Comment on That's a whole lotta hydrogen!
Binette@lemmy.ml 1 day agoThe issue with your argument is that you’re ascribing a simple explanation how biology works to the actual reality of things. When doctors or evolutionary biologist say that something was “supposed to be done”, in the context of biology, they usually mean “this is what the being (as in, its system) does for the possible outcome of reproduction or survival, but there are other possibilities”. They don’t actually mean that this is what is supposed to be done. It’s a way for people to understand it more simply, and is implied.
You should read the Wikipedia article on Teleology in biology. But this paragraph is the most central part of the argument against your point. Teleology means a certain “goal-oriented”-ness.
Statements which imply that nature has goals, for example where a species is said to do something “in order to” achieve survival, appear teleological, and therefore invalid to evolutionary biologists. It is however usually possible to rewrite such sentences to avoid the apparent teleology. Some biology courses have incorporated exercises requiring students to rephrase such sentences so that they do not read teleologically. Nevertheless, biologists still frequently write in a way which can be read as implying teleology, even though that is not their intention.
As an example, take a meteorologist providing forecast for tomorrow’s weather. With whatever means they collected data, they assert: “it will rain tomorrow”. Tomorrow comes, and it is sunnier than ever. Scientifically speaking, the meteorologist cannot say “the atmosphere failed to make it rain, even though it tried to”. If this seems absurd, it’s because it is. In that case, the meteorologist is supposed to adapt their model into something that more accurately reflects the data given.
The problem is even more visible once you take the example of an intersex person, born with XY chromosomes, but with a uterus (Swyer’s Syndrome). One person could base themselves on the XY chromosomes to say that the person was “supposed to produce small gametes”, as you put it. Another person could base themselves on the fact that (with medical intervention) the person can produce large gametes, therefore, that the person was “supposed to produce large gametes”. Either answer is wrong, since the body isn’t actually “supposed” to do something. It just does what it does, regardless of what you think it is supposed to do. The correct thing to do would be to say: “They aren’t supposed to do something. If our model is to be empirical, it should be supposed to reflect what is actually going on with their body, not ascribe a will to it. We should rethink how we see the definition of sex”
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’s good to be careful about language like “should”, but that doesn’t really refute anything that I’ve said. Taking a step back, this is what the consensus is in the field of biology, which certainly has dealt with teleological arguments before. It’s nothing new, and yet the consensus is still that sex is entirely defined by the gamete type one’s body is organized around producing.
Why exactly do you think your comment is a counterpoint? I understand the limitations of phrasing like “should” or “supposed to”, but concretely, how do you think that applies?
People with Swyer syndrome are female, not because of "supposed to"s, but because the end result is that their bodies are organized around the production of large gametes. It’s an empirical description, just as you call for. From the link:
Image
That’s the difference between how sex is defined and how sex is determined.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Binette is giving you the lecture that happens in every first year college bio class to students.
Basically evolution has in the past and could in the future (as soon as tomorrow) add a third sex to humans if there was evolutionary pressure to (which there may be). Physics is only deterministic in the short term.
The other issue is that when people (especially those in any scientific community, such as biologists) use the word gender, they specifically mean the list of attributes different societies place on biological sex characteristics they can observe.
Gametes are not something an unaided eye can identify in society so its not useful to assign gender - which no matter how you define it will never line up perfectly with biological sex due to environmental factors. Might as well use the SRY gene or even “the presence of sufficiently SRY receptors”. This is why in society we largely determine gender by what biologists call “secondary sex characteristics” aka ones not actually required for reproduction.
If assigning a gender was evolutionarily important, we’d be assigning it based on primary characteristics like you’re suggesting. But that didn’t happen. The fact is isn’t may suggest its an evolutionary disadvantage to do so.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
You’re confusing prescriptive vs descriptive. I agree that a third sex might be selected for in the future, but that’s not the current reality. Until that happens it’s correct to note that, based on how sex is defined in biology, it’s binary in humans.
I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender. Your paraphrasing is misreading what I’ve written. Sex is binary in humans, and gender isn’t.
Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I addressed your points. Please read what you’re responding to.
Binette@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
No it is still not empirical. The definition of sex is difficult to set in stone, and yours fails to argue for itself on the basis of a result that is just a stretch of the empirical truth. In fact, you saying that it is a consensus in the field of biology when a notable amount of biologists argue against this is very far-fetched.
