You unfortunately have a grossly distorted view of what the scientific consensus is. There’s a few extremists pushing for silly things, but no, sex is binary. Sex phenotypes aren’t binary, but those aren’t how sex is defined
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
It’s not what I believe. I’m just the messenger, sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus. I wish I didn’t have to do this and people didn’t post a bunch of nonsense on Lemmy, but here we are.
People really need to know when their worldview is based on falsehoods, and this is one of those times. As an example, you might have heard of the concept of “5 sexes”, but it turns out that the source of that claim was someone who certainly knows better being “tongue-in-cheek” and “ironic”:
She’s also the source of the “intersex is as common as redheads” claim, and that’s also completely wrong and she should know better. That is a silly thing and she’s one of the extremists pushing such silly things.
I don’t know how to better explain it to you, but yes, sex characteristics are not necessarily binary, but sex is (and yes, gametes are binary). You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
You wanna know what else is weird? This whole “gametes determine sex” thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the “scientific basis” for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.
You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
No, what’s disappointing is that you’ve spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they’re refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.
The idea you’re so vehemently “just being the messenger” for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We’ve learned more. It’s time for you to catch up.
I’m… not sure you actually read your link. It quotes the open letter, and then points out that it’s scientifically inaccurate, and that the people that sent it should know better. It also contains this quote, which is my whole damn point. Real biologists saying this shit:
In animals and plants, binary sex is universally defined by gamete type, even though sexes vary in how they are developmentally determined and phenotypically identified across taxa.
Why do you think he’s a transphobe? Because he’s a biologist saying that sex is real?
He’s also simply one of the vast majority saying this. If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that’s entirely on you. Why do you think those are at odds?
I think Richard Dawkins is a transphobe because he frequently makes public anti-trans statements and conflates gender and sex in a way that is weaponized against trans people.
If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that’s entirely on you.
Jesus dude this is just boring now. Claiming your outdated view is “scientific truth” hasn’t worked all day, maybe find a new slant.
I find it interesting how reliable of a tell it is that someone has just given up on any sort of real argument when they start deploying rhetorics like “boring” or the like. Very similar to “It’s 2025!” or “I’m just tired y’all”.
Scientific truth doesn’t care how boring you find it. That is the current scientific consensus, regardless of your opinion on it. Just like 1+1=2 doesn’t care if you hate it with a passion. It’s still true, and will continue to be so after you realize your error.
Take your pick of other relevent scientists to believe if you want, though I have my doubts about Dawkins being “anti trans”. This thread is an exemplar of how badly people want to conflate being pro-science with being anti-trans, for very silly reasons.
You unfortunately have a grossly distorted view of what the scientific consensus is. There’s a few extremists pushing for silly things, but no, sex is binary. Sex phenotypes aren’t binary, but those aren’t how sex is defined
What’s in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think “there’s a few extremists pushing for silly things?” What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let’s go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It’s just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren’t binary), and that just happens to be the thing you’re pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you’re refusing to put them all together.
It’s not what I believe. I’m just the messenger, sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus. I wish I didn’t have to do this and people didn’t post a bunch of nonsense on Lemmy, but here we are.
People really need to know when their worldview is based on falsehoods, and this is one of those times. As an example, you might have heard of the concept of “5 sexes”, but it turns out that the source of that claim was someone who certainly knows better being “tongue-in-cheek” and “ironic”:
She’s also the source of the “intersex is as common as redheads” claim, and that’s also completely wrong and she should know better. That is a silly thing and she’s one of the extremists pushing such silly things.
I don’t know how to better explain it to you, but yes, sex characteristics are not necessarily binary, but sex is (and yes, gametes are binary). You’re refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that’s really disappointing.
Hmmm, an interesting assertion, one that would be all the more interesting were it not for the open letter sent to the president, signed by ~3500 scientists, saying sex isn’t binary. Weird.
You wanna know what else is weird? This whole “gametes determine sex” thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the “scientific basis” for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.
No, what’s disappointing is that you’ve spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they’re refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.
The idea you’re so vehemently “just being the messenger” for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We’ve learned more. It’s time for you to catch up.
I’m… not sure you actually read your link. It quotes the open letter, and then points out that it’s scientifically inaccurate, and that the people that sent it should know better. It also contains this quote, which is my whole damn point. Real biologists saying this shit:
Why is Lemmy so focused on being wrong here?
by quoting noted transphobe, Richard Dawkins lmao.
Why are you so focused on spreading transphobic rhetoric?
Why do you think he’s a transphobe? Because he’s a biologist saying that sex is real?
He’s also simply one of the vast majority saying this. If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that’s entirely on you. Why do you think those are at odds?
I think Richard Dawkins is a transphobe because he frequently makes public anti-trans statements and conflates gender and sex in a way that is weaponized against trans people.
Jesus dude this is just boring now. Claiming your outdated view is “scientific truth” hasn’t worked all day, maybe find a new slant.
I find it interesting how reliable of a tell it is that someone has just given up on any sort of real argument when they start deploying rhetorics like “boring” or the like. Very similar to “It’s 2025!” or “I’m just tired y’all”.
Scientific truth doesn’t care how boring you find it. That is the current scientific consensus, regardless of your opinion on it. Just like 1+1=2 doesn’t care if you hate it with a passion. It’s still true, and will continue to be so after you realize your error.
Take your pick of other relevent scientists to believe if you want, though I have my doubts about Dawkins being “anti trans”. This thread is an exemplar of how badly people want to conflate being pro-science with being anti-trans, for very silly reasons.