Biological sex exists
Do you mean gender? I’m confused because of the chromosomes and the gametes and stuffs.
Comment on Wait bro, what if??????
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
My favourite lies:
- There are only two genders
- Biological sex exists
- Species has a scientific basis
- 99.9% of your body isn’t empty space
- Objects exist
- We evolved to perceive the world around us accurately
- Believing in objective truth is good for society
- The USSR practiced communism
- The Beatles were any good
Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
Sure, the chromosomes and gametes exist, and are supported by biology… but how and why are we using those to define sex? Pinning down a precise definition of sex is incredibly difficult for biologists, the best definitions we have are a vague cloud of all of these vaguely related things. The only common thread is that all of these things differ between different humans, and have some (often tangiential) relation to fucking.
For any rigorous definition we come up with, that actually produces a distinct number of sexes, we can throw some curveballs at it that require the writing of exceptions and special clauses and caveats. We end up oversimplifying dozens of different variables into these broad categories that then lead to worse outcomes for the people who deviate from the dogmatic oversimplifications. And if we actually count each intersex condition and permutation and stage of transsexual transition as its own sex, then we end up with thousands of different sexes, and next to no predictive utility! It’s a nightmare!
My philosophy is: If you can’t create a model that is accurate, fair, and useful… maybe you’re trying to create the wrong kind of model. Go back to the drawing board and reevaluate your foundational assumptions. Come back with a different core idea.
Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 3 months ago
That's a very long way of saying the same thing as @Nalivai did.
And while I don't think you're wrong on the binary model of sex being disinclusive of intersex people and those with sex-related chromosomal disorders - that is not the same thing as saying biological sex is a lie.
Pinning down a precise definition of sex is incredibly difficult for biologists, the best definitions we have are a vague cloud of all of these vaguely related things.
Sex is the physiological result of sex chromosome differentiation.
By conventional standards that's "XY is male, XX is female".
Now we both know that model doesn't cover everybody, but saying we have no definition because you disagree with the definition given is just ignorant.For any rigorous definition we come up with, that actually produces a distinct number of sexes, we can throw some curveballs at it that require the writing of exceptions and special clauses and caveats. We end up oversimplifying dozens of different variables into these broad categories that then lead to worse outcomes for the people who deviate from the dogmatic oversimplifications. And if we actually count each intersex condition and permutation and stage of transsexual transition as its own sex, then we end up with thousands of different sexes, and next to no predictive utility! It's a nightmare!
Saying that you end up with no predictive utility because a model only covers +99% of cases is also ignorant.
Every model that ever exists will always have caveats and exceptions. Simplification of anything comes with inaccuracies that end up needing to be addressed...
My philosophy is: If you can't create a model that is accurate, fair, and useful... maybe you're trying to create the wrong kind of model. Go back to the drawing board and reevaluate your foundational assumptions. Come back with a different core idea.
... And your take on this sounds an awful lot like the old GOP proposition of "if its not 100% perfect its not worth doing".
A model that covers +99% of cases, but requires caveats and special attention towards intersex and trans people is better than no model at all.
Especially when it comes to very really physiological differences that can get you killed with inadequate medical attention.
What we have ended up doing with the idea of biological sex would be absurd in any other scientific field. Imagine if chemists said "There are two elements: Hydrogen and helium. Together they make up 99% of all atoms, and everything else is a defect." That's what we're doing with sex.
That's a poor argument - as from an objective perspective, that's entirely true.
If you randomly took an atom from the universe right now, an overwhelmingly high majority of the time it'd be hydrogen or helium.
Basically all of chemistry covers the exceptions to that rule.
I do understand what you're trying to say, and I do agree fundamentally that a purely binary model is disinclusive of the people that don't fit - and that is shitty - but throwing out the entire idea of biological sex instead of suggesting that we need to be teaching a more spectral model of sex (like we've started doing with gender) I respectfully disagree with.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Maybe, maybe, if what you’re saying was true, and the rigid binary was trully covering 99% with the predicting power you’re claiming, maybe that would be useful. But it’s not 99%, it’s not rigid, it’s not binary, and it’s not predictive, really.
People with specific chromosome combination have specifics that are useful to think about in some context. People who produce cells related to giving birth are different from those who don’t, which is also a category. People who have dangly bits are different from people who’s bits are sucked in. Hormone patterns do wild shit which can also be categorised.
Picking and slicing those categories to somehow still come up with two sexes doesn’t add shit to this. Clinging to it as if it’s somehow important is not useful, and frankly weird.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Significant proportion of people don’t fit into binary sex definition, however much you cut and define it, people have all sorts of crazy combinations. And if your strict binary definition doesn’t include all the subjects, it’s not strict, not binary, and signifies not a lot.
“The observable universe is either Hydrogen or Helium, we don’t let small percent of exceptions destroy this nice model we have”Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 3 months ago
Sure. But saying "biological sex isn't a strict binary, and is dismissive of intersex people and those with sex-related chromosomal disorders" isn't the same thing as saying "biological sex is a lie".
