Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

• rooroo@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  But that’s obviously the people trying to redefine sex to not be using the gametes.

  Look y’all I know nothing about biology but I’ve heard enough definitions of sex to know that there isn’t a clear consensus on one, binary or not. I do know that if you want to wellactually a binary definition into this you might be part of the problem. (Unless, that is, it’s interesting enough and you phrase it differently idk.)

  source

  • GrammarPolice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It’s not binary. Anyone not accepting this needs to stop talking about biology because it is clearly not rheir field

    Image

    source

    • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s demonstrating the variation within the sex binary. You’re confusing how sex is determined with how sex is defined.

      source

      • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        If, as you falsely claim, sex is determined by rather than defined by chromosomes, then by your own logic, you should find it very easy indeed to draw a line down that pictogram showing which side is male and which is female without crossing any of the other lines. I’ll wait.

        source
  • oce@jlai.lu ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Consider some of those people are trying to do that for rational reasons and check the article as an example of such reasons.

    source

    • rooroo@feddit.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      I think I agree with you and my irony just got lost. But again, I don’t know enough to be sure n

      source
• powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  That’s an attempt to redefine sex. Which is all well and good and part of the scientific process. It’s not going to be adopted in the field of biology though, because then talking about sex across the animal kingdom becomes incoherent. Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes addresses that paper directly:

  Traits are labeled “male-typical” or “female-typical” only because they correlate with organisms already identified as male or female—an identification that, in anisogamous species, is made ultimately by reference to gametes. Once that reference is removed, the typology loses its interpretive footing.

  source

  • oce@jlai.lu ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Why do you think this paper is more correct than the other? This paper seems to be locked on a single definition and says everything else is wrong because it does not follow this definition.

    Personally, I find it very intellectually unsatisfying because you can have a individual with male gametes but with a female phenotype, and this definition says, this individual’s sex is without a doubt 100% male. It seems the main benefit is not questioning a historical definition, which fits well with conservative opinions. There’s clear evidence on many other subjects that this can slow down or block science (ex: tobacco, climate).

    source

    • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Why do you think this paper is more correct than the other?

      Because it fits the narrative they are selling.

      source

      • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Well no. You’re free to read the paper’s citations. The field of biology has always used this definition of sex, and that paper cites this definition from 1888. Somebody also helpfully set up a project for scientists to sign that affirms the same view:

        projectnettie.wordpress.com

        Feel free to post anything disputing the paper.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      That’s it. You’re out of the tautology club.

      source
    • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      The author of that paper has a PhD in evolutionary biology and is well-qualified to talk about it, but also provides plenty of citations in the paper. His point is simply that trying to redefine sex in that way leads to a circular definition that isn’t useful.

      To that point, what does “male gametes but with a female phenotype” mean? What does female mean? How can you define it without reference to gametes?

      source

      • sukhmel@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I still don’t understand what to do based on gametes with XXY genotype for instance

        source

        • -> View More Comments