4 ms·

Like basically every biological category, the borders of biological sex are blurred. But the vast, vast majority of animals slot into one or the other category.

Like basically every biological category, the borders of biological sex are blurred. But the vast, vast majority of animals slot into one or the other category. So it’s pretty reasonable to accept the GP’s premise - that sexual dimorphism is real. The exceptions prove the rule. > non-heterosexuals and transgender The discussion here is about biological sex and its medical implications. People who change their gender, or exhibit traits of the opposite gender, aren’t relevant to this conversation. Edit: commenters below me make some good points that I didn’t consider when writing this. I slightly regret this comment now, but can’t delete it at this point. e.g: the fact that transgender people are relevant to this debate because of HRT, which is true, I didn’t think of that.

Latty 4y ago
> The discussion here is about biological sex and its medical implications. People who change their gender, or exhibit traits of the opposite gender, aren’t relevant to this conversation. This seems obviously false. If the link is based around sex hormones, as an example, then being on HRT clearly changes your risk. As with all things, correlation vs causation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
matthewmacleod 4y ago
People who change their gender, or exhibit traits of the opposite gender, aren’t relevant to this conversation. Well, they can be – treatment with e.g. hormone therapy has obvious physiological impacts with subsequent influence on the effect of other medical treatments. Nobody serious doubts that there exist sex-linked physiological characteristics; in reality, the original statement that "sexual dimorphism is real" isn't intended to share knowledge, but a subtle signal about something else.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> The discussion here is about biological sex and its medical implications. People who change their gender, or exhibit traits of the opposite gender, aren’t relevant to this conversation. “Biological sex” is a catchall label for a wide basket of traits that tends to cluster in two large groups. Almost anything attributed to it is, on further examination, really a result of some more specific subset of those traits, which may overlap those certain individuals exhibit that are not stereotypical for their birth gender for whatever reason. So, yes, those differences matter.
CoastalCoder 4y ago
> The exceptions prove the rule. Could you explain what you mean here?

Latty 4y ago

> The discussion here is about biological sex and its medical implications. People who change their gender, or exhibit traits of the opposite gender, aren’t relevant to this conversation. This seems obviously false. If the link is based around sex hormones, as an example, then being on HRT clearly changes your risk. As with all things, correlation vs causation.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

matthewmacleod 4y ago

People who change their gender, or exhibit traits of the opposite gender, aren’t relevant to this conversation. Well, they can be – treatment with e.g. hormone therapy has obvious physiological impacts with subsequent influence on the effect of other medical treatments. Nobody serious doubts that there exist sex-linked physiological characteristics; in reality, the original statement that "sexual dimorphism is real" isn't intended to share knowledge, but a subtle signal about something else.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> The discussion here is about biological sex and its medical implications. People who change their gender, or exhibit traits of the opposite gender, aren’t relevant to this conversation. “Biological sex” is a catchall label for a wide basket of traits that tends to cluster in two large groups. Almost anything attributed to it is, on further examination, really a result of some more specific subset of those traits, which may overlap those certain individuals exhibit that are not stereotypical for their birth gender for whatever reason. So, yes, those differences matter.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

> The exceptions prove the rule. Could you explain what you mean here?