In a the same sense that "the universe is majoratively hydrogen and helium" (which is true) isn't the same thing as saying "the universe is either hydrogen or helium".
By being overly reductive you're making a true statement into a false statement.
Nalivai@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The concept of biological sex relies heavily on it being a strict binary. Without this strict binary, it requires so many caveats and clarification to actually work, it quickly becomes unuseful neither in medical, nor in societal sense.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 months ago
The Beatles were any good
George Harrison was a Beatle, and he was objectively a great musician.
I’m also personally obligated (happily so) to like Paul McCartney, because he befriended my cousin while he stayed at Sloan Kettering and taught him to play the guitar (my cousin was already skilled with string instruments, so he picked it up pretty well) over a period of months before he died. I’m not aware of him publicizing that (and my cousin was a rando in his late twenties- definitely too young to die, but not young enough to make a great news story, given that he was unmarried and had no kids) or getting any personal benefit from it other than being able to increase joy in a horrible situation.
So at least 2/4 (or 2/5, if you’re a Pete Best fan, I guess) are/were good in some way.
Plus, at least Blackbird and Eleanor Rigby are great songs IMO, but that’s less objective.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
All four of them were/are quite good musicians. Yes, even Ringo
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
Hmmm… Blackbird is better than their average, but it’s not quite good.
The problem with the Beatles is that their beats suck ass. Their songs feel lethargic, meandering, aimless, and depressing because they have terrible beats. Blackbird actually has a beat, which is more than I can say for most of their music. But it doesn’t have a good beat.
UNBELIEVABLE! YOU GUYS FORGOT THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF WRITING A CATCHY SONG! It’s gotta have a beat.
idiomaddict@lemmy.world 3 months ago
That’s a reasonable opinion, and I honestly don’t know how to determine why I like the songs I like, nor do I feel qualified to identify a good beat (I was in the percussion section of my middle school band class for three years, but I’m a special case of nonmusicality, and nothing sank in), but there are a couple of Beatles songs with strong beats that occur to me. Maybe Love to You or Eight Days a Week, though the former is a more driving beat, imo.
Definitely don’t feel obligated to listen to music you don’t like, though please. I’m not a huge fan of the Beatles, I just grew up on them and find many of their songs enjoyable (if you ask me, Octopus Garden should be erased from our collective memory, though).
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
I was one of those kids who didn’t play an instrument (other than piano lessons I hated), but absolutely knew what instrument I’d play if I was in a band. And it was the drums. Well, a couple months ago I got some drums of My very own and started learning. And a few weeks ago I played My first open mic and rocked the whole house. And a friend was talking about it days later. All I played was a beginner rock beat and fill, but I guess I’ve got a lot of rock.
And I don’t think the Beatles have any rock.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 months ago
The Beatles were any good
How dare you, sir/madam
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
My terms of address are “goddess” and “comrade”, thanks for understanding
Th4tGuyII@fedia.io 3 months ago
I'm sorry you're gonna need to provide a bit more citation on these.
- Biological sex exists
What do you mean by this?
Biological sex - as in physiological characteristics borne of sex chromosome differentiation - is absolutely real, and playing about with that could quite literally get you killed from a medical care perspective (as in wrong dose of drugs, etc.).
Now if you want to discuss whether sex is truly binary, that's much more debatable - especially due to the existence of intersex people, and those with sex-related chrosomal disorders.
- 99.99% of your body isn't empty space
If you're talking about atoms in the body being 99.99% empty space, then by that technicality everything that exists is 99.99% empty space... Which isn't so much an interesting lie, as it is just an interesting physics fact.
- Objects exist
I'm not calling this one out, I just want to know what technicality this is borne out of.
- The Beatles were any good
This one's just offensive. Or that is what I would say if I didn't also think they're a bit overrated.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
Objects exist
I just think the entire idea of distinct supermolecular objects is an arbitrary human convenience, rather than a scientific construct. Science doesn’t have an answer to philosophical problems like the Ship of Theseus problem. I think that’s because objects are not a scientific concept. Objects are a vibe.
vithigar@lemmy.ca 3 months ago
Objects clearly exist. My code loves to complain when they don’t.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
Your fault for using object-oriented programming, also known as OOP.
You should try God-oriented Programming, or GOP for short.
ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Tried GOP. now the president shits himself on live tv. 0/10
Phantaloons@piefed.zip 3 months ago
all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration
we are merely the universe experiencing itself
toke
- we…
Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
I can understand the idea behind 8 of these?
But “biological sex exists”… how? Unless its a variant on “objects exist” as a lie to refer to the rejection of material reality but its weird to list it twice.
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 months ago
It exists, but like, in the same way species exists. The variety and frequency of intersex conditions indicates that it’s two clusters of traits that most species that show this characteristic fall into one or the other of and certain components are remarkably mutable.
That understanding is just fundamentally different from the traditional understanding of two entirely distinct bins that anyone who doesn’t fall into one or the other is a strong outlier and the only alterations are castration or divine intervention (at least in euro-christian tradition).
