Comment

Comment on Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense

communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

It is an objective fact. I’ll link you to Wikipedia[1] because it’s easy, but feel free to cite anything that contradicts it: “The type of gamete an organism produces determines its sex”

Yes, that is a fact, as is the fact that sex is a spectrum because of intersex people.

You literally avoided reading the article, where a PhD in evolutionary biology explains exactly why you’re wrong.

Plenty of PhD’s in evolutionary biology would agree with me, even in the article

“Sometimes, the complex machinery involved in reproduction can develop wrong, and people can suffer from infertility or exhibit reproductive traits that are atypical for their sex, including ambiguous genitalia (intersex conditions). However, as pointed out by others, these are not additional sexes because these body plans do not produce a new type of gamete besides sperm or eggs. Someone who does not produce any gametes would also not be a third sex since they would be fundamentally incapable of sexual reproduction.”

They make the claim that this doesn’t count as another sex, but even not being any sex would be a sex all on its own… resulting in it not being a simple binary. There’s nuance here that is going over your head.

source

Sort:hotnew top

tahira@hilariouschaos.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

Plenty of PhD’s in evolutionary biology would agree with me, even in the article

Are you misreading the article? When it says “However, as pointed out by others”, that is pointing out that you’re 100% incorrect. I’m not sure why you cited something that proves you wrong. Nowhere is a single PhD cited that agrees with you.

source
- communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  
  Are you misreading the article?
  
  I am not, he addresses this point by saying “this is not a sex”, there being sexless humans implies a non-binary of sexes, this is just one way to look at it and a matter of opinion.
  
  Nowhere is a single PhD cited that agrees with you.
  
  I already gave this:
  
  www.stateofunion.org/2024/03/07/…/[1]
  
  You might think this source supports your claim, but notice "Specifically, 58% agreed sex is binary except in rare intersex cases, while 29% said it is not and 13% had no view. "
  
  Plenty of PHD’s agree with me, even the 58% agree with me.
  
  source
  - tahira@hilariouschaos.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    So I would agree with that 58%, because there’s no option for “Yes, and intersex is irrelevant”. It’s honestly a terrible poll, most likely not written by a biologist. I wouldn’t be surprised if that 13% put down “Prefer not to say” as a sort of “This is a bad poll” response.
    
    I’ll let the quoted scientist in the source of the poll respond.
    
    “Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts,” he said.
    
    “While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex.
    
    “On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species.”
    
    source
    communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    i agree that poll is insufficiently specific, however, even if 100% of that 58% agreed with you, that would still not meet the criteria for scientific consensus, which is typically in the 90’s
    
    pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10563654/ this might interest you, if you bother to read it, I disagree that it has anything to do with a lack of evolutionary knowledge, in fact I find the people most ignorant of evolution strongly hold this belief regularly, but that is a mere anecdote. None of the roundtable had anything to do with that, those claims seem baseless and dataless.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments