Bigot: “trans people aren’t natrual according to science!!”
Scientist: “we’ve learned that trans people are natrual and this has helped us broaden our understanding of gender and human psychology”
Bigot: "stfu!! >:c
nooo my genderinos
Submitted 7 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/7d3a2d0d-03de-4734-b9b5-f9aa4aacd49a.png
Comments
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Hellsfire29@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Moving the goal posts sure does make sense!!!
Ricochet@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
From ChatGPT: “So, biologically there are mostly two (with natural variations like intersex), but socially and culturally, there are multiple genders depending on how people understand and express themselves.”
Ibaudia@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Chatgpt is wrong here, sex is more like a series of bimodal bell curves measuring traits like gonad type, chromosomes, hormone levels, secondary sex characteristics, neurobiology, and probably some more I’m forgetting. For each trait, one bimodal peak can be labeled something like “typically male” and the other “typically female”. For instance, hormones would have “higher testosterone” for one peak and “higher estrogen” for the other. You can usually categorize male vs female by weighing where an animal falls on these bell curves across all traits, but that’s more of an art than a science, since the scientific perspective is more “sex is a composite profile” than “sex is a binary to be categorized”.
That’s why you always hear people say 'it’s a spectrum" or “it’s socially constructed”, because that’s the easiest way to explain it in simple terms (even if it is non-descriptive and annoying to hear as a shibboleth)
Gladaed@feddit.org 7 months ago
Dingus, you mixed biological and social gender. Biology usually talks about biological genders.
Ricochet@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
No, I talked about both here
Katrisia@lemmy.today 7 months ago
Advanced whatever will always lead to philosophy, and there are no definitive answers there or elsewhere. You can debate the meaning of a state of matter, of gender, of life, of number, etc. (That’s why there is philosophy of physics, biology, mathematics, chemistry…). So I don’t think that’s the point.
Yes, both sex and gender get complex, but the answer to conservatism isn’t to say that advanced science has it all figured out because that would be a lie. They’ll ask us to demonstrate ontological categories that we cannot demostrate through science. It might be true sometimes the: “you are conservative because you rely on basic science, and progressivism and other leftists ideas lie on advanced science”, but ultimately, the debate is open and we need to be careful not to bluff about science being on our side because science has its limits.
Philosophy is the final battleground, and in there we do have strong arguments, but still, I feel this “smarter than thou” attitude is not it.
k4gie@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Do the two tails left of M and right of F mean there are males more male than cis males, and similarly with females?
dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
the peaks do not designate “cis”, you can be cis and fall anywhere on the chart - being cis is about the sex you were arbitrarily assigned at birth.
And when doctors change assignments, it’s really unclear whether you’re cis or not if you transition - e.g. a baby assigned female at birth who is then weeks later assigned male at birth later transitions to be a girl, she was originally assigned female at birth - is she trans or cis?
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 7 months ago
So what youre saying is, is that because theres like 200 per million babies born without legs. That means we cant classify human beings as a bipedal species?
I mean, if you ask the owner of dog if the dog is a boy or a girl… How does the owner know what to answer? Do they take the dog for an MRI? Do some blood tests? How would they know?
And why would a doctor “assign” one sex, and then change their mind two weeks later? Is this a particularly stupid doctor?
All the shit to worry about in life, and this nonsense is what people choose to focus on.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 7 months ago
It means that traditionally understood cis male can still have some female characteristics (no facial hair, higher pitched voice, bad at driving) but some males will have none.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Well, clearly. If you define a male characteristic as something that’s more common in men than in women and vice-versa, then e.g. being tall would be a “male characteristic”.
Height isn’t a binary thing with men being exactly Xcm tall and women exactly Ycm, so there’s people who have more of said male characteristic and people who have less. And you also have women who have more of this characteristic and some men (e.g. there are some women that are taller than some men).
The same can be done for every characteristic that’s associated with a gender. Genitals are on a spectrum (large clitoris vs micropenis), fat distribution is on a spectrum (e.g. there are men with breasts and women without), body hair is on a spectrum, hormone distribution is on a spectrum and so on and so on.
If you take a lot of characteristics at once it becomes clear in most cases whether the person you are dealing with is a man or a woman (though there are some where that’s more difficult or impossible), but if you take just a single characteristic (e.g. height) it’s impossible to say whether the person you are dealing with is definitively a man or a woman.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Yes, hyperreal genders do exist, but are not stable outside lab conditions.
Mastema@infosec.pub 7 months ago
I would submit David Bowie as a counter example.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
yes.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
Yeah but they decay into sometjing indistinguishable from a cis person in like five seconds outside of extremely exotic lab conditions, so it’s more accurate to say they’re possible than “they exist”.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 7 months ago
I don’t think it’s an accepted term anymore, but you reminded me that they used to call the triple X chromosome syndrome by the term Super-Female-Syndrome.
