That’s the point of differentiating between sex and gender. Sex is indeed binary, there are exactly two gamete sizes. Gender is what captures everything on top of that base.
yes the majority of humans just have one or the other and mutations and disorders can cause variations within the two. but those aren’t a majority of humans.
people seem to think that he is putting some negative meaning behind it.
just because a mutation is a mutation doesn’t mean it’s bad. but it doesn’t mean it’s normal for humans either.
You’re probably thinking of variations within a sex, such as XXY. They still have bodies organized around producing one of two gamete sizes. Nobody produces a third size of gamete
Kinda feels like you dodged the question. I think they were asking you to define what it means to “organize around producing a gamete”, how folks that were never going to produce either fit into that definition, and how you construct sex as a binary despite that.
Edit: looks like powerstuggle is responding to other comments but not this one. I think it is safe to assume they are going for low hanging fruit and trolling rather than actually trying to explain themself.
There aren’t people born with bodies that just have “no concept” of how to produce a gamete, and that’s what I mean our bodies aren’t blank slates. Even if someone doesn’t actually produce gametes, the rest of their body is still structured in a sexed way, because we’re a sexually dimorphic species.
My niece has Turner’s syndrome. She had to learn to give herself hormone shots to grow and develop as others normally would during puberty, but due to very underdeveloped ovaries is incapable of producing gametes. How does she fit in?
XO, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, and others have been recorded in humans. In addition there is Swyer syndrome, Chappell syndrome, and mosaicism in which the gonadal phenotype doesn’t match the genotype. There are also events during fertilization which can cause an XX zygote to gain the SRY gene from the father. The SRY gene is what initiates male gonad development.
Sex is not binary just because there are two types of sex chromosomes. They can occur in multiple combinations and result in a spectrum of characteristics. Many of those combinations result in infertility, because they result in a loss of reproductive organs and/or indeterminate genitalia
I think the issue is that saying “sex is indeed binary” despite the presence of anomalies/mutations (no matter how uncommon) is in direct contradiction to the chemistry analogy being presented.
If you’re going to stand firm that “sex is indeed binary” you’re (in the context of this thread) also saying “chemical elements are binary just with some quirky occasional variations out there”
Which might statistically be the case across the entire universe… but also highly oversimplifies the wonders of the natural world. And maybe it’s pedantic but, binary can’t be simultaneously interpreted as both “exactly two states” and “well, mostly two states”. You gotta pick one, at which point the former is more correct.
So no I don’t think there’s negative connotation either just… a lack of connecting the dots with the analogy in the meme.
Sex is binary, because there are two sizes of gametes. Sex is determined in humans by chromosomes (and is rather messy, as you note). Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species. Some animals have their sex determined by the temperature while they’re developing instead of chromosomes, but we can still differentiate between males and females by gamete size.
That’s a ridiculous definition conjured up by people trying to claim there’s only two sexes. It has effectively no practical use considering gametes on their own are useless for reproduction without an entire system of hardware surrounding them. Plus it guarantees at least three sexes - people who don’t produce gametes at all.
Nobody is born with a body organized around producing a third gamete size
You say that because you incorrectly categorize genetic variations as a failed attempt at one of two binary options. It’s circular reasoning. You’re looking for a binary to sort things into, so regardless of the underlying truth, you sort everything into it.
Like all smoking gun “binary” sex characteristics transphobes have honed in on over the years, we’re only talking about it because they arrived there from working backwards towards it. Just a few years ago all of these same talking points were “biological truth” regarding chromosomes (which you now openly concede are not reliable sex determinants)
A thorough investigation of gametes reveals that like everything else in biology that’s paired off, it’s bipolar in nature rather than binary (strongly gathered up into two categories but with outliers and exceptions).
Even ignoring gamete manifestation in all other species, which there is no reason to do other than to try and make a transphobic point, just among humans genetic variation occurs somewhat regularly. This is the basic principle that makes evolution possible, and it’s why other species have such insane gamete setups such that that gamete size cannot be used universally to determine sex.
Ah but I forget we’re still just talking humans. Evolutionary scientists reveal that the simple reason intermediate gamete sizes do not proliferate in our species is because they have historically been outcompeted. This fact could not be true if there were no bodies born with a third gamete type
An additional issue with this whole train of thought is the baseless presumption that normal biological variation precludes someone who was “supposed to be female” from producing the small gamete. It’s literally the meme we’re looking at in the OP: where the vast majority fits neatly into two categories, but if you were to try to work backwards from there and say everything must fit into those categories, you will have deprived yourself of even the most fundamental biological truths that describe our universe, and on a personal note, you will have deprived yourself of what makes biology beautiful.
That’s not true, there are definitely people both without any sex organs whose body “organization” has no concept of producing any gametes. There are people who are able to produce both gametes. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA does not make these people magically disappear. You cannot argue “well part of their body organization is invalid because of reasons”.
This is classic Dunning-Kruger shit where just because you learned a little about gametes you think you’re an expert, but there’s a huge world of exceptions out there.
I know you’re just here for the argument, and I’ve wasted enough time on this already. The “gamete size” simplification is Trumpist propaganda and not based in actual rigorous science.
You seem like you should know better. From the first link:
Instead, most characteristics ascribed to males and females fall along a spectrum with two peaks, one the average for females and the other the average for males. For instance, on average, males are taller than females and have more muscle mass, more red blood cells and a higher metabolism.
