I saw a post get banned. Well I dont wanna be a taboo subject. The more we shut down conversations the more we are ostracized. We shouldnt be so dogmatic. A society where people are free to express unpopular opinions is the one we want to live in. Seriously folks.

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    0·
    22 days ago

    Those aren’t exceptions. Castrated males, menopausal females, children, and anyone with complete infertility all have a clear sex.

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

    Please read this link, as previously suggested

    https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts

    Some more reading

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

    Those are variations within the sex binary. Not an exception. You’re confusing sex with phenotype and genotype.

    Please apply a proper skeptical review of your idea. I’ve saved you the effort of searching. Here is more:

    https://www.gwup.org/skeptiker-artikel/sonstiges/one-reality-two-sexes-and-many-endless-debates/

    There are only two sexes because there are only two types of gametes [in anisogamous species]. There’s no intermediate one. Therefore, there can only be two sexes that an individual can have.

    Nothing in the biology of the sexes makes sense except in the light of gametes.

    • DomeGuy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      22 days ago

      Dude, you are the one arguing the position that sex is merely gamete production.

      My position is merely “it’s complicated and we need to leave space for edge cases.” (I am perfectly fine with male/female being separate yes/no questions or having the sex options be m/f/x)

      Linking to a transphobic advocacy site just identifies you as either an embarassed transphobe or a sucker.

        • DomeGuy@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          22 days ago

          No, you’re repeating a transphobic oversimplification of biology. And resorting to a bad argument from authority when the easy gaps in your simplifications are called out.

          I’d ignore you at this point, but I have a macbre curiosity as to if you are yourself a transphobe or if you’re instead just a useful fool for transphobic activism.

            • DomeGuy@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              22 days ago

              Oh, you’re transphobic yourself. Got it.

              “Truth” is for religion, philosophy, and encouraging honesty in courtrooms. Neither science, medicine, nor langauge give two shits about truth, only utility.

              (And systems of categorization between N states have substantially less utility than those that include N states plus “other”)

              • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                0·
                21 days ago

                The truth is that there is an observed binary in this case. N = 2. Gametic definition provides utility. That’s why it’s the only definition used in biology.

                Do you want to learn? Would recommend.

                • DomeGuy@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  0·
                  21 days ago

                  So, are you a hateful troll because you’re transphobic, or are you transphobic because you’re a hateful troll?

                  There is no “utility” in demanding that intersex humans be categorized as either male or female. No actual medical researchers study “biology”, and actual science tells us that models where we treat human sex, gender, and sexuality as having only a coincidental correlation to reproductive cells are substantially more useful.

                  I mean, unless you’re a transphobic bigot scared that the kids you love might realize that they are trans and dump you the way all victims dump their abusers. I guess a transphobic model could have some utility in spreading transphobia. Not that it even passes the first requirement of parsimony, though, since you need to ignore all of those damn edge cases…