GC: Scientists say sex is a spectrum, even an illusory man-made social construct

submitted by Fastandthecurious from self.GCdebatesQT

There are countless biologists and scientists in general debunking "binary sex". I will be sharing some of them here, so if you have arguments against them, let me know in the comments below:

"There are infinite biological sexes": https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/177725741229/polyglotplatypus-highlight-of-my-day-was-seeing

"Sex is a social construct": https://official-transsexual.tumblr.com/post/189271812023/this-is-not-social-construction-someone-with

this is not social construction: Someone with [trait x] has [trait x]

this IS social construction: someone with [trait x] is a member of [category y]

Sex categories are social constructs that assign a meaning (group membership) to physical traits that is not inherent to the traits themselves. Claiming that someone is “biologically [x]” doesn’t say anything specific or meaningful about that individual’s body; all it says is that the individual has some combination of traits to which you ascribe specific values.

"There is no such a thing as a disorder, or a DSD. Disorders are social constructs": https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/189934497069

This claim is that when we call something a disorder, we mean there is a correct way something should be, and if something isn't that way, it is "a disorder". There is a should. But there are no shoulds in nature. There is no correct way in nature. Things just are. Nothing can be wrong or right in nature. And so there are no such things as disorders, or DSDs.

And there is no such thing as male or female, because when we say "a male is someone who can produce or release sperm" or "a female is someone who can produce or release eggs", we mean "someone should produce sperm to be a male" or "someone should produce eggs to be a female". There is a should, which doesn't exist in nature, and so there is no such thing as male or female and these categories are social constructs. Any counters to that?

I myself agree there is no "goal" or "intent" in evolution or nature. There is no "should". So I have trouble categorizing things into male and female now.

With categories, there is a should eventhough there is none. Nothing in nature or evolution says "something should produce or release eggs to be a female" or "something should produce or release sperm to be a male".

The should is socially constructed, making male and female socially constructed, right? I don't see any way around it.

"Sex is a spectrum because gynandromorphism is a thing, and some mushrooms have 20,000 sexes": https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/615358239206522880/scientists-find-a-half-male-half-female-bee

https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/171500230799/alex-theyre-mushrooms-is-the-new-harold

Scientists Find a Half Male, Half Female Bee, Split Right Down The Middle

Broadly speaking, animals tend to be sexually dimorphic. You have males, with small gametes, and females, with large gametes, both of which are required for sexual reproduction. Every now and again, though, nature throws a curveball - producing an organism that’s a combination of both sexes, divided straight down the middle.

This condition is known as gynandromorphism, and scientists have just found the first known gynandromorphic individual of its species in a nocturnal bee native to Central and South America, Megalopta amoenae.

On its left side, the bee is physiologically male. It has a small, dainty mandible, a long antenna, and a thin, delicate hind leg with fewer bristles. The right side has female characteristics - a shorter antenna, a pronounced, toothed mandible, and a thick, hairy hind leg.

"Honey bee has two fathers, and no mother": https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/180617284154/a-honeybee-with-two-fathers-and-no-mother

https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2018/11/28/a-honeybee-with-two-fathers-and-no-mother/#740bc6f84405

I don't understand this one to be honest. Are they claiming that two male honey bees made a honey bee? Instead of a male and a female honey bee making a honey bee?

Genetic analysis revealed that nine of the 11 gynandromorphs had either two or three fathers. Astonishingly, one gynandromorph -- the seemingly normal female control -- actually had two fathers and no mother -- an event that could only have resulted from sperm fusion.

“The female bee that had two fathers created by the fusion of two sperms is the first reported in haplodiploids and is an interesting phenomena considering that attempts to fuse two sperm in mammalians have not [been] found to be possible,” Ms. Aamidor elaborated in email.

This study begins to expand our limited understanding of the truly unusual ways that sexual animals can fuse their genomes.

What?? If two sperms can make a zygote, then there isn't a difference between a sperm and egg anymore. And there is no such thing as male or female, because two sperms or two eggs can make a zygote too. Please explain :/

"There are countless gender identities because our scientific knowledge on identity is evolving and becoming more sophisticated": https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/644866331408302081/lesbiansgoal-make-sure-you-visit-us-and-15

https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/178931387319/youre-literally-not-a-man-if-you-have-a-vagina

This one has tons of sources:

A good scientific article (filled with references) on how scientists view sex is changing to a more spectrum then binary system: https://href.li/?https://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943

Another article (again filled with links to scientific papers and research) on how sex doesn’t = chromosomes: https://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2015/02/sex-isn-t-chromosomes-story-century-misconceptions-about-x-y

Here’s some more scientific articles on the subject since you seem to be very behind in your biological education:

Evolution’s Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden

The human hippocampus is not sexually-dimorphic: Meta-analysis of structural MRI volumes: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811915007697

Breaking through the binary: https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/landia/PIIS2213-8587(15)00011-X.pdf

Intersexuality: deconstructing the sex/gender binary: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959353599009004016?journalCode=fapa

Beyond the Binary: The Corporeal Lives of Trans Individuals: https://einsteinlab.ca/impact/bookschapters/

"Beyond the binary": https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190842475.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780190842475-e-14

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Sex-and-Gender%3A-Beyond-the-Binaries-Johnson-Repta/5b4776c0cff09c99ffe13d3d5762da8510135729

"There are more than 2 sexes": https://i-hate-chick-fil-a.tumblr.com/post/189058336502/it-was-being-down-voted-by-people-who-didnt-even

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0HJkr1jj4

There are about 31 sources linked in this video that says "there are more than 2 sexes".

