The culture was isnt lost, but it’s not going to be won by deciding that we can have a little hateful bigotry, as a treat, because black/Jew/queer/gay/trans is “icky”.
Case in point. I never mentioned any of those groups, and I never discriminated trans people. I disagreed with this fucking idiot that’s the extent of it. Thanks for “Trump: Birthright citizenship is a disgrace” thanks for that you stupid fucking cunts this is your fault.
You directly replied to a post talking about biological essentialism and a misunderstanding of sex as a mechanism for discriminating against trans people, telling them “get a grip” and that caring about that scientific reality is “stupid fucking shit.”
Whether you believe it is or not, that is a form of discrimination, as it essentially posits that we should just ignore these facts to appease closed-minded individuals to “win” the culture war, even if that “win” comes at the expense of… being trans not being considered “real” or “biologically accurate” by those who entirely misunderstand what being trans is.
You need to realize that pushing scientific fact to the margins to appease other people fighting the ‘culture war’ does nothing but harm people so those other people can continue to live in ignorance.
Your mentality is the same as someone arguing that we shouldn’t have talked about there being no biological evidence for black people being dumber than white people because that would “lose us the culture war” against white slave owners that think they should get to own slaves because black people are dumber than them. Maybe you win their votes, but you’ve done nothing but enable the continuation of slavery by not confronting its widely believed yet incorrect ideological backing.
Not talking about things like intersex individuals and the unknowns about the links between sex and gender doesn’t win you anything in the long term if it comes at the cost of every single trans and intersex person’s (millions of people in just the USA, and that’s likely an undercount) rights by backsliding on public understanding of the subject.
Variation within a binary makes it, by definition, not a binary system.
Binary is 1 and 0. If you can have 1.5, or 1.234098723, you don’t have a binary system, you have a spectrum.
For example, take this beautifully complicated diagram from Scientific American:
Typical biological males and females are on either end of the spectrum, yet other options exist in between. Hence, not a binary, but a spectrum.
What do you call someone with XY chromosomes but female reproductive structures? How about someone with XX or XY chromosomes but ambiguous genitals, or someone with XXXYY chromosomes? What about someone with mosaicism that causes some cells in their body to have just the X chromosome, and some to have XY, with varying changes in what % each makes up of their body throughout their life?
All of those are real conditions, and that’s just a fraction of them.
The reason this essentialism is stupid is because it assumes a spectrum can in fact be boiled down to a binary, and also that the spectrum must specifically begin, end, and be defined by what is “typical”, and assuming anyone’s sex must solely be determined by its proximity to one of the two options, rather than simply… being allowed to be its own thing that isn’t binary, because the reality, obviously, isn’t.
It’s not about “typical”. In anisogamous species, there’s sperm and there’s ova. Zero overlap. That’s what sex is. Any other definition is incoherent across species.
Should have figured you’d cite a known anti-trans organization that distorts scientific reality to make a point. (oh boy, I sure do wonder why they have an article titled “8-Step Action Plan to Eliminate Gender Ideology”, surely because they actually understand broadly accepted and heavily researched science and not because they just want to make a political point while sounding scientific!)
They think sex can only be determined by gametes. This ignores the fundamental reality that many humans do not produce either of them while retaining wholly ambiguous or non-ambiguous reproductive organs, that some humans can produce both (albeit rarely), or that some humans lose or gain the ability to produce one throughout their lives. (not producing ova until puberty? Tough luck, guess you’re not a female! Body hasn’t fully developed internal reproductive organs until later in life? Guess you’re sex-less until then! Does your body never produce sperm or ova because of a genetic issue? Guess it’s impossible to assign you a sex!)
It also ignores the fact that we tend to classify sex based on phenotypic characteristics. If someone has a penis, generally masculine face and fat distribution, but XX chromosomes and is still able to sometimes produce ova while not producing sperm, even if they’re missing the rest of the necessary reproductive functions, for all intensive purposes, you would call that person male. If every other part of their body is typically male, there is no reason to continually insist that person is actually a female because somewhere inside their body they can produce ova that don’t do anything.
If sex is determined by gametes, there are exceptions to the rule that can’t be classified solely as one or the other.
If sex is determined by chromosomes, then any exception from XX or XY disproves the rule.
If sex is determined by phenotypic characteristics, then we see a spectrum in how they present.
