you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (63 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 63 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Uncommon like all those other elements in the universe?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -18 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    they exist. they're real. they're just not the majority. and that's ok. they don't have to be.

    Exactly. Just like all of the other non-hydrogen and non-helium atoms in the universe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 11 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    huh? no, uncommon in terms of human biology.

    How do you differentiate this from the meme?

    they exist. they're real. they're just not the majority. and that's ok. they don't have to be.

    Like the elements in the meme? How do you differentiate this from the meme?

    I'm not sure what that has to do with elements on the periodic table.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 31 points 11 months ago (27 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 11 months ago (10 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    There's no "you openly concede"

    Listen buddy, you’ve obviously had a busy couple of days with your science themed transphobic tirade, so I understand it can be hard to remember all the things you yourself wrote. I know it might feel like a lifetime has passed, but this is actually you from only from two comments ago:

    Sex is *determined* in humans by chromosomes (and is rather messy, as you note).

    Look at you. You were so young. It feels like just yesterday you were openly conceding that chromosomal arrangement is not binary, but rather, “messy”

    Then, given your ridiculous non sequitur dismissal of my point, I’m willing to accept that perhaps you simply misunderstood what I wrote, similar to how you misunderstand “literally the entire field of biology”.

    Out of curiosity, do you assume nobody on this website is or is friends with a biologist?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 11 months ago (8 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Apologies for the confusion, I am not accusing you personally of participating in the previous wave of transphobic remarks

    I am explaining to you that you are the result of their talking points. Quite literally. Similar to how widespread homophobia evolved into more focussed transphobia in recent times as homosexuality became obviously less acceptable. (All of the exact same talking points that used to apply to gay people now are used for trans people (they’re violent, they’re going after your kids, etc.))

    So when I say “you now concede”, this is not to imply that your point of view has per se personally changed, but rather to highlight the absurdity of the history of your point (absolutist biological binaries) in the context from which it came.

    What was once immutably “literally the field of biology” (XX & XY) was in the course of this modern conversation openly conceded, only for you to use the same incorrect logic to assert a new so called immutable truth. It is the latest in a long chain of “immutable truths” that have been disproven.

    If you incorrectly believe you are not a part of that chain, it is because you don’t realize your “truth” was not delivered to you by scientists, but by transphobes. Biologists were confused and surprised when this new discourse took off.

    Your point is invalid because you're talking about how sex came to be.

    bzzzzzt wrong! This is the type of stuff I’m talking about lol. You see “evolutionary biologists” (and I assume skip over half the other words I say? Baffling) and you assume we are discussing the distant past. Evolution hasn’t stopped. Literally the first sentence of my original post cements the reality that people are born today which defy your “UNBREAKABLE LAWS OF BIOLOGY”, yet are categorized incorrectly. By you. Because you have no idea what you’re talking about

    Why is it so favored?

    Literally go look at the meme again lol. Your perspective is totally backwards. You’re asking the wrong questions. It’s like saying the ocean only contains water. We show you the fish and you say “Irrelevant; fish are mostly made of water.”

    It’s nonsensical. To its core. I hope one day you grow capable of turning back from the path you now walk.

    p.s. here’s what real biologists are saying, btw. It’s the complete opposite of what you’re saying. Found that very interesting. Have fun cherry picking!

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37156506/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Most humiliating trash I’ve ever read, thank you! A ridiculous and indecipherable attempt at science. He randomly states nonsense circular reasoning without citation, and he also frequently cites random non-scientific opinion fluff articles from transphobes. How bizarre.

    Ah, and wouldn’t you know it. The author is an explicitly transphobic right wing podcaster, who prattles on endlessly about the “social contagion” of “transgenderism” and cries like a little baby about how he has been “unfairly” excluded from the broader scientific community.

    In conclusion - because you may need this spelled out for you - a single error ridden opinion piece by a discredited loser does not invalidate the overwhelming consensus of experts. By literal whining self proclamation his views are unrepresentative of the consensus of experts.

    My intuition was obviously correct all along, but thank you for proving definitively that your views amount to nothing more than 100% science themed transphobic propaganda.

    Where are you sourcing that from?

    Literally the meta analysis I already linked. The consensus of experts is that gametes are bimodal. You should try listening to scientists if you care so much about science lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It’s comedic actually, your “literally all of biology” is exposed as being an indefensible fringe whack job, and you hand wave it away without further comment. I guess this was always the road you were destined to take, as with all pseudo-intellectual hucksters who are incapable of providing receipts

    As for your continued inflexible adamance that there are perfectly binary biological absolutes, you are almost too dense to believe lol. They even have a graph that explains it for you. I can appreciate the low effort nature of how you are trying to save face with ctrl+f, but at some point scientific integrity demands you actually sit down to understand a topic, rather than just draw transphobic constellations over individual sentences

    Since we are apparently moving now to our closing arguments by addressing our readers, against all odds, we have ended up in agreement. I also encourage readers to go check out the drivel you posted for themselves. The morons seeking a safe space in their little right wing echo chamber will be thrilled to hear their beliefs uncritically asserted at them, and anyone with a brain will be equally amused at how badly the author humiliates himself both in the paper and elsewhere online.

    I’m glad we were able to conclude things so amicably, enjoy your holiday weekend (if you happen to be an American)!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Not all articles that are peer-reviewed and given a doi are credible. Peer reviewers are directly contacted by the editor(s) of a journal, this can introduce bias. That journal, its current and past editor, and the sources of the opinion article have all been advised of bias.

    I already had them tagged as "Richard Dawkins lover", had to laugh when the article they posted had Dawkins as a source almost immediately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 11 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Nope. There are animals with more than two gamete sizes. Egg and sperm are not sizes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -5 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Arctic foxes and fruit flies. And before responding, be sure to educate yourself on the difference between what constitutes size and "egg and sperm". Those are entirely different concepts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (16 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (14 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 11 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus.

    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.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 11 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    and then points out that it's scientifically inaccurate

    by quoting noted transphobe, Richard Dawkins lmao.

    Why are you so focused on spreading transphobic rhetoric?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    I think Richard Dawkins is a transphobe because he frequently makes public anti-trans statements and conflates gender and sex in a way that is weaponized against trans people.

    If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that's entirely on you.

    Jesus dude this is just boring now. Claiming your outdated view is "scientific truth" hasn't worked all day, maybe find a new slant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 11 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    It doesn't matter what arguments I give you, you're dug in. That's what's boring - every new angle anyone tries with you just gets the same old tired "my science is correct and infallible, yours is wrong" response. "Arguments" like that are boring. 🤷

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    Are you serious? Like, you can't be serious at this point. I sent that article to you, like 4 comments ago. We've already discussed it, in this very thread. 🥱

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    No, I still don't agree with the same incorrect bullshit you've been saying for the past 36 hours now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    You so clever! How many numbers I have write with binary? Is two, no? Why fucking computer use binary if only two numbers?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Sir is doing biology without brain. Is much cleverer trick.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)