But almost nobody fits in the peak for all those measures for their sex, Lents says. “There’s plenty of women who are taller than plenty of men. There are plenty of women who have higher metabolic rates than some men, even though the averages are different.
“If you define biological sex purely on the gametes, you’re going to ignore most of what actually matters to your daily life, including in your social life,” he says. “Reducing sex to a binary really doesn’t make a lot of sense for how we actually live.”
It confuses sex phenotypes with sex, which is a basic error. That’s not how sex is defined, it’s defined entirely by gamete size because no other definition makes sense.
Intersex is a confusing term, because you will either have a male or female DSD
Your other links are talking about variations within a sex. You also misunderstand how sex is determined vs how it is defined.
Biology doesn’t give special consideration for humans. We’re simply animals like the rest of the animal kingdom. Within the animal kingdom there are absolutely species with more than two sexes including more than two gamete sizes.
You’re probably confusing sex with mating types. Sex is binary because there’s exactly two gamete sizes, eggs and sperm. Other species have gametes that are the same size, but those are called mating types and work very differently than sex.
Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species.
Dawg this isn’t even true. What was the publishing date of the last biology book you read? I think you need to update your knowledge. The current scientific and academic consensus is that neither sex nor gender are binary.
You unfortunately have a grossly distorted view of what the scientific consensus is. There’s a few extremists pushing for silly things, but no, sex is binary. Sex phenotypes aren’t binary, but those aren’t how sex is defined
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
It’s not what I believe. I’m just the messenger, sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus. I wish I didn’t have to do this and people didn’t post a bunch of nonsense on Lemmy, but here we are.
People really need to know when their worldview is based on falsehoods, and this is one of those times. As an example, you might have heard of the concept of “5 sexes”, but it turns out that the source of that claim was someone who certainly knows better being “tongue-in-cheek” and “ironic”:
She’s also the source of the “intersex is as common as redheads” claim, and that’s also completely wrong and she should know better. That is a silly thing and she’s one of the extremists pushing such silly things.
I don’t know how to better explain it to you, but yes, sex characteristics are not necessarily binary, but sex is (and yes, gametes are binary). You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
You wanna know what else is weird? This whole “gametes determine sex” thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the “scientific basis” for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.
You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
No, what’s disappointing is that you’ve spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they’re refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.
The idea you’re so vehemently “just being the messenger” for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We’ve learned more. It’s time for you to catch up.
I’m… not sure you actually read your link. It quotes the open letter, and then points out that it’s scientifically inaccurate, and that the people that sent it should know better. It also contains this quote, which is my whole damn point. Real biologists saying this shit:
In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.
I provided several examples of chromosome combinations that result in people who produce no gametes. You’ve said in several comments that no one is born with a body plan that doesnt produce gametes, and that is incorrect. I’m a biology major, and I’m in a developmental biology class right now
There are several points in development that can cause a failure to develop a sexual phenotype.
I don’t know why you’re saying it’s a hard line that biologists have drawn, when science is about being able to adjust our understanding of the world when we are presented with new information
Edit: The body plan that you are talking about is a result of several things ranging from transcription factors to hormones working together, not just chromosomes alone. A break at any point can result in a body that isn’t “organized” (whatever you think you mean by that I don’t know) to produce gametes. I feel like you’re trying to play “gotcha!” throughout these comments and have no true understanding of biology. I recommend that you try going back to school
I didn’t say that nobody is born with a body that doesn’t produce gametes. I said nobody is born with a body organized around producing no gametes. Ask your professor about the difference.
No biologist defines sex based on gametes alone, there are many characteristics that make up sex. Why would you define it that way? Because you started with your answer, that sex MUST be binary, and worked backwards from there.
Unfortunately that’s backwards. Sex is defined by gamete size because it’s the only coherent definition across so much of the animal kingdom. As an example, did you know that male seahorses give birth? It’s true, but how do we know that they’re male? Because they make the smaller of the two gamete sizes. Same thing with female hyenas. They have a pseudo-penis, so why don’t we consider them male? Because they produce the larger of two gamete sizes
O person whose comment history is mainly trolling on trans-supportive posts for hours at a stretch, it is you who have it backwards.
(You are using trump’s recently legislated definition of sex, and I’m afraid you’re picking the wrong teacher there. Trump can no more legislate a revision to science than whatever state it was that stupidly passed a bill claiming that pi was 3! The liar in chief isn’t being factually accurate.)
Your sex determimes whether you produce sperm or eggs or neither, yes, in the sense that cause has effect, but you’re claiming that the effect is the same thing as the cause or that gamete size determines sex. This is a classic logical blunder. Species determines number of legs, but number of legs does not determine species. Typically, species have 0,2,4,6,8 and occasionally more legs (or 1), but this does not mean that there are only 5 species!
You also claim in other threads that you prefer to use sex over gender in reference to people, which is strongly antitrans despite you pretending that your opponents are anti-trans.
It’s easy to throw around insults, but it would help if you started by not being wrong in the first place. SRY gene is part of how sex is determined, but not how sex is defined. Intersex conditions exist, but that’s confusing terminology, and it’s confused you. Those are male and female Disorders of sex development
SRY gene is part of how sex is determined, but not how sex is defined.
…by Donald Trump in his stupid antitrans bill.