But people somehow manage to think this video is wrong because their beliefs somehow outweigh the careers of the people who put work towards those 31 pieces of source material. Blows my mind.

https://profeminist.tumblr.com/post/162829557922/source-want-more-info-here-ya-go-this-biology

https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/616235588627087360/source-want-more-info-here-ya-go-this-biology

As a biologist I am reblogging this so hard.

Biological sex is not and has never been a binary. The complexity of the natural world cannot be contained in neat little societal boxes. Stop using science to justify your bigotry.

The complexity of the natural world cannot be contained in neat little societal boxes. Stop using science to justify your bigotry.

Sex redefined: https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.

This is a nature article. A reliable scientific article. And it's on the "sex is a spectrum" side.

"Anti-trans arguments are just bad science": https://profeminist.tumblr.com/post/162799773997/saying-that-man-and-woman-are-the-only-genders-is

"Stop using phony science to justify transphobia": https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

Biologist teacher debunks the idea of two sexes: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/teacher-destroys-transphobia-science

"First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish)," Grace wrote.

In case the meme was talking about humans, Grace continued.

"Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y," she wrote. "You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa. Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that shit."

https://lesbiansgoal.tumblr.com/post/616606735062401024/make-sure-you-visit-us-and-15-million-others-at

https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/622138163271516160/whenever-chickens-are-mentioned-i-feel-compelled

Whenever chickens are mentioned I feel compelled to bring up the fact that under certain circumstances, hens can spontaneously “transition” to roosters. IIRC their bodies can respond to damaged ovaries by saying “fuck it” and producing testosterone until they are indistinguishable from a “cis” rooster. g. gallus transrightsicus if u ask me

That’s true in majority of animals because the idea that there is a strict sex binary is an illusion made-up by the english who forced it on the world via. colonialism.

https://twitter.com/femmina/status/884193782912110592

TERFs: why don't you leARN BIOLOGY

Biologists: everything is weird and nothing means what you think

TERFs: NO. LIKE WHEN I WAS IN 6TH GRD

I'm just...if you think Biology in any meaningful way "says" there are only two, fixed genders/sexes you don't understand Biology

https://twitter.com/Cosmic_Wyrm/status/884290249014222848

No u see everyone literally only has one shade of black or blonde hair and no colour in between, that's sjw talk

"Brain differences between men and women": https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/178880238559/dodgylogic-insufficient-earth-skills

"Being trans is not a new thing. Trans people have always existed": https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/171602743804/being-trans-is-not-a-new-trendy-thing-trans

https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/171462034624/can-you-talk-about-whether-its-biologically

https://zoologicallyobsessed.tumblr.com/post/171405005129/national-geographic-used-a-picture-my-little

all 91 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 18 insightful - 7 fun18 insightful - 6 fun19 insightful - 7 fun -  (25 children)

Once again I’ll quote that great philosopher:

“How make bébé?”

[–]BiologyIsReal 23 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Really, people who think that males and females are a social construct cannot expect to be taken seriously until they are able to explain how babies are made.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also- saying trans people have been around doesn’t mean anything other than that there have “always” been people with this particular mental illness who attempted to or successfully pretended to be the opposite sex.

It doesn’t mean that the pseudoscience and ideology is correct or anything other than wishful thinking. It just means we had trans people before it was trendy.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 5 insightful - 7 fun5 insightful - 6 fun6 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Okay. I admit that's a good point.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (21 children)

In the post, this article claims a honey bee was made by two males and no females: https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscientist/2018/11/28/a-honeybee-with-two-fathers-and-no-mother/#740bc6f84405

Genetic analysis revealed that nine of the 11 gynandromorphs had either two or three fathers. Astonishingly, one gynandromorph -- the seemingly normal female control -- actually had two fathers and no mother -- an event that could only have resulted from sperm fusion.

“The female bee that had two fathers created by the fusion of two sperms is the first reported in haplodiploids and is an interesting phenomena considering that attempts to fuse two sperm in mammalians have not [been] found to be possible,” Ms. Aamidor elaborated in email.

This study begins to expand our limited understanding of the truly unusual ways that sexual animals can fuse their genomes.

Two sperms come together to create a zygote, which means there is no difference between a sperm and an egg. Two sperms can fertilize each other. Two eggs can fertilize each other. There isn't a difference between a male and a female.

[–]Poppy29252 24 insightful - 1 fun24 insightful - 0 fun25 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A man in a dress isn't a bee.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (16 children)

And humans are exactly like bees so I guess you’ve won the whole debate sub lol

Surely you realize there’s a reason this was worth being written about?

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 8 fun2 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 8 fun -  (15 children)

Humans are not bees. But the bee shows sex being a binary is not universal across animals. It means there is no actual difference between a male and a female because two eggs or two sperms can make a zygote too, and male and female are social constructs that only work for humans, not other animals.

[–]kwallio 20 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 0 fun21 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Please argue from human biology. Bees are not humans. Fungi are not humans.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

That wouldn’t show that there’s no difference between the sexes. The fact that you mentioned two different things indicated that they are… wait for it… two different things.

