this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
-19 points (21.2% liked)
Conservatives
95 readers
78 users here now
Pro-conservative discussions
Rules
- Pro-conservative or crazy liberal post.
- We are a discussion forum. No low effort, trolling comments.
- Everyone is welcome to opine, but be civil.
- Attack the topic, not the person
- Report violations of the rules
- Downvotes are disabled
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From the opening sentence of the article:
Academia has become gripped by a new religious dogma that must not be questioned. They're trying to redefine the basic scientific terminology of sex in order to appease an unscientific political movement.
Nobody is doing this senselessly. This is a fantasy. Gender and sex are two different things, and sex is legitimately scientifically a spectrum, hermaphrodytes and intersex people actually exist...
There's no real problem here, just bigots being upset about things that legitimately don't matter. The world is complex and simplifying it so that you can understand it easier is not a logical way forward.
This is akin to being upset that Pluto isn’t a planet anymore—just because science updates its understanding with new evidence doesn’t mean it’s “catering” to anyone. It means it's doing its job. If your worldview crumbles because nature isn’t neat and binary, that’s your personal fragility, not a scientific crisis.
Intersex people aren't a monolith. What size gametes each intersex person produces determines their sex. This is the biological definition and is not a spectrum. It is binary and immutable. Gender activists are trying to shove gender into inappropriate places.
If it doesn't matter, then it should be no big deal to drop all of the gender woo when speaking of sex, right?
they often produce both or neither...
Give one example.
It doesn't matter and it's a better, more accurate descriptor of the situation, so why would we drop it? That's like saying we should drop dwarf planets because it doesn't really matter and you prefer the old way.
There's a reason science and culture are evolving these terms, it's because the previous way of using them was simplistic and not as useful.
Thank you for being aware of the sex binary. In incredibly rare cases (as in you can count them on the fingers of one hand), there may have been cases where humans produced both gametes, likely due to chimerism. But just as you say, it's both gametes, because sex is binary. They're producing both of the two binary options.
Producing neither gamete is a silly point to bring up. Your sex is the size of the gametes you do or would produce. It's also not a new sex to produce neither of the two gametes.
Besides the given example in the article and directly given to you already where an academic is trying to push for a bad definition of sex (in Scientific American, not just some random podunk journal), here's one example:
That's a silly statement that has nothing to do with biology and was clearly shoved in there for appeasement of gender fanatics. Biology doesn't give a shit how you identify.
It's less accurate. You responded to me with "whoa what about intersex people", because you were working off of a bad and unclear definition. If you had read the article, you would have known this. Reminder that the article is titled "Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense", written by a PhD in evolutionary biology. He's addressing your exact points.
Yes, or none, which makes it not as simple as a binary. You've already admitted even if you disagree about it being a spectrum, that it isn't a binary. I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size, but even if you run with that definition, you end up with exceptions.
That link doesn't even resemble what I asked for, and that example in the article is people expressing legitimate desire to improve the definitions and move the field forward, this is not somebody injecting things for no reason, like you claim. Is discussing the topic not allowed in your eyes? Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?
There are many cases where it is impossible to know which you would produce. This means it's not as simple as a binary, in these cases, the gamete option is not a viable way to determine sex.
He failed to address them, none of my points make any of what i'm saying any harder to understand, nor do they cause any actual crisis. The article basically consists of "I don't like it when people do this, and it's easier for me to understand even though this doesn't cover edge cases too well" it's just an opinion piece, not a factual statement.
biology has plenty of these issues, where the answer seems obvious until you engage with enough literature and ask enough questions, for example, try defining a species for me!
Gender is appropriate for sociology. Biology doesn't give a shit what you identify as. It has no place in a biology textbook. It's not moving the field forward, it's trying to push a worse and irrelevant definition.
Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.
The author also wrote an article that is addressing your exact questions: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/how-our-shoes-can-help-explain-the
Again, this is not just some random opinion. This is is not equal to your opinion. This is a PhD in evolutionary biology writing about the scientific consensus. You're free to disagree with the scientific consensus, but you should admit you're no better than a creationist spouting off "god did it".
As discussed, the intersex debate has pushed forward talks about biological precision in terminology, and ways to properly define such things. These are worthwhile discussions that are harming nobody.
It is in fact not. You're confusing "determining" and "defining"
here's an article on the matter: https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/defining-sex-vs-determining-sex
I control f'd for intersex, didn't mention it, i expect he'd give an opinion that intersex doesn't count as a sex even if the produce both gametes baselessly, because this is a matter of opinion, like he did in the above article, making it a matter of his opinion, and having nothing to do with either scientific consensus or facts.
