Keeping It Simple Stupid

When you think you know; but you don't explain it clearly

In 1597, Edward Kelley, an English alchemist, beguiled Queen Elizabeth I’s court with promises to transmute lead into gold. His convoluted theories, laced with mystical jargon, dazzled onlookers, but when the crucible cooled, only lead remained - stubbornly, laughably unchanged. Kelley’s folly is a cautionary tale: complexity often masks nonsense, while simplicity unveils truth. Today, debates over biological sex risk a similar fate, with postmodernist claims about fluid identities threatening to lure us down dark alleys of confusion. As a non-biologist, I nearly stumbled into such a trap, but a Substack commenter, “Steersman”, showed me the light. His sharp critique in the comments section taught me that those without formal biology training need a clear, simplified argument to avoid being mugged by phenotypes, chromosomes, and arcane details.

My Substack set out to disperse the postmodernist fog surrounding sex and 'gender identity', arguing that sex is binary - male or female - fixed at conception and immutable. I believed that chromosomes (XX for females, XY for males) determine sex by guiding a developmental pathway, either Wolffian (male) or Müllerian (female), that sets our biology irrevocably. This view, I thought, was a sturdy one.

Enter “Steersman”, a subscriber and commenter with a keen analytical mind, who challenged my framing. He didn’t claim humans are “sexless,” but pointed out that my chromosome-based logic, if misapplied, could imply that one-third of us - prepubescent children, post-menopausal women, vasectomised men, ‘so called 'intersex' individuals - are ‘sexless’ because they don’t currently produce gametes (sperm or eggs). His point was that some biological definitions tie sex to gamete production, and without clarity, my argument risked being twisted into such a trap. “Steersman’s” critique was a gift: it showed me that lay people like me need a simplified stance, grounded in science but clear enough to sidestep the quicksand of rare disorders or transient states.

Occam’s razor, the principle that the simplest explanation is usually correct, must become my approach from now on. The simplest truth is this: chromosomes (XX or XY) fix sex at conception, guiding a binary pathway that makes 99.98% of humans - yes, even most so called 'intersex' cases - male or female, immutably so (Brennan & Capel, 2004). “Steersman’s” warning helped me sharpen this argument, and I owe him a nod for it.

His comments showed I wasn’t precise enough. When I say chromosomes determine sex, I don’t mean they require active gamete production. Rather, XX or XY chromosomes initiate a developmental pathway - Wolffian for males, Müllerian for females - that equips the body with the potential to produce sperm or eggs. Prepubescent children have testes or ovaries gearing up for gamete production; post-menopausal women once ovulated; vasectomised men still produce sperm, albeit blocked. Even infertile individuals have a sex based on their gonadal structure (Alberts et al., 2022).

So called 'intersex' cases, affecting ~1.7% of the population, are mostly male or female too. Conditions like Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY) or complete androgen insensitivity (XY) result in clear sexes, with only ~0.02% being truly ambiguous (Fausto-Sterling, 2000). His point was that my logic, if tied too tightly to gametes, could be misread to exclude these groups, but biology determines sex based on the binary pathway, not fleeting states. As Hughes et al. (2006) note, “The Wolffian and Müllerian ducts form the basis of male and female reproductive anatomy, guided by chromosomal and hormonal cues.”

This binary is immutable. No surgery or hormone therapy can change your chromosomes or enable you to produce the opposite gamete type. A 2019 Nature review confirms: “Mammalian sex is a stable, binary trait with no natural mechanism for reversal” (Gilbert & Epel, 2019). For 99.98% of us, sex is as fixed as the North Star, and Occam’s razor tells us to stick with this simple explanation rather than entertain convoluted alternatives. It might help you to put this into context: at most we are talking about no more than 5,085 people - probably even less - which is 0.02% of Australia's population of approximately 25,422,788.

