You must log in or register to comment.
All these metal-phobes around here
Don’t light a match!
What’s this woke nonsense? Most of those helium atoms started life as hydrogen atoms. Therefore they shouldn’t be considered to be helium atoms!
Carbon: ~am i a joke to you~
oh boy, here we go with the biologists/biochemists.
yes we get it, living things are made of carbon
When you accidentally draw cosmological lithium problem.
No wonder there’s cosmic inflation, the universe is just a cosmic balloon.
This is a bad analogy because there’s 100+ types of atoms. In anisogamous species (like humans), there’s exactly 2 gamete types, sperm and ova. Which of those two gamete types one’s body is organized around producing is how sex is defined.
See here for charts showing the spectrum of sex determination and how that relates to sex definition. Each chart can be labeled as male or female based on this definition of sex, which is the one that is used across the field of biology.
https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts
The information on the flow charts is directly from peer-reviewed developmental biology papers and textbooks on human sex differentiation.
But humans are a gonochoric species: individuals are either male or female throughout their entire life cycle. People with DSDs are not new sexes (this would require a third gamete type), and they are not both sexes (this would require the full development of both male and female gonads and genitalia in a single individual. A hermaphrodite has never existed in humans).
There’s no third sex, and there’s nobody born with a body that isn’t trying to produce gametes (and potentially failing).
The issue with your argument is that you’re ascribing a simple explanation of how biology works to the actual reality of things. When doctors or evolutionary biologist say that something was “supposed to be done”, in the context of biology, they usually mean “this is what the being (as in, its system) does for the possible outcome of reproduction or survival, but there are other possibilities”, because it is implied that what they say is to be interpreted as something that comes with the intention of being empirical. They don’t actually mean that this is what is supposed to be done. It’s a way for people to understand it more simply.
You should read the Wikipedia article on Teleology in biology. But this paragraph is the most central part of the argument against your point. Teleology means a certain “goal-oriented”-ness.
Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something “in order to” achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid to evolutionary biologists. It is however usually possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in a way which can be read as implying teleology, even though that is not their intention.
As an example, take a meteorologist providing forecast for tomorrow’s weather. With whatever means they collected data, they assert: “it will rain tomorrow”. Tomorrow comes, and it is sunnier than ever. Scientifically speaking, the meteorologist cannot say “the atmosphere failed to make it rain, even though it tried to”. If this seems absurd, it’s because it is. In that case, the meteorologist is supposed to adapt their model into something that more accurately reflects the data given.
The problem is even more visible once you take the example of an intersex person, born with XY chromosomes, but with a uterus (Swyer’s Syndrome). One person could base themselves on the XY chromosomes to say that the person was “supposed to produce small gametes”, as you put it. Another person could base themselves on the fact that (with medical intervention) the person can produce large gametes, therefore, that the person was “supposed to produce large gametes”. Either answer is wrong, since the body isn’t actually “supposed” to do something. It just does what it does, regardless of what you think it is supposed to do. The correct thing to do would be to say: “They aren’t supposed to do something. If our model is to be empirical, it should be supposed to reflect what is actually going on with their body, not ascribe a will to it. We should rethink how we see the definition of sex”
Edit: Clarifications
It’s good to be careful about language like “should”, but that doesn’t really refute anything that I’ve said. Taking a step back, this is what the consensus is in the field of biology, which certainly has dealt with teleological arguments before. It’s nothing new, and yet the consensus is still that sex is entirely defined by the gamete type one’s body is organized around producing.
Why exactly do you think your comment is a counterpoint? I understand the limitations of phrasing like “should” or “supposed to”, but concretely, how do you think that applies?
People with Swyer syndrome are female, not because of "supposed to"s, but because the end result is that their bodies are organized around the production of large gametes. It’s an empirical description, just as you call for. From the link:
That’s the difference between how sex is defined and how sex is determined.
No it is still not empirical. The definition of sex is difficult to set in stone, and yours fails to argue for itself on the basis of a result that is just a stretch of the empirical truth. In fact, you saying that it is a consensus in the field of biology when a notable amount of biologists argue against this is very far-fetched.
Again, take someone with Swyer syndrome that don’t have the ability to produce any large gametes. By saying it is “organized around the production of large gametes”, you are extending that empirical fact related to that person, and ascribing them an alternate reality where there can produce large gametes. You’re defining someone around something that they cannot do.