The two bin model is going to work ok on most humans, it’s not like it’s an obviously wrong one. But as society and science have advanced we’ve found more intersex people that either didn’t know (my cousin would have just been understood as barren, and nobody would’ve noticed my ex’s mom having XY sex chromosomes) or didn’t understand that it wasn’t just some weird quirk that you either hide in shame or just don’t feel is worth mentioning. And anywhere you try to draw a firm line or any trait you try to point to try to ignore the gray is going to leave you with an awkward grouping in some way
Zwrt@lemmy.sdf.org 3 months ago
Oh…
I read “biological sex” as in sex between biological organisms… i actually know this, feel very dumb now.
You explained it well though. Thanks!
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Absolutely! A lot of trans and intersex people negatively react to the concept, because these oversimplifications are pretty heavily used against us, but we also have a tendency to forget the average sincere understanding of the topic, and sometimes this can come off as making a bold and controversial statement, not including nuance, and walking away. Very similar to someone saying “the earth isn’t a sphere” and not following it up with how it’s an oblate spheroid, or saying dinosaurs still are still alive and not bothering to clarify that those dinosaurs are all birds.
And yeah, if it wasn’t obvious I think it’s valuable to talk about this sort of thing in a non-judgemental and accessible manner, in part because it can help reduce the sense of shame and awkwardness associated with the natural variety of this intimate aspect of our biology.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
[deleted]Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
But the things we do perceive are mostly accurate, with individual differences, and a hint of specializing bias (fruit colors). What, you think halucinating things that don’t exist isn’t detrimental to your survival (and mating chances)?
Yeah, Donald Hoffman ran thousands of evolutionary simulations in his cognitive lab. He created a bunch of creatures that perceived the simulated world accurately, and a bunch that just perceived fitness payoffs and used cognitive shortcuts to oversimplify their perceptions. Fitness always beats truth. Truth-perceiving organisms go extinct. Your ancestors were the early animals who perceived the world in fitness payoffs, not truth.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 months ago
More a question of cost, no? More accuracy = more expensive, and then a balance.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
But there’s also the psychological part. And in some cases neurological, like born in the wrong body and such.
That’s not biology, it’s psychology. And it’s not sex, it’s gender. The sex-gender distinction is really important to trans people’s wellbeing.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Hey now, the Beatles were very good. They had interesting chord structures, strong rhythms, and well written lyrics. They also put out a huge amount of highly varied music in a very short time. Their contribution to modern music is absolutely undeniable. You may not like them, but if you know anything at all about music you cannot say in good faith that they weren’t any good.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 months ago
Nah. Queen is ten times better.
Manticore@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Shit take.
You can draw a direct line from Queen’s songwriting and four-part harmonies through the Beatles, the Beach Boys, and the Four Freshmen. Add Led Zeppelin to that list and you have the entire foundation of Queen.
Honestly, fans like you ruined Queen for me. I was completely obsessed with Queen through my teens and early twenties, but everywhere they’re discussed online, it’s always this superiority nonsense. Queen being great doesn’t make the Beatles suck. Those are different ideas. I really think the fans are a big part if the reason I eventually burned out on them.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Apples and oranges. Queen was very good and their music influenced multiple genres too. That does not discount the value the Beatles added to music as a whole.
0ops@piefed.zip 3 months ago
Queen probably disagrees with you, they were huge Beatles fans
hansolo@lemmy.today 3 months ago
I’ll stand with you on this. Queen was 10 times better than a silly boy band.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Calling the Beatles a boy band makes it sound like you only ever listened to For Sale and Please Please Me. Even by Help and Hard Day’s Night they had begun to develop some depth, by Rubber Soul they had broken that mold entirely and everything forward was breaking new ground.
Queen was thematic theatrical rock from the beginning building on work that the Beatles pioneered before Queen was ever even thought of.
Both are equally important in music history.
Manticore@lemmy.world 3 months ago
Every wannabe edgelord loves to trot out their “Beatles suck” opinion to get people riled up. Really, it just fits the “Hamlet sucks” trope of people who are unaware of historical context. “What’s so great about Hamlet? It’s just a predictable plot tied together with cliches.” In reality, the plot is predictable and the writing cliched because it was so revolutionary for its time everything that has come since has been imitating it.
Same with “Citizen Kane is boring” and “Seinfeld isn’t funny.” There is so much of modern filmmaking that originated from Citizen Kane, and Seinfeld set the bar for every sitcom that came after.
Likewise, the Beatles completely revolutionized pop music. You don’t have to enjoy their music personally, but it’s beyond ignorant to say they sucked.
Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 3 months ago
Not to mention that every one of them was a multi-instrumentalist. I’ve never met another actual musician that failed to at least recognize what they accomplished and contributed.
Besides, Queen as a comparison? Really? Similar level of musicality, just as much a pop band, and I personally find Queen to be far more predictable and less interesting across the breadth of their work.
I personally find calling one band better than another to be cringe especially highly dissimilar artists. Unfortunately I am susceptible to the bait when I should give a shit less what they think.