The Willful Ignorance of Kat Highsmith: Debunking the "Five Reasons" article

Setting the Stage

In a recent Substack post titled "'Intersex' Idiots: Five Reasons This Does Not Legitimize T#####,"1 Kat Highsmith argues that the existence of intersex conditions does not support the validity of transgender identities.2 However, a closer examination reveals that Highsmith's piece is a biased and unscientific attack on transgender people, one that fundamentally misrepresents the relevance of intersex conditions to discussions of sex and gender while erasing the actual lived experiences of intersex individuals.

Highsmith's central thesis rests on a strawman argument - that intersex is cited solely to "legitimize" being transgender. In reality, intersex conditions are raised in these discussions to demonstrate the complexity of biological sex and challenge the overly simplistic notion of a sex binary - a point Highsmith either willfully ignores or fails to grasp. Moreover, there is significant overlap between the intersex and transgender communities, with many intersex people identifying as transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming.34 5Furthermore, conservatively speaking, roughly 8% of people with intersex variations experience gender dysphoria.6 Facts that directly contradicts Highsmith's claims.

Throughout the article, Highsmith relies heavily on ideologically biased sources, like the National Association of Scholars7, rather than objective scientific evidence (i.e. peer-reviewed papers), suggesting they are starting with a predetermined anti-trans conclusion and cherry-picking arguments to support it. A point-by-point examination of Highsmith's "five reasons" reveals a series of logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, and rhetorical sleights of hand that crumble under scrutiny.

By shining a light on the numerous shortcomings in Highsmith's reasoning, this response aims to comprehensively refute "'Intersex' Idiots" and show how it exemplifies the unscientific arguments deployed against transgender people under the guise of "basic biology." Before addressing Highsmith's specific claims, however, it is crucial to establish how the existence of intersex conditions challenges the sex binary and why this is relevant to discussions of transgender identities.

Intersex Challenges the Sex Binary

The existence of intersex conditions poses a fundamental challenge to the notion of a simple sex binary that Highsmith takes for granted. Intersex is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of natural variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of male or female bodies.8 According to experts, up to 1.7% of the population has an intersex condition - making it about as common as having red hair.910

These conditions can involve variations in genitalia, chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and more.11 Some examples include androgen insensitivity syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and Turner syndrome.12 The sheer diversity of intersex conditions shows that biological sex is not a simple binary of male and female, but rather a bimodal distribution - a spectrum with most people clustering around what we call "male" or "female," but with a significant number falling outside those narrow boxes.13

When intersex is brought up in discussions of sex and gender, it is to demonstrate this complex reality - not, as Highsmith claims, to argue that intersex and transgender are the same thing or that intersex "legitimizes" transgender identities.14 This is a strawman argument that fundamentally misrepresents how intersex relates to these discussions. No one is claiming they are identical experiences, but rather that they both point to the same conclusion: the male/female sex binary is an oversimplification that fails to capture the full diversity of human biology.15

As a recent post by Olivia stated quite well:

Binary by definition means two and only two, in a binary system there is never a third option. This is important when talking about how we sort humans into sex categories. Typically we consider sex to be a bimodal distribution like we see below.

The existence of intersex conditions is one key piece of evidence for this perspective.

Biologists have long understood that the sex binary model is an oversimplification. As Claire Ainsworth explained in a 2015 article for Nature, "Sex can be much more complicated than it at first seems. According to the simple scenario, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome is what counts: with it, you are male, and without it, you are female. But doctors have long known that some people straddle the boundary — their sex chromosomes say one thing, but their gonads (ovaries or testes) or sexual anatomy say another."17

The concept of a spectrum is nothing new, as we can look back to how this was further elaborated by biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling in her groundbreaking 1993 article, "The Five Sexes." As she put it, "The belief that there are only two sexes is central to our cultural beliefs, our language, our social institutions, and our laws. Yet biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male."18 Fausto-Sterling proposed that there are at least five sexes - male, female, and three intersex categories - to more accurately reflect the spectrum of human sex characteristics.

