Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 days agoThat’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.
oce@jlai.lu 3 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).
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Because it fits the narrative they are selling.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 2 days 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.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If they felt the need to write such a paper so recently, and the reviewers felt the need to accept it, then the issue is clearly more complex than you are presenting. Otherwise if it is truly that obvious the paper would be worthless.
SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
That’s it. You’re out of the tautology club.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 days 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?
sukhmel@programming.dev 2 days ago
I still don’t understand what to do based on gametes with XXY genotype for instance
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
I’m not sure what you mean by “what to do”. If someone has an XXY genotype, their sex is determined by the gametes their body is organized around producing, like everyone else.
To quote the NHS