You must log in or register to comment.
Gender is different vibrations on a string
That’s the coolest possible shit. Everything is just resonance
I wondered if the graph would look entirely different when looking at mass instead of atom count, and not really:
Hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all atoms and 98% of all mass.
https://sciencenotes.org/composition-of-the-universe-element-abundance/
oygen
Mmm, I lyove oygen in my lyngs
I’m a Nitrogen atom but I identify as a Lithium ion. Please keep that in mind when preparing your compounds.
The non-Hydrogen, non-Helium atoms are a larger proportion of total mass, but that’s just because they’re really fat.
It looks like this chart is based on mass, rather than number. By number hydrogen is >90% by itself
We don’t call them fat. They’re BBA: big beautiful atoms. Thicc would suffice too.
The 12 yo in me is giggling like crazy right now.
What are you doing with a 12yo inside you?
Better than reverse
Would be a lot cooler if those were scaled accordingly
There is scaling going on there, just not 1:1. Like the hydrogen is smaller than the rest, but it should be about half the size of the one above.
It’s barely perceptible. I just see a rainbow of butts.
We’ve all had dreams Lee that.
its a vocal minority, don’t pay them any attention
That’s not true. The “fatness” of metallic atoms doesn’t even come close to overcoming how rare they are. Hydrogen and helium combined still make up ~98% of the total mass fraction. Oxygen, which is next in line, is only about 1% the total mass.
They said “larger proportion”, and 2% is larger than 1%
/s
Actually, it’s twice as large!
Okay, but “MERA” has a much nicer ring to it than “TERF”.
Waiting for the next Netflix series giving visibility to the rest of the periodic table.
There’s an anime for that! The Qwaser of Stigmata
Warning: it’s Super NSFW, which is a shame because it’s such a cool concept.
The Qwaser of Stigmata
Just read on Wikipedia about it… Jeez, no, not my thing, thanks
😁
The series is notable for its violence, fan service, and the use of milk-like vital energy coming from women’s breasts (referred to as Soma) as a central plot device.
First paragraph, second sentence of Wikipedia. You were not kidding.
Yeah, I wish someone would remake it without the gratuitous lactation porn
the gratuitous lactation porn
That’s a helluva sentence to start 2026 out with. 🎊
Well youbsee, the Lactation represents Electrons ejecting out of atoms to bond with other atoms.
Its just science.
Gratuitous lactation porn is literally the entire point of the series
Yeah, but the core concept, people who have control over an element, could be done without it.
I feel like this kind of applies here:
“Content not viewable in your region”
Have you got another source?
what the actual fuck
When Mafuyu Oribe and her adopted sister …
Alright, I’m in!
fucking maniacs shoving the other atoms down my throat (in the form of food and air and stuff)
Any good astronomer knows that the real binary is metal/non-metal
any good astronomer knows that the real binary is ordinary matter / dark matter
The Coalition for the Respect of the Unique Nature of Isotopes considers this lumping in of isotopes VERY disrespectful. CRUNI prefers this model.
Oh but 3H isn’t hydrogen enough to be on the list?
It’s there. If memory serves, its half-life is 12y, so it is on the list. Just microscopically small font size.
No mans sky makes a little more sense to me. Kinda less, but also more.
Carbon, puh. It just ain’t right.
This is bad science.
It’s not bad to be different, but it IS unusual. There is no need to common-wash. Basically every atom in the universe is one or the other and that is still true regardless of allegory.
In 2026 who cares (in states that don’t suck)?
“Despite being only 1% of the universe…”
Thought I was going to learn about radical new astronomy techniques from this post 😒
MERA has me lmaoing though
Posted previously with lengthy discussion. I’ll copy my comment here again:
That’s the point of differentiating between sex and gender. Sex is indeed binary, there are exactly two gamete sizes. Gender is what captures everything on top of that base.
If you want more of an explanation, see this recent comment of mine showing that even for people who want to redefine sex to not be gamete-based, they still acknowledge the reality of the gamete binary.
Sex is absolutely NOT binary
See diagram below for clarity:
You’re trying to bring facts, knowledge, understanding and the preexisting scientific consensus into a thread started by powerstruggle, an avid anti trans troll who respects trump’s definition of sex above anyone else’s and shows up in any trans-positive post to derail the conversion for hours and days, and suck any happiness out of it. I’ll tell you this now. It won’t work. They won’t listen.