You don't know who I am hahaha. My opinion that intersex individuals are a special exception is a common one amongst PHD's in biology, this particular guy just doesn't agree with that.
This has nothing to do with scientific consensus, and everything to do with the opinion of ONE PHD.
here's a few PHD's who would likely disagree with him:
https://sites.brown.edu/publichealthjournal/2023/05/01/sex-binarism-and-the-intersex-pediatric-surgery-crisis/
https://search.worldcat.org/title/861528157
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b48/0e9ed3d69747f048cda5a6bfb992cb6897f3.pdf
No. You're once again confusing sex with phenotype an/d genotype. The only thing that unites a large swathe of the animal kingdom in regards to sex is gamete size. If we toss that out, we lose precision
No, that is precisely my point. Sex is determined by many different factors especially across species. Sex is defined as gamete size because there's no other coherent definition.
You really pick bad citations. Citing someone who says "oh i was just being ironic!" is laughable.
She also confuses sex and phenotypes as you have been and those other citations do.
The point of the discussion is to figure out if there's a better way to determine this, a more precise way, the point of such discussions are to move the field forward, all things in science should be questioned, and that is the way of science.
Can you not imagine the possibility that it isn't the best way to determine it?
That still leaves my other citations in tact, and I could have much more, the point was that many people in the field agree with what i'm saying. According to the study linked before, at most 58% of scientists agree with you.
We aren't confused, again, this is the difference between determining and defining sex.
The definition you're pushing is incoherent garbage. If there's actually a better definition, great. Yours isn't it.
I'm not going to wade through a bunch of garbage. You couldn't even be arsed to figure out that the author isn't a serious academic and won't stand behind her own work before citing it. Find real citations first. A shit poll isn't a citation either
All definitions are incoherent garbage, is the problem, that's why they're trying to make new better ones. Failing to make a better one doesn't mean it isn't worth attempting.
My definition stands, sex is not binary, because of intersex people, even by that definition, that's one of many possible definitions, how do you know you have the best one?
What do you think my definition is, and what are its flaws?
Okay, but they still stand.
Sex is binary. It’s taught in biology in binary. Trust science. Sex is a classification for reproduction and not feelings.
Yes, except for hermaphrodytes and when you get more into the weeds it kinda breaks down... like a lot of basic concepts in biology.
Species are taught as things that cannot interbreed, but you also will realize that falls apart along close analysis.
No. Science is all about skepticism, you don't have to trust science, that's the whole point! You make reproducible, repeatable predictions precisely so that you do not have to trust science. Science is not a faith.
You're the one that seems to have feelings blocking your ability to process this.
Sex is a classification that needs improvement to accurately describe the totality of reproduction. Large/small gametes is not a perfect definition that describes the totality of things very well.
Here's an example: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes
Also, definitions are not made through science, in fact, definitions are just used by scientists to do science. A scientist has defined many things, but they didn't define them through reproducible repeatable experiments, they just went with what they felt was best. You're protecting a definition for no real reason, you're not defending science.
Sex is about reproduction. There are only two sexes. Period.
I’m defending facts. We don’t need stupid children. Not understand the classification. Two is all you need for humans. Period.
except when there aren't like here: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes
and when even by your own gametes definition intersex people produce both.
You're not, I just gave you contradictory facts, you're defending your opinion.
There's literally nobody who doesn't understand or is confused by this.
Except in intersex cases where there's at least 3 and arguably 4 if you want to include producing neither gametes.
I don’t care what discovery magazine says. It’s wrong. This is my field of expertise. There are two sexes. Period. Intersex is not another sex category as much as your want it to be. It’s a defect. Plain and simple. I’ve explained this to you before and this the last time im explaining it. There are only two sexes in human biology. This isn’t a debate. This is how it’s taught and it’s taught this way for a reason.
On what basis? Is that a fact or your opinion?
Here's the original source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1087184599911295?via=ihub
Herpetology is my field, do you specifically study reproduction?
Why not? I don't want it to be, it just seems to be as a matter of fact, by your definition, they produce two gametes, that makes them a third option no?
You couldn't explain why it's a defect. This is just your opinion. You gave an example of a defect with sterility, but intersex people are not necessarily sterile. How do you make intersex a defect as a matter of fact, rather than your opinion?