This biological reality stands in stark contrast to the rigid sex binary upon which Highsmith's entire argument rests. By ignoring the existence of intersex conditions or dismissing them as irrelevant "disorders,"19 Highsmith fails to engage with the actual science and instead relies on an inaccurate, oversimplified model of human sex characteristics.

However, Highsmith's argument has another major flaw: it completely ignores the significant overlap between the intersex and transgender communities - a fact that further challenges Highsmith's arguments.

The Intersex and Transgender Overlap

While intersex and transgender are distinct experiences, there is significant overlap between the two communities.

Many intersex people identify as transgender, non-binary, or gender non-conforming.2021 As intersex activist Hans Lindahl has pointed out, "Some people think intersex is not an identity. And, cool, you do you. But it's an identity for a lot of people, and that's valid... Everything intersex TERFS do is rooted in using themselves and intersex pain to put down another group struggling with similar issues."22

Similarly, intersex writer and activist Delaney King has argued that "intersex people who do not understand the overlap between transgender and intersex need to read more."23While acknowledging that they are distinct experiences, King points out that both challenge the sex/gender binary and face similar issues in terms of medicalization, non-consensual surgeries, and societal misunderstanding.24

In erasing these intersex voices and perspectives, Highsmith not only fails to accurately represent the intersex community but also misses a key point: while not identical, intersex and transgender experiences can mutually inform our understanding of the complexity of sex and gender. They reveal that the simplistic binary model Highsmith relies on is insufficient for capturing the full diversity of human biology and lived experiences.

However, this is far from the only flaw in Highsmith's argument. A closer look reveals that their entire article is based not on scientific evidence, as they claim, but on cherry-picked data and ideologically biased sources - a tactic commonly used by anti-trans activists to lend a veneer of credibility to baseless arguments.

Reliance on Biased Sources Over Science

A closer examination of Highsmith's article reveals that, despite their appeals to "basic biology,"25 their arguments are based not on scientific evidence but on ideologically biased sources. Throughout the piece, Highsmith cites organizations like the National Association of Scholars (NAS)26 - a conservative advocacy group known for its opposition to trans rights27- rather than peer-reviewed research or statements from major medical organizations. This suggests that Highsmith is starting with a predetermined anti-trans conclusion and simply cherry-picking arguments to support it.

One of the most glaring examples is Highsmith's citation of the National Association of Scholars (NAS) to argue that "sex is binary and immutable". However, the NAS is far from an unbiased scientific authority. Media Bias/Fact Check rates the organization as "Right-Center" with "Mixed" factual reporting, noting that it "strongly favors conservative causes" and has published misleading or false information28.

By contrast, the scientific consensus among biologists and medical professionals is that sex is not a simple binary but a complex spectrum29. As discussed earlier, intersex conditions are one key piece of evidence for this perspective, demonstrating that there are many gradations between "male" and "female"30. Highsmith's reliance on a biased, non-scientific source to argue otherwise is a clear indication that their claims are ideologically motivated rather than evidence-based.

Another example of Highsmith's cherry-picking can be found in their discussion of transgender athletes. They cite a few isolated examples of transgender women winning sporting events as evidence that "women will be forced to forfeit or punished for protesting these lies". In the article Kat links as “proof”, a daily mail article no less, it is about the Nevada volleyball case. Interestingly enough, if you read the article, that you realize that the players were not compelled to compete against their will, nor were they forced to forfeit, and they were not punished in any way. From the article directly31:

“The school also noted that players were free to sit out the match without suffering any consequences.” - By Mitchell Goodbar for the Daily Mail

To substantiate this as a widespread issue, rather than an isolated incident, Highsmith would need to provide more examples of athletes facing direct punishment from authorities for refusing to compete against transgender opponents. Other incidents do exist, of course, but they are few. Accusations and legal challenges should also be corroborated with evidence and court rulings. Kat ignores the fact that most sporting organizations have strict guidelines in place to ensure fair competition, such as requiring transgender athletes to undergo hormone therapy and maintain testosterone levels below a certain threshold32. By focusing on a handful of controversial cases and ignoring the larger context, Highsmith paints a misleading picture of the reality for women in sports as it relates to transgender athletes.