Ahh thanks for the heads up. I wasn’t familiar with their game. I’ll block them now then
Sorry, but the facts, knowledge, and understanding of the preexisting scientific consensus is that sex is binary, in exactly the way I’ve been saying. You’re welcome to provide any citations to the contrary, but you can’t. In fact, any sources that people have linked have ended up proving my point. Such as the paper Sex Redefined which is commonly linked to by people that didn’t read it. The author themselves says that there’s “Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.”
Remember, just because you don’t like the truth, doesn’t mean it’s “trolling” to speak it. You have nothing on your side but pseudoscientific grifters.
scientific consensus is that sex is binary
Lol no, you’re just an anti trans troll who dismisses any evidence that goes against your worldview. Anyone who takes even the slightest scan of your post history can see you spending days and days arguing about sex rather than gender any time anyone mentions something reasonably trans positive. It’s toxic.
So where is your proof of a consensus? Or are you just lying?
Nobody needs to “prove” anything because it doesn’t matter how other people experience themselves.
Sorry that you can’t accept yourself and believe others who do accept themselves to be the problem,
You’re talking about gender there and I agree! That’s why I explicitly differentiated between sex and gender in my original comment. Sex is an empirical, objective fact, which shouldn’t be confused with gender.
It wasn’t me that was claiming consensus, oh beligerent anti trans troll.
This is a post about gender, and you spend all your days arguing that a consequence is a cause, all because you believe trump’s stupid definitions above well known scientific ones with a litany of bad faith arguments, ignoring other people’s valid points and derailing the conversation onto your favourite talking points.
Where’s my proof of all this? In your post history. Anyone can read it and see.
To anyone reading this, this user is obsessed with Trump. I don’t really know why. I suspect they might be a cheap LLM and this is a waste of my time. It’s the same every time: “If I don’t like you, you must be a troll! And love Trump! Bad faith! Derailing!” It’s super ironic that that they talk about “derailing the conversation” when that’s exactly what they’re doing by hurling insults and bringing Trump into this repeatedly.
I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender. You keep conflating them.
Your proof that there isn’t a consensus has never been presented. You simply insult, because you have nothing. That’s called trolling. Every accusation is a confession, eh?
That chart shows variation within a sex. That’s all how sex is determined, but not how it’s defined
EDIT: As an example, it mentions “male characteristics” in the context of 5αR2D. If sex were defined by phenotypes, that would be a circular definition. You can’t define “male characteristics” in a coherent way across species without referring back to gametes.
Why do you care so much? Sounds like you have skin in the game - that’s why others care so much. Sorry that you can’t accept that you are trans yourself. I hope you find peace with it someday.
Well, why do you care so much?
Lol nice try… because I’ve got skin in the game, obviously!
You’re not fooling anyone any more. It’s like being bothered about someone else deciding to change their name to “Brian” and then dedicating your life to refusing to call them “Brian” and trying to make sure nobody else will call them “Brian” either by posting online every day about it.
Doesn’t that seem a little neurotic and obsessive to you?
Like why do you care if someone else wants to be called “Brian” when you too could call yourself “Brian” - or whatever you like instead!?
I’m really sorry you haven’t managed to accept yourself for whoever you are, I’m sure life has been pretty shit for you and I’m sorry. I do understand!
I hope you will find acceptance of yourself because going around in the world being angry that other people are calling themselves “Brian” makes no sense and is doing you no good. It never did!
Live and let live! You are trans and you haven’t come to terms with it. I can spot you a mile off, anybody can! Sorry to break it to you… life is going to be OK, in fact it is going to get better for you. You won’t need to be afraid of yourself or everyone else any more… only of people behaving like yourself here today.
That’s why I care about it.
The saddest thing for you is that you really can just be yourself in 2026 - it’s totally fine to be trans or gender nonconforming… be yourself! So all this stress, anger and bad feeling in your life is all for nothing.
Leave it all behind, feel the weight drop off your whole being! You are trans! Stop hating yourself and have a good life from the moment you just accept who you are! Life is too short to spend your time alive being miserable, making other people’s lives worse.