This also simply ignores the fundamental reality that even if you can oversimplify a complex condition into one of two more common options, it doesn’t mean that is correct or accurate to do so.
To use the analogy I used before, you could say that all numbers for simplicity, should be rounded to either 1 or 0, even if it’s 0.9, 0.2, or 0.2398547293875. That could be useful shorthand, and it could generally describe semi-closely how those numbers would operate within a broadly binary system, but at the end of the day those numbers are not 0 or 1.
Claiming that “0.9 = 1” would be stupid.
Claiming “0.9 is basically 1 so why bother ever giving it a different label” would be stupid.
Claiming “0.9 is close enough to 1 to not make a huge difference in outward perception and day-to-day use, so we can rely on it for shorthand while understanding 0.9 is not 1” would be very reasonable.
You cannot look at a spectrum, say “they’re still within the other 2, therefore there’s only 2”, and call it a day.
It’s true these conditions can present similarly to one of the two typical male or female sets of characteristics, or that they can derive from what are often the typical chromosomes of either group. It’s not true that they are male or female and there is only a binary and nothing else.
To borrow your analogy, gametes range from 0 - 1 and 100 - 101. That’s a binary.
If every other part of their body is typically male
What makes the rest of their body “typically male”? What does “male” mean? How can you define it in a way that make sense for humans, chickens, bees, and plants?
When you’re done thinking very hard, you’ll realize the answer.
Gametes.
Welcome to the scientific consensus. We’ll be here when you’re ready to accept the truth. And yes, someone that produces ova is female (or hermaphroditic in other species), regardless of secondary sex characteristics.
As detailed in many other comments, not being able to produce gametes does not mean one is sexless. Everyone is born with sexed structures in their bodies. No human is capable of producing fully functional gametes of both types. Even in the extreme case of ovotestes, they will have a semi-/non- functional gonad of one type, and nonfunctional bits of tissue of the other type.
Trying to introduce this argument displays your ignorance. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Other animals do have hermaphrodites and other reproductive systems, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androdioecy. Humans don’t. Those other species are a good example of what humans aren’t.
Oh, and good thing those charts included sources which you ignored. Here, I’ll zoom in on them for you.
Get a fucking grip on fucking reality you stupid fucking idiot. Stop inventing things in your head to disagree with you putrid rotting dog cunt.
I see you’re not exactly into constructive conversation. Maybe chill out instead of getting so angry at comments online that it sends you into a fit of swearing rage?
justify it
Sure. Any time, any day. I doubt you’ll even read past the first sentence given how irrationally angry you seem to be, but maybe you’ll prove me wrong.
The vast majority of people do not even know there are sexes that could be defined outside the binary of male and female. They don’t know that chromosome combinations outside XX and XY exist at all.
When people are told this, many of them refuse to accept it, and simply cast it as “outliers” that in the end, don’t change their belief that “there are only 2 sexes”, sometimes because their religion simply states there’s only 2 against all currently known evidence, or even if they are just more broadly liberal and would still say gender is separate from sex. It is an uncomfortable thing for some to come to terms with to understand that something so deeply ingrained into our culture is much more complicated than it seems at a glance.
This has been a known fact for centuries, and yet society broadly still assumes, by default, that it is “abnormal” and “undesirable”, so surgeries are often performed on intersex individuals as babies to “correct” their sex characteristics to match just the two binary options most people are familiar with, even if that individual later finds out and would otherwise have not wanted the surgery.
To this day, people like you are continuing to call people like me a “putrid rotting dog cunt” for explaining this well-researched, broadly demonstrated topic with widespread occurrences across the globe, when the more reasonable answer to being told such a fact would be to spend even a minute on any search engine to find out you’re going against the whole of medical consensus and seemingly getting incredibly incensed over the fact that nobody agrees with you.
Every part of their statement was either reaffirmed or backed up with additional supporting statements in what I wrote. Either you didn’t read what I typed, or you simply don’t have the greatest reading comprehension and can’t see how my statements back up what they originally posted.
you are just stating random facts I never disagreed with.
Those ‘random facts’ are directly reaffirming the other person’s statements, which you called “the stupidest fucking shit I have seen today.” Is it safe to say that you calling something stupid probably means you disagree with it?
You are disingenuous
Keep telling yourself that, I’m sure you gotta fuel that anger somehow. It’s not you who is wrong, it must be everyone else!
calling something stupid probably means you disagree with it?