Biologists are quite happy with using chromosomes to describe sex. Spoiler alert: there are more than two possibilities. Even with trump’s stupid definition there are at least three.
i mean, aren’t we all female because of that bill? since sex differentiation doesn’t happen until [x] weeks, and the bill identifies sex at conception?
Well I think we should caveat this as “in humans there is a tendency for sex to fall under two large umbrellas of typical characteristics” as there’s millions of small caveats for many mammals (its speculated parthenogenesis could naturally occur in humans under certain conditions).
Because of how early some features tend to develop in mammals there’s less variation than in other types of animals.
Outside mammals: Amphibians, Reptiles and Birds have many species that can change sex.
Outside animals: Plants and fungi are an absolute mess.
Careful. The longer you stare down the looking glass at life, the more of a kaleidoscopic fractal it all becomes. Even “species” are loose, funny things.
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which interbreeds with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two end populations in the series which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between linked neighbouring populations.
What’s interesting about sex being binary is that biology is really messy and hard, and it’s kind of amazing that we found such a universal definition.
Like I said, you’re confusing your shit politics with truth.
Being intersex is about as common as having red hair, and as plenty of people have told you, some people produce neither eggs nor sperm. Also some intersex people are born with both ovarian and testicular tissue. Intersex isn’t new, it isn’t unscientific, it’s been known about for millenia, and it doesn’t vanish out of existence because your idol trump wrote an executive order that denies scientific reality. Some state passed a law that said pi is 3, which is just as stupid as trump’s order and the crap you’re spouting in this thread.
You don’t even understand what the words determine and defined mean, or you’re deliberately misusing them and you told a biology major they were wrong because you believed trump over an undergraduate education.
lol, fuck trump. He’s a fascist shitstain. I know you want me to be someone you can hate like a right-winger, but that’s not how it works.
Intersex can be a confusing term, and it’s confused you. People can be born with a Disorder of sex development, but those are male and female DSDs, not just some vague 🤷 category.
(Also, the intersex as common as red hair thing is wrong. It’s based on a bad definition of intersex by someone that should’ve known better, and has pulled the “just a prank bro” response when called out on it)
Biology is the study of life, and even the definition of what constitutes “life” becomes very fuzzy when you look at it too closely. For every set of properties you can define that need to be met for something to be alive, there are edge cases and outliers in nature.
I think saying sex is the same as gamete production is somewhat reductionist and not the usual definition either. And at a minimum that would create a 3rd sex, a body that did not produce gametes.
It’s very much the usual definition in biology. There’s no other definition that makes sense, because the animal kingdom is so varied. Sex is entirely defined by gamete size, and not producing gametes doesn’t confuse things. There is no body type that is organized around producing a third gamete size, or no gamete size.
You mean well (edit: well. not entirely sure anymore) but even in humans it’s not that simple (not to mention non-humans who might produce both sizes or switch). People who are identified as female at birth because they have a vulva may lack ovaries (or even the entire reproductive tract). They don’t have any gametes but because of their outer appearance they’re usually socialised as girls and only notice when they don’t start menstruating at some point. I assume it’s similarly possible to be born with a scrotum (and penis) but no testicles.
Unfortunately I mean well. Sometimes people need to hear things they don’t really want to hear. I’m sick of seeing people that should know better spout off unscientific nonsense because it makes them feel good. There’s too much of that on Lemmy
Are you then going to answer my question and tell me what size gamete a body without either ovaries, uterus, and vagina, but a vulva, is “organised” around? Or are you going to shift the goalposts further? First it was “size of gametes”, now its “organised around a size” and I still don’t know what that even means.
Apologies if I’ve missed it, I still have a backlog of messages to go through. My best guess at interpreting your question that you mean something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency, in which a male has internal testes and is often incorrectly assigned female at birth due to ambiguous external genitalia. Is there another specific DSD you’re thinking of?
Their bodies are still organized around the production of one or the other of two gamete sizes. For example, the structures around the gonads would probably be used in diagnosis:
No that’s not what I mean. People can be born without ovaries, uterus, vagina (but have a vulva). People can also be born without testes (but have a scrotum and penis). They do not possess these organs, they are nowhere in their bodies. That’s what I was talking about in the very beginning.
Not producing any gametes doesn’t confuse things. Even if you don’t produce any gametes, your body is organized around producing one or the other of two sizes.
Things get more interesting in other animals, though anything anywhere near us is still either male, female, or hermaphroditic. When you get down into fungi, you get gametes that are the same size and instead of sex you have mating types, where a single species can have tens of thousands of options.
No ovaries, no uterus, no vagina, just some flabby bits between the legs (that may make tummy feel funny when touched gently) - what size is this body organised around?
You get both sizes of gametes with all kinds of bodies. It’s only the testes/ovaries that are reliably correlated with gamete size, and anything further away from their production than that has about the same chance of not being the style you’d expect as an atom has of not being hydrogen or helium, just like the original meme alludes to.
Except when they’re not. At which point your binary classification* system has more than two classifications it can make, making it definitionally not binary.
Sex encompasses everything about the body including external and internal organs, hormones, (facial) hair, voice (level), body height, … none of which are binary. Reducing it to gamete size makes it meaningless
And that’s what sex means in the context of sex vs gender. Are you new to the concept that words have different meanings in different contexts? This isn’t about evolutionary biology.
If no one’s arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It’s obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it.
Nobody’s arguing about gender being a social construct. I 100% agree with that. Sex is very real and not a construct, and what’s the point of contention (sadly)
This is an “either I’m stupid or everybody else” moment and I let you decide on your own.