We see who you are very easily because you give yourself away instantly by attacking your own shadow in front of us, when you could just be enjoying life and being friendly.
You aren’t fooling anyone else and you certainly haven’t managed to fool yourself.
May you find your true self and live in peace.
Edit: typos
That’s a lot of text. Why do you care so much?
Take your time reading it.
A bit that can be 0 or 1 is binary. A quantum bit is not binary, even though it’s a linear combination of 0 and 1.
Sure, but that’s not relevant here
Neither is your anti trans ranting.
If you think science is anti trans, that’s completely on you.
No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You’re just the same as people who believe there’s a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it’s a cover up by big pharma.
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
What are you actually proposing? That an entire person exists in a superposition until they produce gametes?
I’m saying that a definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary.
Even biological sex is more complicated than just 2 gametes. There are cis-men with XX chromosomes do to a mutation in one of the Xs, there are cis-women with XY due to a myriad of mutations, there are intersex people due to everything from random mutations to chimerism, etc.
If we put aside humans for a moment, some species of animal have more than binary sexes. Some species of mushroom have thousands, for example.
Those actually aren’t sexes, those are mating types. The difference is that all of their gametes are approximately the same size, i.e. isogamy.
That’s confusing how sex is defined with how sex is determined. See the linked thread for a lot of this discussion, but you’re talking about variations within the sex binary. Intersex people aren’t in conflict with the sex binary, because they’re either male or female with Disorders of sex development.
Gender isn’t biological at all, it is a social or linguistic concept. Biological sex is to do with gametes, chromosomes, sexual organs, hormone levels - it is far from binary, as you can see with the existence of intersex people with chromosomes other than XX or XY, differing organs present, and so on.
To add to that: that gender you’re talking about is actually two distinct concepts, one social and another grammatical/linguistic. The later is more like a traditional way to refer to noun classes, when they also split humans based on social gender.
Sadly my go-to example for that doesn’t work in English, because of the lack of grammatical gender.
That’s confusing how sex is defined with how sex is determined. See the linked thread for a lot of this discussion, but you’re talking about variations within the sex binary. Intersex people aren’t in conflict with the sex binary, because they’re either male or female with Disorders of sex development.
Isn’t gamete also only one aspect of what constitutes the sex? What do you do of the sexual phenotype for example? See this article about a multimodal modelisation of sex. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1.full.pdf
But that’s obviously the people trying to redefine sex to not be using the gametes.
Look y’all I know nothing about biology but I’ve heard enough definitions of sex to know that there isn’t a clear consensus on one, binary or not. I do know that if you want to wellactually a binary definition into this you might be part of the problem. (Unless, that is, it’s interesting enough and you phrase it differently idk.)
It’s not binary. Anyone not accepting this needs to stop talking about biology because it is clearly not rheir field
That’s demonstrating the variation within the sex binary. You’re confusing how sex is determined with how sex is defined.
If, as you falsely claim, sex is determined by rather than defined by chromosomes, and that you can split it in a binary way based on a body being “organised around” gamete size, then by your own logic, you should find it very easy indeed to completely disentangle this pictogram showing which side is male and which is female, splitting neatly into large gametes on one size and small ones on that other, and with primary and then secondary characteristics following neatly underneath and no crossed lines. That’s what your trump-dictated theory claims. Draw it, if it’s that simple. I’ll wait.
There isn’t any “detangling” like you’re thinking, because you misunderstand the chart. For example, multiple conditions can lead to infertility. That doesn’t mean the conditions can’t be distinguished from each other, that just means the chart is kind of confusing.
At any rate, these conditions have a clear sex. For example, “Klinefelter syndrome (KS), also known as 47,XXY, is a chromosome anomaly where a male has an extra X chromosome”. The term mixed gonadal dysgenesis isn’t very specific, but sex can still be determined in each case, e.g. Turner syndrome.
Are there any examples from the chart you think disprove the sex binary?
- The chart describes various variations in sex chromosomes and other factors and how they result in different primary and secondary sexual characteristics
- The chart has many criss-crossing lines; it’s very tangled.
