Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours agoI 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”):
link.springer.com/article/…/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.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Most humiliating trash I’ve ever read, thank you! A ridiculous and indecipherable attempt at science. He randomly states nonsense circular reasoning without citation, and he also frequently cites random non-scientific opinion fluff articles from transphobes. How bizarre.
Ah, and wouldn’t you know it. The author is an explicitly transphobic right wing podcaster, who prattles on endlessly about the “social contagion” of “transgenderism” and cries like a little baby about how he has been “unfairly” excluded from the broader scientific community.
In conclusion - because you may need this spelled out for you - a single error ridden opinion piece by a discredited loser does not invalidate the overwhelming consensus of experts. By literal whining self proclamation his views are unrepresentative of the consensus of experts.
My intuition was obviously correct all along, but thank you for proving definitively that your views amount to nothing more than 100% science themed transphobic propaganda.
Literally the meta analysis I already linked. The consensus of experts is that gametes are bimodal. You should try listening to scientists if you care so much about science lol
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
I’m sorry, what? You’ve fundamentally misread that meta analysis if you think it posits a third gamete type. Just what?
Did you misread this bit? “Whereas some of these traits do typically have a bimodal distribution (some chromosomes, gametes)”. That’s not positing a third gamete type or saying that gametes aren’t binary. A binary distribution is a subset of the set of bimodal distributions. They use the term bimodal in reference to chromosomes, and it’s technically correct when applied to gametes, but does not imply thar gametes aren’t binary. The paper even acknowledges binary gametes elsewhere.
If you’re this wrong about a paper that you think supports your point, I don’t think it’s worth examining your take on other papers. Suffice it to say, for anyone else reading this, don’t take the other commenter’s word for it. The paper I linked is a good read.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
It’s comedic actually, your “literally all of biology” is exposed as being an indefensible fringe whack job, and you hand wave it away without further comment. I guess this was always the road you were destined to take, as with all pseudo-intellectual hucksters who are incapable of providing receipts
As for your continued inflexible adamance that there are perfectly binary biological absolutes, you are almost too dense to believe lol. They even have a graph that explains it for you. I can appreciate the low effort nature of how you are trying to save face with ctrl+f, but at some point scientific integrity demands you actually sit down to understand a topic, rather than just draw transphobic constellations over individual sentences
Since we are apparently moving now to our closing arguments by addressing our readers, against all odds, we have ended up in agreement. I also encourage readers to go check out the drivel you posted for themselves. The morons seeking a safe space in their little right wing echo chamber will be thrilled to hear their beliefs uncritically asserted at them, and anyone with a brain will be equally amused at how badly the author humiliates himself both in the paper and elsewhere online.
I’m glad we were able to conclude things so amicably, enjoy your holiday weekend (if you happen to be an American)!
FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 3 hours ago
Not all articles that are peer-reviewed and given a doi are credible. Peer reviewers are directly contacted by the editor(s) of a journal, this can introduce bias. That journal, its current and past editor, and the sources of the opinion article have all been advised of bias.
I already had them tagged as “Richard Dawkins lover”, had to laugh when the article they posted had Dawkins as a source almost immediately.