If no one’s arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It’s obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it.
Nobody’s arguing about gender being a social construct. I 100% agree with that. Sex is very real and not a construct, and what’s the point of contention (sadly)
This is an “either I’m stupid or everybody else” moment and I let you decide on your own.
Words don’t have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It’s an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like “I don’t care if the preposition is before or after”.
Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who’s Afraid Of Gender so it’s not that they aren’t aware. That’s all the hint I give you.
Judith Butler is one of those people that, when you find yourself agreeing with her, you should sit back and really consider how you arrived at that conclusion. She’s not always wrong, but she’s very wrong on a lot of stuff, including the gamete definition. Here’s one example:
You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem.
Anyway, I stand corrected. It’s not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context.
That’s not some random blogger lol. That’s an evolutionary biologist that certainly should be trusted more on the topic than Judith Butler of all people. The link is more to demonstrate why you should evaluate why you’re wrong and how you ended up there (believing Judith Butler is a good starting point). I didn’t directly respond to your points because you didn’t seem to be arguing (“I let you decide on your own.”)
So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp “hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it’s about soft science”?
I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It’s not wrong, it’s just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn’t stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I’m not saying it’s Wrong. I say it’s misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there.
And I said that you can decide whether or not you’re stupid but “words have different meanings in different contexts” and the context in question isn’t evolutionary biology. If it’s about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it’s about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better.
When talking about the “sex vs gender” debate, you should 100% trust an evolutionary biologist more than a gender studies scholar on the “sex” part of that debate. I’m not sure why you think that’s unclear.
gametes are a binary
Thank you, you’re the first person in this thread that I’ve been arguing with to acknowledge that. Sports and whatnot are a different topic that is interesting to talk about, but first we have to get everyone on the same page of acknowledging the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Then we can start talking about how it affects sports.
Well, no. People just misunderstand what sex means in that context. You can’t disentangle sex vs gender from evolutionary biology.
Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology.
Sure, but nobody’s arguing that. Sex is very much real and very much not a social construct.
If no one’s arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It’s obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it.
Nobody’s arguing about gender being a social construct. I 100% agree with that. Sex is very real and not a construct, and what’s the point of contention (sadly)
This is an “either I’m stupid or everybody else” moment and I let you decide on your own.
Words don’t have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It’s an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like “I don’t care if the preposition is before or after”.
Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who’s Afraid Of Gender so it’s not that they aren’t aware. That’s all the hint I give you.
Judith Butler is one of those people that, when you find yourself agreeing with her, you should sit back and really consider how you arrived at that conclusion. She’s not always wrong, but she’s very wrong on a lot of stuff, including the gamete definition. Here’s one example:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2025/04/01/judith-butler-on-trumps-eos-with-an-emphasis-on-sex-and-gender/
You may see elsewhere in this thread where I point out the difference between sex determination and sex definition, which is mentioned in that link:
The gist of the article is:
You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem.
Anyway, I stand corrected. It’s not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context.
That’s not some random blogger lol. That’s an evolutionary biologist that certainly should be trusted more on the topic than Judith Butler of all people. The link is more to demonstrate why you should evaluate why you’re wrong and how you ended up there (believing Judith Butler is a good starting point). I didn’t directly respond to your points because you didn’t seem to be arguing (“I let you decide on your own.”)
So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp “hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it’s about soft science”?
I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It’s not wrong, it’s just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn’t stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I’m not saying it’s Wrong. I say it’s misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there.
And I said that you can decide whether or not you’re stupid but “words have different meanings in different contexts” and the context in question isn’t evolutionary biology. If it’s about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it’s about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better.
When talking about the “sex vs gender” debate, you should 100% trust an evolutionary biologist more than a gender studies scholar on the “sex” part of that debate. I’m not sure why you think that’s unclear.
Thank you, you’re the first person in this thread that I’ve been arguing with to acknowledge that. Sports and whatnot are a different topic that is interesting to talk about, but first we have to get everyone on the same page of acknowledging the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Then we can start talking about how it affects sports.
Just for the record: I didn’t say that. I still disagree with you.