- You claim that there are exactly two sexes and that it is simply “organised around” producing small gametes vs “organised around” producing small gametes
- Therefore you should be able to split this chart into your two binary separate sides, your “organised around” producing small gametes side and your “organised around” producing large gametes side, and definitely the primary and surely the secondary sexual characteristics too should be part of that “organisation”
- Whether or not you believe in my understanding of the chart, yours is surely deep and sound, and you can surely demonstrate your far superior understanding and the overwhelming explanatory clarity of your simple definition by untangling this chart into your binary male and female halves with all the criss-crossing lines (that everyone else in the thread keeps bringing up and you keep dismissing peicemeal) now neatly packaged into the two “organised around” binary sides, with all this (according to you) unnecessary tangling gone
- Of course I believe no such chart exists and that your “sex is binary, just use trump’s size-of-gametes definition” is a bunch of oversimplified crap that’s of no use in either science or life, but you believe in all that shit and peddle it anywhere you think someone trans might be having a good day, so you ought to be able to do it if you’re right and sex really is as simply binary as you claim
- Feel free to admit that it’s actually a bit more complicated than that. OH WAIT, NO, YOU CAN’T DO THAT, IT WOULD MEAN YOU’RE WASTING YOUR LIFE ARGUING A USELESS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC DEFINITION JUST TO FUCK WITH TRANS PEOPLE BECAUSE FOR SOME INSANE LOGIC EVEN MORE SCREWY THAN YOUR DEBATING STYLE YOU THINK TRANS PEOPLE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH SHIT TO DEAL WITH.
Consider some of those people are trying to do that for rational reasons and check the article as an example of such reasons.
I think I agree with you and my irony just got lost. But again, I don’t know enough to be sure.
All I’m sure about is that if you use your biological non-consensus to tell folks what their identity should be it’s shitty.
And I think we were arguing the same thing but I’m tired.
That’s an attempt to redefine sex. Which is all well and good and part of the scientific process. It’s not going to be adopted in the field of biology though, because then talking about sex across the animal kingdom becomes incoherent. Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes addresses that paper directly:
Traits are labeled “male-typical” or “female-typical” only because they correlate with organisms already identified as male or female—an identification that, in anisogamous species, is made ultimately by reference to gametes. Once that reference is removed, the typology loses its interpretive footing.
Why do you think this paper is more correct than the other? This paper seems to be locked on a single definition and says everything else is wrong because it does not follow this definition.
Personally, I find it very intellectually unsatisfying because you can have a individual with male gametes but with a female phenotype, and this definition says, this individual’s sex is without a doubt 100% male. It seems the main benefit is not questioning a historical definition, which fits well with conservative opinions. There’s clear evidence on many other subjects that this can slow down or block science (ex: tobacco, climate).
Why do you think this paper is more correct than the other?
Because it fits the narrative they are selling.
Well no. You’re free to read the paper’s citations. The field of biology has always used this definition of sex, and that paper cites this definition from 1888. Somebody also helpfully set up a project for scientists to sign that affirms the same view:
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Feel free to post anything disputing the paper.
EDIT: I didn’t think I needed to spell this out so directly, but Project Nettie was set up by Dr. Emma Hilton, who has a PhD in Developmental Biology, collecting signatures on a statement affirming the sex binary from other scientists with relevant credentials. You can go look for yourself, and here’s the description from the link:
Project Nettie is an online and regularly updated record of scientists, medics and those in related disciplines who, by signing their support for the Project Nettie statement (below), assert the material reality of biological sex and reject attempts to reframe it as a malleable social construct.
That it’s published on wordpress doesn’t matter, that was likely just a convenient place to publish. What matters is what the statement says, and who’s signing onto it. I didn’t think that needed to be said, but, some people 🫠
If they felt the need to write such a paper so recently, and the reviewers felt the need to accept it, then the issue is clearly more complex than you are presenting. Otherwise if it is truly that obvious the paper would be worthless.
I’ll let a professor emeritus, author of several popular books, etc etc respond (i.e. you should listen to him). From his commentary on the paper:
It’s important to recognize that the recent reframing of the two sexes as needing revision did not result from any new discoveries about biology […] It is not transphobic to recognize the two sexes that biologists have known for decades, but, unfortunately, we are dealing with ideologues who are largely impervious to both facts and reason,
There is no complexity here. It’s settled science. A few ideologues are trying to do something silly, and people outside of academia are taking that out of context. This paper was written to clarify that to lay people.
That’s it. You’re out of the tautology club.
