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.
To borrow your analogy, gametes range from 0 - 1 and 100 - 101. That’s a binary.
There is also the absence of gametes entirely. Hence, you can’t just rely on gametes to determine sex unless you also think humans can be sex-less.
You’re also presupposing, again, that gametes must be the sole way we determine sex, therefore if they are a binary, sex is a binary. You can have something that is a binary that is also irrelevant or not the sole determiner of what something is as part of another category.
What makes the reset of their body “typically male”?
This is broadly considered by most people for most purposes to be the phenotypic characteristics we most often associate with people considered male. We determined that a group of people commonly had a similar set of phenotypic characteristics, and applied the term “male” to it. This is subjectively determined by society. We could have additionally defined sex based on skin colors, the size or shape of reproductive organs, eye color, etc. We just decided we wanted a category to broadly define people’s phenotypic characteristics, so we looked at the two most distinct, broad groups, and didn’t bother splitting up further. The category does not have a sole, objective determiner, as I’ve demonstrated to you multiple times now. You can have one gamete, both gametes, neither gametes, or only have or stop having a particular gamete at a different point in your life. They do not make for a bulletproof framework underlying sex determination.
It is like asking me to define what a “chair” is. I could say something with a flat surface, back, and 4 legs, but that could accommodate a bench or a bed, for example. it has objectively measurable characteristics, most chairs will be readily identified as a chair and not a bench or a bed by most people, but you will also find some pieces of furniture that are just close enough for people to have differing opinions on. There is no objective measurement. This is annoying to our human brains that love to have a more concrete understanding of things, which is why the outdated idea of the sex binary persists in spite of all evidence of those who don’t land neatly on either side.
Later, as science has progressed, we have found that many people do not solely have this similar set of phenotypic or genotypic characteristics, or have the same phenotypic characteristics with different genotypic ones. Thus, we have expanded our understanding of what sex is to clarify that we know it is not a binary, since we can see that individuals exist without fitting neatly into these groups. This is why the term intersex exists. Science changes when we learn more about the natural world, you are just refusing to acknowledge the advancements we have made in our understanding of human sex over time.
Welcome to the scientific consensus.
I could say the same to you, but you seem intent on rejecting what we’ve learned because it’s not as neat and simple as you want it to be. Sex is messy, sex is a spectrum, nearly all scientists agree on this fact.
I can tell this isn’t a productive conversation, and you seem to be dead set on staying exactly where you are, comfortably holding the same beliefs irrespective of all evidence, so I’m going to mute this thread for myself now. Feel free to respond, but you won’t get another response from me, it’d be a waste of my time.
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.
There is also the absence of gametes entirely. Hence, you can’t just rely on gametes to determine sex unless you also think humans can be sex-less.
You’re also presupposing, again, that gametes must be the sole way we determine sex, therefore if they are a binary, sex is a binary. You can have something that is a binary that is also irrelevant or not the sole determiner of what something is as part of another category.
This is broadly considered by most people for most purposes to be the phenotypic characteristics we most often associate with people considered male. We determined that a group of people commonly had a similar set of phenotypic characteristics, and applied the term “male” to it. This is subjectively determined by society. We could have additionally defined sex based on skin colors, the size or shape of reproductive organs, eye color, etc. We just decided we wanted a category to broadly define people’s phenotypic characteristics, so we looked at the two most distinct, broad groups, and didn’t bother splitting up further. The category does not have a sole, objective determiner, as I’ve demonstrated to you multiple times now. You can have one gamete, both gametes, neither gametes, or only have or stop having a particular gamete at a different point in your life. They do not make for a bulletproof framework underlying sex determination.
It is like asking me to define what a “chair” is. I could say something with a flat surface, back, and 4 legs, but that could accommodate a bench or a bed, for example. it has objectively measurable characteristics, most chairs will be readily identified as a chair and not a bench or a bed by most people, but you will also find some pieces of furniture that are just close enough for people to have differing opinions on. There is no objective measurement. This is annoying to our human brains that love to have a more concrete understanding of things, which is why the outdated idea of the sex binary persists in spite of all evidence of those who don’t land neatly on either side.
Later, as science has progressed, we have found that many people do not solely have this similar set of phenotypic or genotypic characteristics, or have the same phenotypic characteristics with different genotypic ones. Thus, we have expanded our understanding of what sex is to clarify that we know it is not a binary, since we can see that individuals exist without fitting neatly into these groups. This is why the term intersex exists. Science changes when we learn more about the natural world, you are just refusing to acknowledge the advancements we have made in our understanding of human sex over time.
I could say the same to you, but you seem intent on rejecting what we’ve learned because it’s not as neat and simple as you want it to be. Sex is messy, sex is a spectrum, nearly all scientists agree on this fact.
I can tell this isn’t a productive conversation, and you seem to be dead set on staying exactly where you are, comfortably holding the same beliefs irrespective of all evidence, so I’m going to mute this thread for myself now. Feel free to respond, but you won’t get another response from me, it’d be a waste of my time.
You really, truly don’t understand what you’re talking about.
What is common between a male human and a male bumblebee?
Think about it hard.
I’ll wait.
And no, the overwhelming consensus in biology is that sex is binary. That is truth. You’re spreading misinformation