Except for the thing you call a defect based entirely (it seems) on your opinion. It can really go either way, you just want it to go a certain way because you have feelings involved in it. I don't, that's why I can be objective and say, this isn't necessarily a defect and can count.
Except it isn't taught that way at higher levels, because things are often more complex than they are at the simple levels, for the same reason species is taught as things that can't interbreed at the lower levels.
Do you know the definition of a species? You don't seem to know the difference between fact and opinion.
When I did my biology courses there was a debate about intersex. That was 30 years ago. I personally believe there are two sexes and anything outside of that is a defect or deviant.
I can accept three when used to classify a few edge cases for intersex but that’s where I draw the line.
No sex is not a spectrum. It’s male or female.
As stated by https://interactadvocates.org/
No, intersex is not a third sex in the traditional sense of male or female. It's an umbrella term for people born with sex characteristics that don't fit typical definitions of male or female. Intersex individuals can have any gender identity and sexual orientation, and many identify as either male or female
Go look at any biology book at the college level and you won’t find sex is a spectrum. That’s a fringe theory that ignores human biology.
This is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact.
Yes, which is why it's a spectrum. They don't cleanly meet either, they are somewhere inbetween and where exactly they are cannot be cleanly defined. You can try to determine this by size of gametes, etc, but you'll find complicating factor and exceptions in any definition. Since there's no clean, clear way to define these things, it is in fact a spectrum.
for example:
https://www.stateofunion.org/2024/03/07/poll-finds-majority-of-scientists-at-british-universities-agree-sex-is-binary/
You might think this source supports your claim, but notice "Specifically, 58% agreed sex is binary except in rare intersex cases, while 29% said it is not and 13% had no view. "
So?
So? They aren't talking about gender identity, this is a specific guide for a specific course, not representative of all positions by all experts in every field, textbooks are not masters of nuance, they explain things in simple terms to build mastery of a topic, just because a textbook author didn't want to get into the weeds of this doesn't mean it isn't a spectrum and there isn't complexity and nuance to the topic.
Talk to an expert with a PHD about this, ask them this specific question, you'll find a better answer than what the textbook says.
It is an objective fact. I'll link you to Wikipedia because it's easy, but feel free to cite anything that contradicts it: "The type of gamete an organism produces determines its sex"
You literally avoided reading the article, where a PhD in evolutionary biology explains exactly why you're wrong.
Yes, that is a fact, as is the fact that sex is a spectrum because of intersex people. These are not incompatible facts.
Plenty of PhD's in evolutionary biology would agree with me, even in the article
"Sometimes, the complex machinery involved in reproduction can develop wrong, and people can suffer from infertility or exhibit reproductive traits that are atypical for their sex, including ambiguous genitalia (intersex conditions). However, as pointed out by others, these are not additional sexes because these body plans do not produce a new type of gamete besides sperm or eggs. Someone who does not produce any gametes would also not be a third sex since they would be fundamentally incapable of sexual reproduction."
They make the claim that this doesn't count as another sex, but even not being any sex would be a sex all on its own... resulting in it not being a simple binary. There's nuance here that is going over your head.
Are you misreading the article? When it says "However, as pointed out by others", that is pointing out that you're 100% incorrect. I'm not sure why you cited something that proves you wrong. Nowhere is a single PhD cited that agrees with you.
I am not, he addresses this point by saying "this is not a sex", there being sexless humans implies a non-binary of sexes, this is just one way to look at it and a matter of opinion. He did not disprove my stance, he merely stated he dislikes it.
I already gave this:
https://www.stateofunion.org/2024/03/07/poll-finds-majority-of-scientists-at-british-universities-agree-sex-is-binary/
You might think this source supports your claim, but notice "Specifically, 58% agreed sex is binary except in rare intersex cases, while 29% said it is not and 13% had no view. "
Plenty of PHD's agree with me, even the 58% agree with me.
Let's review, your claim is that sex is completely binary, my claim is that sex is not binary, because there are exceptions to males and females being the only option.
The article acknowledges that there are people where you cannot say if they are male or female, or they are sexless, therefore, my claim is validated by the article. Your claim is not.
So I would agree with that 58%, because there's no option for "Yes, and intersex is irrelevant". It's honestly a terrible poll, most likely not written by a biologist. I wouldn't be surprised if that 13% put down "Prefer not to say" as a sort of "This is a bad poll" response.