The author of that paper has a PhD in evolutionary biology and is well-qualified to talk about it, but also provides plenty of citations in the paper. His point is simply that trying to redefine sex in that way leads to a circular definition that isn’t useful.
To that point, what does “male gametes but with a female phenotype” mean? What does female mean? How can you define it without reference to gametes?
I still don’t understand what to do based on gametes with XXY genotype for instance
I’m not sure what you mean by “what to do”. If someone has an XXY genotype, their sex is determined by the gametes their body is organized around producing, like everyone else.
Klinefelter syndrome (sometimes called Klinefelter’s, KS or XXY) is where boys and men are born with an extra X chromosome.
but what about ovotesticular people? if they can produce both gametes what determines their sex? based on what gamete they were “supposed” to produce? but how do you determine what they’re “supposed” to produce? chromosomes? phenotypes? a combination of all of these? but then we’re back at square one where gametes may be binary but sex isn’t?
Organised around producing here means ‘should produce even if it never did’? You linked a list of disorders yourself, some of them do not allow a body to produce any form of gamete in severe cases
An organism that produces both types of gamete is a hermaphrodite.
“Powerstruggle” is an anti trans troll who turns up in any trans-positive thread to pseudoscience their way to distracting everyone from a fun and positive post about gender into an acrimonious debate about why they think there are only two sexes. It will go on and on. They’re excellent at ignoring other people’s points and just restating their own.
You’re weirdly obsessed with the idea that anybody that disagrees with you is trolling. You’re free to provide any evidence to support your position, but you’re better suited to simply insult people that try to tell you facts.
You’re repeatedly insulting people trying to show you the truth and refusing to demonstrate anything that supports your position.
You’re a troll.
I think anyone looking at your post history will see who the troll is! You’re obsessive and relentlessly obnoxious about this one issue and you derail every trans positive post you come across.
I correct misinformation, which is a small number of trans related posts. Why are you lying, troll?
Conservatives like you: Every accusation a confession.
So when you accuse everyone of being a troll, it’s a confession. Please do better.
Yep, and that exists in other species, but not humans. Nobody’s body is organized around the production of both gametes, unlike other species
A human with both gametes or no gametes at all is possible.
All of this has been better argued in the previous thread where you displayed an, in my opinion, astounding lack of reading comprehension. @[email protected] argued eloquently with you quite a while.
Oh the self proclaimed ambassador for the field of biology is back at it again, what a surprise. Has he revealed yet that his smoking gun ‘study’ that defines sex and ‘represents literally all of biology’ is actually just a rant from a discredited nut job podcaster who has dozens of posts whining about how he’s been totally ostracized by all other biologists?
Edit: LMAOOO, yup
Edit 2: Instead of responding to his multiple new feature-length “I am the chad you are soy” tirades, I’ll suggest just reading through the old thread if you’re curious about what got him so worked up lol
Separately from my other comment demonstrating the other biologists telling you that you’re wrong, so it doesn’t get lost:
There’s nothing to “reveal” and there’s no “smoking gun”. It’s simply an easy to read paper, even if you have trouble reading. It’s true, regardless of the author.
You’re trying to say “Look at this one paper, it has an author I don’t like, so I’ll obsess about that guy and ignore everything else!”
If you really want, ignore that paper and read the many others telling you exactly how wrong you are. Please make sure to actually read them though. It was a waste of everyone’s time to correct your failed understanding of your own link.
You’re very focused on that one person and apparently refusing to read the citations from the paper. Feel free to peruse the list of scientists that signed a statement affirming the same:
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Or the author of Sex Redefined, which people have linked without reading:
https://xcancel.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680
Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.
Or another top biologist:
I like to summarize this by saying that the biological sex definition/concept is both universal and explanatory. No other concept of sex, for example, can explain sexual selection and the differences in behavior and phenotype that appear in animals.
It’s important to recognize that the recent reframing of the two sexes as needing revision did not result from any new discoveries about biology […]
It is not transphobic to recognize the two sexes that biologists have known for decades, but, unfortunately, we are dealing with ideologues who are largely impervious to both facts and reason, and so the five points above are aimed largely at those who don’t know a lot about the way biologists conceive of sex.
