Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

powerstruggle

@ powerstruggle @sh.itjust.works

Posts
784
Comments
327
Joined
6 mo. ago

Why?

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • No agenda here other than scientific accuracy. I'll recommend you read this [peer-reviewed and written by a biologist] paper (Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes), which explains the sex binary:

    Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology

    Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates.

    The commenter you're responding to is sadly confused. Nobody (or at least certainly not me) is saying that "a woman is someone that is born with eggs" or that "chromosomes strictly determine what these cells become". They're trying to misinterpret what the scientific consensus is, and I would be wary of their agenda. Reading papers like the one I linked is a much better source than the inaccuracies of the commenter you're responding to. If reading papers isn't your thing, here's another quote from biologists elsewhere in the thread:

    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.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • Those are variations within a sex. Chromosomes/genes/etc aren't how sex is defined. The paper that I link to in my sibling comment (Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes) explains why trying to use that as the definition of sex is incoherent.

  • Why do you personally believe in your religion?

    Jump

  • The analogy to a messy room fails. I recommend you read this (and the rest of the archive, it's great stuff):

    https://talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html

    Of note is "The Earth is not a closed system"

    Realizing that the root cause is just because you want it to be true is fine, commendable even. Just don't try to justify it post hoc with sciency-sounding arguments.

  • Why do you personally believe in your religion?

    Jump

  • I disagree with everything you've said, but upvoted because you answered the question.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • I encourage you to read this peer-reviewed follow-up from a biologist to that paper, which points out why it's wrong (in the section "The Multilevel Sex Model"):

    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3

    As that paper also points out, this is not a new definition. It references that definition from 1888. Biology has always used this definition of sex, and XX/XY being involved in the definition is simply a common misunderstanding, not the latest in a long chain of anything. Trying to paint this as new or transphobia is simply wrong.

    You should ask your biologist friends why people today aren't being born with a third gamete type. I'll be honest, that's just a bizarre claim. Where are you sourcing that from? I'll explain why it's wrong if you give a link. Also, as I've said before, none of these claims are mine. I'm simply stating what the scientific consensus is.

    The meme is incorrectly trying to say "sex is only mostly a binary". That is flat out wrong according to scientific consensus. Again, if you don't like that, take it up with the experts. Publish a paper pointing out why these statements from a biologist are incorrect and become rich and famous (or at least famous):

    Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology

    Across anisogamous taxa, males and females are defined by gametic dimorphism. Proposals to redefine sex in terms of karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, behavior, or other correlates are incoherent and invariably presuppose this foundation, because the categories “male” and “female” are intelligible only by reference to sperm and ova.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • Even if I've failed to convince you, thanks for actually trying to understand, unlike most in this thread. The best link I can provide for further reading is probably this peer-reviewed article published by a biologist, Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes. Here's a few quotes:

    Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology

    Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates.

    This commentary advances a simple claim with broad consequences: In anisogamous organisms, the sexes—male and female—are functional classes defined by the type of gamete an individual has the biological function to produce (Bogardus, 2025). Males have the biological function to produce sperm; females have the biological function to produce ova (Parker et al., 1972). That definition is universal across all anisogamous taxa

    As I've said elsewhere in the thread, nothing I've said here is actually a claim that I myself am making. I'm simply stating what the consensus is. Trying to find flaws in that definition is how science works, and it's healthy to poke at it.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • The quote is from your link. I didn't make it up. Why don't you agree with the actual experts?

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • 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)

    This is the context that I was referring to. I'm not "now" openly conceding anything. I haven't "honed in" on anything over the years, whatever talking points other people used several years ago are irrelevant. You're trying to lump me in with other people so that you can hate me. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I'll say it at least once more. Chromosomal variation is messy, but it's messy within the sex binary. I'm not "now conceding" that, I've never said anything else.

    ridiculous non sequitur dismissal

    It's easy to throw words around. Your point is invalid because you're talking about how sex came to be. That's all fine and dandy, but irrelevant. What's relevant to the discussion is the way it is today. If you want to talk about the development of sex, then the fact that there is such a strong pressure towards binary sex across so many different species should be telling. Other animals have completely different ways of sex determination and reproduction, and yet the sex binary exists virtually everywhere. Why is it so favored?