Probably not what the author intended though.
Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
…
I am a horrible person, but the only thing I can think of reading this is a small-circuit wrestling event where all participants have this set of chromosomes, billed as ‘The Triple X Throwdown’, for the title of Supreme Female.
affiliate@lemmy.world 7 months ago
i think that if more people were exposed to advanced math there would be a reactionary trend of people going around and asking mathematicians “what is a number?”
Siethron@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Advanced mathematicians see a numeric digit and ask “what’s that?”
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I believe that’s what happens anytime they say that we probably shouldn’t focus on memorizing a multiplication table, or try to teach anything in a way that puts more focus on understanding how numbers work than on symbolic memorization.
And that’s like… Elementary school.GorGor@startrek.website 7 months ago
The whole new math everyone was complaining about is trying to do this. Granted teachers are human and flawed so sometimes it has not been implemented well, but it is aimed in the right direction.
I am absolutely going to start responding to questions / statements about gender with this concept though.
“There are only two genders”
“Yeah, and there are only 3 states of matter! These woke scientists with their DEI alphabet soup of mattet B-E Condensates, and QSL, and DEGERATE MATTER! Its suck intell you”
homura1650@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I was going to make a comment about surreal numbers not being numbers. But I did a bit of fact checking and it looks like all of the values I was objecting to are not considered surreal numbers, but rather pseudo numbers.
I find this outrageous. Why can’t ↑ be a number? What even is a number that would exclude it and leave in all of your so-called numbers?
Inucune@lemmy.world 7 months ago
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 7 months ago
have you taught?
anytime you give people a new metaphorical hammer, they want to go around banging everything they can with it. then they get bored and forget about it.
IzzyJ@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Can confirm. I was already struggling. But I just straight up refused to math with i
dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
sort of like the reactionary trend of pulling your kids out of school because Common Core is putting emphasis on teaching math in conceptual ways rather than just by rote memorization?
Squirrelanna@lemmynsfw.com 7 months ago
So, I understand that the number line is a way to conceptualize relational distances between numbers, but in that example I’m struggling to see the relation between 57 where the line ends and 111, the answer. If you have insight, do you mind elaborating?
Droggelbecher@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I’m shocked that the US only adopted this in 2009. I’m pretty sure my mum, who went to primary school in the 70s, recognized number lines when I was taught to use them on 2005ish. I’m having a hard time imagining how else you’d explain it.
x0x7@lemmy.world 7 months ago
There is a slight difference though in that complex numbers are a part of math but gender isn’t really a part of biology.
Jason2357@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Gender isn’t part of biology (as a social construct) but the complexity of sex absolutely is.
monotremata@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Also the mathematicians wouldn’t decline to give an answer.
Are you sure? I only minored in math, but even I would struggle to provide an answer to this. It would have to be something incredibly vague, like “a number is a mathematical object that has certain properties that has certain consistent properties relevant to the field of study.” Because otherwise you get situations like “is infinity a number?” and you can’t answer categorically, because usually it’s not, but then you look at the transfinite numbers where you can indeed have omega-plus-one as a number. And someone asks if you can have an infinite number of digits to the left of the decimal place, and you say “well, not in the reals, but there are the P-adic numbers…” and folks ask if you can have an infinitely small number and you say “well, in the reals you can only have an arbitrarily small number, but in game theory there are the surreal numbers, where…”
So yeah, I’m not sure “what is a number” is even a math question. It’s more a philosophy question, or sometimes a cognitive science question (like Lakoff and Nuñez’s “Where Mathematics Comes From”).
szczuroarturo@programming.dev 7 months ago
Ehh not really its just to old if a concept for us to be appaled by that. Its not 15 century for imaginary numbers to cause riots.
Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 7 months ago
If certain people could almost understand they would be very upset
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
I’m a career physicist, and I honestly have no idea what a state of matter is anymore.
nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
I would wager you have more of an idea of what a state of matter is than biologists do of what a species is. Humans like to put things into nest boxes but nature is under no deal obligation to cooperate.
ricecake@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
I’d actually argue the opposite. With states of matter, we’re attempting to delineate how reality groups together sets of related properties that vary between conditions in similar ways for different substances.
Looking for the edges that nature drew.With species though, we drew the lines. We drew them with a mind towards ensuring it’s objectively measurable but it’s still not a natural delineation. Taxonomists (biologists are actually a different field) mostly run into uncertainty with debating which categorization property takes precedence, and what observations of species have actually been made.
So while they debate which system to use, the particulars of the systems are pretty concrete.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Interacting fields of possibilities?