That’s you. You are the ideologue that is largely impervious to facts and reason. You demonstrated this by linking a paper and completely misunderstanding it to the point that you thought gametes are a spectrum, when it flatly contradicts you:
(A) A strict binary, for which all individuals are unambiguously grouped into one of two categories. Whereas some traits, such as gamete size, operate this way, […]
Or here’s yet another person with plenty of credentials telling you directly you’re wrong:
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable
This article says nothing novel. It discusses a fact as well-established as the billions of years of evolution that shaped our species. We live in a world, however, that increasingly ignores such truths, and in which the combination of awareness and courage to set the record straight appears rare.
This isn’t even a debate. You’re just wrong. Would you like more citations to that effect?
Man, really? The person that thinks there’s 3 gamete types because they couldn’t even understand the paper they linked? Them? I mean FFS, the paper they linked directly, squarely contradicts them:
A strict binary, for which all individuals are unambiguously grouped into one of two categories. Whereas some traits, such as gamete size, operate this way, […]
I have to say that I’m disappointed that you found that eloquent, but to each their own. I hope that you some day find truth more eloquent.
At any rate, just in case you’re confused (since it’s not clear from your comment if you understand this), sex is defined by the gamete types your body is organized around producing. Someone born without the ability to create gametes isn’t a counter to the sex binary, their body is still organized around the production of sperm or ova, even if faulty. Nobody is born with a body organized around the production of both sperm and ova, not even in the case of ovotestis. See other comments for explanation.
males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates
That’s not typically the definition people use, but I do admit it’s a way of “solving” the issues of a binary that often arise when using the more common definitions. You’re either a sperm-maker or egg-maker.
So using this definition, there are likely still some intersex people or at the very least people who have an “undefined” sex.
That’s the definition biologists have always used. It’s just a description of the reality that they found in their field. Lay people have started using it recently because of culture wars, but they’re not incorrect to do so.
There still aren’t “intersex” people as you’re probably thinking. The closest you’ll find in humans is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotestis, but that’s not “fully functioning gonads of both types, producing healthy gametes of both types”. It’s “maybe a functioning gonad of one type, with a bit of non-functional tissue of the other type”. Their sex can still be determined, even if it’s not readily apparent.
Lay people have started using it recently…
Oh my God this is hilarious. Just caught it.
Who are these lay people?
Dude you trolling online without an advanced degree or research history. XD
I think the meaning is clear. You seem rather upset. Are you having trouble understanding it?
Lol. The meaning is a bit delusional. You are implying that you elevate your own academic status and understanding to something that is well outside of what you can claim. XD
Edit: Oh, holy shit, your moderation history is hilarious. Mostly for being an idiot or transphobes. XD
Ah, so you do misunderstand. You’re very obsessed with me. That statement makes no claim about me.
That sentence means that, just because some random conservative on twitter talks about the sex binary, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. They might be right for the wrong reasons, but they’re still right.
I’ll use a simple analogy to help you. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is bad. Are you able to understand now?
Nah, man, you don’t get to imply that others are lay people and not yourself. XD I understand completely because clout chasing is not at all uncommon.
And no obsession, just still having fun with a transphobe. Lol.
I’m actually thinking of people who have neither sets, working or not, but you’ve got me thinking: if a non-functional set would still count in the case of it being the only one (I.e. someone infertile but otherwise nothing out of the ordinary) I’m not sure why it wouldn’t when it’s beside a working one. If it’s binary, surely they either count or they don’t?
That falls into the “organized around” bit. They won’t have any other structures necessary for supporting the bit of tissue, and their body won’t be trying to create those structures. As a loose analogy, think of it like transplanting an ovary into a human male. You haven’t changed his sex, you’ve merely created a man with an ovary grafted onto him. His body is still organized around production of sperm.
In the case of someone that’s infertile, if you fixed the issue that was causing their infertility, they would produce the normal gametes that their body is organized around producing. They wouldn’t then magically start producing both gametes or gametes from the other sex.
Fair enough. So somebody with no plumbing at all would just be undefined in terms of sex then?
You’d have to point to a particular case for a good answer. Nobody is simply born live and healthy and simply lacks any plumbing. You’d have to get into nonviable embryos or the like to get something with truly undefinable sex.
Don’t have a particular case, just curious how this definition works. I appreciate the answers.
