Comment

Comment on That's a whole lotta hydrogen!

powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

This is a bad analogy because there’s 100+ types of atoms. In anisogamous species (like humans), there’s exactly 2 gamete types, sperm and ova. Which of those two gamete types one’s body is organized around producing is how sex is defined.

See here for charts showing the spectrum of sex determination and how that relates to sex definition. Each chart can be labeled as male or female based on this definition of sex, which is the one that is used across the field of biology.

theparadoxinstitute.org/…/sex-development-charts

There’s no third sex, and there’s nobody born with a body that isn’t trying to produce gametes (and potentially failing).

source

Sort:hotnew top

accideath@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
This post probably isn’t about sex but about gender. Those are two very different albeit related concepts. Sure, biology is mostly binary (although not quite as black and white, if you’re looking at any other features than gamete types. Femininity and masculinity do not define themselves by gamete type), but psychology very much isn’t binary.

source
- usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  There are only two genders: binary, and non-binary
  
  source
  - JasonDJ@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    There are 10 types of people in this world…those who understand binary, and those who don’t.
    
    source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  You’re right that sex phenotypes (features other than gametes) and gender form a spectrum and not a strict binary. This is often a point of confusion and I’ve had people try to argue about sex, after I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender.
  
  I think the cartoon is likely about sex, but if everyone agrees that sex != gender and biologists define sex as binary in humans, then it doesn’t really matter and we all agree about the important things.
  
  source
MissingInteger@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
What is your obsession with this meme? The two times 1, 2 this was posted before, you spent over two days each writting dozens of comments. Under each post, people patiently explained to you that sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary.

A nice graphic from the last thread:
Image

But you know what? Let me ask you a question. After taking a quick look at your moderation history, I’m interested in your answer.

What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?

source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I don’t really understand other people’s obsession with attacking science. In each of those threads I posted once, and then had to respond many more times pointing out how they’re incorrect. “Patiently explaining” is a weird way of saying “doubling down on being wrong”.
  
  Like here as well. As in the previous thread, that graphic shows sex determination, which is not how sex is defined. Each one of those situations ends up being male or female. I’m having to write another comment to correct your misinformation, even though you could’ve seen the exact same response in the previous threads. Why are people obsessed with defending their ignorance? I’d have a fraction of my overall comment count and everyone could’ve done something more productive with their time.
  
  Your statement that “sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary” is wrong. Again, I’ve linked to many helpful resources, but in particular I want to redirect you to the original comment I made in this very thread which goes over several different types of DSDs and shows how they still fall into the sex binary.
  
  Before we start going off on a tangent from this thread, can you acknowledge biological truth? It’s pointless to talk about Khelif if you misunderstand the basics.
  
  source
  - MissingInteger@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Yeah, it seems it is pointless to talk to you about sex determination in humans. That’s why I linked to previous threads where many knowledgeable people have already discussed the topic.
    
    “You had to respond?” Most of the time, you just said the same things in slightly different ways over and over again without apparently reading the comments to which you replied. But you also spammed “Why do you care so much?” a dozen times.
    
    I would still be interested in your answer to the question:
    
    What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
    
    source
    powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I responded “Why do you care so much?” to a user that started out engaging in bad faith by asking that question to start. I was simply mirroring their bad faith argument back to them. Elsewhere in the thread where they had an actual comment, I responded in good faith. I’m not going to waste my time on nonsense.
    
    It’s easy to say “it’s pointless to talk to you”. Other people have said that too, or “I’m just so tired” or “You’re boring”. I’ll gladly talk about Khelif, but first:
    
    Do you understand what sex determination is and how it differs from how sex is defined?
    
    Let’s get facts straight first.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Binette@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
The issue with your argument is that you’re ascribing a simple explanation how biology works to the actual reality of things. When doctors or evolutionary biologist say that something was “supposed to be done”, in the context of biology, they usually mean “this is what the being (as in, its system) does for the possible outcome of reproduction or survival, but there are other possibilities”. They don’t actually mean that this is what is supposed to be done. It’s a way for people to understand it more simply, and is implied.

You should read the Wikipedia article on Teleology in biology. But this paragraph is the most central part of the argument against your point. Teleology means a certain “goal-oriented”-ness.

Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something “in order to” achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid to evolutionary biologists. It is however usually possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in a way which can be read as implying teleology, even though that is not their intention.

As an example, take a meteorologist providing forecast for tomorrow’s weather. With whatever means they collected data, they assert: “it will rain tomorrow”. Tomorrow comes, and it is sunnier than ever. Scientifically speaking, the meteorologist cannot say “the atmosphere failed to make it rain, even though it tried to”. If this seems absurd, it’s because it is. In that case, the meteorologist is supposed to adapt their model into something that more accurately reflects the data given.

The problem is even more visible once you take the example of an intersex person, born with XY chromosomes, but with a uterus (Swyer’s Syndrome). One person could base themselves on the XY chromosomes to say that the person was “supposed to produce small gametes”, as you put it. Another person could base themselves on the fact that (with medical intervention) the person can produce large gametes, therefore, that the person was “supposed to produce large gametes”. Either answer is wrong, since the body isn’t actually “supposed” to do something. It just does what it does, regardless of what you think it is supposed to do. The correct thing to do would be to say: “They aren’t supposed to do something. If our model is to be empirical, it should be supposed to reflect what is actually going on with their body, not ascribe a will to it. We should rethink how we see the definition of sex”

source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  It’s good to be careful about language like “should”, but that doesn’t really refute anything that I’ve said. Taking a step back, this is what the consensus is in the field of biology, which certainly has dealt with teleological arguments before. It’s nothing new, and yet the consensus is still that sex is entirely defined by the gamete type one’s body is organized around producing.
  
  Why exactly do you think your comment is a counterpoint? I understand the limitations of phrasing like “should” or “supposed to”, but concretely, how do you think that applies?
  
  People with Swyer syndrome are female, not because of "supposed to"s, but because the end result is that their bodies are organized around the production of large gametes. It’s an empirical description, just as you call for. From the link:
  
  Image
  
  That’s the difference between how sex is defined and how sex is determined.
  
  source
  - Binette@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    No it is still not empirical. The definition of sex is difficult to set in stone, and yours fails to argue for itself on the basis of a result that is just a stretch of the empirical truth. In fact, you saying that it is a consensus in the field of biology when a notable amount of biologists argue against this is very far-fetched.
    
    Again, take someone with Swyer syndrome that don’t have the ability to produce any large gametes. By saying it is “organized around the production of large gametes”, you are extending that empirical fact related to that person, and ascribing them an alternate reality where there can produce large gametes. You’re defining someone around something that they cannot do.
    
    Concretely, this means that sex is way more complicated than just “revolving around the production of gametes”. I am not an expert in biology, and will not be able to tell you exactly what it is without not considering all of the edge-cases of it’s definition. But there are too many contradictions with saying that it’s binary because XYZ.
    
    I am of the opinion that our society’s obsession with figuring out someone’s sex, if it is assigned by birth by a doctor, determined by an onlooker, etc. is in it of itself harmful. Not that there’s anything wrong with knowing about your body, but the way it’s been morphed into these essential classes is harmful for those that defy said class, intentionally or not.
    
    That said, I hope you look at more examples of teleology in biology. In fact, what I explained should be understandable if you have a look at the wikipedia article. If you do not mean “organized around” in a teleological sense, then what do you mean? Also, you failed to address my previous analogies in your response. If it’s because you feel like it’s fallacious, or that it’s simply wrong, then why not respond accordingly? I’m starting to suspect the use of AI…
    
    source
    a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Something to understand is that power struggle pretends to be the last word on things. Powerstruggle is not a scientist and doesn’t even seem to have relevant degree credentials.
    
    Push them on it. It gets pretty funny.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Which biologists are arguing against it? I think that’s a more concrete claim.
    
    Your argument is basically “This person was born without something at the end of their leg, but we can’t say they’re missing a foot. Maybe it was a fin! Or a baboon! Or an aircraft carrier! There’s just no way to tell”
    
    A human body tries to build a foot at the end of the leg. Sometimes it fails, but until we observe a stable, inherited body plan that doesn’t grow a foot at the end of a leg it is not teleological to use “tries” in that sense. It’s descriptive
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Binette is giving you the lecture that happens in every first year college bio class to students.
    