Concretely, this means that sex is way more complicated than just “revolving around the production of gametes”. I am not an expert in biology, and will not be able to tell you exactly what it is without not considering all of the edge-cases of it’s definition. But there are too many contradictions with saying that it’s binary because XYZ.
I am of the opinion that our society’s obsession with figuring out someone’s sex, if it is assigned by birth by a doctor, determined by an onlooker, etc. is in it of itself harmful. Not that there’s anything wrong with knowing about your body, but the way it’s been morphed into these essential classes is harmful for those that defy said class, intentionally or not.
That said, I hope you look at more examples of teleology in biology. In fact, what I explained should be understandable if you have a look at the wikipedia article. If you do not mean “organized around” in a teleological sense, then what do you mean? Also, you failed to address my previous analogies in your response. If it’s because you feel like it’s fallacious, or that it’s simply wrong, then why not respond accordingly? I’m starting to suspect the use of AI…
Edit: I think this is the last piece of effort I’ll put into this, because it gets obvious up to a point. Your argument falls into this category of teleological arguments:
[…] they are appropriate “in reference to structures anatomically and physiologically designed to perform a certain function.”
Taken from the wikipedia page. This is a teleological sentence, but it is used to explain a concept, not actually what is going on. No one actually designed said functions. If you want to know more, read the section on Irreducible teleology in the wikipedia article, which addresses the limitations of getting rid of teleology completely and how to go about it, whilst navigating things empirically.
What is your obsession with this meme? The two times 1, 2 this was posted before, you spent over two days each writting dozens of comments. Under each post, people patiently explained to you that sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary.
A nice graphic from the last thread:
But you know what? Let me ask you a question. After taking a quick look at your moderation history, I’m interested in your answer.
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
I don’t really understand other people’s obsession with spreading misinformation. In each of those threads I posted once, and then had to respond many more times pointing out how they’re incorrect. “Patiently explaining” is a weird way of saying “doubling down on being wrong”.
Like here as well. As in the previous thread, that graphic shows sex determination, which is not how sex is defined. Each one of those situations ends up being male or female. I’m having to write another comment to correct your misinformation, even though you could’ve seen the exact same response in the previous threads. Why are people obsessed with defending their ignorance? I’d have a fraction of my overall comment count and everyone could’ve done something more productive with their time.
Your statement that “sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary” is wrong. Again, I’ve linked to many helpful resources, but in particular I want to redirect you to the original comment I made in this very thread which goes over several different types of DSDs and shows how they still fall into the sex binary.
Before we start going off on a tangent from this thread, can you acknowledge biological truth? It’s pointless to talk about Khelif if you misunderstand the basics.
Yeah, it seems it is pointless to talk to you about sex determination in humans. That’s why I linked to previous threads where many knowledgeable people have already discussed the topic.
“You had to respond?” Most of the time, you just said the same things in slightly different ways over and over again without apparently reading the comments to which you replied. But you also spammed “Why do you care so much?” a dozen times.
I would still be interested in your answer to the question:
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
I responded “Why do you care so much?” to a user that started out engaging in bad faith by asking that question to start. I was simply mirroring their bad faith argument back to them. Elsewhere in the thread where they had an actual comment, I responded in good faith. I’m not going to waste my time on nonsense.
It’s easy to say “it’s pointless to talk to you”. Other people have said that too, or “I’m just so tired” or “You’re boring”. I’ll gladly talk about Khelif, but first:
Do you understand what sex determination is and how it differs from how sex is defined?
Let’s get facts straight first.
Why do you care so much?
They did respond with longer comments later, but you only spammed this (This was @[email protected])
You also spammed comments back and forth with Log in | Sign up @[email protected]. Nobody forced you to make those comments.
I’m also not of the opinion that you commented elsewhere in “good faith.”
Now what is your answer to the question:
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
And before you ask again: I have read that you categorize sex determination in humans entirely based on gametes, and that you also binarily categorize the many edge cases/exceptions (you know what one interperation of this meme is about) as “organized around producing a type of gamete”. Now please answer the question. I would be interested to read your answer.