Perhaps most tellingly, Highsmith fails to engage with the scientific research on the athletic performance of transgender women compared to cisgender women. While they assert that transgender athletes have an inherent and unfair advantage, numerous studies have found that this is not the case after an appropriate period of hormone therapy.

For example, a systematic review of fitness test results and race times found that transgender women had no consistent performance advantage over cisgender women in elite athletics after 1-2 years of gender-affirming hormone treatment.33 Another study of Air Force fitness assessment data determined that after two years of taking feminizing hormones, the push-up and sit-up performance of transgender women was similar to that of cisgender women.34

Additional research has shown that testosterone suppression to cisgender female levels reduces muscle mass and strength in transgender women, mitigating the impact of any male puberty-associated physical advantages.3536 These findings challenge Highsmith's claim that transgender inclusion poses a fundamental threat to fairness in women's sports.

It's also worth noting that major sports governing bodies like the International Olympic Committee and NCAA have implemented policies requiring transgender women to undergo hormone therapy and maintain low testosterone levels for an extended period before competing in the women's category.3738 These science-based guidelines aim to level the playing field and ensure that transgender athletes do not have an unjust edge over their cisgender counterparts.

By ignoring all this evidence and instead relying on isolated anecdotes and speculation, Highsmith reveals that their arguments are not based on a sober analysis of the facts but on an ideological opposition to transgender inclusion. While concerns about competitive equity are understandable, the research simply does not support their alarmist assertions that transgender athletes are systematically undermining women's sports.

Of course, this is not to say that being transgender is just a matter of "pretending" or "mental illness," as Highsmith baselessly claims. Numerous studies have found that gender identity has a strong neurological and genetic component, indicating that it is a deep-seated aspect of a person's being rather than a mere whim or delusion.3940 However, the key point is that the scientific consensus on the athletic capabilities of transgender women after hormone therapy contradicts Highsmith's central argument about the dangers they allegedly pose to fair play.

Ultimately, a closer examination of Highsmith's sources and arguments reveals a clear pattern of cherry-picking data, ignoring scientific consensus, and relying on biased, non-scientific authorities to support a predetermined anti-trans narrative. This fundamentally undermines their credibility and suggests that their "five reasons" are not the product of careful, objective analysis but of ideological bias. With this in mind, let us turn to a point-by-point refutation of Highsmith's central claims.

The Flaws in Kat's Five Reasons

A point-by-point examination of Highsmith's "five reasons" reveals a series of logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, and rhetorical sleights of hand that fundamentally undermine their case against transgender inclusion. Some of these have already been debunked in other articles, those ones I will keep short.

1. ‘sex is binary and immutable’

Highsmith's first claim, that "sex is binary and immutable," is contradicted by the scientific evidence on intersex conditions and the bimodal nature of sex characteristics. As noted earlier, experts estimate that up to 1.7% of the population has an intersex trait, demonstrating that biological sex is more complex than a simple male/female dichotomy. 41Highsmith's reliance on ideologically biased sources like the National Association of Scholars over the consensus of medical professionals and biologists further weakens their argument. Based on the consistency of Kat’s usage of ideologically based opinions, articles, and people (with the one rare exception) we can draw the conclusion that this is someone who writes and researches with a conclusion in mind, and is “evidence shopping”42 to support a conclusion, and not drawing a conclusion based on the evidence. One is intellectually honest, the other is not.

2. ‘men who 'feel like' they are women do not have genetic disorders’

Their second reason, that "men who 'feel like' they are women do not have genetic disorders," is a strawman fallacy. No one is arguing that being transgender is the same as having an intersex condition43. However, it is inaccurate to suggest that gender identity is merely a matter of "feeling" or "pretending." Numerous studies have found that gender identity has a biological basis in the brain structure, genetics, and prenatal hormone exposure of individuals.4445 Highsmith's dismissal of this evidence in favor of unsupported claims about mental illness reveals their lack of scientific rigor and serves as but one example of their many falls to confirmation bias.