Words don’t have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It’s an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like “I don’t care if the preposition is before or after”.
Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who’s Afraid Of Gender so it’s not that they aren’t aware. That’s all the hint I give you.
Judith Butler is one of those people that, when you find yourself agreeing with her, you should sit back and really consider how you arrived at that conclusion. She’s not always wrong, but she’s very wrong on a lot of stuff, including the gamete definition. Here’s one example:
You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem.
Anyway, I stand corrected. It’s not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context.
That’s not some random blogger lol. That’s an evolutionary biologist that certainly should be trusted more on the topic than Judith Butler of all people. The link is more to demonstrate why you should evaluate why you’re wrong and how you ended up there (believing Judith Butler is a good starting point). I didn’t directly respond to your points because you didn’t seem to be arguing (“I let you decide on your own.”)
Sadly no. I’m leftist, but also not willing to abandon science because it feels nice. Right wingers are right on this like a broken clock is right twice a day and all that. Or that Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is wrong or bad. Pick your favorite analogy
Would you care to explain yourself? Maybe explain how folks that would never produce either gamete fit into your binary based on gamete production? Or is that too advanced? I hear we are sticking to basic biology after all.
Nobody’s body is a blank slate. Just because one developmental pathway didn’t turn out as expected doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to determine sex. Their bodies are still organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes, hence binary.
organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes
This implies that the organization can fail then? That is how we put the outliers in the binary?
That means that that kind of organization has a goal?
That feels like common sense. Like in the culturally-rooted sense. Not necessarily a reflection of reality, but an easy idea to swallow. I don’t think human development has intention in that kind of way unless you are religious.
I guess, what makes gamete production the goal of human development? What makes you confident that there is a goal to human development?
To me it seems like it would be hard to answer those questions without anthropomorphizing human development.
That’s the point of differentiating between sex and gender. Sex is indeed binary, there are exactly two gamete sizes. Gender is what captures everything on top of that base.
If I remember correctly, not even sex is binary in humans.
There are a decent number of combinations of the X and Y chromosomes, not just XX and XY. If I remember correctly there are about 6 more common combos
Not just cromossomes matter. Intersex can be purely environmental and not genetic.
Aren’t those considered disorders, tho? Like XXX or XXY
yes the majority of humans just have one or the other and mutations and disorders can cause variations within the two. but those aren’t a majority of humans.
people seem to think that he is putting some negative meaning behind it.
just because a mutation is a mutation doesn’t mean it’s bad. but it doesn’t mean it’s normal for humans either.
It also means there are more than two options for sex. Meaning it isn’t binary.
You’re probably thinking of variations within a sex, such as XXY. They still have bodies organized around producing one of two gamete sizes. Nobody produces a third size of gamete
But some produce neither.
Nobody has a body organized around producing no gametes
What does this even mean?
Who “organizes” bodies?
If a body can’t and never could produce gametes, what makes it “organized” to do so anyway?
There is no “who”, it’s the process of evolution over billions of years. Our bodies aren’t blank slates.
Kinda feels like you dodged the question. I think they were asking you to define what it means to “organize around producing a gamete”, how folks that were never going to produce either fit into that definition, and how you construct sex as a binary despite that.
Edit: looks like powerstuggle is responding to other comments but not this one. I think it is safe to assume they are going for low hanging fruit and trolling rather than actually trying to explain themself.Sorry, you’re down in the list of comments in my inbox. They’d look for structures like these for diagnosis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramesonephric_duct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonephric_duct
There aren’t people born with bodies that just have “no concept” of how to produce a gamete, and that’s what I mean our bodies aren’t blank slates. Even if someone doesn’t actually produce gametes, the rest of their body is still structured in a sexed way, because we’re a sexually dimorphic species.
My niece has Turner’s syndrome. She had to learn to give herself hormone shots to grow and develop as others normally would during puberty, but due to very underdeveloped ovaries is incapable of producing gametes. How does she fit in?
Turner’s syndrome is a chromosomal disorder that only affects females. Her body is organized around the production of the larger of two gamete sizes.
XO, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, and others have been recorded in humans. In addition there is Swyer syndrome, Chappell syndrome, and mosaicism in which the gonadal phenotype doesn’t match the genotype. There are also events during fertilization which can cause an XX zygote to gain the SRY gene from the father. The SRY gene is what initiates male gonad development.
Sex is not binary just because there are two types of sex chromosomes. They can occur in multiple combinations and result in a spectrum of characteristics. Many of those combinations result in infertility, because they result in a loss of reproductive organs and/or indeterminate genitalia
I prefer a simpler view… leave people the fuck alone as long as they aren’t harming anybody.
but aren’t those fairly uncommon? I don’t think he means mutations or syndromes. I think he means the majority of humans.
Uncommon like all those other elements in the universe?
huh? no, uncommon in terms of human biology. this isn’t some political statement against those who have mutations or uncommon chromosome combos.
they exist. they’re real. they’re just not the majority. and that’s ok. they don’t have to be.
I’m not sure what that has to do with elements on the periodic table.
Exactly. Just like all of the other non-hydrogen and non-helium atoms in the universe.
I have no idea why I’m getting downvoted then. nor the other commenter.
I think people are quite confused when he is literally just talking about basic biology. no negative connotations whatsoever.
if real actual facts are now being downvoted I have very little hope for humanity.
