Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs
pebbles@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoWould you care to explain yourself? Maybe explain how folks that would never produce either gamete fit into your binary based on gamete production? Or is that too advanced? I hear we are sticking to basic biology after all.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
Nobody’s body is a blank slate. Just because one developmental pathway didn’t turn out as expected doesn’t mean that it’s impossible to determine sex. Their bodies are still organized around producing one or the other of two gamete sizes, hence binary.
pebbles@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
This implies that the organization can fail then? That is how we put the outliers in in the binary? That means that that kind of organization has an goal?
That feels like common sense. Like in the culturally-rooted sense. Not necessarily a reflection of reality, but an easy idea to swallow. I don’t think human development has intention in that kind of way unless you are religious.
I guess, what makes gamete production the goal of human development? What makes you confident that there is a goal to human development?
To me it seems like it would be hard to answer those questions without anthropomorphizing human development.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
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”
pebbles@sh.itjust.works 22 hours ago
So, just how you can’t say that a rock on an even platform has failed to fall, I don’t think you can say that an intersex individual has failed to produce gametes. Since neither had intention. Therefore I feel like your binary definition is extraphysical. Given that, I think you’d understand why I wouldn’t accept such a religious adjacent idea.