tahira @ tahira @hilariouschaos.com Posts 6Comments 42Joined 2 wk. ago
I didn't define sex that way, the entire field of biology did. That's literally the biological definition. You're pushing unscientific nonsense if you claim otherwise
Until you are trying to produce offspring with them, or providing them with medical treatment, you have precisely zero interest in the sex of another person, let alone a scientific interest.
Women deserve their own spaces, free of men. Women want their own spaces.
Men that feel like women are still men and can have their own spaces, but don't get women's spaces
My claim was that the specific gametes an individual may or may not produce is not socially relevant
You're denying reality. That man didn't care how the people he assaulted identified as. Men don't care if the women they rape identify as men.
Stop speaking over women.
Can you not imagine the possibility that it isn’t the best way to determine it?
The definition you're pushing is incoherent garbage. If there's actually a better definition, great. Yours isn't it.
That still leaves my other citations in tact
I'm not going to wade through a bunch of garbage. You couldn't even be arsed to figure out that the author isn't a serious academic and won't stand behind her own work before citing it. Find real citations first. A shit poll isn't a citation either
Should we also make science more Christian-inclusive? Avoid teaching things that are offensive to them? That would surely increase the number of scientists.
No, because that would be silly. Science doesn't care how you identify. Put up or shut up
It doesn't matter what I think of you, a person on the internet. It takes an immense amount of privilege to claim that sex doesn't matter in the real world.
Don't speak over women.
They'll make one of two gamete sizes, which is how sex is defined.
That link is a great example of why gender studies degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on, goddamn. They're not doing science, they're zealots pushing for a new religion to infect science just like creationists of old 🤦
https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.21-12-0343
We provide teaching suggestions derived from student interviews for making biology more queer-inclusive.
As discussed, the intersex debate has pushed forward talks about biological precision in terminology, and ways to properly define such things.
No. You're once again confusing sex with phenotype an/d genotype. The only thing that unites a large swathe of the animal kingdom in regards to sex is gamete size. If we toss that out, we lose precision
It is in fact not. You’re confusing “determining” and “defining”
No, that is precisely my point. Sex is determined by many different factors especially across species. Sex is defined as gamete size because there's no other coherent definition.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7b48/0e9ed3d69747f048cda5a6bfb992cb6897f3.pdf
You really pick bad citations. Citing someone who says "oh i was just being ironic!" is laughable.
She also confuses sex and phenotypes as you have been and those other citations do.
It doesn't matter what I think of you. The reality is that you produce one of two gamete sizes, and that determines your biological sex. This is binary and immutable. If you can't agree with scientific consensus that's fine, just be honest.
Sex is defined by gamete size. You're confusing sex with phenotype/genotype. Intersex people still produce one of two gamete sizes
Gamete size is binary. It's sperm or eggs, there's no "spergs" or "speggs". The advanced scientific consensus is exactly that sex is defined by gamete size. You won't be able to cite anything else, because that's the plain reality.
What size gametes do they make?
You're confusing sex and genotype. Those are variations within a sex. They'll still produce one of two gamete sizes
Is literally any discussion or debate on the topic inappropriate?
Gender is appropriate for sociology. Biology doesn't give a shit what you identify as. It has no place in a biology textbook. It's not moving the field forward, it's trying to push a worse and irrelevant definition.
I disagree that the only way to determine the sex of an individual is gamete size
Bully for you, but your opinion is irrelevant to the scientific consensus.
The author also wrote an article that is addressing your exact questions: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/how-our-shoes-can-help-explain-the
The article basically consists of “I don’t like it when people do this
Again, this is not just some random opinion. This is is not equal to your opinion. This is a PhD in evolutionary biology writing about the scientific consensus. You're free to disagree with the scientific consensus, but you should admit you're no better than a creationist spouting off "god did it".
Do you agree with the basic scientific consensus, that sex is binary and immutable?
The scientific consensus is that sex is binary and immutable. If you disagree, feel free to provide any citation to the contrary.
Which by the way, does not inherently involve transgender people at all. People can feel and present however they want. They cannot however change their biological sex, regardless of how many hormones or surgeries they get. This is a fact that you cannot refute. You're free to disagree, but know that you're denying basic science. You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Those are all variations within a sex. You're confusing sex with the phenotype and genotype.
Anyone can change their gender because it's all made up. Nobody can change the type of gametes they do or would produce.
So I would agree with that 58%, because there's no option for "Yes, and intersex is irrelevant". It's honestly a terrible poll, most likely not written by a biologist. I wouldn't be surprised if that 13% put down "Prefer not to say" as a sort of "This is a bad poll" response.
I'll let the quoted scientist in the source of the poll respond.
“Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts,” he said.
“While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex.
“On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species.”
Scientific consensus is transphobia?
