That's a whole lotta hydrogen!
Submitted 1 day ago by Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/pictrs/image/180665ed-525c-44df-bbdd-dc6a3602b141.webp
Comments
Bazell@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
X@piefed.world 1 day ago
Carbon: ~am i a joke to you~
droans@lemmy.world 21 minutes ago
Well, stop being so slutty and we might not think that way.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
oh boy, here we go with the biologists/biochemists.
yes we get it, living things are made of carbon
Saint_La_Croix_Crosse@midwest.social 1 day ago
All these metal-phobes around here
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
This is a bad analogy because there’s 100+ types of atoms. In anisogamous species (like humans), there’s exactly 2 gamete types, sperm and ova. Which of those two gamete types one’s body is organized around producing is how sex is defined.
See here for charts showing the spectrum of sex determination and how that relates to sex definition. Each chart can be labeled as male or female based on this definition of sex, which is the one that is used across the field of biology.
theparadoxinstitute.org/…/sex-development-charts
There’s no third sex, and there’s nobody born with a body that isn’t trying to produce gametes (and potentially failing).
accideath@feddit.org 1 day ago
This post probably isn’t about sex but about gender. Those are two very different albeit related concepts. Sure, biology is mostly binary (although not quite as black and white, if you’re looking at any other features than gamete types. Femininity and masculinity do not define themselves by gamete type), but psychology very much isn’t binary.
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
There are only two genders: binary, and non-binary
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
You’re right that sex phenotypes (features other than gametes) and gender form a spectrum and not a strict binary. This is often a point of confusion and I’ve had people try to argue about sex, after I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender.
I think the cartoon is likely about sex, but if everyone agrees that sex != gender and biologists define sex as binary in humans, then it doesn’t really matter and we all agree about the important things.
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
Literally knew this dork would show up to argue why trans people don’t exist. XD
It’s really all this poster has in life.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 14 hours ago
Sorry, I can’t take you seriously until you finish your fanfic of being topped by me
Binette@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
The 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:
That’s the difference between how sex is defined and how sex is determined.
athatet@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Isn’t this the same shit you said the last time this was posted?
Get outta here.
AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
This is far from the second time. They show up a lot.
MissingInteger@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
What is your obsession with this meme? The two times 1, 2 this was posted before, you spent over two days each writting dozens of comments. Under each post, people patiently explained to you that sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary.
A nice graphic from the last thread:
But you know what? Let me ask you a question. After taking a quick look at your moderation history, I’m interested in your answer.
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I don’t really understand other people’s obsession with attacking science. In each of those threads I posted once, and then had to respond many more times pointing out how they’re incorrect. “Patiently explaining” is a weird way of saying “doubling down on being wrong”.
Like here as well. As in the previous thread, that graphic shows sex determination, which is not how sex is defined. Each one of those situations ends up being male or female. I’m having to write another comment to correct your misinformation, even though you could’ve seen the exact same response in the previous threads. Why are people obsessed with defending their ignorance? I’d have a fraction of my overall comment count and everyone could’ve done something more productive with their time.
Your statement that “sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary” is wrong. Again, I’ve linked to many helpful resources, but in particular I want to redirect you to the original comment I made in this very thread which goes over several different types of DSDs and shows how they still fall into the sex binary.
Before we start going off on a tangent from this thread, can you acknowledge biological truth? It’s pointless to talk about Khelif if you misunderstand the basics.
Skullgrid@lemmy.world 1 day ago
that’s cool. Do you think trans people should have bodily autonomy?
PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Sex is biological.
Gender is social.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
But even sex isn’t binary and doesn’t contain everything often attributed to it.
athatet@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Literally every sentence you typed is entirely inaccurate. It’s bad science promoted by bigots to create a convinient lie that permits them to discriminate and oppress people.
- Human genders are not defined by gamete types.
- Sex is not defined by gamete types.
- Sexual development charts are generalizations across average humans, and do not necessarily represent any one individual’s sexual development.
- You can’t hide your bigotry behind peer-reviewed biology papers and textbooks. The actual science doesn’t support it.
- Gonochorism is not relevant to the psychosexual development of humans. It’s a term used to differentiate animals that change sexes due to environmental factors, like alligators and snails. Nobody is claiming that transgender individuals are simultaneously hermaphroditic. It’s a biological strawman argument that belies the insincerity of your argument.
In short, fuck off with your nazi bullshit.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
You’re mostly arguing with what you want me to have said and not what I’ve said so there’s not much point in responding to much of your post.
Your claims that “Human sex is not defined by gamete types” and “The actual science doesn’t support it” are incorrect though
Wander@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Thanks for trying but you’re pissing into the wind in this place.
Admetus@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Hydrogen: ‘Hi there, where’s the nearest star?’
FreshLight@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I wholeheartedly agree with the message here but it irks me that the comparison is a bit off because we’re not looking at the different element percentiles on earth alone. Here’s a somewhat fitting chart: Image
chart of the elements in the Earth’s crust data. From M. Fleischer
bob_lemon@feddit.org 1 day ago
Why would the earth’s crust be more relevant than the universe in total?
Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Woosh
culpritus@hexbear.net 1 day ago
No wonder there’s cosmic inflation, the universe is just a cosmic balloon.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Don’t light a match!
vane@lemmy.world 1 day ago
When you accidentally draw cosmological lithium problem.
SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
What’s this woke nonsense? Most of those helium atoms started life as hydrogen atoms. Therefore they shouldn’t be considered to be helium atoms!