Comment on Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 weeks agoGender 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.
As discussed, the intersex debate has pushed forward talks about biological precision in terminology, and ways to properly define such things. These are worthwhile discussions that are harming nobody.
Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.
It is in fact not. You’re confusing “determining” and “defining”
here’s an article on the matter: theparadoxinstitute.com/…/defining-sex-vs-determi…
The author also wrote an article that is addressing your exact questions: realityslaststand.com/…/how-our-shoes-can-help-ex…
I control f’d for intersex, didn’t mention it, i expect he’d give an opinion that intersex doesn’t count as a sex even if the produce both gametes baselessly, like he did in the above article, making it a matter of his opinion, and having nothing to do with either scientific consensus or facts.
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 don’t know who I am hahaha. My opinion that intersex individuals are a special exception is a common one amongst PHD’s in biology, this particular guy just doesn’t agree with that.
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”.
This has nothing to do with scientific consensus, and everything to do with the opinion of ONE PHD.
here’s a few PHD’s who would likely disagree with him:
…brown.edu/…/sex-binarism-and-the-intersex-pediat…
tahira@hilariouschaos.com 3 weeks ago
No. You’re once again confusing sex with phenotype an/d genotype. The only thing that unites a large swathe of the animal kingdom in regards to sex is gamete size. If we toss that out, we lose precision
No, that is precisely my point. Sex is determined by many different factors especially across species. Sex is defined as gamete size because there’s no other coherent definition.
You really pick bad citations. Citing someone who says “oh i was just being ironic!” is laughable.
Image
She also confuses sex and phenotypes as you have been and those other citations do.
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 weeks ago
The point of the discussion is to figure out if there’s a better way to determine this, a more precise way, the point of such discussions are to move the field forward, all things in science should be questioned, and that is the way of science.
Can you not imagine the possibility that it isn’t the best way to determine it?
That still leaves my other citations in tact, and I could have much more, the point was that many people in the field agree with what i’m saying.
We aren’t confused, again, this is the difference between determining and defining sex.
tahira@hilariouschaos.com 2 weeks ago
The definition you’re pushing is incoherent garbage. If there’s actually a better definition, great. Yours isn’t it.
I’m not going to wade through a bunch of garbage. You couldn’t even be arsed to figure out that the author isn’t a serious academic and won’t stand behind her own work before citing it. Find real citations first. A shit poll isn’t a citation either
communist@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 weeks ago
All definitions are incoherent garbage, is the problem, that’s why they’re trying to make new better ones.
My definition stands, sex is not binary, because of intersex people, even by that definition, that’s one of many possible definitions, how do you know you have the best one?
What do you think my definition is, and what are its flaws?
Okay, but they still stand.