I'll let the quoted scientist in the source of the poll respond.
i agree that poll is insufficiently specific, however, even if 100% of that 58% agreed with you, that would still not meet the criteria for scientific consensus, which is typically in the 90's. Show me a poll that indicates those beliefs are agreed upon in the 90's without an intersex objection and you will prove me wrong!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10563654/ this might interest you, if you bother to read it, I disagree that it has anything to do with a lack of evolutionary knowledge, in fact I find the people most ignorant of evolution strongly hold this belief regularly, but that is a mere anecdote. None of the roundtable had anything to do with that, those claims seem baseless and dataless.
That link is a great example of why gender studies degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on, goddamn. They're not doing science, they're zealots pushing for a new religion to infect science just like creationists of old 🤦
https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.21-12-0343
...Your quote is about changing the culture of a workplace to increase the number of scientists, and their happiness with their job.
What's the problem with that? Why is that not worthwhile to have more scientists?
Should we also make science more Christian-inclusive? Avoid teaching things that are offensive to them? That would surely increase the number of scientists.
No, because that would be silly. Science doesn't care how you identify. Put up or shut up
Yes, being more inclusive is always good.
No, but nobody said we should do that, so, what's your point?
We aren't increasing it at all costs, we're just finding ways to increase it by being kind to one another.
Yeah, that would be silly... but nobody is arguing for it and this is entirely a strawman.
Humans do science, humans should care.
We are not talking about gender identify. We are talking biological sex. There are two. That hasn’t and won’t change in our lifetime.
There's no definite way to classify intersex and non-sexed people that isn't simply a matter of opinion. This is a fact and won't change, ever. If you ignore these cases, sure, you're right, but these cases exist, so the topic is more nuanced than that.
It’s a birth defect. Their sex is still male or female. Intersex groups like to call it a variation but as I cited previously even they don’t consider it another sex. That’s because we are binary when it comes to reproduction.
How do you define people who produce both gametes?
How do you define people who produce neither?
The fact is, there are people who don't fit neatly in one or the other.
I'll accept it if you concede and admit there are at least 4 options. Perhaps 4 options is not enough to count as a spectrum... but this is yet another opinion.
Obgyn have a chart they use to match. How they identify later with their gender is a different story. Gender and sex don’t always match and I’m less concerned with that debate since it’s a made up social construct. Biology is biology. There may be variances in sex but there are only two. It’s how we classify since it’s about reproduction.
You did not address any of my questions or points, you just re-affirmed your belief without engaging with what I said.
How do you define people who produce both gametes?
How do you define people who produce neither?
Scientifically, this means there are 4 options minimum, no?
If you're claiming the obgyn chart determines it... it does not. That is also a matter of opinion. There are countless cases where they cannot decide and just make a random decision.
Perhaps if we don't count someone who doesn't produce either as any sex at all, that at the very least leaves 3 options, although i'd count "neither" as an option. But that's my opinion.
If we want to at there are three for intersex. I can agree but intersex groups find that offensive and bigoted. Intersex is just a birth defect. We have lots of birth defects that people like to call variations. I have a webbed toe. It doesn’t make me a new sex or species. It just a birth defect.
It's only a defect if it negatively impacts the individual. In this case, if the person is perfectly healthy, there's a case to be made that it is simply variation, whether or not it is a defect is then a matter of opinion.
It’s a defect because it’s a defect. We all have them. We just have become sensitive to saying it’s a defect or deviance. Since most is them we’ll be sterile and possibly ostracized from society, I’d say it has a negative impact for many. Just like any other medical condition, they shouid be treated with respect and dignity. They should also be allowed to decide their own medical treatment.
Circular logic.
This has nothing to do with my claim.
Defects specifically do not include social aspects, being ostracized does not make it medically a defect. Being sterile is also a defect, but just because you're intersex doesn't mean you're sterile.
Almost none of your comment has anything to do with my claim.
Which claim? That there is an infinite number of sexes? That’s false and isn’t taught in any biology course
I never claimed that there are an infinite number of sexes. I claimed being intersex isn't necessarily a defect, and that that means there are at least 3 genders, 4 if you include not producing any gametes.
Gender has nothing to do with it. Gender isn’t biological. It’s a social construct. Biology does not recognize intersex as another sex. It’s that simple. While there is a debate around it. Current consensus is that there are two. Gender is not equal to sex.
My bad, I meant to say sex, I obviously know the difference I started this conversation with the difference, spare me the explanation if I mix them up again. The current consensus says no such thing, point me to a source.
even by the gametes definition there's at least 3 or 4
male, female, both, neither.