    It's convenient that you have a biologist friend. Ask them why real biologists are saying (to quote again, in case you missed it from my last message):

    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.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • You're asking questions that are great, but are philosophical and go beyond this topic. Narrowly, the human body could be said to have a goal of reproducing in the same way a falling rock has a goal of reaching the ground. It's clear how the physics play out, but there's nothing that turns that "is" into an "ought"

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • I'm afraid you have me mixed up with someone else. There's no "you openly concede". This is literally how the field of biology defines sex. To quote:

    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.

    Yes, way back in our evolutionary history, sex wasn't binary. We were also not multi cellular, but so what? We are now.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • Nobody's body is organized around the production of no gametes.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • I see what you're going for, but it's literally the opposite. Sex is defined by gamete size because biologists wanted to describe the world they found accurately and coherently. It's a descriptivist approach.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • I'll let someone else's link (ironically trying to argue with me) do the talking:

    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.

    Real biologists saying real facts. Incidentally, I don't really get the point of histrionics like "I'm done" or another commenter calling facts "boring". I guess that maybe works for twitter clapbacks where vibes are more important than facts? When you're ready though, the scientific truth will still be there for you.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • My point is that those are some of the secondary structures you'd examine in the case of missing gonads. Nobody is born with a body plan that just has no concept of producing gametes. That's the point of saying "organized around".

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • The structures that unambiguously always define male or female are the structures that produce functional gametes. I interpreted "how folks that were never going to produce either fit into that definition" as asking "If we don't look at the gonads, what would we use to determine sex". Those ducts are a very good indicator, but are secondary structures around the gonads. If you wanted to determine sex without looking at gonads, those are one of the primary structures for doing so.

    Ovotestes are interesting, but probably not what you're thinking. They're not just normal testes and ovaries as one might be lead to believe from the name. They're exceedingly rare, so have to be examined individually and general statements can't really be made. You'll probably find a (semi-)functional gonad from which their sex would be determined, with a sampling of non-functioning tissue from the other sex. You'll also likely find that the surrounding structures and rest of their body is unambiguously male or female, though again you'd have to look at a specific case.

    To bring it around to near the start of this thread, even then, the body isn't organized around producing no gametes. It's organized around producing gametes and failing to do so.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • Apologies, mixed up threads. So you agree that the article supports my point exactly. To quote: "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."

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • To be fair, I also call out lots of other misinformation, like people trying to say North Korea is great, actually. That just doesn't get as much activity. In this thread alone I probably doubled my number of comments, but only because so many people tried to argue with me. The user you're responding to also seems to believe that people they disagree with are trolls, which is not how that works.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • You're welcome to spice things up with any sort of support for your argument. It is kind of boring to keep repeating "No, let's not reject science" I'll admit, but you're certainly not providing anything of value.

    I'll help you out. Here's a link someone else provided (ironically supporting my point exactly):

    https://medium.com/@alysion42/letter-to-the-us-president-and-congress-on-the-scientific-understanding-of-sex-and-gender-992051a60318

    Anisogamy is the definition of sex

    and

    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.

    and

    the Tri-societies were wrong to speak in our names and claim that there is a scientific consensus without even conducting a survey of society members to see if such a consensus exists. Distorting reality to comply with ideology and using a misleading claim of consensus to give a veneer of scientific authority to your statement does more harm than just misrepresenting our views: it also weakens public trust in science, which has declined rapidly in the last few years.

    Real biology right there. From real biologists. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the scientific consensus as now explained to you directly from said consensus. Reality doesn't care about whether or not it bores you. It's true regardless.

  • OnLy tWo eLemEnTs

    Jump

  • Sigh. There are two types of gametes (in anisogamous species), defined by their size. There can be types of sperm or eggs, but those aren't different sexes, those are subtypes of the two gamete types/sizes.

    You're so wrapped up in trying to find a gotcha that you've lost yourself to blind rage. When you're ready, the science will still be there, ready for you to discover it.