3. even developmental sexual disorders are divided according to the binary

Highsmith's third point, that "even developmental sexual disorders are divided according to the binary," misses the crux of why intersex conditions are relevant to this debate. Intersex traits are raised to challenge the essentialist notion that sex characteristics can be neatly sorted into two discrete categories, not to argue that intersex people represent additional sexes. Their attempt to force intersex individuals into a binary classification system they don't fit is reductive and fails to capture the full diversity of human sexual development. I would write another paragraph or two taking this apart and citing Ainsworth again46, but for the sake of brevity, it as has pointed out quite nicely in both their article and its title: “Kat Highsmith Doesn't Understand the Definition of Binary.”47 I also cover this topic in a previous article48.

4. Disorders have never been an issue

Kat Highsmith's argument in this section of their article relies on several flawed assumptions and oversimplifications that fail to engage with the actual relevance of intersex conditions to debates about sex and gender. Their claim that "disorders have never been an issue" for men seeking to oppress women throughout history ignores the many ways in which the existence of intersex and gender non-conforming individuals has consistently challenged and complicated efforts to enforce strict gender binaries.

Substantial evidence from a range of historical and cultural contexts reveals that societies have long grappled with the reality of sex and gender diversity, developing various social, legal, and conceptual frameworks for accommodating individuals who do not fit neatly into binary categories. In ancient Mesopotamia, for example, the Sumerian and Akkadian languages included specific terms for people who were neither male nor female, and these individuals often occupied special social and religious roles495051. Similarly, classical Jewish texts like the Talmud acknowledge the existence of intersex people and outline legal accommodations for their status52.

Moreover, many cultures throughout history have recognized non-binary gender categories, such as the "two-spirit" people in some Native American societies or the "hijra" in South Asia53. These examples directly challenge Highsmith's assertion that the gender binary has always been clear-cut and easily enforceable.

The fact that these diverse understandings of sex and gender have often been marginalized or erased in favor of a simplistic binary model does not negate their existence or relevance. If anything, the historical oppression of both women and gender minorities underscores the dangers of relying on rigid, essentialist categories to determine social status and rights. Moreover, even in more recent history, the medical and legal management of intersex bodies has been a site of ongoing controversy and negotiation, revealing deep anxieties and disagreements about the stability of binary gender categories54.

Highsmith also ignores the long history of intersex activism and advocacy, including the work of pioneering figures like Bo Laurent (formerly Cheryl Chase) and the Intersex Society of North America55. For decades, intersex people have been fighting against medical stigma, non-consensual surgeries, and legal discrimination - a fact that directly contradicts Highsmith's suggestion that they have never faced any issues related to their sex characteristics.

Highsmith's use of specific historical examples, such as the French Revolution or the oppression of women in China and Afghanistan, does not actually support their broader claim that intersex conditions are irrelevant to discussions of gender. The fact that men in power have often brutally enforced a gender binary through violence and discrimination says nothing about the underlying validity or coherence of that binary as a conceptual framework. Furthermore, their invocation of these examples relies on a monolithic understanding of gender oppression that ignores the many ways in which women have resisted and subverted patriarchal norms throughout history. Highsmith's failure to grapple with the extensive scholarship on the studies and history of women, gender diversity, and feminist thought raises questions about the depth and rigor of her analysis.

Furthermore, Highsmith's attempt to dismiss the relevance of intersex conditions by suggesting they represent rare exceptions to a clear-cut gender binary relies on a flawed understanding of how societal norms and categories evolve over time. In fact, there are numerous examples throughout history where the existence of exceptions or outliers has challenged prevailing assumptions and led to fundamental shifts in our understanding of the world, from the impact of the disability rights movement on conceptions of "normal" human functioning56 to the revolutionary implications of quantum phenomena for classical physics57.

