Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mathel]

(Max did not start the off-ramp from Truean's post to the current fight either, that was Mathel.)

And I am sorry for that. My intent was merely to point some things, not to start a fight.

[lemon10]

RFK Jr. admits putting dead bear cub and old bicycle in New York City's Central Park nearly 10 years ago
What the fuck? How the hell is this guy an actual candidate for president??? Why would you ever admit that?

[Eric Blank]

Because the kennedys are rich and powerful beyond your wildest dreams and so they can easily get away with no consequences for their psychopathy.

[hector13]

He’s getting ahead of a story that’s going to be printed in the New Yorker, apparently.

[feelotraveller]

Regardless of any past incidents or conversations, Max was not treated fairly in this thread. Despite talking about one single salient point, other posters proffered at least one accusatory outright lie (never addressed after Max pointed it out) amid other blowback that responded to things he did not say nor imply. (Max did not start the off-ramp from Truean's post to the current fight either, that was Mathel.)

I know what I saw and the reason I did not say anything further is pretty obvious.  The fact that you have no idea what happened and yet you accuse me says a lot about you.

I am trying not to post here but since people are hardly being balanced (Hector in particular) I'll go back to my first post and drop a reference. 

Biology* attempts to perform a bi-polar stratification of sex over a much more complex set of systems.  In fact 'sex' as we know it is an invention of biology - the natural world (that's us human beings here) remains much more diverse and unamenable to such simple classification.
[...]
*That is Biology writ large - talk to any biologist worth their salt and you will get quite a different picture: the devil is in the details.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

Feel free to argue all you want, I'm out.

[hector13]

Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles

It is clear that the biological definition of the sexes cannot be the basis for defining social genders of people, as forcefully pointed out by the philosopher Paul Griffiths.[8] Likewise, the socio-cultural, and thus anthropocentric, construct of gender cannot be applied to non-human organisms.[7] There is a red line that separates humans with their unique combination of biological sex and gender from non-human animals and plants, which only have two distinct sexes – both of which are either expressed in the same or in different individuals. As much as the concept of biological sex remains central to recognize the diversity of life, it is also crucial for those interested in a profound understanding of the nature of gender in humans. Denying the biological sex, for whatever noble cause, erodes scientific progress. In addition, and probably even worse, by rejecting simple biological facts influential science journals may open the flood gates for “alternative truths.”

Let’s break science, yo.

Also, finally an article I can access for free without feeling like I’m stealing it.

Also also, because you took a cheap dig at me and it’s too late at night/early in the morning to quell my pettiness, on the subject of balance, I’m not the one trying to re-write an entire branch of science to make a argument work because somebody I don’t like said something.

[feelotraveller]

The 'biological definition of sex' (see above link) fails to account for the natural world in at least two critical ways.*  Firstly it does not account for the sex of many species.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1.full

However, the binary classification of gametic sex breaks down when we consider the broader diversity of gametic phenotypes. For instance, hermaphroditic species possess both gamete types required for reproduction, and do not have separate sexes. Of the estimated 1.2 million animal species, roughly 5-6% are hermaphroditic. Outside of animals, systems of sex determination rely on genetic markers that determine compatibility between equally-sized gametes, a condition known as isogamy found in fungi, and amoebozoa. Another problem lies in the limitations of the gametic sex definition, summarized by Joan Roughgarden in (2013): “the biggest error in biology today is uncritically assuming that the gamete size binary implies a corresponding binary in body type, behavior, and life history.”

The second problem, referenced in the last part of the quote (and the one we have been banging on about) is that the definition of gametes being applied to entire human organisms verges on nonsense.  For example, it makes the vast majority of the human race sexless, since they are not currently producing either ova or sperm.  Going to secondary sexual characteristics is... well why not just go there in the first place?  Ah, that's right, we wouldn't find a binary without the imperative that gamete definitions apply to entire human beings.

Anyway I really am off, a parting gift since you get the prize for posting the first link supporting your argument.


(Definition = invention, which may or may not be adequate to reality.) 

[McTraveller]

Why would the reproductive biomechanics of fungi or bacteria or non-mammals be relevant to the discussion in humans, though?

I think the short of all this discussion is that instead of just acknowledging that people want to express their social gender however they want, they are trying to find some biological rationale for their preference when none is necessary in the first place.  You don't need to say "but fungi aren't two-sexed, therefore humans aren't either!" - you can just say biological procreation role bifurcation can be independent of social role.

I guess that hints at what male/female biology really means - it's the procreation role, not necessary the success at fulfilling that role, that determines biological sex.  Describing it as the role, not the success, gets rid of all the distracting distinctions like injury or illness.  I guess the biological roles for humans would be "to fertilize, or to be fertilized." or maybe "to host gestation" or "not gestation." This definitely is specific to humans; life that uses budding or other means of reproduction doesn't have that role distinction.

[Eschar]

Indeed, Hector's quoted paragraph already mentions that the biomechanics of nonhuman reproduction aren't relevant to the sex definition in question.

[hector13]

From what I linked, emphasis mine:

Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33]For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet. However, with a reasonably high probability we can predict this embryo to be on a developmental trajectory that will lead to becoming a reproductively competent (sperm producing) male. Hence, as an operational “definition” it may be justified to call it a “male embryo.”To quote Paul Griffiths again, the biological sex concept “has not been developed to assign a biological sex to every individual organism at any stage of its life”.[33] In fact, it often fails to do so. This reflects biological reality, because biological sex is a process rather than a condition.

However:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1.full

“the biggest error in biology today is uncritically assuming that the gamete size binary implies a corresponding binary in body type, behavior, and life history.”