All this would mean is that, in bees at least, two eggs or two sperm could possibly maybe accomplish this rarity. Males and females still exist lol

That’s what I don’t get about this insistance on a spectrum. It does nobody any favors. You fit where you’re born on the spectrum, and cosmetics or feelings won’t change that. So what does the existence of a spectrum as opposed to a binary accomplish? “Transwoman” would still be a euphemism for man, and TW would still be male (same but opposite for transmen). Like what is gained from us accepting a spectrum?

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

It might have looked like I mentioned two different things, but the reason there is a "male" or "female" is because only these two can come together and create a zygote. That's what they call sexual reproduction. Now that it's clear two sperm or two eggs can create a zygote too, it goes to show there isn't a difference between an "egg" or a "sperm", because two "sperms" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, and so there isn't a "male" or a "female".

That’s what I don’t get about this insistance on a spectrum. It does nobody any favors. You fit where you’re born on the spectrum, and cosmetics or feelings won’t change that. So what does the existence of a spectrum as opposed to a binary accomplish? “Transwoman” would still be a euphemism for man, and TW would still be male (same but opposite for transmen). Like what is gained from us accepting a spectrum?

If sex were a spectrum, then it would mean if a woman takes hormones or undergoes surgery, she, or they, would stop being fully a woman and enter the spectrum in which they are a bit of a woman and a bit of a man.

That's what they want to tell others with "sex is a spectrum". With "sex is a spectrum" there's also "sex can change" after it. By changing certain characteristics, they believe they can become less of a woman, more of a man for example.

[–]MarkTwainiac 17 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 0 fun18 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now that it's clear two sperm or two eggs can create a zygote too, it goes to show there isn't a difference between an "egg" or a "sperm"

Maybe it's clear to you, but it's not clear to me or others. Humans have been combining bird & fish eggs together for millennia, but AFAIK this has never resulted in a new chick or fish coming into being - instead, it's yielded scrambled eggs, omelets, souffles & caviar.

Boys & men have been merging & mixing their sperm together for millennia too. But a human zygote - much less a embryo, fetus or baby - has never been created as a result.

BTW, you seem unaware that male scientists & physicians for hundreds of years have been trying to make new life in various ways, & since the mid-20th century extensive experiments have been done in an effort to make zygotes out of just sperm or just eggs.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

If you’re basing this spectrum on zygotes and chromosomes etc then trans people are the sex they were born. It doesn’t work both ways. You’d need two spectrums, and trans people wouldn’t be the sex they wish to be in at least one by default. You can’t measure sex in a way that satisfies trans people, accounts for intersex conditions, and acknowledges the other almost 100% of the population that is neither trans nor intersex.

As for the idea that there’s no difference between male and female- there obviously is. We can see it. You discussed it at the end of your own comment. Regardless of the weird anomaly of two dude bees making a baby, even if that meant that any two males or any two females can reproduce (it doesn’t mean that but I’ll go with it), there are still thousands of obvious, provable, observable, and constant differences between the two sexes of any species. it’s kind of why the sexes were separated to begin with.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 7 fun2 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 7 fun -  (3 children)

it’s kind of why the sexes were separated to begin with.

They were separated that way because only a "sperm" and an "egg" can make a zygote. But if two "sperm" or two "eggs" can make a zygote too, then the differences between a "male" and a "female" that we see are arbitrary. The differences could as easily exist between "males" themselves, or "females" themselves because two "eggs" or two "sperms" can do the exact same thing a "sperm" and an "egg" do.

These words are in quotes, not because "sperm" and "egg", "male" and "female" are different, but because otherwise noone would understand what I'm saying.

If you’re basing this spectrum on zygotes and chromosomes etc then trans people are the sex they were born. It doesn’t work both ways. You’d need two spectrums, and trans people wouldn’t be the sex they wish to be in at least one by default. You can’t measure sex in a way that satisfies trans people, accounts for intersex conditions, and acknowledges the other almost 100% of the population that is neither trans nor intersex.

Yeah. If it's based on chromosomes, even if sex were a spectrum, noone would be able to change their sex. The thing is they don't base the spectrum on chromosomes. They base it on secondary sex characteristics, and genitalia. If a woman takes hormones, then in the "sex spectrum", this is not "just a woman" but "a bit of a woman, a bit of a man" due to having some secondary sex characteristics associated with males as well.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

  1. They weren’t separated just because sperm and egg. Female and male bodies are so obviously different and have such obviously different functions that I can’t take you pretending this isn’t the case seriously. You really think the first humans saw that half of them had breasts and vaginas and the other half had no breasts and had dicks and they said “oh gee no differences here”? And only noticed that we differed in some ways after they found out about sperm and eggs? How did they find out about sperm and eggs then? Why aren’t there more cases of double male made babies? Or even one in humans? And if there aren’t any cases of this occurring amongst humans- how and why is it relevant to humans?

