There’s nothing that makes my blood boil quite like ignorant people using “science” to back their bigoted opinions. Not only do these people often not have any scientific background or education whatsoever, but many lack the ability to distinguish a good, viable source of information from a poor one.

So is the case with, “Sorry to Burst Your Bubble, Liberals, But Biology Isn’t Up For Debate,” an article written by Moriah Dufrin at Michigan State University. In her article, Dufrin responds to another article, that urges parents to stop having gender reveal parties. She claims that liberals are too sensitive, and uneducated, denying the “biological fact” that there are two sexes, male and female.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Moriah, but you’re the uneducated one.

As a student pursuing a B.S. in biology, whose entire degree is dedicated to the application and understanding of the biological sciences, it’s very clear that Dufrin has little to no understanding of basic biology, let alone the complexities of genotypic sex, and how many numbers of factors can influence the expression of those genes, and the resulting phenotype.

For those reading who do not have a background in biology or need a refresher, I will define a couple terms that I will use throughout this piece.

“Genotype” is the genes an individual possesses in relation to a specific trait. The “phenotype” is the observable characteristics of that trait. One phenotype can have many genotypes: a good example of which is eye color.

The trait for brown eyes is dominant to the trait for blue eyes, making it possible for someone to carry the trait for blue eyes, but still have brown eyes.

If your parents both have brown eyes, there is a possibility that you could have two copies of the genes for brown eyes, however, your eyes look the same as your sister’s, who carries the blue-eyed trait. Your genotype and your sister’s genotype are different, but your phenotype is the same.

In elementary and often middle school, most children are taught that one pair of chromosomes determines sex. If you have two X chromosomes, you are female. If you have an X and a Y chromosome, you are male.

This is an oversimplification that ignores many key factors in the expression of sex, arguably the most important: the SRY gene.

The Y chromosome was not discovered until 1921, and its role in sex determination was not recognized until the 1960’s, through observations of karyotypes (an image of chromosomes in a cell nuclei) from individuals with Turner’s syndrome (one X chromosome) and Klinefelter’s syndrome (XXY) (source).

It was not until 1985 that the SRY gene was discovered when DNA sequencing was able to isolate and identify the gene responsible for male sexual traits, the SRY gene. The SRY gene is expressed in the somatic cells of the male genital ridge, which results in the formation of testes, which results in the production of testosterone, which results in male sex traits (source).

In this study, four individuals with semi-abnormal chromosome-sex relationships were crucial in isolating this gene: one woman with an XY karyotype, and three men with an XX karyotype.

Though typically found on the short arm of the Y chromosome, the SRY gene was found in all four individuals. The woman, however, had a genetic mutation that rendered the SRY gene functionless (source).

“Abnormalities” like the individuals in the 1985 study are more common than you’d think.

In 2006, Santhi Soundarajan was stripped of her silver medal in the 800m track event at the Asian Games after failing a sex verification test. Although her genitalia and personal identity were female, her karyotype was XY, SRY+.

She was genotypically male but phenotypically female.

It was later revealed that she had androgen insensitivity syndrome, a genetic disorder in which genetically male fetuses develop incomplete (i.e. small testes that resemble labia) or no male genitalia.

This later results in incomplete or absent male secondary sex characteristics when the individual reaches puberty. Many intersex individuals have complete or partial androgen insensitivity.

Biology is much more complex and interesting than just two sexes, as shown by the SRY gene and its role in the male genital formation, and the effect of androgen insensitivity syndrome on the expression of male genes.

Using biology as a reason to validate outdated, bigoted, opinions on the relationship between sex and gender is not only morally wrong but just plain wrong: it’s a denial of biological facts. Not only that, but gender and sex are two separate entities, the former of which is still not well understood by psychologists.

Not only does Dufrin have a poor understanding of biology, but the source she used in her article, what she called “science,” was anything but. The article Dufrin referenced was a philosophical piece, written by John Skalko, a Ph.D. candidate at St. Thomas University in Houston, TX.

If one is to make claims based on scientific fact, an acceptable, credited source is a peer-reviewed article published in a scholarly journal, not a public discourse site for philosophical debate.

No serious economist would cite Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, so why would any person site a teleologist on biology?

She also ignored the blatant bias that Skalko may have, as a philosophy student at a Catholic university, where his religious ideas may have a strong influence on his philosophical ideas, particularly as they pertain to men and women.

Dufrin lacks the ability to find adequate sources to support ideas that are simply incorrect, and have no basis in biology. I think she would do better to educate herself on actual biology and maybe self-reflect: don’t bring a gun to a knife fight if you don’t know how to use it.