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.
they often produce both or neither…
It is binary and immutable. Gender activists are trying to shove gender into inappropriate places.
Give one example.
If it doesn’t matter, then it should be no big deal to drop all of the gender woo when speaking of sex, right?
It doesn’t matter and it’s a better, more accurate descriptor of the situation, so why would we drop it? That’s like saying we should drop dwarf planets because it doesn’t really matter and you prefer the old way.
There’s a reason science and culture are evolving these terms, it’s because the previous way of using them was simplistic and not as useful.
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.
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.
Yes, or none, which makes it not as simple as a binary. You’ve already admitted even if you disagree about it being a spectrum, that it isn’t a binary. I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size, but even if you run with that definition, you end up with exceptions.
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[1]:
That link doesn’t even resemble what I asked for, and that example in the article is people expressing legitimate desire to improve the definitions and move the field forward, this is not somebody injecting things for no reason, like you claim. Is discussing the topic not allowed in your eyes? Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?
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.
There are many cases where it is impossible to know which you would produce. This means it’s not as simple as a binary, in these cases, the gamete option is not a viable way to determine sex.
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.
He failed to address them, none of my points make any of what i’m saying any harder to understand, nor do they cause any actual crisis. The article basically consists of “I don’t like it when people do this, and it’s easier for me to understand even though this doesn’t cover edge cases too well” it’s just an opinion piece, not a factual statement.
biology has plenty of these issues, where the answer seems obvious until you engage with enough literature and ask enough questions, for example, try defining a species for me!
Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?
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.
I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size
Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.
The article basically consists of “I don’t like it when people do this
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’re free to disagree with the scientific consensus, but you should admit you’re no better than a creationist spouting off “god did it”.
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.
When I did my biology courses there was a debate about intersex. That was 30 years ago.
I personally believe there are two sexes and anything outside of that is a defect or deviant.
I can accept three when used to classify a few edge cases for intersex but that’s where I draw the line.
they often produce both or neither…
Give one example.
It doesn’t matter and it’s a better, more accurate descriptor of the situation, so why would we drop it? That’s like saying we should drop dwarf planets because it doesn’t really matter and you prefer the old way.
There’s a reason science and culture are evolving these terms, it’s because the previous way of using them was simplistic and not as useful.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Yes, or none, which makes it not as simple as a binary. You’ve already admitted even if you disagree about it being a spectrum, that it isn’t a binary. I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size, but even if you run with that definition, you end up with exceptions.
That link doesn’t even resemble what I asked for, and that example in the article is people expressing legitimate desire to improve the definitions and move the field forward, this is not somebody injecting things for no reason, like you claim. Is discussing the topic not allowed in your eyes? Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?
There are many cases where it is impossible to know which you would produce. This means it’s not as simple as a binary, in these cases, the gamete option is not a viable way to determine sex.
He failed to address them, none of my points make any of what i’m saying any harder to understand, nor do they cause any actual crisis. The article basically consists of “I don’t like it when people do this, and it’s easier for me to understand even though this doesn’t cover edge cases too well” it’s just an opinion piece, not a factual statement.
biology has plenty of these issues, where the answer seems obvious until you engage with enough literature and ask enough questions, for example, try defining a species for me!
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.
Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.
The author also wrote an article that is addressing your exact questions: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/how-our-shoes-can-help-explain-the
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’re free to disagree with the scientific consensus, but you should admit you’re no better than a creationist spouting off “god did it”.
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.
When I did my biology courses there was a debate about intersex. That was 30 years ago. I personally believe there are two sexes and anything outside of that is a defect or deviant.
I can accept three when used to classify a few edge cases for intersex but that’s where I draw the line.