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
An abstraction used for grouping kinds of things together for the purposes of making thinking about them a lot faster.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Simple, “solid state” means “no moving parts”, like a vacuum tube, for example.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Could there be a spherical object inside that tube? Just for familiarities sake
axont@hexbear.net 7 months ago
yeah i have a bachelor’s in chemistry and I remember a professor earnestly saying the phrase “metallic phase nitrogen” and I think I went home and stared at the ceiling for an hour
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Loads of pressure? Even Quarks get metallic with more pressure.
la508@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Can I offer you a nice smectic B3 liquid crystal in this trying time?
MycelialMass@lemmy.world 7 months ago
You may not.
Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml 7 months ago
Always wear your glasses. Sans glasses, I read the Advanced Math panel saying the square root of -1=1, and thought, “that’s doesn’t sound right.”
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 7 months ago
So true and it’s a great to remind them of that sort of thing.
You know, you’d think all of the people who say it’s purely down to genetics would be natural allies with, you know, molecular biologists (applied genetics). They’d be all like “it’s a Y chromosome or nothing” and the biologists would be all like “yeah chromosomes!” because we fucking love chromosomes but no. In fact, it’s noticeably absent when you start to think about it.
I wonder why that might be?
The short answer is “because it’s infinitely more complicated than that.”
Just because you carry the genetic code for anything at all, it doesn’t mean you’ll express it. The default setting for our DNA is off. So, if something isn’t telling it to transcribe, it won’t do it. A whole load of reasons could cause that, even before we get to mutations and partial expression or chimeras etc.
Anyway, what i mean is yeah, this meme!
serenissi@lemmy.world 7 months ago
though the meme is cool, gender isn’t particularly a biology (or ‘advance biology’) thing. biology deals with sexes, their expressions and functionalities. gender is more of a personal and social concept but often related to sex characteristics (cis).
and yes, advanced biology tells sex determination isn’t as easy as XX or XY or even looking at genitals like a creep.
and oh, for giggles consider fungi :)
Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 7 months ago
But it easy, we just make it complicated with social bullshit and attention craving. The fact that no one is exactly set to be perfect copies, doesnt mean anything. The fact that outliers exist, doesnt mean anything. You ask the owner of a dog if its a boy or a girl, they will tell you. And you wanna know how they know? They looked between its legs. It really is, that easy.
The kind of logic being pushed today, is basically saying that you cant class human beings as a bipedal species because 200 per million people are born with no legs. Which is dumb as fuck.
Lyrl@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
I think things get taken too far in some contexts, but the underlying sensitivity is when you are talking to a person who considers themselves an outlier. Like telling someone with no legs that they don’t meet the definition of human and ADA is an abomination that should be repealed. Or telling someone diagnosed with conversion disorder that they can’t receive any physical accommodations, and can’t have any medical consults to check if their symptoms might have a different cause. I hope we can agree those would be insensitive positions to take.
TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world 7 months ago
plenty of animals can gender swap, be hermaphrodites, or produce asexually.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 7 months ago
I don’t entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgenderism, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.
dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 months ago
just FYI, “transgenderism” is a word to avoid
and yes, gender identity seems to be biological, and genetic.
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 7 months ago
Slime mold(which is not a mold or fungi) looks around nervously in it’s 13 different sexes.
joyjoy@lemmy.zip 7 months ago
Psychology is technically a branch of advanced biology
AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 7 months ago
I would say gender is probably centered about around psychology, ranges mostly from sociology to biology, with a just little bit going into chemistry
maybe like
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
The problem is those morons haven’t taken any of the advanced classes and probably got D’s in the basic ones.
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
m8052@lemmy.world 7 months ago
Sqrt(-1) is still wrong tho. I’m commuting a sin by writting it. Correct expression is i^2=-1
gjoel@programming.dev 7 months ago
Honestly, people would probably object more to advanced math than advanced biology if they were exposed as much to it. Or basic math. Or elementary math…
ch00f@lemmy.world 7 months ago
When Newton worked out the laws of motion, he figured they had to be correct because they were so simple and elegant.
He had no idea that relativity was going to come in and fuck his shit up.
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 7 months ago
A genderino sounds more like something you’d find in particle physics than biology anyway
SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world 7 months ago
It is well known that the sex chromosome exists in a superposition of X and Y chromosomes, after all.
festus@lemmy.ca 7 months ago
Not sure if you’re joking or being sarcastic, but here are a few examples where the mere absence / presence of a Y can’t determine sex & gender.
To me personally, I view trans people as a type of intersex person. It seems entirely possible that you might have a person whose brain cells were more or less resistant to testosterone and/or exposed to testosterone and truly is a man/woman in a woman’s/man’s body. You don’t need to bring choice or culture into it - I think biology alone provides good evidence to believe trans people about what gender they are.