The only one doing this is you.

Again, from my link, again emphasis mine:

This biological definition of the two sexes is, however, not based on an essential “maleness” or “femaleness” of individuals, but it merely refers to two distinct evolutionary strategies that sexually reproducing organisms use to produce offspring. Sexual reproduction does not require the existence of separate male and female individuals, though. While in the majority of animals, female and male gametes are produced by different individuals, they can also be produced by the same individual, either simultaneously or at different times.

[Maximum Spin]

In animals, biological sex is defined in purely binary terms, but it's possible for many kinds of animals (though not mammals) to have both. I don't see why this should be controversial. This is also the case in most plants.

There are some organisms like fungi which don't have "megagametes and microgametes", the umbrella terms used in biology for gametes that function like eggs and sperm respectively, but we generally don't refer to those as being categorized into "sexes" at all. Fungi have "mating types", for example, which aren't related to the kinds of gametes they make but the combinations in which they are and aren't capable of fertilizing.

The second problem, referenced in the last part of the quote (and the one we have been banging on about) is that the definition of gametes being applied to entire human organisms verges on nonsense.  For example, it makes the vast majority of the human race sexless, since they are not currently producing either ova or sperm.  Going to secondary sexual characteristics is... well why not just go there in the first place?  Ah, that's right, we wouldn't find a binary without the imperative that gamete definitions apply to entire human beings.

I do not understand why you find this so hard to grasp. We don't "appl[y]" "the definition of gametes" "to entire human organisms", and we don't consider people sexless if they aren't producing sperm or eggs. Sex in biology is defined in terms of developmental pathways. Not secondary sexual characteristics, but primary sexual characteristics as explicitly pertaining to the development of gonads toward the capacity of producing either sperm or eggs.

ETA: This is also why having ambiguous genitalia due to DSDs is no longer considered to make an individual's sex indeterminate. Having, say, a penis is a collateral consequence of the male developmental pathway in the vast majority of cases, but it doesn't directly bear on the development of gonads.

[wierd]

In animals, biological sex is defined in purely binary terms, but it's possible for many kinds of animals (though not mammals) to have both. I don't see why this should be controversial. This is also the case in most plants.

There are some organisms like fungi which don't have "megagametes and microgametes", the umbrella terms used in biology for gametes that function like eggs and sperm respectively, but we generally don't refer to those as being categorized into "sexes" at all. Fungi have "mating types", for example, which aren't related to the kinds of gametes they make but the combinations in which they are and aren't capable of fertilizing.

The second problem, referenced in the last part of the quote (and the one we have been banging on about) is that the definition of gametes being applied to entire human organisms verges on nonsense.  For example, it makes the vast majority of the human race sexless, since they are not currently producing either ova or sperm.  Going to secondary sexual characteristics is... well why not just go there in the first place?  Ah, that's right, we wouldn't find a binary without the imperative that gamete definitions apply to entire human beings.

I do not understand why you find this so hard to grasp. We don't "appl[y]" "the definition of gametes" "to entire human organisms", and we don't consider people sexless if they aren't producing sperm or eggs. Sex in biology is defined in terms of developmental pathways. Not secondary sexual characteristics, but primary sexual characteristics as explicitly pertaining to the development of gonads toward the capacity of producing either sperm or eggs.

ETA: This is also why having ambiguous genitalia due to DSDs is no longer considered to make an individual's sex indeterminate. Having, say, a penis is a collateral consequence of the male developmental pathway in the vast majority of cases, but it doesn't directly bear on the development of gonads.

Not correct.

There are numerous species that are mult-gendered, or which change gender, based on environmental conditions, stage of life, or even sociological conditions (in as much as animal populations have socialization)

Take for instance, most roundworms. These are either male, female, or hermaphrodite. (interestingly, male roundworms seem to prefer hermaphrodites over females.)
Then there are many species of mollusk, such as river clams, that start life as male, but become female as they age.
Then there are numerous species of reptile and amphibian, that can change their gender based on local environmental or social pressures.

Asserting that gender is binary in nature, is simply not correct.

The predisposition to only 2 physical genders in mammals appears to be a "recent" thing, evolutionarily speaking.

[Il Palazzo]

What's not correct, weird? He said the same thing as you.
Also, good job opening another can of worms with mixing up gender and sex. Not in this milieu, my dude.

I'm increasingly convinced communication is an impossible task and we're all doomed to being irredeemably masturbatory forever. I'm pretty sure (but communication is impossible!) everyone here feels strongly that being a dick to trans people is bad, but somehow that intensity spills over to pointlessly dying on the hill of one insignificant distinction or another, trying to score points with lord knows whom, or making digs at peoplewho rub us the wrong way.

God, I hate Tuesdays.

[dragdeler]

Come take the silent vow with me and hookers and blackjack.

[wierd]

What's not correct, weird? He said the same thing as you.
Also, good job opening another can of worms with mixing up gender and sex. Not in this milieu, my dude.

I'm increasingly convinced communication is an impossible task and we're all doomed to being irredeemably masturbatory forever. I'm pretty sure (but communication is impossible!) everyone here feels strongly that being a dick to trans people is bad, but somehow that intensity spills over to pointlessly dying on the hill of one insignificant distinction or another, trying to score points with lord knows whom, or making digs at peoplewho rub us the wrong way.

God, I hate Tuesdays.

For me it was Monday. I work nights.

I'll blame having to constantly chase after a 99 year old woman who needed to use the bathroom 7+ times in a shift, who is a high fall risk, which interrupted basically any attempt at rational thinking. Thats my story, and I'm sticking to it.