Autistic trans uncredentialed cloutchaser
Who are you?
People’s bodies are still organized around the production of either sperm or ova, even if they’re unable to reproduce due to a developmental issue. You can call that a third category if it’s useful to you, but that doesn’t form a third sex as understood by biologists.
Intersex is a confusing term, and doesn’t dispute the binary. People are still male or female, with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
From the author of that paper:
https://xcancel.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680
In your piece ‘Sex Redefined’ are you making the claim there are more than 2 sexes?
No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.
Do you have a particular edge case in mind? One that’s commonly brought up is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome, but that doesn’t fall outside the sex binary. Having a bit of nonfunctional tissue doesn’t affect one’s sex.
Colors aren’t a great analogy either, because in anisogamous species, gametes are strictly binary. There’s sperm and ova, with 0 overlap and 0 other options. “Purple gametes” just don’t exist.
This also isn’t my opinion, this is the accepted definition in the field of biology.
This is often a point of confusion, but human sex is binary. There’s edge cases that require clarification as to how they fit into the binary, but don’t disprove it.
Human sexuality overall is complex and that’s why we differentiate gender from sex. The sex binary and gender spectrum complement each other though, and don’t clash.
If you’re interested in learning more, here’s some background reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonochorism
We fall into that category, where we have two body plans, each organized around producing either sperm or ova. Other species have more body plans, such as recognizably distinct males, females, and hermaphrodites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trioecy
Those species are a good contrast. Humans don’t have that variation, and so sex is binary in humans.
There’s literature that explains this specifically in detail, though most of it doesn’t really explicitly talk about it, much like math papers don’t generally explain that integers can be added together.
I think we agree. Maybe I was misreading the above comment, but I was just clarifying that “transform” in that sense for chickens is not actually changing sex, and so is a different situation than clownfish.
I’m not aware of that being an actual change in sex. The hen can develop male characteristics, but won’t produce functional sperm.
Male seahorse get pregnant, but that doesn’t make them trans, they’re unambiguously male. This is a great example of why sex is defined by gamete size. If it weren’t, we couldn’t talk about males and females in any useful way across the animal kingdom.
Clownfish would be a better example as they’re sequential hermaphrodites, but that doesn’t have any bearing on the human sex binary.
When military action is more beneficial and profitable to China, they will not hesitate to use it.
If China tried to invade a country, that would give the US an excuse to come to that country’s defense, and China does not have the resources to deal with that. Since they can’t use hard power, they’re using soft power.
Expecting altruism in geopolitics is hopelessly naïve.
They don’t have capacity to deal with the US intervening. If not for that, they would 100% be steamrolling everything they could. They’ve done it many times before and they’ll do it again, just like everybody else in history.
If it makes it easier, focus on another example then. The actual part that needs answering is this:
Do you agree that women have the right to not compete against biological males, when they’re saying very strongly that they do not want to?
Julie Peterson is one concrete example so that’s it’s not just theoretical handwaving. The general question is what’s important though.
I’m confused why you apparently doubt that puberty affects teenagers in high school, but that’s not really relevant in the end.
I mention AB Hernandez because it’s in the news, and the women involved are emphatically expressing that they don’t want to play against biological males. Pick another situation if you want, like Julie Peterson refusing to take the podium in protest after taking second place to someone that has the advantage of male puberty.
The general point is what I’m asking about. Do you agree that women have the right to not compete against biological males, when they’re saying very strongly that they do not want to?
It seems you’d really like me to be somebody else, that you can rail against for other opinions. It feels good when you can properly hate someone with moral conviction.
But it’s not that easy. HRT is great for people that need it, but it can’t erase the effects of male puberty. In the case of AB Hernandez, do you think the women have a right to not play against biological males?
Agree 100% sex =/= gender and blue/pink are culture, etc. What about where it matters, like sports? If women want sex-specific leagues, should we support them? Do you support the young women that don’t want to play against biologically male players such as AB Hernandez?
Some people want to be inclusive in their language and define woman by gender, and that’s great! Some people like the historical sex-based definition, and that’s fine too. Biological sex is real, and wanting to acknowledge that doesn’t make someone right-wing.
You appear to be using the term “capitalism” in a confusing way. From etymonline:
The meaning “political/economic system which encourages capitalists” is recorded from 1872 and originally was used disparagingly by socialists.
Words can change meaning and all that, but when people complain about capitalism, they don’t mean what you’re talking about. You seem to mean something like “well-regulated free market”, and other people mean “broken, exploitative system that worships greed”
Genuine question, what happens in an anarchist utopia when your neighbors decide that they like your land? If you fight back en masse, doesn’t that involve creating a military with a hierarchy that’s ripe for seizing power? How can you maintain the social organization for building fighter jets or aircraft carriers or spycraft without those being taken over and used against the people? If you just don’t, what happens when your neighbors are a global superpower that has all that?
It seems even more impractical and idealistic than Communism, which at least has an answer to that.
There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests
I quoted an entire sentence exactly. They didn’t say “I like pancakes”, they said “You can’t compromise with waffle-eaters”
A better analogy for the author’s clarification would be “Red and blue, each with a continuum of variation in hue”. There’s still no purple, just different shades of red and different shades of blue. I don’t really have more to add beyond pointing out that this is the author of the paper directly clarifying that point.
You’re free to invent whatever categories you find useful of course. But biologists will continue to recognize human sex as binary, because that is a useful description of the reality they encounter.