this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
-19 points (21.2% liked)
Conservatives
95 readers
72 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
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.