Comment

That’s not true, there are definitely people both without any sex organs whose body “organization” is incapable of producing any gametes. There are people who are able to produce both gametes. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA does not make these people magically disappear. You cannot argue “well part of their body organization is invalid because of reasons”.

This is classic Dunning-Kruger shit where just because you learned a little about gametes you think you’re an expert, but there’s a huge world of exceptions out there.

source

Sort:hotnew top

powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
What exactly do you mean by “has no concept”? I don’t think you quite understand what you’re talking about.

source
- pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I know you’re just here for the argument, and I’ve wasted enough time on this already. The “gamete size” simplification is Trumpist propaganda and not based in actual rigorous science.
  
  Actual biologists agree that bodies without sex organs don’t fit into the binary definition
  
  Hormone expression (in addition to gamete size) is also a critical factor that scientists use to define sex
  
  Determining “organization” in cases of “physical anomaly” via chromosomes is unreliable
  
  1.3% of people are born intersex, and “intersex” represents an entire continuum
  
  Educate yourself.
  
  source
  - powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    You seem like you should know better. From the first link:
    
    Instead, most characteristics ascribed to males and females fall along a spectrum with two peaks, one the average for females and the other the average for males. For instance, on average, males are taller than females and have more muscle mass, more red blood cells and a higher metabolism.
    
    But almost nobody fits in the peak for all those measures for their sex, Lents says. “There’s plenty of women who are taller than plenty of men. There are plenty of women who have higher metabolic rates than some men, even though the averages are different.
    
    “If you define biological sex purely on the gametes, you’re going to ignore most of what actually matters to your daily life, including in your social life,” he says. “Reducing sex to a binary really doesn’t make a lot of sense for how we actually live.”
    
    It confuses sex phenotypes with sex, which is a basic error. That’s not how sex is defined, it’s defined entirely by gamete size because no other definition makes sense.
    
    Intersex is a confusing term, because you will either have a male or female DSD
    
    Your other links are talking about variations within a sex. You also misunderstand how sex is determined vs how it is defined.
    
    source
    pennomi@lemmy.world ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    I’m done with this conversation now because you’re being willfully ignorant (as expected). One quote talking about characteristics is out of context for this discussion. There is a wealth of other context here that you are intentionally ignoring, specifically the many parts showing that scientists do not all agree with a reductionist definition only considering gametes. Your claim that no other definition makes sense is absolute bullshit in the scientific community and you should be ashamed for pretending it’s the only definition out there.
    
    source