Jesus fucking christ dude biological sex is everything you have describe what are you even disagreeing with because I am disagreeing with the sentiment of a fucking idiot I am not talking about gender.
This just goes to show transphobes and bigots refuse to learn about the reality we live in and instead lash out because something doesn’t fit their worldview.
I only see you lashing out. Op is 100% correct and you are refusing to learn anything. Instead you call people a putrid rotting dog. Honestly I bet a putrid rotting dog smells better than you do.
You need to get a grip it’s stupid fucking shit like this that cost us the culture war.
This illogical nontopic was started as a culture bomb to fracture the left imo. Sometime around 2015.
The culture was isnt lost, but it’s not going to be won by deciding that we can have a little hateful bigotry, as a treat, because black/Jew/queer/gay/trans is “icky”.
Case in point. I never mentioned any of those groups, and I never discriminated trans people. I disagreed with this fucking idiot that’s the extent of it. Thanks for “Trump: Birthright citizenship is a disgrace” thanks for that you stupid fucking cunts this is your fault.
You directly replied to a post talking about biological essentialism and a misunderstanding of sex as a mechanism for discriminating against trans people, telling them “get a grip” and that caring about that scientific reality is “stupid fucking shit.”
Whether you believe it is or not, that is a form of discrimination, as it essentially posits that we should just ignore these facts to appease closed-minded individuals to “win” the culture war, even if that “win” comes at the expense of… being trans not being considered “real” or “biologically accurate” by those who entirely misunderstand what being trans is.
You need to realize that pushing scientific fact to the margins to appease other people fighting the ‘culture war’ does nothing but harm people so those other people can continue to live in ignorance.
Your mentality is the same as someone arguing that we shouldn’t have talked about there being no biological evidence for black people being dumber than white people because that would “lose us the culture war” against white slave owners that think they should get to own slaves because black people are dumber than them. Maybe you win their votes, but you’ve done nothing but enable the continuation of slavery by not confronting its widely believed yet incorrect ideological backing.
Not talking about things like intersex individuals and the unknowns about the links between sex and gender doesn’t win you anything in the long term if it comes at the cost of every single trans and intersex person’s (millions of people in just the USA, and that’s likely an undercount) rights by backsliding on public understanding of the subject.
Intersex individuals demonstrate variation within the sex binary. They’re still male or female.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
Please stop pushing the idea that reality is “biological essentialism”.
Variation within a binary makes it, by definition, not a binary system.
Binary is 1 and 0. If you can have 1.5, or 1.234098723, you don’t have a binary system, you have a spectrum.
For example, take this beautifully complicated diagram from Scientific American:
Typical biological males and females are on either end of the spectrum, yet other options exist in between. Hence, not a binary, but a spectrum.
What do you call someone with XY chromosomes but female reproductive structures? How about someone with XX or XY chromosomes but ambiguous genitals, or someone with XXXYY chromosomes? What about someone with mosaicism that causes some cells in their body to have just the X chromosome, and some to have XY, with varying changes in what % each makes up of their body throughout their life?
All of those are real conditions, and that’s just a fraction of them.
The reason this essentialism is stupid is because it assumes a spectrum can in fact be boiled down to a binary, and also that the spectrum must specifically begin, end, and be defined by what is “typical”, and assuming anyone’s sex must solely be determined by its proximity to one of the two options, rather than simply… being allowed to be its own thing that isn’t binary, because the reality, obviously, isn’t.
2 disjunct spectra form a binary. This is fact.
Those conditions all are male or female DSDs. You can see that here:
https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts
For example, a male DSD:
XY female:
The binary exists. Biologists have observed it.
It’s not about “typical”. In anisogamous species, there’s sperm and there’s ova. Zero overlap. That’s what sex is. Any other definition is incoherent across species.
Should have figured you’d cite a known anti-trans organization that distorts scientific reality to make a point. (oh boy, I sure do wonder why they have an article titled “8-Step Action Plan to Eliminate Gender Ideology”, surely because they actually understand broadly accepted and heavily researched science and not because they just want to make a political point while sounding scientific!)
They think sex can only be determined by gametes. This ignores the fundamental reality that many humans do not produce either of them while retaining wholly ambiguous or non-ambiguous reproductive organs, that some humans can produce both (albeit rarely), or that some humans lose or gain the ability to produce one throughout their lives. (not producing ova until puberty? Tough luck, guess you’re not a female! Body hasn’t fully developed internal reproductive organs until later in life? Guess you’re sex-less until then! Does your body never produce sperm or ova because of a genetic issue? Guess it’s impossible to assign you a sex!)