Again, take someone with Swyer syndrome that don’t have the ability to produce any large gametes. By saying it is “organized around the production of large gametes”, you are extending that empirical fact related to that person, and ascribing them an alternate reality where there can produce large gametes. You’re defining someone around something that they cannot do.
Concretely, this means that sex is way more complicated than just “revolving around the production of gametes”. I am not an expert in biology, and will not be able to tell you exactly what it is without not considering all of the edge-cases of it’s definition. But there are too many contradictions with saying that it’s binary because XYZ.
I am of the opinion that our society’s obsession with figuring out someone’s sex, if it is assigned by birth by a doctor, determined by an onlooker, etc. is in it of itself harmful. Not that there’s anything wrong with knowing about your body, but the way it’s been morphed into these essential classes is harmful for those that defy said class, intentionally or not.
That said, I hope you look at more examples of teleology in biology. In fact, what I explained should be understandable if you have a look at the wikipedia article. If you do not mean “organized around” in a teleological sense, then what do you mean? Also, you failed to address my previous analogies in your response. If it’s because you feel like it’s fallacious, or that it’s simply wrong, then why not respond accordingly? I’m starting to suspect the use of AI…
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Something to understand is that power struggle pretends to be the last word on things. Powerstruggle is not a scientist and doesn’t even seem to have relevant degree credentials.
Push them on it. It gets pretty funny.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
This user is weirdly obsessed with me to the point of eroticism. You’ll want to be careful around them.
I’ll explain again though that “pretending to be the last word” is the opposite of what I’ve done. I’ve cited many reliable sources to demonstrate that I’m merely conveying the consensus in biology. This user has done nothing serious.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Which biologists are arguing against it? I think that’s a more concrete claim.
Your argument is basically “This person was born without something at the end of their leg, but we can’t say they’re missing a foot. Maybe it was a fin! Or a baboon! Or an aircraft carrier! There’s just no way to tell”
A human body tries to build a foot at the end of the leg. Sometimes it fails, but until we observe a stable, inherited body plan that doesn’t grow a foot at the end of a leg it is not teleological to use “tries” in that sense. It’s descriptive
Binette@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Few examples of biologists arguing against it:
www.asrm.org/…/just-the-facts-biological-sex/ www.biorxiv.org/content/…/2023.01.26.525769v1
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40199245/
radcliffe.harvard.edu/…/ideology-versus-biology
By the way, when I look towards more sources for your claims, I often find christian institutions and TERF adgacent sources. Some even argue for teleology. This, again, contredicts the theory of evolution, which we are still abiding by, correct?
Also, your section on determination vs. definition (in your last message) is cyclical. People determine based on definition. To say the opposite would beg the question: “determined based on what?”, and the answer will be a definition, right or wrong.
I’m not the one saying “it could be a baboon, who knows”. You are lol. I’m saying that there is no such thing as a “could be” in concrete empirical analysis of nature, just a “be”. We can make educated guesses based on the empirical data, but they’re just that: guesses. We can say “they are missing a foot”, but it is a shorthand for “this person has no foot. Usually, people have a foot there. It might allow them to walk more stabily, so let’s try sollutions that mimic the structure of a foot”.
Because how can they be lierally “missing a foot” if they never had one in the first place? The supposition that something is “supposed to be there” is a cognitive shortcut, but nothing is supposed.
It is teleological, because there are two options in interpreting this sentence:
Using this interpretation, it would be ridiculous to define a human empiricaly around the fact that they have 2 legs. Remember, right now we are using terms in order to explain something more concrete.
The “stable, iherited body plan” is still a teleological sentence lmfao. You’re basically disaproving my argument on the basis of it not being teleological.
Since you’re arguing for teleology, I suppose that you have a fickle understanding of evolutionary biology. Tne human body doesn’t “try to do something”. It either doesn’t or it does. Ascribing a certain attempt or will to the body is a shorthand, like i’ve said several times, but it is not accurately depecting the experience.
As a thought exercise, can you describe your definition of sex without using teleological language? But then again, your reply shows a lack of understanding on what teleology is, so if you reply with anothe misunderstanding of the concept, I’ll just move on from this.
You also stated that you’re autistic in your bio. As someone that is also autistic, you might want to reflect if you’re actually arguing for science, or rather for a more rigid worldview that you want to stay the same. This argument of yours seems repetitive and circular, so I’d suggest reflecting on