    There’s a reason the bee thing made the news- it’s not a common thing. It’s an extraordinary thing. But as I said, even if two males and two females can reproduce together- there’s still two sexes. It’s ridiculous that you’re pretending this isn’t the case. It’s not arbitrary if we still experience different health concerns and bodily functions based on our sex, it’s not arbitrary if our bodies naturally form and develop in specific ways according to our sex. Even if it doesn’t matter that we have two sexes- we still do have two sexes

  2. This would mean that trans people have a spectrum all their own.

Which would mean that their spectrum is worthless and irrelevant to the rest of us. If they want to measure transness on a spectrum go for it, but they’d still be the sex they were born on any other spectrum when compared to the rest of the world’s population- which was my point. There’s no way to make transwomen women with females and transmen men with males. It can only be done if we isolate them. Because there’s the common denominator of biology/chromosomes, even if we accepted a spectrum that accounts for intersex conditions. It only makes sense to measure sex based on what connects the most people. And inevitably it’s gonna come down to those pesky chromosomes.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

They weren’t separated just because sperm and egg. Female and male bodies are so obviously different ...

These "differences" are the result of "sperm" and "egg" coming together to form a zygote though. Once upon a time, there were no organisms that had vaginas or penises. Gametes started forming and differentiating. Limbs, and genitals didn't pop out of nowhere on their own.

even if two males and two females can reproduce together- there’s still two sexes. It’s ridiculous that you’re pretending this isn’t the case.

You think it's ridiculous because you think "female" and "male" are separate from gametes ... they aren't. If "sperm" and "egg" weren't the only things capable of creating a zygote, then there would be no "differences" between "males" and "females".

That two "sperm" or two "eggs" can do the exact same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do though makes this blurry. It goes to show whatever "difference" exists between a "male" and "female" is arbitrary, and could easily occur between two "females" or two "males", because two "eggs" or two "sperms" can do the same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do.

Which would mean that their spectrum is worthless and irrelevant to the rest of us. If they want to measure transness on a spectrum go for it, but they’d still be the sex they were born on any other spectrum when compared to the rest of the world’s population- which was my point. There’s no way to make transwomen women with females and transmen men with males. It can only be done if we isolate them. Because there’s the common denominator of biology/chromosomes, even if we accepted a spectrum that accounts for intersex conditions. It only makes sense to measure sex based on what connects the most people. And inevitably it’s gonna come down to those pesky chromosomes.

They want most people to change everything for them. Why do they call most people "cis"? They make most people use a language that validates their "gender identity", whatever it is. They make them think they have a "gender identity" too, and then they claimed "sex is a spectrum" and "actually, sex doesn't exist at all, it's man-made and a social construct".

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Now that it's clear two sperm or two eggs can create a zygote too, it goes to show there isn't a difference between an "egg" or a "sperm", because two "sperms" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, and so there isn't a "male" or a "female".

https://youtu.be/TplrVWRFV8E

Also, sperm is both singular & plural.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

sex being a binary is not universal across animals

This is known -- e.g. the humble planaria worm of countless high school biology classes.

IMO it's not "new" knowledge, it's being sensationalized by activists who desperately want to redefine demonstrated biological norms in terms of rare exceptions. It's also (often) a conflation of human cognitive/emotional behavior (desire, preference, expression re gender) with the cellular mechanics of human reproduction (sex), which isn't science at all.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

sex being a binary is not universal across animals

Yes, it only occurs in organisms that reproduce sexually. No one ever said sex & the sex binary are universal across all living things - what is known about sex & sexual reproduction applies only to animal & plant species that have evolved to reproduce in this particular way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Even with asexual reproduction and parthenogenesis, almost always it is only two sexes or only females who are present during it.

I believe only some bacteria and mushrooms have more than two types of gametes, the rest of living creatures are either all female, have two sexes or sexless.

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Totally. (Where are they getting all that nonsense? Besides Tumblr?)

[–]MarkTwainiac 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But even that Forbes article makes it very clear that reproduction in bees is very different to reproduction in humans & other mammals:

Female bees, ants and wasps (Hymenoptera) arise from fertilized eggs that have one set of chromosomes from each parent, whilst males result from unfertilized eggs. In honeybees, females -- queens and workers -- have a total of 32 chromosomes, whereas males (drones) only have half as many.

“By definition in all haplodiploids (bees, ants and wasps) the male is haploid -- created from an unfertilized egg, meaning it only has one set of chromosomes from its mother,“ said molecular biologist, Sarah Aamidor, lead author of the study and a graduate student in biology at the University of Sydney, in email."

Haplodiploid means

denoting or possessing a genetic system in which females develop from fertilized (diploid) eggs and males from unfertilized (haploid) ones.

Which is quite different to how things work in humans & other mammals.

The Forbes article goes on:

The haplodiploid sex determination system allows for the development of a remarkable variety of biological phenomena, including female cloning, male cloning -- and gynandromorphy. A gynandromorph has both male and female characteristics and a mix of tissue from both genders [or sex, rather]. Gynandromorphs differ from hermaphrodites, which have both male and female reproductive organs.

In honeybees, gynandromorphs typically develop from the combination of a diploid zygote and a haploid male tissue originating from a second sperm. This is made possible by the fact that honeybees are polyspermic, a situation where more than one sperm enters the egg and fuses to the initial cell cluster. These cells then begin to divide and give rise to tissues that become part of the developing embryo.

But what causes a gynandromorph honeybee? This was one of the questions that motivated Ms. Aamidor and her colleagues to undertake this study using some *“abnormal bees” * collected by another researcher whilst conducting a previous study.

“These bees were strange because they are gynandromorphs (sex mosaics): they have bits that look male and bits that look female,” study co-author, Isobel Ronai, who was a graduate student at the University of Sydney at the time, tweeted on Twitter (thread). “For example, male honey bee eyes are much larger than female eyes and this gynandromorph has a male eye on a female body.”

