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 did acknowledge it in every post. I said biological sex has two models and one is not a binary model. You made some absolutely inane assumptions about the future of scientific models.
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.
I did acknowledge it in every post. I said biological sex has two models and one is not a binary model. You made some absolutely inane assumptions about the future of scientific models.
I think you’re confusing sex with mating types again, but as long as we can agree for anisogamy