Comment

Comment on That's a whole lotta hydrogen!

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨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.

source
- powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨6⁩ ⁨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.
  
  source
  - Fedizen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    I addressed your points. Please read what you’re responding to.
    
    source
    AnyOldName3@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    But this guy says it, and he’s defined himself to be the sole authority, so that matters more than any number of biologists.
    
    Every argument they come up with has been refuted in past threads, and they just dismiss anything they disagree with as irrelevant, but treating tenuous sources like a supposed screenshot of Imane Khalif’s SRY test originating from an obscure site that’s never been republished by a mainstream one, even if they’d been calling for her to be barred from future tournaments based on no evidence so would love to vindicate their stance with test results.
    
    It’s not worth your time to engage with them in good faith.
    
    source
    Binette@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Yeah I kinda forgot the whole “model” aspect of it. Models are still useful, but they’re just that: models. If it’s not helping the current context, then it’s just useless.
    
    source
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…

source
- a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨19⁩ ⁨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.
  
  source
  - powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨13⁩ ⁨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.
    
    source
    a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨6⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    Weirdly obsessed is funny. Especially given that the moment is comic shows up you have to be there to express your opinion.
    
    source
- 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
  
  source
  - 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:
    
    A human body tries to build a foot at the end of the leg.
    
    The empirical one, which, as you should know, is a concrete observation of what is going on. You’d rephrase the sentence as:
    
    This person has no foot at the end of their leg. Typically, humans have feet at the of their leg.
    
    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 human body actually tries to make a foot at the end of the leg -> same teleological argument as I explained in my previous reply.
    
    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
    
    source
    powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨14⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    One of those papers gets to the heart of your confusion and is interesting to consider, but first:
    
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40199245/
    
    Did you read this before you linked it? “Hence, it is essentialism and typological thinking that we should dispense with, not biological sexes.” It agrees with everything I’ve been saying!
    
    www.biorxiv.org/content/…/2023.01.26.525769v1
    
    Biologist adding commentary to another biologist’s takedown of this. It’s nonsense: whyevolutionistrue.com/…/colin-wright-debunks-a-d…
    
    The authors of the MEA paper actually recognize that sex is binary when making arguments against it. For example, they mention the damn penis in the female hyena without realizing how they know she’s a female, and somehow think that variation within a sex effaces the sex binary.
    
    www.asrm.org/…/just-the-facts-biological-sex/
    
    Mostly uncited and wrong. The one definition it cites for biological sex comes from a committee of non-biologists tasked with improving data collection. Irrelevant (and also wrong).
    
    You’re confused about what determination means. It’s not cyclical, please read and understand
    
    Your other link isn’t saying what you think it’s saying (radcliffe.harvard.edu/…/ideology-versus-biology). I’ll start off by noting that it agrees with me:
    
    Within the scientific community, Sun notes, Parker’s gametic definition of biological sex was generally accepted
    
    It’s also frequently incorrect (unsurprising since the article was written by a PR person), “binary definitions of biological sex fail to account for roughly 1.7 percent of the population according to one estimate” is false and relies on work from a deeply unserious person, Anne Fausto-Sterling, who got called out on her bullshit and said she was being “tongue-in-cheek” and “ironic”.
    
    But this is the real claim from that link:
    
    Variations in genes, chromosomes, and internal and external sex organs are often called disorders in sex development in the medical community. I think that’s wrong in many cases. It’s just natural variation
    
    It’s not actually disputing the sex binary. It’s basically a dispute about the term “Disorders of sex development” vs “Differences of sex development”. So it doesn’t disagree with me, though the question of “disorder” vs" difference" loops back to your confusion.
    
    You’re confusing the various meanings of the word “should” (or supposed to, or take your pick of terms). It can be used descriptively or prescriptively. You’re saying that incorrect prescriptive use invalidates descriptive use, and that’s wrong.
    
    Using this interpretation, it would be ridiculous to define a human empiricaly around the fact that they are “supposed” to have feet at the end of their leg,
    
    Humans aren’t defined that way. Someone missing a foot is still human. You have the definition the wrong way around and complaining that it doesn’t make sense, when in fact it doesn’t make sense because you’re thinking wrong.
    
    A completely non-teleological definition is that sex is defined by what structures one has in their body that are required for production of one gamete type that are not required for production of the other gamete type.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments