I suppose if you have some kind of medical condition it might be painful' and it's well the thing is people with medical conditions exist in real life
oh the other one is 'well the nurse will be super nice and will make sure you're comfortable and will switch to a smaller speculum if necessary' and i'm like you must know that isn't true. like c'mon. even if all your cervical smear experiences have been positive you must be conscious of the fact that some medical practitioners are assholes about stuff like this. a more helpful statement might be 'your nurse should make sure you're comfortable and if they don't then you don't have to put up with it'.
The fact that when I was 16 and desperately wanted to go on birth control to regulate my incredibly heavy and painful periods I was required first to go through a cervical exam is fucked up. I was then subjected to it yearly after that. Also the first doctor (who was a woman) berated me for wanting birth control, said I shouldn't have it until I'm sexually active, and wanted to force me to watch her do the exam on me when I did not want to watch. And even though we switched doctors to a doctor who was kind I still had to go through this extremely invasive exam
Then I moved to the UK and found out they don't even start doing cervical exams until you are in your twenties because it's literally useless to do it to a teenager! And they are every few of years instead of every year!
I do recommend getting them, especially if you are sexually active, because they can catch major health issues but! They shouldn't be required for teenagers or to access birth control! They shouldn't be required at all really