By analogy, the existence of intersex and transgender individuals can be seen as a similar kind of exception that challenges binary models of sex and gender and requires a rethinking of our legal and social frameworks to accommodate a more diverse range of human experiences and identities. Far from being mere anomalies that can be safely ignored, intersex and transgender people represent a fundamental challenge to our assumptions about sex and gender that demands a serious and substantive response58.

This is particularly evident in light of recent legal and policy developments around recognizing non-binary gender identities, such as the 2017 California law allowing a third gender option on official documents or the 2021 U.S. State Department announcement that it would allow "X" gender markers on passports59. These examples demonstrate how binary gender categories are being actively challenged and reformed in the present day, a reality that Highsmith fails to acknowledge.

Highsmith's rhetorical questions at the end of the section, such as "Can we please stop pretending like this is complicated?" are a clear attempt to shut down further discussion and debate by presenting their own perspective as self-evident and beyond dispute. In reality, the questions of sex, gender, and identity raised by the existence of intersex and transgender individuals are inherently complex and contested, requiring ongoing engagement and analysis from a range of disciplinary and experiential perspectives.

By dismissing these questions as "mindless deflection," Highsmith forecloses the possibility of productive dialogue and undermines the very notion of good-faith intellectual discourse. Their approach is one of dogmatism and oversimplification, rather than genuine engagement with the nuances and challenges of the issue at hand.

So we can see that Highsmith's argument in this section relies on a selective and tendentious60 reading of history and contemporary politics that fails to grapple with the actual implications of sex and gender diversity for our social, legal, and conceptual frameworks. By presenting the gender binary as a fixed and immutable reality that has always been easily enforceable, they ignore the ways in which the existence of intersex and gender non-conforming individuals has consistently challenged and complicated that binary throughout history.

A more intellectually honest and rigorous approach would be to engage with these challenges and complications as opportunities for growth and transformation, rather than dismissing them as irrelevant or inconvenient. Only by grappling with the full complexity and diversity of human experience can we hope to develop more just and inclusive frameworks for understanding and accommodating sex and gender diversity in all its forms. Recognizing that exceptions can and do "make the rule" when it comes to challenging and transforming societal norms and categories is essential to moving beyond the kind of simplistic binary thinking exemplified by Highsmith's argument and embracing the full range of human identity and experience.

5. men who pass do not validate 'trans'

Finally, Highsmith's fifth point, that "men who pass do not validate 'trans,'" is another strawman argument. The validity of transgender identities is not contingent on an individual's ability to "pass" as cisgender. However, it's worth noting that this claim contradicts their earlier assertion that transgender people are simply delusional or "pretending." If some transgender individuals are indistinguishable from cisgender men or women, that suggests their identities are more than mere affectation or mental illness.

Kat further attempts to undermine the validity of transgender identities by arguing that "men who pass" as women pose an existential threat to sex-segregated spaces, women's sports, and societal norms. However, a closer examination of their claims reveals a reliance on sensationalistic anecdotes, false equivalencies, and worst-case scenarios that fail to capture the complexity of transgender people's experiences or the nuances of evolving policies in this area.

One of Highsmith's central arguments is that allowing transgender women in women's prisons will lead to an epidemic of sexual violence and pregnancy. To support this claim, they cite an article from a partisan website that features anonymous allegations of transgender inmates harassing or assaulting female prisoners in Minnesota61. While these accounts are certainly concerning, they do not provide conclusive evidence of a systemic problem or justify blanket exclusions of transgender women from women's facilities.

It is important to recognize that transgender prisoners face exceptionally high rates of violence, sexual abuse, and mistreatment in correctional settings, particularly when housed in accordance with their sex assigned at birth rather than their gender identity.62 Policies that allow transgender inmates to be housed in alignment with their gender are designed to mitigate these well-documented risks and protect a vulnerable population, not to enable predatory behavior. Furthermore, data shows that the primary perpetrator to sexual assault and rape in women’s prisons are the male guards, not trans women.