Why lean on Occam’s razor? Because this debate thrives on complexity, and complexity is the postmodernist’s playground. By dwelling on rare disorders or gamete nuances, as “Steersman’s” critique highlighted, we can inadvertently lend credence to claims that sex is fluid or that 'gender identity' overrides biology. These ideas, lacking empirical grounding, flourish when we lose ourselves in biological minutiae. Feminist lawyer Kara Dansky argues that such arguments erode sex-based rights by obscuring the binary reality (Dansky, 2021). Occam’s razor keeps us grounded: chromosomes fix sex as male or female, explaining 99.98% of cases with minimal assumptions. As philosopher Elliott Sober writes, “Simpler theories are preferred when they explain the data equally well” (Sober, 2015). “Steersman’s” nudge taught me to wield this razor early to avoid being derailed.

“Steersman’s” comments are a reminder that Substack’s real magic lies in its readers. Often, the insights in the comments - like “Steersman’s” - are as valuable, if not more so, than the opinions of writers like me. His expertise and persistence pushed me to refine my argument, and that’s the point: this debate is about expanding our knowledge, not just preaching. Whether you’re a biologist, a philosopher, or a curious layperson, your knowledge matters. So, if you’ve got something to add - facts, questions, or a fresh angle - jump into the Substack debate. Share it, challenge us, and let’s keep the truth in sight. After all, as Germaine Greer once quipped, “The truth is not a gentleman; it needs a shove” (Greer, 1970).

Postmodernism, with its love for subjective truths, seizes on biological niche cases to push narratives of fluid sex or 'gender identity'. Legal rulings like Australia’s Tickle vs. Giggle case (2024), which suggested sex could be altered surgically, show how far this can stray. Such decisions, as Dawkins noted on X, ignore biology’s binary reality (Dawkins, 2024). My Substack, sharpened by “Steersman’s” insight, aims to keep us focused: sex is male or female, based on developmental pathways set by chromosomes, and no ideology changes that.

For non-biologists, the lesson is clear: don’t get mugged in the alley of phenotypes and anomalies. Stick to the simple, scientifically backed truth. Chromosomes guide a Wolffian or Müllerian pathway, making us male or female, immutably, in 99.98% of cases. “Steersman’s” rigorous critique helped me see this, and I’m grateful for his nudge.

In 1869, Victorian anatomist Alexander Walker published The Science of Beauty, claiming women’s smaller skulls proved their intellectual inferiority. His peers, wielding Occam’s razor, debunked him: the simpler explanation was that skull size correlates with body size, not intelligence. Walker’s book, once a sensation, became a laughingstock, its pages now lining museum drawers.

I don’t want repeat Walker’s blunder. Postmodernist claims about sex, like his skull theories, dazzle with complexity but crumble under scrutiny. Thanks to “Steersman”, I’ve learned to keep it simple: chromosomes fix sex pathways, male or female, and no alchemical wordplay can change that. So, here’s to “Steersman”, your comments have helped me no end, and to all Substack’s commenters, whose wisdom keeps us honest. Join the chorus, share your knowledge, and let’s keep those postmodernist muggers at bay, laugh at them and deploy the truth. It’s a winner every time.

References

• Alberts, B., et al. (2022). Molecular Biology of the Cell (7th ed.). Garland Science.

• Brennan, J., & Capel, B. (2004). Molecular genetics of mammalian sex determination. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5(7), 509–521.

• Dansky, K. (2021). The Abolition of Sex: How the “Transgender” Agenda Harms Women and Girls. Bombardier Books.

• Dawkins, R. (2024). X post on biological sex. Retrieved from [X platform, exact date unspecified].

• Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: How biologists construct human sexuality. American Journal of Human Biology, 12(2), 151–166.

• Gilbert, S. F., & Epel, D. (2019). Ecological developmental biology: The environmental regulation of development, health, and evolution. Nature, 567(7747), 162–163.

• Greer, G. (1970). The Female Eunuch. MacGibbon & Kee.

• Hughes, I. A., et al. (2006). Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 91(7), 554–563.

• Sober, E. (2015). Ockham’s Razors: A User’s Manual. Cambridge University Press.