all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 2 months ago (1 child)

Well, so long as we don't go through the dimension where the spiders have taken over...

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Oh, the anti-science crowd ain't gonna like this.

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

    Don't need science to see that just because i have a penis i am not "anything" or "something", i just am me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    yes please tell me your sex vector

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    sal@mander.xyz, why is this now the appropriate community for this post? Or is this one going to get removed, too?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

    The author is really reaching here.

    Defines everything as male or female, then wants to argue that everyone is unique or something... this is pretty trivial truth stuff.

    Nobody conforms in reality to any gender ideal, but the ideal of trying do is what motivates a lot of people's social behaviors and expectations for themselves and others. That's why they are ideals. Also why gender identity is so fraught with conflict, because everyone is chasing after some ideal and demanding others do the same as them, often in the context of making themselves sexually appealing.

    Biology doesn't have ideals, just traits. And the traits that matter are those that allow you to reproduce. and yeah, in some cultures being more androgynous would be advantageous, in others, not so much. it's all variable.

    none of this disputes the fact the vast majority of human beings are male or female biologically. and there a subset that are not.

    I will never understand this weird fascination that there has to be two sexes absolutely, or none at all. There are two sexes for the vast majority of species, but not all. Some species can change sex, some can't, some are hermaphrodites, some can produce asexually and sexually, etc.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Where are they reaching? Please quote a line or paragraph that's "reaching" in your opinion.

    none of this disputes the fact the vast majority of human beings are male or female biologically. and there a subset that are not.

    What are you basing that on? Do you think that doctors registered the placement of the gonads, the breast size, the penis length, amount of androgens, testosterone and other hormones for the "vast majority of humans"?

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

    reaching by calling it 'multidimensional' when the entire article is two dimensional classifications. that's how. the headline is shit.

    placement of your gonads or breasts has nothing to do with how male or female you are. what are you talking about? some men develop breasts due to cancer, doesn't change them to become women, they are just men whose breasts developed due to hormonal triggers that are not normally present.

    like, I understand the motivation to normalize intersex people by claiming everyone is intersex, but that's not a useful in any way, it's just trivializing things.

    I'm more than open to have hormonal cutoffs for sex/gender definitions, but I also understand that is a total other bag of worms once you start doing things that way. It would a more properly scientific way to define male and female, but socially people would lose their fucking minds if that standard was applied to sports or other social controversial areas where sex definition is a sorting mechanism.

    We already exclude people based on drug use for tons of things like jobs, sports, etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago*

    reaching by calling it 'multidimensional' when the entire article is two dimensional classifications. that's how. the headline is shit.

    two dimensional

    biological traits

    mosaic

    How are these two-dimensional?

    placement of your gonads or breasts has nothing to do with how male or female you are. what are you talking about?

    For example, someone who has a Y chromosome but complete androgen insensitivity – meaning their cells do not respond to androgens at all – develops testes hidden in their abdomen as well as typically female genitals.

    Did you even read this far?

    It seems like you didn't actually read the article or just chose to ignore everything that talked about multi-dimensionality.

  • source
  • parent
  • 51 comments in c/science@lemmy.ml view that post
    19 comments in c/science@mander.xyz view that post
    14 comments in c/onehundredninetysix@lemmy.blahaj.zone view that post
    6 comments in c/trans@lemmy.blahaj.zone view that post
    2 comments in c/transgender@lemmy.blahaj.zone view that post