It also ignores the fact that we tend to classify sex based on phenotypic characteristics. If someone has a penis, generally masculine face and fat distribution, but XX chromosomes and is still able to sometimes produce ova while not producing sperm, even if they’re missing the rest of the necessary reproductive functions, for all intensive purposes, you would call that person male. If every other part of their body is typically male, there is no reason to continually insist that person is actually a female because somewhere inside their body they can produce ova that don’t do anything.
If sex is determined by gametes, there are exceptions to the rule that can’t be classified solely as one or the other.
If sex is determined by chromosomes, then any exception from XX or XY disproves the rule.
If sex is determined by phenotypic characteristics, then we see a spectrum in how they present.
This also simply ignores the fundamental reality that even if you can oversimplify a complex condition into one of two more common options, it doesn’t mean that is correct or accurate to do so.
To use the analogy I used before, you could say that all numbers for simplicity, should be rounded to either 1 or 0, even if it’s 0.9, 0.2, or 0.2398547293875. That could be useful shorthand, and it could generally describe semi-closely how those numbers would operate within a broadly binary system, but at the end of the day those numbers are not 0 or 1.
Claiming that “0.9 = 1” would be stupid.
Claiming “0.9 is basically 1 so why bother ever giving it a different label” would be stupid.
Claiming “0.9 is close enough to 1 to not make a huge difference in outward perception and day-to-day use, so we can rely on it for shorthand while understanding 0.9 is not 1” would be very reasonable.
You cannot look at a spectrum, say “they’re still within the other 2, therefore there’s only 2”, and call it a day.
It’s true these conditions can present similarly to one of the two typical male or female sets of characteristics, or that they can derive from what are often the typical chromosomes of either group. It’s not true that they are male or female and there is only a binary and nothing else.
To borrow your analogy, gametes range from 0 - 1 and 100 - 101. That’s a binary.
What makes the rest of their body “typically male”? What does “male” mean? How can you define it in a way that make sense for humans, chickens, bees, and plants?
When you’re done thinking very hard, you’ll realize the answer.
Gametes.
Welcome to the scientific consensus. We’ll be here when you’re ready to accept the truth. And yes, someone that produces ova is female (or hermaphroditic in other species), regardless of secondary sex characteristics.
As detailed in many other comments, not being able to produce gametes does not mean one is sexless. Everyone is born with sexed structures in their bodies. No human is capable of producing fully functional gametes of both types. Even in the extreme case of ovotestes, they will have a semi-/non- functional gonad of one type, and nonfunctional bits of tissue of the other type.
Trying to introduce this argument displays your ignorance. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Other animals do have hermaphrodites and other reproductive systems, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androdioecy. Humans don’t. Those other species are a good example of what humans aren’t.
Oh, and good thing those charts included sources which you ignored. Here, I’ll zoom in on them for you.
Removed by mod
I see you’re not exactly into constructive conversation. Maybe chill out instead of getting so angry at comments online that it sends you into a fit of swearing rage?
Sure. Any time, any day. I doubt you’ll even read past the first sentence given how irrationally angry you seem to be, but maybe you’ll prove me wrong.
Removed by mod
Every part of their statement was either reaffirmed or backed up with additional supporting statements in what I wrote. Either you didn’t read what I typed, or you simply don’t have the greatest reading comprehension and can’t see how my statements back up what they originally posted.
Those ‘random facts’ are directly reaffirming the other person’s statements, which you called “the stupidest fucking shit I have seen today.” Is it safe to say that you calling something stupid probably means you disagree with it?
Keep telling yourself that, I’m sure you gotta fuel that anger somehow. It’s not you who is wrong, it must be everyone else!
Jesus fucking christ dude biological sex is everything you have describe what are you even disagreeing with because I am disagreeing with the sentiment of a fucking idiot I am not talking about gender.
This just goes to show transphobes and bigots refuse to learn about the reality we live in and instead lash out because something doesn’t fit their worldview.
That’s what OP is doing.
I only see you lashing out. Op is 100% correct and you are refusing to learn anything. Instead you call people a putrid rotting dog. Honestly I bet a putrid rotting dog smells better than you do.
Why? Because it fits your worldview?
I am not being taught anything I don’t already know.