3 ms·

No one needs to be an “expert” to understand basic English and biology. It’s very clear that until, very recently, male and female have always been biological t

No one needs to be an “expert” to understand basic English and biology. It’s very clear that until, very recently, male and female have always been biological terms. Even today a scientist studying a frog would call the frog “female” or “male”, and everyone would know what they mean by that. No educated, sane, person would protest “Did you ask the frog what gender they felt they were!”

dwaltrip 5y ago
Historical precedent is not a very strong argument when it comes to scientific questions. What's the model? How can that model explain the observed phenomena? "XY = male and XX = female" is a very simplistic model and it doesn't seem to adequately explain everything that we see in the world. Perhaps it works for 97% of the cases (just guessing). We can do better than 97%. Let's work on finding a model that explains the world more accurately. P.S. Frogs can't talk :P So yeah, it would be rather silly to try asking it a question.
- hitpointdrew 5y ago
  What is the model you ask? It’s very simple XX chromosome is female, XY is male. Is that 100% of all cases ever. No, but hardly anything at all in science, or life, is. How do you classify a hermaphrodite? Does it matter? It’s a rare biological anomaly. Life is weird and strange things happen sometimes, that doesn’t mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s useful in life, science, and medicine to classify things biologically by their sex. If there are a few outliers that just go in “other” then so be it. > Frogs can’t talk That’s the whole point. How a frog feels, or perceives itself, is entirely irrelevant as to weather it is classified as a male or female. So why is it any different with humans? When we talk about male or female with other species there is no notion of a “social construct”, but somehow when talk about humans it’s supposed be different and not follow the rules we use with every other species on the planet? Why? Because some people feel bad? Sorry, not a good argument.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    >with other species there is no notion of a “social construct” That's only coming from our limited human perspectives. We can't communicate with another species at this point in time. We can't ask them about nuance in their social structures. We also can't assume that it doesn't exist because it's hard to observe.
    - hitpointdrew 5y ago
      Nothing you said refutes the fact that biological sex classification is 1) useful 2) has and continues to use the terms “male” and “female” for all species 3) such classification are scientific descriptions, not social constructs at all. Are there traditional gender roles that are social constructs? Sure. Is gender itself a social construct, not even remotely. Reproduction is quite well documented and known, it isn’t some abstract thing that society made up.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        I'm sorry I don't quite follow. Which part of my comment are you replying to?

dwaltrip 5y ago

Historical precedent is not a very strong argument when it comes to scientific questions. What's the model? How can that model explain the observed phenomena? "XY = male and XX = female" is a very simplistic model and it doesn't seem to adequately explain everything that we see in the world. Perhaps it works for 97% of the cases (just guessing). We can do better than 97%. Let's work on finding a model that explains the world more accurately. P.S. Frogs can't talk :P So yeah, it would be rather silly to try asking it a question.

hitpointdrew 5y ago
What is the model you ask? It’s very simple XX chromosome is female, XY is male. Is that 100% of all cases ever. No, but hardly anything at all in science, or life, is. How do you classify a hermaphrodite? Does it matter? It’s a rare biological anomaly. Life is weird and strange things happen sometimes, that doesn’t mean that you throw the baby out with the bath water. It’s useful in life, science, and medicine to classify things biologically by their sex. If there are a few outliers that just go in “other” then so be it. > Frogs can’t talk That’s the whole point. How a frog feels, or perceives itself, is entirely irrelevant as to weather it is classified as a male or female. So why is it any different with humans? When we talk about male or female with other species there is no notion of a “social construct”, but somehow when talk about humans it’s supposed be different and not follow the rules we use with every other species on the planet? Why? Because some people feel bad? Sorry, not a good argument.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  >with other species there is no notion of a “social construct” That's only coming from our limited human perspectives. We can't communicate with another species at this point in time. We can't ask them about nuance in their social structures. We also can't assume that it doesn't exist because it's hard to observe.
  - hitpointdrew 5y ago
    Nothing you said refutes the fact that biological sex classification is 1) useful 2) has and continues to use the terms “male” and “female” for all species 3) such classification are scientific descriptions, not social constructs at all. Are there traditional gender roles that are social constructs? Sure. Is gender itself a social construct, not even remotely. Reproduction is quite well documented and known, it isn’t some abstract thing that society made up.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      I'm sorry I don't quite follow. Which part of my comment are you replying to?