I think the issue is that saying “sex is indeed binary” despite the presence of anomalies/mutations (no matter how uncommon) is in direct contradiction to the chemistry analogy being presented.
If you’re going to stand firm that “sex is indeed binary” you’re (in the context of this thread) also saying “chemical elements are binary just with some quirky occasional variations out there”
Which might statistically be the case across the entire universe… but also highly oversimplifies the wonders of the natural world. And maybe it’s pedantic but, binary can’t be simultaneously interpreted as both “exactly two states” and “well, mostly two states”. You gotta pick one, at which point the former is more correct.
So no I don’t think there’s negative connotation either just… a lack of connecting the dots with the analogy in the meme.
How do you differentiate this from the meme?
Like the elements in the meme? How do you differentiate this from the meme?
This post is explicitly about a meme comparing gender to elements.
I am pretty sure you getting downvoted because it looks like you either forgot or are ignoring the post you are commenting on.
Sex is binary, because there are two sizes of gametes. Sex is determined in humans by chromosomes (and is rather messy, as you note). Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species. Some animals have their sex determined by the temperature while they’re developing instead of chromosomes, but we can still differentiate between males and females by gamete size.
That’s a ridiculous definition conjured up by people trying to claim there’s only two sexes. It has effectively no practical use considering gametes on their own are useless for reproduction without an entire system of hardware surrounding them. Plus it guarantees at least three sexes - people who don’t produce gametes at all.
You’re kind of shooting the messenger here. It’s literally how sex is defined and used in biology, I’m just letting you know.
Not producing gametes doesn’t confuse things. Nobody is born with a body organized around producing a third gamete size, or no gamete size.
You say that because you incorrectly categorize genetic variations as a failed attempt at one of two binary options. It’s circular reasoning. You’re looking for a binary to sort things into, so regardless of the underlying truth, you sort everything into it.
Like all smoking gun “binary” sex characteristics transphobes have honed in on over the years, we’re only talking about it because they arrived there from working backwards towards it. Just a few years ago all of these same talking points were “biological truth” regarding chromosomes (which you now openly concede are not reliable sex determinants)
A thorough investigation of gametes reveals that like everything else in biology that’s paired off, it’s bipolar in nature rather than binary (strongly gathered up into two categories but with outliers and exceptions).
Even ignoring gamete manifestation in all other species, which there is no reason to do other than to try and make a transphobic point, just among humans genetic variation occurs somewhat regularly. This is the basic principle that makes evolution possible, and it’s why other species have such insane gamete setups such that that gamete size cannot be used universally to determine sex.
Ah but I forget we’re still just talking humans. Evolutionary scientists reveal that the simple reason intermediate gamete sizes do not proliferate in our species is because they have historically been outcompeted. This fact could not be true if there were no bodies born with a third gamete type
An additional issue with this whole train of thought is the baseless presumption that normal biological variation precludes someone who was “supposed to be female” from producing the small gamete. It’s literally the meme we’re looking at in the OP: where the vast majority fits neatly into two categories, but if you were to try to work backwards from there and say everything must fit into those categories, you will have deprived yourself of even the most fundamental biological truths that describe our universe, and on a personal note, you will have deprived yourself of what makes biology beautiful.
That’s not true, there are definitely people both without any sex organs whose body “organization” has no concept of producing any gametes. There are people who are able to produce both gametes. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA does not make these people magically disappear. You cannot argue “well part of their body organization is invalid because of reasons”.
This is classic Dunning-Kruger shit where just because you learned a little about gametes you think you’re an expert, but there’s a huge world of exceptions out there.
What exactly do you mean by “has no concept”? I don’t think you quite understand what you’re talking about.
I know you’re just here for the argument, and I’ve wasted enough time on this already. The “gamete size” simplification is Trumpist propaganda and not based in actual rigorous science.
Actual biologists agree that bodies without sex organs don’t fit into the binary definition
Hormone expression (in addition to gamete size) is also a critical factor that scientists use to define sex
Determining “organization” in cases of “physical anomaly” via chromosomes is unreliable
1.3% of people are born intersex, and “intersex” represents an entire continuum
Educate yourself.
You seem like you should know better. From the first link:
It confuses sex phenotypes with sex, which is a basic error. That’s not how sex is defined, it’s defined entirely by gamete size because no other definition makes sense.
Intersex is a confusing term, because you will either have a male or female DSD
Your other links are talking about variations within a sex. You also misunderstand how sex is determined vs how it is defined.
Biology doesn’t give special consideration for humans. We’re simply animals like the rest of the animal kingdom. Within the animal kingdom there are absolutely species with more than two sexes including more than two gamete sizes.
You’re probably confusing sex with mating types. Sex is binary because there’s exactly two gamete sizes, eggs and sperm. Other species have gametes that are the same size, but those are called mating types and work very differently than sex.
Nope. There are animals with more than two gamete sizes. Egg and sperm are not sizes.
What animals are those?
Dawg this isn’t even true. What was the publishing date of the last biology book you read? I think you need to update your knowledge. The current scientific and academic consensus is that neither sex nor gender are binary.
You unfortunately have a grossly distorted view of what the scientific consensus is. There’s a few extremists pushing for silly things, but no, sex is binary. Sex phenotypes aren’t binary, but those aren’t how sex is defined
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
It’s not what I believe. I’m just the messenger, sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus. I wish I didn’t have to do this and people didn’t post a bunch of nonsense on Lemmy, but here we are.
