tahira @ tahira @hilariouschaos.com 帖子 6评论 42加入于 2 wk. ago
Live a happy, fulfilling life? I'm not sure what you mean.
What sizes gametes do they produce?
Plenty of PhD’s in evolutionary biology would agree with me, even in the article
Are you misreading the article? When it says "However, as pointed out by others", that is pointing out that you're 100% incorrect. I'm not sure why you cited something that proves you wrong. Nowhere is a single PhD cited that agrees with you.
This is a matter of opinion, not an objective fact.
It is an objective fact. I'll link you to Wikipedia because it's easy, but feel free to cite anything that contradicts it: "The type of gamete an organism produces determines its sex"
Talk to an expert with a PHD about this
You literally avoided reading the article, where a PhD in evolutionary biology explains exactly why you're wrong.
they often produce both or neither…
Thank you for being aware of the sex binary. In incredibly rare cases (as in you can count them on the fingers of one hand), there may have been cases where humans produced both gametes, likely due to chimerism. But just as you say, it's both gametes, because sex is binary. They're producing both of the two binary options.
Producing neither gamete is a silly point to bring up. Your sex is the size of the gametes you do or would produce. It's also not a new sex to produce neither of the two gametes.
Give one example.
Besides the given example in the article and directly given to you already where an academic is trying to push for a bad definition of sex (in Scientific American, not just some random podunk journal), here's one example:
Note: in humans, there are egg-producers that do not identify as female and sperm-producers that do not identify as male.
That's a silly statement that has nothing to do with biology and was clearly shoved in there for appeasement of gender fanatics. Biology doesn't give a shit how you identify.
more accurate descriptor of the situation
It's less accurate. You responded to me with "whoa what about intersex people", because you were working off of a bad and unclear definition. If you had read the article, you would have known this. Reminder that the article is titled "Denying the Human Sex Binary Turns Biology into Nonsense", written by a PhD in evolutionary biology. He's addressing your exact points.
Intersex people aren't a monolith. What size gametes each intersex person produces determines their sex. This is the biological definition and is not a spectrum. It is binary and immutable. Gender activists are trying to shove gender into inappropriate places.
If it doesn't matter, then it should be no big deal to drop all of the gender woo when speaking of sex, right?
From the opening sentence of the article:
In a new piece for Scientific American, Princeton anthropologist Dr. Agustín Fuentes argues that the binary of male and female is too simplistic to describe the complexity of human sex
Academia has become gripped by a new religious dogma that must not be questioned. They're trying to redefine the basic scientific terminology of sex in order to appease an unscientific political movement.
Some admins can't handle people not respecting their faith. Don't let the irrational beliefs of a few dictate your online experience.
Unfortunately, this definition of sex is muddled and incoherent. Making gametes just one of many characteristics defining sex may free us from a politically unpopular binary, but at the cost of our ability to describe reality correctly and clearly.
Lemmy needs to drop the gender woo. It's unscientific and makes you no better than godbotherers that you sneer at
Thank you for not personally trying to force your way into women's sports, but other men are:
Calling it "discrimination" isn't a direct call for legal action, but it is suggestive of it, and trying to use the courts to force one's way into places you don't belong and aren't wanted is immoral.
Saying "Trans woman are men" isn't an attack. It's a factual, neutral statement. Come up with new terms, and stop trying to create newspeak. Use "femme" and "masc", they've got popularity already and don't try to redefine language to allow men to invade women's spaces.
I'm not going to try and convince you of anything, but your response is a good summary of the problem. You started off by saying "trans people aren’t hurting you so just let people be", and now you're saying that men should be able to force their way into women's sports even if the women don't want them there.
Women deserve single-sex spaces.
Here's the great thing about science: Is he wrong? If you can't cite or explain how he's wrong, hurling insults doesn't do shit.
He very much represents the scientific consensus, as explained by the link I just gave you that you clearly didn't read.
If women want gendered sports, you'll agree that men shouldn't be allowed into women's sports, even if they're trans women?
Biological sex is defined by the size of the gametes one does or would produce, and has always been defined that way scientifically. It is immutable and binary.
What size gametes do they produce? Intersex people are not a monolith, nor do they have anything to do with transgenderism.
Read the article. The author has a PhD in evolutionary biology and knows more than you.
The “sex binary” does not entail that every human is unambiguously either male or female, even though the vast majority are.
He wrote another article where he cites that you are 100% wrong and this definition has been used since the 19th century: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/citations-for-the-gamete-based-definition
Will men stay out of women's sports?
None of that is how sex is defined, and that's the entire point of this article. Sex is defined by the size of gametes you produce, and that is binary and immutable.