tahira

I didn't define sex that way, the entire field of biology did. That's literally the biological definition. You're pushing unscientific nonsense if you claim otherwise

Until you are trying to produce offspring with them, or providing them with medical treatment, you have precisely zero interest in the sex of another person, let alone a scientific interest.

https://reduxx.info/canada-trans-identified-male-charged-after-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-multiple-women-while-staying-at-a-womens-shelter/

Women deserve their own spaces, free of men. Women want their own spaces.

Men that feel like women are still men and can have their own spaces, but don't get women's spaces

My claim was that the specific gametes an individual may or may not produce is not socially relevant

You're denying reality. That man didn't care how the people he assaulted identified as. Men don't care if the women they rape identify as men.

Stop speaking over women.

Can you not imagine the possibility that it isn’t the best way to determine it?

The definition you're pushing is incoherent garbage. If there's actually a better definition, great. Yours isn't it.

That still leaves my other citations in tact

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

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

It doesn't matter what I think of you, a person on the internet. It takes an immense amount of privilege to claim that sex doesn't matter in the real world.

Don't speak over women.

They'll make one of two gamete sizes, which is how sex is defined.

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

We provide teaching suggestions derived from student interviews for making biology more queer-inclusive.

As discussed, the intersex debate has pushed forward talks about biological precision in terminology, and ways to properly define such things.

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

It is in fact not. You’re confusing “determining” and “defining”

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.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b48/0e9ed3d69747f048cda5a6bfb992cb6897f3.pdf

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 author left the FFRF because it has fallen to a new religion

It doesn't matter what I think of you. The reality is that you produce one of two gamete sizes, and that determines your biological sex. This is binary and immutable. If you can't agree with scientific consensus that's fine, just be honest.

Sex is defined by gamete size. You're confusing sex with phenotype/genotype. Intersex people still produce one of two gamete sizes

Gamete size is binary. It's sperm or eggs, there's no "spergs" or "speggs". The advanced scientific consensus is exactly that sex is defined by gamete size. You won't be able to cite anything else, because that's the plain reality.