People really need to know when their worldview is based on falsehoods, and this is one of those times. As an example, you might have heard of the concept of “5 sexes”, but it turns out that the source of that claim was someone who certainly knows better being “tongue-in-cheek” and “ironic”:
She’s also the source of the “intersex is as common as redheads” claim, and that’s also completely wrong and she should know better. That is a silly thing and she’s one of the extremists pushing such silly things.
I don’t know how to better explain it to you, but yes, sex characteristics are not necessarily binary, but sex is (and yes, gametes are binary). You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
Hmmm, an interesting assertion, one that would be all the more interesting were it not for the open letter sent to the president, signed by ~3500 scientists, saying sex isn’t binary. Weird.
You wanna know what else is weird? This whole “gametes determine sex” thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the “scientific basis” for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.
No, what’s disappointing is that you’ve spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they’re refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.
The idea you’re so vehemently “just being the messenger” for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We’ve learned more. It’s time for you to catch up.
I’m… not sure you actually read your link. It quotes the open letter, and then points out that it’s scientifically inaccurate, and that the people that sent it should know better. It also contains this quote, which is my whole damn point. Real biologists saying this shit:
Why is Lemmy so focused on being wrong here?
I provided several examples of chromosome combinations that result in people who produce no gametes. You’ve said in several comments that no one is born with a body plan that doesnt produce gametes, and that is incorrect. I’m a biology major, and I’m in a developmental biology class right now There are several points in development that can cause a failure to develop a sexual phenotype.
I don’t know why you’re saying it’s a hard line that biologists have drawn, when science is about being able to adjust our understanding of the world when we are presented with new information
Edit: The body plan that you are talking about is a result of several things ranging from transcription factors to hormones working together, not just chromosomes alone. A break at any point can result in a body that isn’t “organized” (whatever you think you mean by that I don’t know) to produce gametes. I feel like you’re trying to play “gotcha!” throughout these comments and have no true understanding of biology. I recommend that you try going back to school
I didn’t say that nobody is born with a body that doesn’t produce gametes. I said nobody is born with a body organized around producing no gametes. Ask your professor about the difference.
So people who produce no gametes, their bodies are unorganized?
This is how I’m going to refer to myself from now on. “My name is FoxyFerengi. I have no pronouns because my body is unorganized.”
You so clever! How many numbers I have write with binary? Is two, no? Why fucking computer use binary if only two numbers?
Sarcasm works better if you respond coherently. You doing math with gametes?
Sir is doing biology without brain. Is much cleverer trick.
You should redirect this energy into learning about how your model of the world is incomplete. You’d benefit much more from that.
Ya sir, I incpmplete with too much genders, too much elements in periodic. You complete with two of each. Clever sir. Complete sir.
No biologist defines sex based on gametes alone, there are many characteristics that make up sex. Why would you define it that way? Because you started with your answer, that sex MUST be binary, and worked backwards from there.
Unfortunately that’s backwards. Sex is defined by gamete size because it’s the only coherent definition across so much of the animal kingdom. As an example, did you know that male seahorses give birth? It’s true, but how do we know that they’re male? Because they make the smaller of the two gamete sizes. Same thing with female hyenas. They have a pseudo-penis, so why don’t we consider them male? Because they produce the larger of two gamete sizes
O person whose comment history is mainly trolling on trans-supportive posts for hours at a stretch, it is you who have it backwards.
(You are using trump’s recently legislated definition of sex, and I’m afraid you’re picking the wrong teacher there. Trump can no more legislate a revision to science than whatever state it was that stupidly passed a bill claiming that pi was 3! The liar in chief isn’t being factually accurate.)
Your sex determimes whether you produce sperm or eggs or neither, yes, in the sense that cause has effect, but you’re claiming that the effect is the same thing as the cause or that gamete size determines sex. This is a classic logical blunder. Species determines number of legs, but number of legs does not determine species. Typically, species have 0,2,4,6,8 and occasionally more legs (or 1), but this does not mean that there are only 5 species!
You also claim in other threads that you prefer to use sex over gender in reference to people, which is strongly antitrans despite you pretending that your opponents are anti-trans.
You’re very focused on Trump. Not sure why, but whatever he’s doing is irrelevant to the science. I also didn’t make a statement about what I prefer.
If you have a beef with sex determination vs definition, take it up with the field of biology.
As usual, you ignored pretty much every substantive point because you don’t have facts on your side, just bigotry, determination and trump.
Now you’re lying about your shitty anti trans post history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
sex absolutely isn’t binary.
I think you’re misunderstanding how sex is defined. It’s very much a binary, but that doesn’t include gender, and doesn’t include sex phenotypes.
someone here has never heard of the sry gene and doesn’t think intersex conditions exist and it isn’t me
You’re confusing sex determination with sex definition. Those are variations within a sex.
Okay, now that we’ve established you only have a juvenile understand of biology and sex, do you want to tell us more wrong things?
It’s easy to throw around insults, but it would help if you started by not being wrong in the first place. SRY gene is part of how sex is determined, but not how sex is defined. Intersex conditions exist, but that’s confusing terminology, and it’s confused you. Those are male and female Disorders of sex development
…by Donald Trump in his stupid antitrans bill.