    Basically evolution has in the past and could in the future (as soon as tomorrow) add a third sex to humans if there was evolutionary pressure to (which there may be). Physics is only deterministic in the short term.
    
    The other issue is that when people (especially those in any scientific community, such as biologists) use the word gender, they specifically mean the list of attributes different societies place on biological sex characteristics they can observe.
    
    Gametes are not something an unaided eye can identify in society so its not useful to assign gender - which no matter how you define it will never line up perfectly with biological sex due to environmental factors. Might as well use the SRY gene or even “the presence of sufficiently SRY receptors”. This is why in society we largely determine gender by what biologists call “secondary sex characteristics” aka ones not actually required for reproduction.
    
    If assigning a gender was evolutionarily important, we’d be assigning it based on primary characteristics like you’re suggesting. But that didn’t happen. The fact is isn’t may suggest its an evolutionary disadvantage to do so.
    
    source
    powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    You’re confusing prescriptive vs descriptive. I agree that a third sex might be selected for in the future, but that’s not the current reality. Until that happens it’s correct to note that, based on how sex is defined in biology, it’s binary in humans.
    
    I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender. Your paraphrasing is misreading what I’ve written. Sex is binary in humans, and gender isn’t.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
PunnyName@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Sex is biological.

Gender is social.

Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

source
- theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  But even sex isn’t binary and doesn’t contain everything often attributed to it.
  
  source
  - powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Sex is binary in humans. Correlates like phenotype/genotype (often confused with sex) are a spectrum though.
    
    source
- evol@lemmy.today ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  What do you define “Sex” as ?
  
  source
  - athatet@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    The thing I had with your dad last night.
    
    source
  - PunnyName@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
    
    source
Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
that’s cool. Do you think trans people should have bodily autonomy?

source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Yes.
  
  source
  - Skullgrid@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Ok. What you are posting will assist in denying that.
    
    source
    Nima@leminal.space ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I think that biology being real is not an affront on transgender individuals.
    
    denying real biology just because it can lead to a few bad feelings is a very dangerous road. both can exist, and do. harmoniously.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    How does posting scientific fact assist in denying trans people bodily autonomy?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
    a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Look at the history. That’s all this person does.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Literally every sentence you typed is entirely inaccurate. It’s bad science promoted by bigots to create a convinient lie that permits them to discriminate and oppress people.

Human genders are not defined by gamete types.

Sex is not defined by gamete types.

Sexual development charts are generalizations across average humans, and do not necessarily represent any one individual’s sexual development.

You can’t hide your bigotry behind peer-reviewed biology papers and textbooks. The actual science doesn’t support it.

Gonochorism is not relevant to the psychosexual development of humans. It’s a term used to differentiate animals that change sexes due to environmental factors, like alligators and snails. Nobody is claiming that transgender individuals are simultaneously hermaphroditic. It’s a biological strawman argument that belies the insincerity of your argument.

In short, fuck off with your nazi bullshit.
source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  You’re mostly arguing with what you want me to have said and not what I’ve said so there’s not much point in responding to much of your post.
  
  Your claims that “Human sex is not defined by gamete types” and “The actual science doesn’t support it” are incorrect though
  
  source
  - themeatbridge@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Which is it, you don’t want to defend the nazi argument, or you do want to defend the nazi argument?
    
    source
    powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    What exactly are you qualifying as “the nazi argument”?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - earlstilt@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Nah, you cant hide your bigotry behind peer reviewed… wait what 😂😂😂
    
    source
athatet@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Isn’t this the same shit you said the last time this was posted?

Get outta here.

source
- AnyOldName3@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  This is far from the second time. They show up a lot.
  
  source
  - powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    I don’t really show up a lot, but man do people get pissy when they find out nothing I’m saying is wrong.
    
    source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Yes, it’s still true
  
  source
  - athatet@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Okay bud. I do not care.
    
    source
athatet@lemmy.zip ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Image

source
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Literally knew this dork would show up to argue why trans people don’t exist. XD

It’s really all this poster has in life.

source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Sorry, I can’t take you seriously until you finish your fanfic of being topped by me
  
  source
Wander@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Thanks for trying but you’re pissing into the wind in this place.

source