That’s it. You’re out of the tautology club.
Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy
oce@jlai.lu 2 days agoWhy 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).
SapientLasagna@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
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?
sukhmel@programming.dev 1 day ago
I still don’t understand what to do based on gametes with XXY genotype for instance
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day 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.
Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter’s, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome.
zeezee@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
but what about ovotesticular people? if they can produce both gametes what determines their sex? based on what gamete they were “supposed” to produce? but how do you determine what they’re “supposed” to produce? chromosomes? phenotypes? a combination of all of these? but then we’re back at square one where gametes may be binary but sex isn’t?
sukhmel@programming.dev 1 day ago
Organised around producing here means ‘should produce even if it never did’? You linked a list of disorders yourself, some of them do not allow a body to produce any form of gamete in severe cases
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Because it fits the narrative they are selling.
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.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 21 hours 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.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
I’ll let a professor emeritus, author of several popular books, etc etc respond (i.e. you should listen to him). From his commentary on the paper:
There is no complexity here. It’s settled science. A few ideologues are trying to do something silly, and people outside of academia are taking that out of context. This paper was written to clarify that to lay people.