Biologists are quite happy with using chromosomes to describe sex. Spoiler alert: there are more than two possibilities. Even with trump’s stupid definition there are at least three.
i mean, aren’t we all female because of that bill? since sex differentiation doesn’t happen until [x] weeks, and the bill identifies sex at conception?
Well I think we should caveat this as “in humans there is a tendency for sex to fall under two large umbrellas of typical characteristics” as there’s millions of small caveats for many mammals (its speculated parthenogenesis could naturally occur in humans under certain conditions).
Because of how early some features tend to develop in mammals there’s less variation than in other types of animals.
Outside mammals: Amphibians, Reptiles and Birds have many species that can change sex.
Outside animals: Plants and fungi are an absolute mess.
In my case sex is imaginary. 😕
Pro tip: square it to have real sex. But keep in mind that you might get negative sex.
fake it till you make it!
also works with orgasms
Careful. The longer you stare down the looking glass at life, the more of a kaleidoscopic fractal it all becomes. Even “species” are loose, funny things.
Exactly. Ring Species are a good example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which interbreeds with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two end populations in the series which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between linked neighbouring populations.
What’s interesting about sex being binary is that biology is really messy and hard, and it’s kind of amazing that we found such a universal definition.
So why’re you trying to put it into such a rigid framework if you agree it’s messy?
I’m doing nothing other than relaying how the field of biology uses the terms.
You’re also confusing biology being messy in general, vs finding one particular area where it isn’t
You’re confusing your shit politics with truth.
It does feel nice to throw around insults, but maybe a better use of your time would be to learn about why you’re wrong
Like I said, you’re confusing your shit politics with truth.
Being intersex is about as common as having red hair, and as plenty of people have told you, some people produce neither eggs nor sperm. Also some intersex people are born with both ovarian and testicular tissue. Intersex isn’t new, it isn’t unscientific, it’s been known about for millenia, and it doesn’t vanish out of existence because your idol trump wrote an executive order that denies scientific reality. Some state passed a law that said pi is 3, which is just as stupid as trump’s order and the crap you’re spouting in this thread.
You don’t even understand what the words determine and defined mean, or you’re deliberately misusing them and you told a biology major they were wrong because you believed trump over an undergraduate education.
lol, fuck trump. He’s a fascist shitstain. I know you want me to be someone you can hate like a right-winger, but that’s not how it works.
Intersex can be a confusing term, and it’s confused you. People can be born with a Disorder of sex development, but those are male and female DSDs, not just some vague 🤷 category.
(Also, the intersex as common as red hair thing is wrong. It’s based on a bad definition of intersex by someone that should’ve known better, and has pulled the “just a prank bro” response when called out on it)
Biology is the study of life, and even the definition of what constitutes “life” becomes very fuzzy when you look at it too closely. For every set of properties you can define that need to be met for something to be alive, there are edge cases and outliers in nature.
Sure, are you aware of any outliers in this case?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
Sex in humans really isn’t that binary. XXX and XXY exist for instance.
XXX and XXY are variations within a sex. They still have bodies organized around producing either one of exactly two gamete sizes
I think saying sex is the same as gamete production is somewhat reductionist and not the usual definition either. And at a minimum that would create a 3rd sex, a body that did not produce gametes.
It’s very much the usual definition in biology. There’s no other definition that makes sense, because the animal kingdom is so varied. Sex is entirely defined by gamete size, and not producing gametes doesn’t confuse things. There is no body type that is organized around producing a third gamete size, or no gamete size.
You mean well (edit: well. not entirely sure anymore) but even in humans it’s not that simple (not to mention non-humans who might produce both sizes or switch). People who are identified as female at birth because they have a vulva may lack ovaries (or even the entire reproductive tract). They don’t have any gametes but because of their outer appearance they’re usually socialised as girls and only notice when they don’t start menstruating at some point. I assume it’s similarly possible to be born with a scrotum (and penis) but no testicles.
powerstruggle does not mean well and is trolling up and down the whole thread.
It seems like it.
Unfortunately I mean well. Sometimes people need to hear things they don’t really want to hear. I’m sick of seeing people that should know better spout off unscientific nonsense because it makes them feel good. There’s too much of that on Lemmy
No you don’t. You’re lying through your teeth as a multitude of people explain how counting works to you. Stop it.
Sorry, I wish you could believe that science accuracy is important. It’s disappointing that you don’t, but them’s the breaks
I wish you could stop trolling. It’s disappointing that you don’t.
I wish it were as easy as “I’m just trolling”, but Lemmy deserves better than lazy misinformation in their memes. I’m calling it out.
Are you then going to answer my question and tell me what size gamete a body without either ovaries, uterus, and vagina, but a vulva, is “organised” around? Or are you going to shift the goalposts further? First it was “size of gametes”, now its “organised around a size” and I still don’t know what that even means.
Apologies if I’ve missed it, I still have a backlog of messages to go through. My best guess at interpreting your question that you mean something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency, in which a male has internal testes and is often incorrectly assigned female at birth due to ambiguous external genitalia. Is there another specific DSD you’re thinking of?
Let me rephrase that: people without ovaries, uterus, vagina or testes. Nowhere in their bodies. They have a vulva or a penis plus scrotum.
Their bodies are still organized around the production of one or the other of two gamete sizes. For example, the structures around the gonads would probably be used in diagnosis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramesonephric_duct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonephric_duct
No that’s not what I mean. People can be born without ovaries, uterus, vagina (but have a vulva). People can also be born without testes (but have a scrotum and penis). They do not possess these organs, they are nowhere in their bodies. That’s what I was talking about in the very beginning.