If you can acknowledge that it’s not me categorizing anything, but that I’m merely relaying how the field of biology defines sex, then sure. I make no claim other than referring to many sources saying exactly that.
The entire thread that started with “Why do you care so much?” was eminently silly and I didn’t bother responding with effort, but that user engaged in other subthreads, where I did respond.
The other user is unhinged, to be honest. Like, something is wrong with them. I engaged in good faith a few times, but in the end they refused to acknowledge a basic fact and it wasn’t worth engaging with effort.
Now, where’s your answer to the questions I asked in my very first comment?
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
We are now really deep in the comment chain, but you still haven’t answered.
deleted by creator
This post probably isn’t about sex but about gender. Those are two very different albeit related concepts. Sure, biology is mostly binary (although not quite as black and white, if you’re looking at any other features than gamete types. Femininity and masculinity do not define themselves by gamete type), but psychology very much isn’t binary.
There are only two genders: binary, and non-binary
There are 10 types of people in this world…those who understand binary, and those who don’t.
You’re right that sex phenotypes (features other than gametes) and gender form a spectrum and not a strict binary. This is often a point of confusion and I’ve had people try to argue about sex, after I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender.
I think the cartoon is likely about sex, but if everyone agrees that sex != gender and biologists define sex as binary in humans, then it doesn’t really matter and we all agree about the important things.
Sex is biological.
Gender is social.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
But even sex isn’t binary and doesn’t contain everything often attributed to it.
Sex is binary in humans. Correlates like phenotype/genotype (often confused with sex) are a spectrum though.
What do you define “Sex” as ?
that’s cool. Do you think trans people should have bodily autonomy?
Yes.
Ok. What you are posting will assist in denying that.
I think that biology being real is not an affront on transgender individuals.
denying real biology just because it can lead to a few bad feelings is a very dangerous road. both can exist, and do. harmoniously.
Except this isn’t “biology being real”. It’s non empirical. If you abide by the theory of evolution (which I assume you do), then you should be against teleology in biology, since there is no such thing, concretely, as a “body that’s supposed to do things”. It’s just layman speech to inform those that aren’t that far in biology (or to shorten things, since you assume your college knows anyway) “this is one of the possible things that a being (or its system) does in order to survive/reproduce”, not that it is necessary. To imply that it’s necessary would be to imply that nature has a will, or that there is some sort of supernatural will Teleology in biology
Edit: clearing things up and syntax
How does posting scientific fact assist in denying trans people bodily autonomy?
it adds further fuel to the opinion of “there are only two genders, trans people are ____” (insert insult here)
Literally every sentence you typed is entirely inaccurate. It’s bad science promoted by bigots to create a convinient lie that permits them to discriminate and oppress people.
Edit to add: It’s even a bad interpretation of the metaphor. It’s like saying “akshually, there’s only two atomic particles, the proton and the electron, and these are the only two particles that determine charge, so there’s really only two types of atoms, positive and negative charged atoms, and that’s why black people don’t deserve civil rights.”
That’s you. That’s what you sound like.
- Human genders are not defined by gamete types.
- Human sex is not defined by gamete types. There are women born with testes, and men born with ovaries. Secondary sexual characteristics are influenced by hormones as much as genetics, and the presence of a gamete does not determine the hormones in a person’s body.
- Sexual development charts are generalizations across average humans, and do not necessarily represent any one individual’s sexual development. Everyone does not fit into a box.
- You can’t hide your bigotry behind peer-reviewed biology papers and textbooks. The actual science doesn’t support it.
- Gonochorism is not relevant to the psychosexual development of humans. It’s a term used to differentiate animals that change sexes due to environmental factors, like alligators and snails. Nobody is claiming that transgender individuals are simultaneously hermaphroditic. It’s a biological strawman argument that belies the insincerity of your argument.
In short, fuck off with your nazi bullshit.
You’re mostly arguing with what you want me to have said and not what I’ve said so there’s not much point in responding to much of your post.
Your claims that “Human sex is not defined by gamete types” and “The actual science doesn’t support it” are incorrect though
Nah, you cant hide your bigotry behind peer reviewed… wait what 😂😂😂
Which is it, you don’t want to defend the nazi argument, or you do want to defend the nazi argument?
What exactly are you qualifying as “the nazi argument”?
Thanks for trying but you’re pissing into the wind in this place.