Undoubtedly, there may be challenging cases that require individualized assessment and appropriate safeguards. However, Highsmith's portrayal of transgender women as inherent threats to cisgender women is a harmful stereotype that is not supported by the available data. A more constructive approach would be to develop evidence-based policies that prioritize the safety and dignity of all inmates, regardless of their gender identity.

Similarly, Highsmith's claim that transgender athletes are dominating women's sports and causing cisgender women to "lose medals" relies on a handful of controversial examples rather than a comprehensive assessment of the issue. While cases like those of Laurel Hubbard and Hannah Mouncey have generated significant media attention, they do not reflect the reality of most transgender athletes' experiences or the policies governing their participation.

As we have already demonstrated in earlier sections, Kat is ignoring all the evidence against their claims. This appears to be due to their belief in conspiracy-like theories that they take as gospel from Bilek and others,63 and relies on other isolated anecdotes and speculation to confirm their bias. In doing so, Highsmith reveals that their arguments are not based on a sober analysis of the facts but on an ideological opposition to transgender inclusion.

Furthermore, this section further repeats the notion that women are being systematically "forced" to forfeit or face punishment for protesting transgender inclusion. As we have shown earlier, this is not well-supported by the article Highsmith cites. The piece describes a single instance of a collegiate volleyball team choosing to forfeit a match against a transgender athlete, but does not provide evidence of a broader pattern of coercion or retaliation against objecting players. In fact, as we see other teams following suit, all forfeits have been voluntary and without retribution. While the concerns expressed by some female athletes deserve serious consideration, anecdotal examples do not justify categorical bans on transgender participation.

Highsmith's comparison of transgender identity to Rachel Dolezal's discredited claims of being "transracial" is another flawed analogy that reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be transgender. Unlike Dolezal's appropriation of a marginalized racial identity, transgender people's gender identities are a deep-seated aspect of their sense of self, not a conscious choice or act of deception.

The scientific consensus is that gender identity has a biological basis in the brain structure, genetics, and prenatal hormone exposure of individuals, and is not simply a matter of "passing" or "pretending."64 By equating transgender people's lived experiences with Dolezal's fraud, Highsmith engages in a dehumanizing form of rhetoric that dismisses the reality of gender dysphoria and the importance of gender affirmation for transgender well-being.

Ultimately, Highsmith's parade of horribles and slippery slope arguments fail to make a persuasive case against transgender inclusion nor against validation. While the examples they cite may provoke an emotional response, they do not represent the full scope of transgender people's experiences or the evolving landscape of policies and best practices in this area. This rhetorical strategy aims to provoke a visceral emotional response that overrides critical thinking and nuanced understanding of the facts.

A more responsible and ethical approach would be to ground these conversations in scientific evidence, legal principles of equality and non-discrimination, and a respect for the inherent dignity of all individuals. By working to develop nuanced policies that address legitimate concerns while also protecting the rights and well-being of transgender people, we can move beyond fearmongering and toward a more just and inclusive society.

The Reality of Transgender Identities

Contrary to Highsmith's portrayal of transgender identities as a matter of "pretending" or "mental illness," there is substantial evidence that gender identity has a biological basis. Numerous studies have found that transgender individuals often have brain structures and activation patterns that more closely resemble their identified gender than their assigned sex at birth65. Additionally, research suggests that genetic variations and prenatal hormone exposures may play a role in the development of transgender identities66.

However, it is important to note that this research is still emerging, and we cannot simply reduce gender identity to "male" or "female" brains. The reality is likely far more complex, involving a range of genetic, hormonal, and neurological factors that interact in ways we are only beginning to understand. While we cannot definitively say that we can identify all transgender people based on brain scans, these findings do suggest that gender identity is not merely a choice or a delusion, but has some basis in biology.