Not producing any gametes doesn’t confuse things. Even if you don’t produce any gametes, your body is organized around producing one or the other of two sizes.
Things get more interesting in other animals, though anything anywhere near us is still either male, female, or hermaphroditic. When you get down into fungi, you get gametes that are the same size and instead of sex you have mating types, where a single species can have tens of thousands of options.
No ovaries, no uterus, no vagina, just some flabby bits between the legs (that may make tummy feel funny when touched gently) - what size is this body organised around?
Edit: also, you said gametes. Goal-posting?
You get both sizes of gametes with all kinds of bodies. It’s only the testes/ovaries that are reliably correlated with gamete size, and anything further away from their production than that has about the same chance of not being the style you’d expect as an atom has of not being hydrogen or helium, just like the original meme alludes to.
There’s at least a third gamete size of 0, as in, no gametes, so there goes that binary
Their bodies are still organized around the production of one or the other of two gamete sizes, even if they don’t produce any
Except when they’re not. At which point your binary classification* system has more than two classifications it can make, making it definitionally not binary.
Gametes are haploid, they’re not even potentially human by themselves.
I think you’re confused about the point of contention here
There are also people born that do not fit in the biological definition of male or female. Same image applies to them.
Lol, the sex prescriptivist
Sex encompasses everything about the body including external and internal organs, hormones, (facial) hair, voice (level), body height, … none of which are binary. Reducing it to gamete size makes it meaningless
Those are sex phenotypes
And that’s what sex means in the context of sex vs gender. Are you new to the concept that words have different meanings in different contexts? This isn’t about evolutionary biology.
Well, no. People just misunderstand what sex means in that context. You can’t disentangle sex vs gender from evolutionary biology.
Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology.
Sure, but nobody’s arguing that. Sex is very much real and very much not a social construct.
If no one’s arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It’s obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it.
Nobody’s arguing about gender being a social construct. I 100% agree with that. Sex is very real and not a construct, and what’s the point of contention (sadly)
This is an “either I’m stupid or everybody else” moment and I let you decide on your own.
Words don’t have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It’s an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like “I don’t care if the preposition is before or after”.
Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who’s Afraid Of Gender so it’s not that they aren’t aware. That’s all the hint I give you.
Judith Butler is one of those people that, when you find yourself agreeing with her, you should sit back and really consider how you arrived at that conclusion. She’s not always wrong, but she’s very wrong on a lot of stuff, including the gamete definition. Here’s one example:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/04/01/judith-butler-on-trumps-eos-with-an-emphasis-on-sex-and-gender/
You may see elsewhere in this thread where I point out the difference between sex determination and sex definition, which is mentioned in that link:
The gist of the article is:
You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem.
Anyway, I stand corrected. It’s not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context.
That’s not some random blogger lol. That’s an evolutionary biologist that certainly should be trusted more on the topic than Judith Butler of all people. The link is more to demonstrate why you should evaluate why you’re wrong and how you ended up there (believing Judith Butler is a good starting point). I didn’t directly respond to your points because you didn’t seem to be arguing (“I let you decide on your own.”)
the fact that basic biology is being heavily downvoted is horrifying.
apparently just taking a normal biology course is now cause for anger and confusion.
Powerstruggle is misusing terms from school level biology to make a political point and trolling people who are explaining the mistakes in it.
“Basic” biology - in fact it’s biology that has been oversimplified and misapplied to the point of untruth.
I wish this were for fun. Unfortunately, you’re being anti-science
Nah, you’re just taking crap because of your political indoctrination. We can read your post history.
Stupid enough to be hoodwinked into supporting right wingers is often stupid enough to refuse to understand even when people explain.
Sadly no. I’m leftist, but also not willing to abandon science because it feels nice. Right wingers are right on this like a broken clock is right twice a day and all that. Or that Hitler was a vegetarian, but that doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is wrong or bad. Pick your favorite analogy
Lol. Leftist like “Dems are evil, don’t ever let them win” or leftist like “Trump is a fascist cunt who should have been kept from power”
Being anti trans is classic hater territory, which is why it attracts right wingers.
As in the latter. Trump is a fascist cunt who should have been kept from power.
I don’t expect you to believe it, but realizing that biology is real doesn’t mean being anti-trans.
And yet here you are, trolling users up and down a trans supportive thread.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Hateful is as hateful does.
Bully is as bullying does.
Would you care to explain yourself? Maybe explain how folks that would never produce either gamete fit into your binary based on gamete production? Or is that too advanced? I hear we are sticking to basic biology after all.
Nobody’s body is a blank slate. Just because one developmental pathway didn’t turn out as expected doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to determine sex. Their bodies are still organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes, hence binary.
This implies that the organization can fail then? That is how we put the outliers in the binary? That means that that kind of organization has a goal?
That feels like common sense. Like in the culturally-rooted sense. Not necessarily a reflection of reality, but an easy idea to swallow. I don’t think human development has intention in that kind of way unless you are religious.
I guess, what makes gamete production the goal of human development? What makes you confident that there is a goal to human development?
To me it seems like it would be hard to answer those questions without anthropomorphizing human development.
I implore you to take a normal biology course in the present day and then get back to us
Yeah, it’s sad. I don’t understand why people think gender is at odds with science. That’s the whole point of differentiating sex vs gender.