Sorry, I don't trust biologists who use "gender" when they mean "sex" and who assign a sex to eyes based on their size & appearance. If she had stuck with saying these "strange" sex mosaic bees "have bits that look male and bits that look female," fine. But she went further to claim that this one lone bee "has a male eye on a female body." Not an eye that in her view looks typical for males on a body that appears outwardly female due to the mosaicism of this bee - no, she claimed this bee "has a male eye on a female body."

That claim sounds very much like standard pro-trans rhetoric, specifically the common assertion that kids like Jazz Jennings have "a girl brain in a boy's body."

The idea of "a male eye on a female body" reminds me of a report of a famous case from the early 80s that confounded scientists & got the world in a tizzy:https://youtu.be/9OFpfTd0EIs

FYI, here is the actual paper described in Forbes, not a writeup in a secondary, non-scientific source. I know you'd put more trust in a Tumblr blog, but hey sometimes you gotta go to the primary source. Also please note, this is a paper whose findings have not been replicated: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0670

If you can cite a paper showing that a human, other mammal or other animal that is not a "strange" insect or fungi has been created by the the fusion of two sperm, I'm all ears.

More on how bees reproduce in laypersons' terms: https://carolinahoneybees.com/how-do-bees-reproduce/

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

FYI, here is the actual paper described in Forbes, not a writeup in a secondary, non-scientific source. But note, this is a paper whose findings have not been replicated: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0670

I read half of it, and reached this part:

Bee K was female and diploid throughout, but lacked any maternal nuclear genetic material. We propose that K was created by a fusion of two sperm nuclei, resulting in an androgenic diploid bee. This is the first report of an individual created by the fusion of two sperm in any Hymenopteran. K was able to develop to the adult stage, showing that a bi-paternal bee is viable ... The viability of K suggests that there are no impediments to the development of a bi-paternal female honeybee, as has previously been shown for bi-maternal

If the result was not replicated, does that mean the claims in the paper are not supported by anything, and the bee might not actually be from two sperms, contrary to what the people who wrote the paper propose?

What about the "bi-maternal" part? Does that mean contrary to what these people propose, these bees might not be from two eggs or two sperms?

[–]MarkTwainiac 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If the result was not replicated, does that mean the claims in the paper are not supported

Yes, that's an essential part of the scientific method.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 15 insightful - 4 fun15 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

HOW DOES BABBY FORMED? HOW DOES WOMEN GET PRAGANANT?

Name the third gamete or quit pretending mushrooms and shit having different reproductive roles to mammals magically changes how humans have procreated for all history.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 15 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 2 fun -  (48 children)

I' ll wait for them to show me a HUMAN third gamete and a HUMAN able to produce it to start believing those "scientists" about how there are infinite sexes in HUMANS.

Until then, I don' t give a damn about how bees reproduce given that humans aren' t bees.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 14 insightful - 4 fun14 insightful - 3 fun15 insightful - 4 fun -  (47 children)

There’s no difference between sperm and ova because a bee was made with two bee sperm. So naturally next week we will see pregnant natal males all over the place because their sperm is identical to an ova.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (16 children)

SCIENCE!!!!!!!!!!!

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (15 children)

Oh god I just realised Since sperm and ova are identical, at any point in time a woman could impregnate herself. You ovulate and release one egg and one sperm and bam, now you’re knocked up! Can’t wait for OP to show us all the pregnancies recorded that happen this way, or at least the guidelines for preventing impregnating yourself by accident.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (14 children)

Self-impregnation is a plague that has influenced humanity since the beginning of time. You can' t explain with science what went on with Mary mother of Jesus without self-impregnation: it' s obvious that it wasn' t actually God who was responsible (I mean, hellooooo? That' s just mythology!!!!!), so the only other explanation is that Mary was a trans woman who produced sperm, then started identifying as ova-factory, produced ovas, and impregnated herself. There is literally no other possible explanation for that.

So get out of here with that attitude!!!!

What I am confused about is all this fuss around uterus transplants when obviously you can use whatever gamete you have to impregnate yourself. Just start producing the other and then mix them together. You don' t need medical treatment, these things already happen all the time.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (13 children)

Hey you’re so right! Who needs a uterus implanted when testicles can just produce ova and his wife can fertilise them with all her sperm. His wife could be a horse or a mushroom or a gnat because there’s no difference between animals. Bee sex is human sex.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

And bee rights are human rights!!!!!

So get on with fighting on behalf of worker bees against the bee monarchy that is enslaving them. Queen Bees need to be put in their place! It' s 2021, exploitation on working places is barbaric unless it can be considered empowering.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 4 fun9 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

Yikes sweaty recognising the bee monarchy? Enjoy the wrong side of history. All bees are queens

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

Crap, of course they are!!!!

But if they are, then does that mean that working as slaves is empowering?

Gosh, I really need to educate myself, are there courses in universities (Canada or the USA I assume) about the power dynamics and history in bee society?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

University? No But there are some courses available through Instagram users where you can learn unsubstantiated theory and the delicate operation of proving your theory via calling people names and questioning their morals until they agree with you or become silent.

