Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

• powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨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.

  source

  • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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.

    source

    • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ 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:

      It’s important to recognize that the recent reframing of the two sexes as needing revision did not result from any new discoveries about biology […] It is not transphobic to recognize the two sexes that biologists have known for decades, but, unfortunately, we are dealing with ideologues who are largely impervious to both facts and reason,

      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.

      source

      • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        OK. And it still constitutes a single perspective.

        source

        • -> View More Comments