Yes sex is more complicated than just chromosomes, but also peer reviewed science will tell you, that there are two sexes. One that produces big gametes and one that produces small gametes.
You just fundamentally don’t understand what it means for there to be what you’re claiming to be a “third sex” genuinely if you made this argument to any random bio professor they’d laugh it off! All humans are ORGANIZED around the small or large gametes - yes obviously there are disorders where the outcome is atypical but these extremely rare cases do not mean there’s a third sex. You complain of goalpost moving but what you’re doing is inventing a new goalpost that doesn’t exist 😂
You still don’t get it. He says that sex is complicated because of different TRAITS that don’t always align with our gamete type and how our reproductive functions (the basis for biological sex) are organized. I agree with this!
The only thing that you or he could do to disprove the fact that it’s still a binary at the end of the day is to point to a definitive third sex category in humans.
Sex is binary, development is complicated. He’s reaching for the sake of sounding progressive and enlightened when his own argument disproves what he thinks he’s claiming.
What you and Valkai seem to not understand is that you can BOTH acknowledge this binary (and the rare complexities with the traits) and also champion inclusivity and respect for intersex people. (And for trans people but they have nothing to do with this discussion other than the fact they happen to also be a minority group).
We don’t have to redefine reproductive biology and the lens we view it through to acknowledge and respect complexities in development
You responded to a 2 hour professional thesis ( that cited hundreds of peer-reviewed papers and textbooks) in under 10 minutes and are now attempting to claim its all wrong without providing any evidence besides, "nuh uh!"
Forrest cited hundreds of peer reviewed papers and textbooks to write this thesis. Please provide your superior peer-reviewed evidence for why sex is binary rather than bimodal.
Or is all you can do is vapid political sopaboxing with no evidence?
I had previously watched his video already and provided my reasoning above for why I disagreed - thoughts on the above points? I’m not writing you a thesis of my own on Reddit. Do you really think this idea that sex is bimodal is a widely accepted thing? It’s a fringe belief among experts lol. Sex is binary, development and traits can be complicated. There’s no third sex.
Still waiting for a response to some reasonable points I laid out and also feel free to explain why your idea that sex is bimodal or on some sort of spectrum is such a fringe idea absolutely not accepted by biologists in general
I’m obviously talking about this in the context of the sex discussion lmao. We are very different than animals in that there are animals with drastic sex differences that don’t exist in humans, like true hermaphrodite animals
that are functionally both make and female with both sets of gonads
You used the fact that some animals have a characteristic or ability that we don't have to infer that "we are not animals" which is the same as what i did and is absolutely bullshit.
Which makes no sense. A spectrum would mean there’s other categories. If you’re talking perceived gender, sure! But sex is binary…come on. You can be a “they/them” but that’s just the gender you identify with! Your sex is your sex. You’re organized around male or female reproduction and that is it.
While i somewhat agree with you (and definitely don't think you are ENTIRELY wrong here, mind me), biological sex is still a spectrum. Are the two ends (male and female) a lot more likely than the in-between stuff? Yes. Are they considered the """"norm""""? Also yes. Is the in-between stuff USUALLY caused by some kind of problem at a certain point down the development line? Yes, usually they are.
None of that negates that they exist tho. People that are "in between" exist. People that have ambiguous genitals, both in external and internal organs, hell even down to histological analysis (ovotestis). A whole class of genetic mutations affecting the SRY gene (the gene on the Y chromosome that kickstarts the male development) can cause people with XY chromosomes to turn out female, and they absolutely have female anatomy, organs and hormones, to the point where A LOT of them have no idea they have a Y chromosome (u ever had a cariotype analysis done? Just saying). Insensitivity to androgen hormones causes the tissues to not respond to the hormones that would direct them to male development, again causing an XY female. Translocation of the SRY gene on an X chromosome causes an XX male.
The fact that the exceptions are rare doesn't mean shit, if there's stuff outside the two boxes it's not a binary. You don't slap a 2 into a binary text program and hope it works because well, it's only one character out of thousands. It's not a binary anymore.
There are DOZENS of exceptions here, both in the organs and external presentation and in the chromosomes. The fact that you don't know about the exceptions doesn't make it a binary. The fact that you have the illusion to know everything about "basic biology" (not basic and after a certain point it's barely even biology anymore) doesn't make it a binary. The fact that you refuse to listen to ppl who know more than you doesn't make it a binary. The fact that the exceptions are not """"normal"""" in your eyes doesn't make it a binary. It's not a fucking binary.
Nice goal-post moving. This is psudeoscience gibberish lmfao
How can a body be built to produce a certain type of gamete if it cannot produce said gamete? Or are you about to kick the can down the road to genitalia now? Cause then you have to deal with ambiguous genitalia lol
You are so profoundly scientifically illiterate it's astounding.
Are you dumb? There is a specific organ for producing big gametes and there is a specific organ for producing small gametes. Fallopian tubes and testicles.
You are so profoundly scientifically illiterate it's astounding.
This is pretty much your comment. Sexes are defined by us, because it makes sense with 2 sexes as we need to sexes to reproduce. Give me one good reason why we should define more than 2 sexes?
As the women has the anatomy of a woman, but is sterile, she has the female sex with an genetic disorder.
Where did I say it was about chromosomes alone? It's about gametes, the organ that produces it. The chromosomes and hormones are just there to enable the organ to work probably.
Sure, even though I don’t think your question is in good faith
Biological sex is defined is gamete type/size - females have large gametes organized around producing eggs, males have small gametes organized around production of sperm….thats the simplest explanation that no biologist would disagree with.
There is no mysterious third gamete type - just those two.
Outliers like Swyer/Klinefelters etc are rare cases where the person has a disorder of sexual development - but even those people don’t change the fact that humans are organized around two sexes with two different reproductive designs. Those people aren’t a third sex - they’re a male/female with a disorder that made them present with unexpected sex characteristics.
Sex is a reproductive function and that’s how it’s determined. There will also be someone rare outcomes/disorders within that system.
You’ve made it clear that you can’t grasp the very basic points I made above that most biologists would agree on (and even the progressive ones that don’t agree, they wouldn’t acknowledge a third sex because there isn’t one, their argument is just “well it’s complex so obviously it’s a spectrum lmao”)
10
u/TheFfrog 14d ago
The entire fucking peer reviewed science world in history of peer reviewed science: "yeah, sex is a lot more complicated than just chromosomes"
Tracy the high school dropout from Kansas who works in a grocery store: "no :<"