[–]kwallio 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

I didn't read the post or the links but in some bee species males are haploid, so you could in theory make a bee from two haploid sperm, it would just be a useless drone though.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I don’t doubt bees breed like that. It’s still pants on head stupidity to claim that bees doing this means a placental mammal doesn’t have differences between ova and sperm and are ackshually totally not male or female.

[–]kwallio 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Yes, true, trying to argue that there is no difference between male and female based on half baked ideas about bee biology is kind of idiotic.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I love bees but it’a beyond a joke. This is easily the fortieth time someone has asked us all to prove that humans are sexed if any other life form has ever procreated differently to the mammal sex binary. I’m about ready to just start asking them if they are using protection so they don t get pregnant from tree pollen or a dog humping their shoe.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is easily the fortieth time someone has asked us all to prove that humans are sexed if any other life form has ever procreated differently to the mammal sex binary.

My favourite was when the poster used mushrooms to make the same point.

That' s why when humans walk, we need to wear wicker baskets instead of underwear, so that we can spread our spores!

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

Lmao I’d better be careful when I go out collecting oyster and saffron milk cap mushies then! I’d hate to ovulate sperm and accidentally impregnate a mycelium.

[–]Omina_SentenziosaSarcastic Ovalord 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Good for you, it would cost you a fortune in child support.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Ha! They’ll never see a cent! They can’t prove those are my spores!!

[–]kwallio 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I, personally, would like some protection against pollen since I have some terrible allergies.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

same tbh. Dreadful time being Australian and allergic to wattle.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

Breed like what? They said "in theory". Just because there was one example of a bee from two "male" bees doesn't mean "bees breed like that". In bees, it's always the "female queen" that breeds. Not two "males". And they don't actually know the bee was from two "males". They assumed.

I'm just saying if it's the case that two "males" can make a zygote, though very rare, then it means there is no such thing as "male" or "female" in bees, therefore no such thing as "egg" or "sperm" in bees, and therefore no such thing as "male" or "female", "egg" or "sperm" universally.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But the scientist whose single unverified paper you are so impressed with actually made clear distinctions between male & female in her paper, going so far as to claim that the ONE single solitary "strange" bee she says was produced this way had a "male eye in a female body."

I think you've taken the bait thrown out by a university PR department, not come across proof that humans have no sex & there is no difference between ova & sperm or male & female as you allege.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Waaaaaaait…

So they don’t even know if the two dude bees made a baby bee for sure?

And yet you’re running with this as if its this groundbreaking discovery that changes how we should understand sex?

And you genuinely don’t think it matters that bees and humans are drastically different from each other?

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (1 child)

And yet you’re running with this as if its this groundbreaking discovery that changes how we should understand sex?

The trans right activists use it as if it should change how people understand sex. I was curious what they spam in their tumblr posts.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nah this is your post and your argument that you’ve made several times in the comments.

You linked the bee thing and it’s what you seem to be basing a lot of your post on so idk why you’re putting this on tras now

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There is still a difference between sperm and ova when some bees can breed via haploidisation.

I’m a beekeeper, I know how they work. How bees work has absolutely nothing to do with how humans do.

Sperm does not need to be the same amongst all living creatures for human spent to be vastly different to a human ova.

You may as well say roller coasters are roads because they both have vehicles move on them.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

Roller coasters and roads aren't a good analogy.

"Sperm" and "egg", "male" and "female" are a thing because they are the only ones that can create a zygote. If it were the case that two "sperm" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, then the so-called "differences" between an "egg" and "sperm" would be arbitrary and could easily exist between two "sperm" or two "eggs" because they can do the exact same thing as "sperm" and "egg" do.

Therefore there would be no "male" or "female" either, as the "differences" between them could easily exist between two "females" or two "males".

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lmao no. Sweetie just stop.

You are making a dogs breakfast of this and you just keep stirring it.

Show me the third gamete humans have right now. If your word salad of “sperm and eggs aren’t different because bees maybe used haploidisation” is anything but a pile of garbage you will be able to find the third gamete and a handful of pregnant natal men to prove it. There should be loads of women actively dropping spent from their ovaries right now so where are they? Should I start taking the pill so I don’t impregnate myself by accident? Or impregnate my partner since his sperm are identical to ova? Go fetch these people and while your at it, grab me the medical advice on preventing impregnating myself that absolutely must exist in a world where humans sperm and human ova are the same thing

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (9 children)

And that means there is no "male" or "female" in those bee species in which "males" are haploid because two "sperm" can do the exact same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do, and that means there is no difference between a "sperm" and "egg" ...

??

[–]kwallio 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

You are drawing inferences where no inferences should be made. The fact that some bees have haploid males doesn't mean anything except there are some bee species that have haploid male bees. That you can manipulate two sperm in a lab to do something doesn't mean anything except that - not that there is no difference between a sperm and an egg because there are very real differences between sperm and egg. Focusing on one tiny fact while ignoring 20 facts that run counter to your argument is not a way to get anyone's respect especially when you are arguing about science when you clearly have zero background in it.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 2 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 6 fun -  (7 children)

"Sperm" and "egg" are categories we give two cells because they are the only ones that can create a zygote. If it were the case that two "sperm" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, then the "differences" between a "sperm" and "egg" would be arbitrary and could exist between two "sperm" or two "eggs", because two "sperm" or two "egg" could do the exact same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do.

And that would also mean there is no "male" or "female" if it was discovered two "sperm" or two "eggs" could create a zygote.

