Comment on Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense

• communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Intersex people aren’t a monolith. What size gametes each intersex person produces determines their sex. This is the biological definition and is not a spectrum.

  they often produce both or neither…

  It is binary and immutable. Gender activists are trying to shove gender into inappropriate places.

  Give one example.

  If it doesn’t matter, then it should be no big deal to drop all of the gender woo when speaking of sex, right?

  It doesn’t matter and it’s a better, more accurate descriptor of the situation, so why would we drop it? That’s like saying we should drop dwarf planets because it doesn’t really matter and you prefer the old way.

  There’s a reason science and culture are evolving these terms, it’s because the previous way of using them was simplistic and not as useful.

  source

  • tahira@hilariouschaos.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    they often produce both or neither…

    Thank you for being aware of the sex binary. In incredibly rare cases (as in you can count them on the fingers of one hand), there may have been cases where humans produced both gametes, likely due to chimerism. But just as you say, it’s both gametes, because sex is binary. They’re producing both of the two binary options.

    Producing neither gamete is a silly point to bring up. Your sex is the size of the gametes you do or would produce. It’s also not a new sex to produce neither of the two gametes.

    Give one example.

    Besides the given example in the article and directly given to you already where an academic is trying to push for a bad definition of sex (in Scientific American, not just some random podunk journal), here’s one example:

    Note: in humans, there are egg-producers that do not identify as female and sperm-producers that do not identify as male.

    That’s a silly statement that has nothing to do with biology and was clearly shoved in there for appeasement of gender fanatics. Biology doesn’t give a shit how you identify.

    more accurate descriptor of the situation

    It’s less accurate. You responded to me with “whoa what about intersex people”, because you were working off of a bad and unclear definition. If you had read the article, you would have known this. Reminder that the article is titled “Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense”, written by a PhD in evolutionary biology. He’s addressing your exact points.

    source

    • communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Thank you for being aware of the sex binary. In incredibly rare cases (as in you can count them on the fingers of one hand), there may have been cases where humans produced both gametes, likely due to chimerism. But just as you say, it’s both gametes, because sex is binary. They’re producing both of the two binary options.

      Yes, or none, which makes it not as simple as a binary. You’ve already admitted even if you disagree about it being a spectrum, that it isn’t a binary. I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size, but even if you run with that definition, you end up with exceptions.

      Besides the given example in the article and directly given to you already where an academic is trying to push for a bad definition of sex (in Scientific American, not just some random podunk journal), here’s one example[1]:

      That link doesn’t even resemble what I asked for, and that example in the article is people expressing legitimate desire to improve the definitions and move the field forward, this is not somebody injecting things for no reason, like you claim. Is discussing the topic not allowed in your eyes? Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?

      Producing neither gamete is a silly point to bring up. Your sex is the size of the gametes you do or would produce. It’s also not a new sex to produce neither of the two gametes.

      There are many cases where it is impossible to know which you would produce. This means it’s not as simple as a binary, in these cases, the gamete option is not a viable way to determine sex.

      It’s less accurate. You responded to me with “whoa what about intersex people”, because you were working off of a bad and unclear definition. If you had read the article, you would have known this. Reminder that the article is titled “Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense”, written by a PhD in evolutionary biology. He’s addressing your exact points.

      He failed to address them, none of my points make any of what i’m saying any harder to understand, nor do they cause any actual crisis.

      source

      • tahira@hilariouschaos.com ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?

        Gender is appropriate for sociology. Biology doesn’t give a shit what you identify as. It has no place in a biology textbook. It’s not moving the field forward, it’s trying to push a worse and irrelevant definition.

        I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size

        Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.

        The author also wrote an article that is addressing your exact questions: realityslaststand.com/…/how-our-shoes-can-help-ex…

        The article basically consists of “I don’t like it when people do this

        Again, this is not just some random opinion. This is is not equal to your opinion. This is a PhD in evolutionary biology writing about the scientific consensus. You’re free to disagree with the scientific consensus, but you should admit you’re no better than a creationist spouting off “god did it”.

        source

        • -> View More Comments