Furthermore, transgender people face significant discrimination, violence, and marginalization, rather than the "special privileges" that Highsmith suggests. The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey found that transgender individuals experience high rates of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, and assault, as well as barriers to accessing healthcare, education, and legal recognition67. These disparities are even more pronounced for transgender people of color and those with disabilities, highlighting the intersectional nature of anti-transgender discrimination.

While Highsmith focuses on a handful of sensationalized cases involving transgender criminals or athletes, these singular examples do not represent the lived realities of the vast majority of transgender people. Most transgender individuals are simply seeking to live authentically and participate fully in society, without fear of violence, discrimination, or marginalization. By cherry-picking negative examples and presenting them as representative, Highsmith engages in a classic tactic of anti-transgender propaganda that has been thoroughly debunked by scholars and activists6869.

This tactic of cherry-picking negative anecdotes to smear an entire demographic has been used time and time again to target and 'otherize' marginalized groups. It's a classic tool of fearmongering and bigotry. Scholars and activists have long debunked this propaganda strategy, yet it continues to be recycled against minority after minority. Using the worst stereotypes to stoke fear and hatred against the entire community. Highsmith's anti-trans screed is simply the latest example in this long and shameful history of such demagoguery, and the latest example in a long and shameful history along the same lines as JK Rowling, Anita Bryant, Joseph McCarthy, George Wallace, David Duke, etc.

Wrapping it all up…

Kat Highsmith's article relies on a series of misrepresentations, biased sources, and selective omissions that reveal a deep ideological commitment to denying the reality of transgender identities. Highsmith's article fails to present a logically coherent, scientifically grounded argument against the validity of transgender identities. Instead, it offers a contradictory, poorly reasoned polemic that relies on anti-trans bias, cherry-picked examples, and a fundamental misunderstanding of the relevance of intersex conditions to discussions of sex and gender.

Rather than engaging with the complex scientific and social realities of gender diversity, Highsmith falls back on simplistic appeals to "basic biology" that have long been discredited by experts in the field.

Highsmith's core thesis - that intersex people's existence does not support the validity of trans identities - is riddled with contradictions and factual inaccuracies that undermine their own premise. They assert that sex is an immutable binary while simultaneously acknowledging that intersex people do not fit neatly into male/female categories - a glaring inconsistency they fail to address.

Throughout the piece, Highsmith employs classic anti-trans propaganda tactics, focusing on sensationalized anecdotes of trans criminals to argue against trans rights while dismissing the overwhelming evidence of discrimination trans people face. Their arguments rely on appeals to "basic biology" and "common sense," while ignoring the significant scientific research suggesting a biological basis for gender identity.

A closer examination of Highsmith's arguments reveals a pattern of cherry-picking data, ignoring inconvenient truths and facts, and relying on discredited or biased sources to support a predetermined anti-transgender agenda. It is is littered with ad hominem attacks, slurs, and fearmongering against trans people, revealing Highsmith's underlying transphobia and lack of objectivity. They make no attempt to understand the lived experiences of trans individuals, instead painting them as delusional, predatory, or mentally ill. This is not a matter of objective scientific inquiry, but of ideologically motivated pseudoscience that does real harm to transgender people and their families.

Moreover, Highsmith's attempt to pit intersex and transgender experiences against each other is a classic divide-and-conquer tactic that fails to recognize the significant overlap and solidarity between these communities. In reality, intersex and transgender people face many of the same challenges in terms of medical gatekeeping, legal discrimination, and societal misunderstanding. Both experiences point to the inadequacy of simplistic binary models of sex and gender, and the need for a more nuanced and inclusive approach to human diversity.

Finally, there is no consistent logic or intellectual integrity to be found in Highsmith's arguments - only bigotry and misinformation masquerading as concern for women and children. Their article exemplifies the kind of ideologically motivated pseudoscience that has been repeatedly debunked by experts, yet continues to be weaponized against marginalized communities.

Only by embracing the complexity and diversity of human experiences can we hope to create a more just and equitable world for all. Highsmith's article is a reminder of the urgent need for this work, and of the dangers of allowing ideology to masquerade as science in the service of discrimination and oppression.