[–]MarkTwainiac 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If it were the case that two "sperm" or two "eggs" can create a zygote too, then the "differences" between a "sperm" and "egg" would be arbitrary and could exist between two "sperm" or two "eggs", because two "sperm" or two "egg" could do the exact same thing a "sperm" and "egg" do.

Logic fail. There are often myriad ways to achieve the same end, but that doesn't mean the different methods in each case suddenly become the same. If I want to go to X place, I can drive myself in a car or truck, take a train, bus or plane, hire a car & driver, hitchhike, ride a motorcycle or horse, or take a horse-drawn carriage or cart. If I have the time, I also could ride a bike, unicycle, scooter, wheelchair, tractor or golf cart there; take a hot air balloon; or run, jog, walk, rollerblade, skip, hop &/or pogo-stick my way there. If the place I am going is on the seacoast or a river & my place of departure is adjacent to the same body of water, I could swim, sail take a motor boat, water taxi, jet ski or paddle board there. I could also parasail.

The fact that I'd land in the same destination at the end doesn't mean that the differences between all these varied modes of transport become "arbitrary" and are elided. It also would would NOT mean there is no travel by land, air or water by a range of diverse means - & that instead, it's all just simply travel.

Some organisms have evolved to use both asexual and sexual means of reproduction. For example aphids, slime molds, sea anemones, and some starfish are capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction. This doesn't mean that there is no difference between the sperm & eggs of those species. And none of what these other animal species do has anything to do with humans & other mammals.

[–]VioletRemihomosexual female (aka - lesbian) 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Post-modernism (and post-modernistic denial of reality) is the bane of western society.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

No, I'm not saying the different methods become the same. I'm saying sperm and egg are different because they are the only ones that can fuse and create a zygote. If it were the case that two sperm or two eggs could fuse and create a zygote too, then it would mean the differences between an egg and a sperm are arbitrary and could as easily occur between two sperm or two eggs.

Comparing sperm and egg, to man-made things like roads, and motorcycles isn't a good comparison. Whatever differences exist between motorcycles, cars, roads, etc are man-made and could as easily exist between two roads, two motorcycles, two cars, or whatever.

[–]kwallio 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

I don't know what else to say except look up what a sperm is and look up what an egg is and then say the differences are arbitrary.

[–]MarkTwainiac 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I posted a link to a video showing human sperm approaching & trying to pierce a human egg, & OP ignored it.

[–]kwallio 9 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

And in a previous discussion I provided links to pdf textbook on human anatomy and physiology and they ignored that, too.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 1 insightful - 5 fun1 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Not saying there are no differences between sperm and egg ... all I'm saying is the differences exist because only sperm and egg can fuse and create a zygote. If it were the case that two sperm or two eggs could fuse and create a zygote too, then it would mean the differences between sperm and egg are arbitrary and could as easily occur between two eggs or two sperm.

[–]BiologyIsReal[M] 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You could have stuck to a single topic rather than include any sex-related concept that you found, you know?

Also, you sound awfully familiar. I could swear that I banned you last week...

[–]FlippyKingSadly this sub welcomes rape apologists and victim blaming. Bye! 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You do not understand science, and you are pretending tumblr is something anyone looking for real information would click on.

People say things, often false. That' covers all your tumbr links because there is no reason to think any of them are "authoritative".

Science journalism was NEVER any good, but it is a joke now. Nothing in Forbes or NYT is worth reading for anything other than the link or name of the study they are citing if it sounds interesting. But, if you read it critically, you will always be disappointed.

The article about Bees should disappoint you. It has nothing to do with humans, nor at all analogous to our means of SEXUAL reproduction.

You caught two very important in the source for the Forbes thing: "We propose ... . This is the first report ...". I skipped over the pointless part, because "we propose" is the important part of that sentence. They did not show, they did not prove, they proposed a possible explanation. OK, and explanation of what? Something of which this is the first report.

Science works as a method of inquiry when it is transparent allowing other researchers to reproduce the results. That rarely happens, what instead happens in the best scenarios is people run similar experiments in good faith attempting to replicate what was done and similar results were found (in the best scenarios). Too often dissimilar experiments are run in bad faith, like when Linus Pauling's Vitamin C works was 'debunked', and the results are presented as if the experiemtn was done like the original was but the results are different. That's when any attempt to reproduce results is done. Too often it's not done. Sorry, but this bee thing does not seem credible and there are so many things that can go wrong that I just do not find it credible. It will take more than just reproducing the results, it will take a clearly explained mechanism that then will produce the same results consistently, before before I consider it credible. I suspect the mechanism will not have anything to do with anything you think it has. Because this has nothing to do with "trans".

Your other links are all BS. But, if you've convinced yourself, why bother trying to convince others? I suspect you know it is all BS, and you are trying to get people to indulge delusions. There is no way any of your links show anything discrediting the FACT that the human species reproduces sexually via the impregnating of a woman's large immobile gamete with a man's small mobile gamete.

None of the things about genes or brains says anything about people who have functioning genitalia being the other "gender" nor why any supposition about identities or lady-brained males matter to anyone else but the lady-brained males. Your identity is the fiction you tell yourself to make sense of your place in your social world, just like everyone else who feels they need an "identity". No one needs to be burdened by anyone else's fiction.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Wait are you suggesting the publication known for its fifty richest men in the world pieces isn’t where we should get our information about biology? What’s next!? The pharmacist isn’t really the best guy to get my investment advice from?

