5 ms·

You didn’t read the article. There are two developmental pathways for sexual reproduction: - one produces small mobile gametes - one produces large immobile ga

You didn’t read the article. There are two developmental pathways for sexual reproduction: - one produces small mobile gametes - one produces large immobile gametes There can be plenty of variation in how an individual organism in different species ends up on one pathway or the other, there can be plenty of variation in how an individual organism on either pathway develops, and there can be plenty of variation in how an individual on either pathway behaves. But in sexually reproductive organisms, there are only two pathways. A male who wants to obey stereotypical feminine stereotypes in behaviour and dress is free to do so, but it doesn’t make him any kind of female, or a different kind of male.

phs318u 4mo ago
You didn’t read my linked article. And you are still trying to shoehorn an entire spectrum of biological expression which is a function of chromosomes, genes, hormones, fully or partially developed sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics, into two buckets - which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics. The thing about reality is that it persists no matter how stridently one denies it.
- appreciatorBus 4mo ago
  > which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics. Nope. Not what I said at all. Nothing I said in any way related to the idea that some combinations were “blessed”. Merely that there are two pathways. Individuals may travel those two pathways in numerous ways, but until someone discovers a third gamete, there are only two pathways. > The thing about reality is that it persists no matter how stridently one denies it. Very true! No matter how many drugs or how many surgeries or behaviour changes, reality persists - males in dresses are still male, females in suits are still female.
  - phs318u 4mo ago
    You sir, are no biologist.
    - joenot443 4mo ago
      Which part of his comment are you disagreeing with when you say that?
      - phs318u 4mo ago
        The part where he’s chosen to ignore all the physical developmental factors that contribute to how sexuality is expressed in the body and focus solely on gametes in order to fit the world into a preconceived notion of “male” and “female”. I’ll give an analogy. Male and female are to biology as orbitals are to nuclear physics. A really, really useful shorthand. But they do not describe actual physical electrons “orbiting” a nucleus. Don’t mistake the shorthand for the reality. Scientific shorthand is generally not useful for reasonably discussing edge cases.
SubiculumCode 4mo ago
No biologist is an essentialist for long. Sorry, the author makes a good argument that there are only two sexes if and only if you ou define sex by the specific definition of gametes. The author is not wrong within that limited scope. But, what really matters is the phenotype of sex, which is not binary, is highly overlapping, and is a complex developmental phenomenon. When people get all up in arms being anti trans, they are not getting up in arms about people not respecting the gametes... They are getting up in arms because they don't like it that the expression of sex phenotypes is heterogenous, overlapping, and scary, and that makes their small minds feel funny. Because they want to pretend that the world can be categorized into simple boxes that alleviate their anxiety, and gives them a sense of control. No, they don't even fucking know what a gamete is, for the most, and we sure as hell didn't know 200 years ago. If you want to define biological sex as only being the gametes, fine. But that is a small thing. It's a definition that has little relevance. All the phenotypic variability in the expressed biology, phenotypic expression that depends on multifactorial developmental processes that can go in any of a billion different directions, that, while informed by sex chromosomes, are also affected by other non sex chromosomes genes, and also from variability in environmental exposures, which can affect the timing and dosing of sex hormones during development that actually DIFFERENTIATES thr biology? This article, and your perspective, only finds solid ground by limiting what biological sex encompasses to such a small piece of territory, that ceding that kingdom loses nothing meaningful, certainly not in how bodies are made, how sex is expressed and lived in, and to what matters in shaping their lives, personalities, who they feel akin to, and everything else. Have the gamete, who gives a shit? Get it?
- Terr_ 4mo ago
  > If you want to define biological sex as only being the gametes Compare to: "If it burns diesel, it's a truck, if it burns gasoline, it's a car. Thus, there are only two kinds with no overlap, easy peasy."
  - phs318u 4mo ago
    Are humans as simple as cars though? And why does sexuality get represented by the energy source n your analogy? Why doesn’t sexuality get represented by other characteristics? Perhaps because “there’s only two kinds - sedans and pickups” sounds a little silly?

phs318u 4mo ago

You didn’t read my linked article. And you are still trying to shoehorn an entire spectrum of biological expression which is a function of chromosomes, genes, hormones, fully or partially developed sex organs and secondary sexual characteristics, into two buckets - which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics. The thing about reality is that it persists no matter how stridently one denies it.

appreciatorBus 4mo ago
> which are really just two “blessed” combinations of the above characteristics. Nope. Not what I said at all. Nothing I said in any way related to the idea that some combinations were “blessed”. Merely that there are two pathways. Individuals may travel those two pathways in numerous ways, but until someone discovers a third gamete, there are only two pathways. > The thing about reality is that it persists no matter how stridently one denies it. Very true! No matter how many drugs or how many surgeries or behaviour changes, reality persists - males in dresses are still male, females in suits are still female.
- phs318u 4mo ago
  You sir, are no biologist.
  - joenot443 4mo ago
    Which part of his comment are you disagreeing with when you say that?
    - phs318u 4mo ago
      The part where he’s chosen to ignore all the physical developmental factors that contribute to how sexuality is expressed in the body and focus solely on gametes in order to fit the world into a preconceived notion of “male” and “female”. I’ll give an analogy. Male and female are to biology as orbitals are to nuclear physics. A really, really useful shorthand. But they do not describe actual physical electrons “orbiting” a nucleus. Don’t mistake the shorthand for the reality. Scientific shorthand is generally not useful for reasonably discussing edge cases.

SubiculumCode 4mo ago

No biologist is an essentialist for long. Sorry, the author makes a good argument that there are only two sexes if and only if you ou define sex by the specific definition of gametes. The author is not wrong within that limited scope. But, what really matters is the phenotype of sex, which is not binary, is highly overlapping, and is a complex developmental phenomenon. When people get all up in arms being anti trans, they are not getting up in arms about people not respecting the gametes... They are getting up in arms because they don't like it that the expression of sex phenotypes is heterogenous, overlapping, and scary, and that makes their small minds feel funny. Because they want to pretend that the world can be categorized into simple boxes that alleviate their anxiety, and gives them a sense of control. No, they don't even fucking know what a gamete is, for the most, and we sure as hell didn't know 200 years ago. If you want to define biological sex as only being the gametes, fine. But that is a small thing. It's a definition that has little relevance. All the phenotypic variability in the expressed biology, phenotypic expression that depends on multifactorial developmental processes that can go in any of a billion different directions, that, while informed by sex chromosomes, are also affected by other non sex chromosomes genes, and also from variability in environmental exposures, which can affect the timing and dosing of sex hormones during development that actually DIFFERENTIATES thr biology? This article, and your perspective, only finds solid ground by limiting what biological sex encompasses to such a small piece of territory, that ceding that kingdom loses nothing meaningful, certainly not in how bodies are made, how sex is expressed and lived in, and to what matters in shaping their lives, personalities, who they feel akin to, and everything else. Have the gamete, who gives a shit? Get it?

Terr_ 4mo ago
> If you want to define biological sex as only being the gametes Compare to: "If it burns diesel, it's a truck, if it burns gasoline, it's a car. Thus, there are only two kinds with no overlap, easy peasy."
- phs318u 4mo ago
  Are humans as simple as cars though? And why does sexuality get represented by the energy source n your analogy? Why doesn’t sexuality get represented by other characteristics? Perhaps because “there’s only two kinds - sedans and pickups” sounds a little silly?