My point is that biologists use the binary to simplify explanations of reality. In reality, what we call “sex” is just an observable variable trait. The question of “what is sex” is just philosophical.
Also, you say that despite what she says, that people will interpret this as “there are five sexes”, when the paragraph that DOES reference her doesn’t say so in the slightest.
You’d have to only read the title of her work to get this conclusion. Quite reactionary, but not unnexpected from a guy who did a video in PragerU of all fucking places lol.
For biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male;
This is what she believes . It was so easy to spot even when reading diagonaly. The next sentence is an observation on the subject.
[…] and depending on how one calls the shots, one can argue that along that spectrum lie at least five sexes-and perhaps even more.
Here, she is saying that sex can be defined alongside this spectrum, depending on how you see things. You can split it up as as many subjective categories as you want. That is her point. To suggest otherwise is pretty disingenuous.
Speaking of disingenuous, I’m not saying your argument, as in you’re the only one making it. No fucking shit. I’m talking about your argument in the context of this conversation (honestly, I can barely call it that). You ignore the points I made below and just slap a definition, answering none of them. What do you mean “immaterial”??? It is by definition material. It has direct consequences on the material realities of these people. Who do you think is doing the corrective surgeries? Randoes on the street? No, it is doctors that use this definition to justify what they do.
Your biologist guy left academia a while ago. His PhD is honestly irrelevant, especialy since he’s a grifter. The fact that you cite a person that is clearly against trans people and that has to grift because he left academia makes me wonder if you actually take trans people and their struggles seriously: https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/biology/colin-wright/
Honestly I should’ve ended this convo the more I read about this guy. The fact that you take a transphobic grifter seriously, as your evidence, and don’t cite anyone else should’ve been the end of that conversation. Not just on the definition of sex, but on disregarding another academic’s text based on only the title at worse, or on the fact that he can’t read at best. If you want an example of how that definition is used to harm people, look no further than the person you are citing. I’m honestly done with your bullshit
Most biologists accept the facts and move on to more interesting things. He’s willing to write the “no duh” explainers. If you don’t like him, take your pick of people with other relevant credentials listed here that signed a statement affirming the same (in addition to the other link I posted to another well-respected biologist agreeing with him)
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.
Immaterial to the truth of it. Dislike 1 + 1 = 2 all you want, it’s still true.
That paper cites her seriously when it was apparently “ironic”. I didn’t say that paper quoted her about 5 sexes, but nowhere does it note that it was “ironic”.
depending on how you see things.
Biologists have observed that sex is binary. She’s free to “see things” however she wants, but mistaking the basic variations within the binary for a non-binary spectrum won’t get her taken seriously by biologists (or anyone)
It’s equally true to note that sex has been observed to be binary. You’re correct to note that they’re true for different reasons. If that is your only quibble, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the sex binary.
My point is that biologists use the binary to simplify explanations of reality. In reality, what we call “sex” is just an observable variable trait. The question of “what is sex” is just philosophical.
Also, you say that despite what she says, that people will interpret this as “there are five sexes”, when the paragraph that DOES reference her doesn’t say so in the slightest.
You’d have to only read the title of her work to get this conclusion. Quite reactionary, but not unnexpected from a guy who did a video in PragerU of all fucking places lol.
This is what she believes . It was so easy to spot even when reading diagonaly. The next sentence is an observation on the subject.
Here, she is saying that sex can be defined alongside this spectrum, depending on how you see things. You can split it up as as many subjective categories as you want. That is her point. To suggest otherwise is pretty disingenuous.
Speaking of disingenuous, I’m not saying your argument, as in you’re the only one making it. No fucking shit. I’m talking about your argument in the context of this conversation (honestly, I can barely call it that). You ignore the points I made below and just slap a definition, answering none of them. What do you mean “immaterial”??? It is by definition material. It has direct consequences on the material realities of these people. Who do you think is doing the corrective surgeries? Randoes on the street? No, it is doctors that use this definition to justify what they do.
Your biologist guy left academia a while ago. His PhD is honestly irrelevant, especialy since he’s a grifter. The fact that you cite a person that is clearly against trans people and that has to grift because he left academia makes me wonder if you actually take trans people and their struggles seriously: https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/biology/colin-wright/
Honestly I should’ve ended this convo the more I read about this guy. The fact that you take a transphobic grifter seriously, as your evidence, and don’t cite anyone else should’ve been the end of that conversation. Not just on the definition of sex, but on disregarding another academic’s text based on only the title at worse, or on the fact that he can’t read at best. If you want an example of how that definition is used to harm people, look no further than the person you are citing. I’m honestly done with your bullshit
Most biologists accept the facts and move on to more interesting things. He’s willing to write the “no duh” explainers. If you don’t like him, take your pick of people with other relevant credentials listed here that signed a statement affirming the same (in addition to the other link I posted to another well-respected biologist agreeing with him)
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Immaterial to the truth of it. Dislike 1 + 1 = 2 all you want, it’s still true.
That paper cites her seriously when it was apparently “ironic”. I didn’t say that paper quoted her about 5 sexes, but nowhere does it note that it was “ironic”.
Biologists have observed that sex is binary. She’s free to “see things” however she wants, but mistaking the basic variations within the binary for a non-binary spectrum won’t get her taken seriously by biologists (or anyone)
Funny thing: 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t material, it’s derived of axioms. You don’t know what you’re talking about
It’s equally true to note that sex has been observed to be binary. You’re correct to note that they’re true for different reasons. If that is your only quibble, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the sex binary.