[–]Spikygrasspod 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Do you bring this level of radical scepticism to all categories, or just male and female? I propose to you that the world is a blob with patches of different properties, and that trying to distinguish, group and label different areas of the blob is always social construction. It's social construction to distinguish yourself from the surrounding environment (where does the air begin and end? Inside your lungs? Outside your mouth?). To distinguish air from water (what if the air is humid? What if the water has bubbles in?). To distinguish cake from bread (What is even banana bread??? Fruit bread? Fruit cake?). All human-invented categories that impose order on the single-item, the blob universe.

That said, certain categories have incredible explanatory and predictive power. For example, even though it's somewhat arbitrary where we place the boundary of "beach" and "ocean" the likelihood of being bitten by a shark is rather higher when the human is in one of these socially constructed spaces. Likewise the category MALE can predict with astonishing accuracy who is most likely to commit violent sexual crimes against other humans, for example.

It's funny how the kind of people who treat the categories of male and female with radical scepticism treat all other categories as common sense, and base their behaviour on them (which of course, is necessary for any sensible interactions with the world). It might be instructive for you to look at whose interests this highly specific deconstructionism serves.

[–]kwallio 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Can we please have a minimum karma rule for posting - this yet another blank account made in order to spam stupid questions at us.

[–]Fastandthecurious[S] 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (1 child)

And yet you don't bother answering the stupid questions. Maybe because they are not stupid ...

And why do you care about "minimum karma". It's not like I'm making you look at my stupid questions. You could always ignore the "blank accounts with stupid questions". You must have better things to do.

[–]kwallio 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A bunch of people who have more training in biology than you are telling you they are stupid questions. Listen to the experts (which are not you).

[–]kwallio 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A random tumblr account is not really proof of anything, you are really reaching here.

[–]Penultimate_Penance 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

  1. If it's not about humans, it's irrelevant. Cats have a tail. That does not mean that humans also have tails.

  2. Scientists can also be ignorant. Especially when they step out of their lane. Ex. A physicist isn't the person you should be going to when asking questions about biology. Saying some scientists support x isn't a good argument.

  3. Bad scientists exist. Bad studies exist. You need to use your best judgment to determine if a scientific study, theory or conclusion is reliable. As more data is gathered scientists throw out old theories, ideas and conclusions on a regular basis. Generally the most reliable information can be found by looking at scientific consensus. There is scientific and public consensus that human sex consists of males and females, because it is an easily verifiable objective fact.

  4. Scientists can lie and can be paid to lie by big industries. This spectrum nonsense is coming from a few outliers. There are scientists denying climate change, there are scientists that were paid by the tobacco industry to deny the adverse health effects of cigarettes and there are scientists today that have a vested money motivated interest to legitimize transgenderism. So if you want to convince us that human sex is a "spectrum" you need a better argument than a couple nut job scientists say so. Give us some solid evidence that it's a spectrum. Ex. Junk Science and the Tobacco Industry

  5. Even if you did manage by some miracle and it would have to be a miracle prove that human sex is a spectrum how does that relate to transgenderism? Even if a human hermaphrodite was discovered that would not negate the fact that 99.99% of humans are unambiguously male or female. It does not negate the fact that all transwomen are male. That does not give any credence whatsoever to males who claim to be women. They're still male.

Male bodied people are not female bodied people. It impossible to turn a male bodied person into a female bodied person. Why should we treat male bodied people the same way we treat female bodied people? Why should male bodied people who claim to be women be given access to women's single sex spaces, shortlists, sports and so on? Why should they be allowed to define what womanhood is instead of female bodied people? Trans activists are the left's version of young earth creationists. They're arguments are equally unconvincing. Stop grasping at straws and come at us with a real argument.

  1. So let's assume the premise for a bit. Let's assume that human sex is a spectrum. Why should male bodied people be put in the same category as female bodied people? If you don't have an answer to that why are you wasting your time trying to claim that human sex is a spectrum? What exactly do you have to gain by doing this?

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Bees, clownfish, slugs, a rare cardinal (am I forgetting any?) aren't equivalent to humans. When nondimorphic reproduction starts showing up in primate populations, then we'll have something pretty fascinating to discuss.

Exceptions don't disprove the rule in science. And there's the burden of evidence. Thanks to computing we now have more compiled data on biological norms than we've had in all of recorded human history, and nothing surprising is showing up about dimorphism in humans.

Q.E.D.

[–]BiologyIsReal 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Bees, clownfish, slugs, a rare cardinal (am I forgetting any?) aren't equivalent to humans.

Fungi! You're forgetting fungi!

[–][deleted] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Of course! I knew I was forgetting something.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

How about we just focus on humans. A small number of humans are intersex. If you want to assign them to "male" or "female" categories, then you need to determine which metric to use. That choice is socially constructed. However, the vast majority of humans are not intersex and are easily categorized as male or female. It's just that simple. The presence of intersex people does not make reproductive sex illusory or infinite, nor does it have any bearing on transgenderism.

[–]HeimdeklediROAR 1 insightful - 7 fun1 insightful - 6 fun2 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

Yep, its a spectrum

[–]Radish 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Just curious, how would you explain to a child where babies come from?