In mammals, there are two types of gamete and two classes of reproductive anatomy. The male sex class produces many small motile gametes – sperm – for transfer. The female sex class produces few large immobile gametes – ova – and gestates/delivers live young. […] Biological sex does not meet the defining criteria for a spectrum. […] Not one of these individuals represents an additional sex class.
(Because it sadly needs to be said, I’m not “citing wordpress”, I’m citing a project created by a PhD Developmental Biology with many signatories with relevant credentials, which she chose to host on wordpress)
Bringing up hyenas is ironic, because it’s a great illustration of why sex is defined that way. Female hyenas have a pseudopenis. But how can we tell that they’re female? Because they produce the larger of two gamete types! Without the gametic definition of sex, there’s no way of talking about “female” across species.
Sex is defined by gamete production because it’s the only coherent way to describe the reality that biologists have found across all anisogamous species.
Sex currently has 2 plus several proposed additional definitions.
Biology has one definition of sex, that has remain unchanged for well over a century, and has no serious attempts to change it.
Look if you don’t understand what models are I would encourage you to take a single college level science class.
Biology and science in general isn’t axiomatic. Mathematical models are which governs how to apply them. You’re making the mistake people who have never waded into science frequently make. You can define sex a certain way but the models can easily change.
I just quoted people with PhDs in the subject at hand, telling you that you’re wrong. Do you think that they’ve maybe taken a single college level science class?
That they are defining the model. The model is based on observations. And the model can change in the future.
That is the fundamental context being abandoned here. Biology is driven by observations. If they came across something that complicated the model they would change the model. Again you’re putting the cart before the horse. The quotes your using assume the audience understands some amount of science.
The model could change if a third gamete type evolved, but that’s not a caveat worth mentioning. Maybe we’d get a sperg! Or a spegg!
Stop being silly because you’re pissy about being wrong. Another quote from the same Phd Evolutionary Biology as above:
contemporary scientific debates have long moved on from questioning whether the sex binary is a fact to questions about how anisogamy evolved, why it persists, and what its evolutionary consequences are.
Anisogomy is by definition binary because they’re a subset of multiple models but we were talking about biological sexes which includes plant and fungi models of sex which are absolutely not binaries and are more complicated. You’re clearly unfit to have this discussion if you think your quote is some kind of “gotcha”.
I’m getting redditor debate bro energy from you. Go take a science class and stop misquoting people. Anisogomy specifically refers to a subgroup of plant and animal reproduction.
You’re confusing sex with mating types. But thank you for finally acknowledging that anisogamy is by definition binary.
I realize that the accentuation there might come across as sarcastic, but it’s genuine. Too many people are trying to argue with me about things I’m not saying or they misunderstand. My original comment should’ve been an entirely uncontroversial minor correction.
I mean, you’re just flat-out wrong. You should listen to those lectures, they would do you some good.
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
(Because it sadly needs to be said, I’m not “citing wordpress”, I’m citing a project created by a PhD Developmental Biology with many signatories with relevant credentials, which she chose to host on wordpress)
Bringing up hyenas is ironic, because it’s a great illustration of why sex is defined that way. Female hyenas have a pseudopenis. But how can we tell that they’re female? Because they produce the larger of two gamete types! Without the gametic definition of sex, there’s no way of talking about “female” across species.
Sex is defined by gamete production because it’s the only coherent way to describe the reality that biologists have found across all anisogamous species.
Biology has one definition of sex, that has remain unchanged for well over a century, and has no serious attempts to change it.
Look if you don’t understand what models are I would encourage you to take a single college level science class.
Biology and science in general isn’t axiomatic. Mathematical models are which governs how to apply them. You’re making the mistake people who have never waded into science frequently make. You can define sex a certain way but the models can easily change.
I just quoted people with PhDs in the subject at hand, telling you that you’re wrong. Do you think that they’ve maybe taken a single college level science class?
You’re taking the quotes out of context. When people write like that they assume the reader understands scientific models.
What additional context is missing?
I’ll also cite another PhD Evolutionary Biology, also telling you directly that you’re wrong
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
You can read more of it if you’d like, but there’s no more context that softens that direct rebuttal of your point.
That they are defining the model. The model is based on observations. And the model can change in the future.
That is the fundamental context being abandoned here. Biology is driven by observations. If they came across something that complicated the model they would change the model. Again you’re putting the cart before the horse. The quotes your using assume the audience understands some amount of science.
The model could change if a third gamete type evolved, but that’s not a caveat worth mentioning. Maybe we’d get a sperg! Or a spegg!
Stop being silly because you’re pissy about being wrong. Another quote from the same Phd Evolutionary Biology as above:
Anisogomy is by definition binary because they’re a subset of multiple models but we were talking about biological sexes which includes plant and fungi models of sex which are absolutely not binaries and are more complicated. You’re clearly unfit to have this discussion if you think your quote is some kind of “gotcha”.
I’m getting redditor debate bro energy from you. Go take a science class and stop misquoting people. Anisogomy specifically refers to a subgroup of plant and animal reproduction.
You’re confusing sex with mating types. But thank you for finally acknowledging that anisogamy is by definition binary.
I realize that the accentuation there might come across as sarcastic, but it’s genuine. Too many people are trying to argue with me about things I’m not saying or they misunderstand. My original comment should’ve been an entirely uncontroversial minor correction.