There’s a comment chain in this thread focused on the definition of sex as producing one of two gametes, which leads to pointing out that some people produce no gametes, which is countered by saying they could potentially produce them in the future or if they didn’t have a particular condition, etc. Normally I would post this kind of question directly to someone, but the same stuff is being said so many times that I’m not sure which one to reply to, hence creating a new comment chain.
Basically I’m thinking that defining the female sex by ability (or potential ability) to produce eggs might be faulty on the grounds that no one produces eggs. Or that only a person pregnant with a child who will be born with eggs can be said to have achieved femaleness by this definition. Or maybe the baby is the one making the eggs, so the only way to be female is to have produced eggs prior to birth. I’m not really sure of the details regarding when the eggs develop or who’s really responsible for them, I’m just pretty sure they’re there at birth and it’s interesting to think about.
Essentially once cells have begun dividing following fertilization some are set apart as germ cells. These are the cells that eventually become gametes. The thing is, like I tried to mention in my last reply to that guy, it isn’t strictly chromosomes that determine what these cells become in humans. Lots of genetic transcription and translation factors, hormones and hormone receptors, ligands and so on. Sometimes those cells don’t even make it into the gonad, they die, and are absorbed by the embryo’s body.
This is why sex isn’t a binary, there is a spectrum of outcomes following gametogenesis, including a lack of gametes. Statistically it is most likely for a person who is born XX to have primary and secondary female sex characteristics. But that doesn’t mean people who fall outside of that aren’t also biologically women. If you define a woman as someone that is born with eggs, you deny womanhood to millions of people that would otherwise be considered a cis-woman by outdated standards.
That person stated one argument and then kept changing it, eventually arguing that we just weren’t understanding his words. Either he’s willfully ignorant and pushing a definition that is not taught in American universities, or he has an agenda. And the refusal to acknowledge the 30+ comments telling him he is wrong really suggests that there is an agenda.
I’m pretty sure they have an agenda, yeah. I just wanted to think about the premise on its own terms, like how one might think about the definition of a fish? I feel like it’s both personally enriching and better equips me to respond to such arguments. Even though I don’t think they’ll listen to anyone, I don’t think anyone’s responses to them were a waste of time because I really feel like I’ve learned a lot from reading them, and I’m sure plenty of other people did too, so thank you for your labor.
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.
That’s admirable that you want to be able to respond to arguments in a more thoughtful way, and I’m sorry people were assuming otherwise. I can’t really condense the entire semester of my developmental biology class into a comment, but I tried to give you terms to explore and learn more about.
I read the edit to your original comment and I think you’re on the right path!
stray@pawb.social 1 day ago
There’s a comment chain in this thread focused on the definition of sex as producing one of two gametes, which leads to pointing out that some people produce no gametes, which is countered by saying they could potentially produce them in the future or if they didn’t have a particular condition, etc. Normally I would post this kind of question directly to someone, but the same stuff is being said so many times that I’m not sure which one to reply to, hence creating a new comment chain.
Basically I’m thinking that defining the female sex by ability (or potential ability) to produce eggs might be faulty on the grounds that no one produces eggs. Or that only a person pregnant with a child who will be born with eggs can be said to have achieved femaleness by this definition. Or maybe the baby is the one making the eggs, so the only way to be female is to have produced eggs prior to birth. I’m not really sure of the details regarding when the eggs develop or who’s really responsible for them, I’m just pretty sure they’re there at birth and it’s interesting to think about.
FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 1 day ago
The term that might help you is “oogenesis”.
Essentially once cells have begun dividing following fertilization some are set apart as germ cells. These are the cells that eventually become gametes. The thing is, like I tried to mention in my last reply to that guy, it isn’t strictly chromosomes that determine what these cells become in humans. Lots of genetic transcription and translation factors, hormones and hormone receptors, ligands and so on. Sometimes those cells don’t even make it into the gonad, they die, and are absorbed by the embryo’s body.
This is why sex isn’t a binary, there is a spectrum of outcomes following gametogenesis, including a lack of gametes. Statistically it is most likely for a person who is born XX to have primary and secondary female sex characteristics. But that doesn’t mean people who fall outside of that aren’t also biologically women. If you define a woman as someone that is born with eggs, you deny womanhood to millions of people that would otherwise be considered a cis-woman by outdated standards.
That person stated one argument and then kept changing it, eventually arguing that we just weren’t understanding his words. Either he’s willfully ignorant and pushing a definition that is not taught in American universities, or he has an agenda. And the refusal to acknowledge the 30+ comments telling him he is wrong really suggests that there is an agenda.
stray@pawb.social 1 day ago
I’m pretty sure they have an agenda, yeah. I just wanted to think about the premise on its own terms, like how one might think about the definition of a fish? I feel like it’s both personally enriching and better equips me to respond to such arguments. Even though I don’t think they’ll listen to anyone, I don’t think anyone’s responses to them were a waste of time because I really feel like I’ve learned a lot from reading them, and I’m sure plenty of other people did too, so thank you for your labor.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
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:
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:
FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 1 day ago
That’s admirable that you want to be able to respond to arguments in a more thoughtful way, and I’m sorry people were assuming otherwise. I can’t really condense the entire semester of my developmental biology class into a comment, but I tried to give you terms to explore and learn more about.
I read the edit to your original comment and I think you’re on the right path!