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.
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.
Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.
It is in fact not. You’re confusing “determining” and “defining”
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.
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 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.
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”.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
Can you not imagine the possibility that it isn’t the best way to determine it?
You really pick bad citations. Citing someone who says “oh i was just being ironic!” is laughable.
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.
She also confuses sex and phenotypes as you have been and those other citations do.
We aren’t confused, again, this is the difference between determining and defining sex.
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
The definition you’re pushing is incoherent garbage. If there’s actually a better definition, great. Yours isn’t it.
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?
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
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.
Trust science.
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.
Sex is a classification for reproduction and not feelings.
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.
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.
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.