You must log in or register to comment.
Darn that science, keep that liberal where it belongs, in the humanities.
Go Stephanie!
Dunning-Kruger reminds me of this one president and his cabinet.
Reading the discussions and some of the disagreements, a correction is needed to be more precise.
Some XX people will be Assigned Male At Birth. Some XY people will be Assigned Female At Birth.
Some XX people live their entire lives as men without ever knowing otherwise, and the same happens with XY individuals living as women. Even having children won’t reveal the apparent discrepancy, unless they need certain tests done.
“It’s basic biology” mfs when advanced biology
it is basic biology, ie biology simplified to teach a kid in middle school. the thing is sciences don’t stop at middle school level. a lot of university education is about clarifying that things you learned before were simplified to the point that they’re practically useless if not outright wrong.
Light travels in straight lines, next year its a wave and then its particles. What you said isso true about uni rethreading.
you think light is real???
Tap for spoiler
You don’t technically need particles!
Meet me next week for more hot physics takes nobody needed.
To be fair light does travel in straight lines (more or less… ignoring that nothing travels in any set or even single path something something veritasium video), its not lights fault if a straight line in physical reality doesn’t always happen to match up with the geometry we invented.
See I didnt go that far, mindboggling
I agree with Dr. Jey McCreight on the science.
But for determining truth, both sides are wrong here.
Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.
Many people with PhD’s have had Dunning-Kruger. Someone else mentioned Ben Carson being great at neurosurgery, but not politics.
A PhD doesn’t make you infallible.
I am saying this as someone who is taking graduate-level courses and will be pursuing my PhD. When I’m correct, it’s not because my future PhD causes reality to magically conform to my opinions - it’s because I rigorously looked at the evidence, logic, and formed my own conclusion that better aligns with reality.
Okay but what is good engagement against “follow the science” aside from “I literally DO the science”? Dr. McCreight offered a point and was met with “nuh uh” so at that point it can hardly be called an argument or debate. Do those fallacies honestly matter at that point when one refuses to engage with tangible points of discussion?
You can even be incorrect on a subject you have expertise in.
that’s why we have peer reviews for new findings by experts.
Exactly, imagine if we threw away the entire peer review process and made it about, “Well I have a PhD! Checkmate.”
We’d descend into a dark age for science.
Experts often disagree.
If it were that easy, everything would be solved. We wouldn’t need so much research or so many universities.
Note how they always enshrine gender in biology, but then make all kinds of non-biological statements about what gender is.
“XX is woman”/“Large gametes is woman”/“can conceive is woman”
And then they’ll say
“Women aren’t as aggressive”, “women are more emotional”, “women like being in the home more”, “those are women’s clothes”, etc.
The only reason it’s so important for it to be biological is because of how it punishes gender non-conformity and makes the lives of trans people hell. Like it isn’t ideologically consistent and they know that. They just don’t care. If it was just about genitals or chromosomes, then why is it that gender dictates all these social things about us? The only reason to root gender in how you were born is to ensure gender roles are as rigid and immutable as possible.
how it punishes
gendernon-conformityFit the mold or die. Always the same.
The only reason to root gender in how you were born is to ensure gender roles are as rigid and immutable as possible.
This, this right here, that’s the game, that’s the whole game. They want to punish transness and then start changing what the definition of trans is.
“Your daughter was wearing pants, and said no when my boy asked her out, that’s trans behavior and it’s unAmerican, might have to report you to a correction agency if this shit doesn’t stop.”
Aren’t there more than two sexes in biology?
Yes, there are many species that have more than 2 sexes. Those are decided by scientific consensus.
But sex is ultimately a category to describe the process of reproduction. By definition, this is exclusionary. It’s why conservatives fumble so much when trying to describe sex in terms of actual definitions. Inherently, it is not possible to fit every person into a table of 2 columns in that way. Sex is not a binary because human beings are not binary. There is an incredible amount of variation in our bodies.
Relating to humans?
Yes but they are mutations (e. g. XXY, XXX, etc.) that often give rise to numerous biological problems or death.I don’t know if there are species that require more than two sexes to propagate. I never head of them.
You are vastly underestimating the prevalence of chromosomal variations. They are common, especially among cis women.
I like the way you phrased that at the end. Sexes are categories that relate exclusively to the concept of progeny. If you’re not able to reproduce, you’re already kind of excluded from the sex binary. If we break the human concept of sex down to its constituent parts, it is just “can procreate”. The categories are useful in some contexts, but to state them as universal or to try and extrapolate them so widely is significantly disruptive and unhelpful. Humans are and always have been more than our reproductive anatomy. Your doctor and anyone you want to reproduce with are really the only people who need to know whether you fit into either category.
Im thinking creatures that propagate via asexual reproduction might not fit the male/female sex binary and intersex might not as well?
But that’s not more that two sexes. It’s the same number or less. A hermaphrodite isn’t a third sex, it’s two sexes side by side and a sexless cellular organism has exactly one sex.
The distinction male/female is usually determined by measuring the size of the gametes. Female gametes are the bigger ones (e. g. ovum) and male gametes are the smaller ones (e. g. spermatozoon). There are organisms where the gametes of both sexes have the same size. So technically they have two sexes but don’t fit the categories male and female.
But wouldn’t the asexual reproducing animal that is one sex be neither male or female and thus is a third?
Sex in the sense that we have been talking about it here is in reference to mammals. The moment you wander outside of the mammalian class of vertebrates these concepts of sex start to become far less applicable.
There are many birds that have more than 2 sexes. Reptiles and invertebrates as well. Asexual reproduction would be classed as it’s own sex apart from any male/female system.
you’re a mammal though right
Correct on both counts. To make it even better, there exist some creatures that primarily mate and reproduce sexually, but can also reproduce asexually if the situation requires it - I think ants, and some reptiles, if I remember right.
Depends on how you’re counting.
Critically thinking now, how strong is the evidence here?
My take is that sex-linked characteristic are grouped together due to prehistoric and historic evolution. Since I dont have a womb my tits would not have been worth the energy cost in an ancestral environment. Therefore, they are not coded in my DNA and I have to dose to maintain them.
There are people who are different, that is a fact.
Some folks are given “PhD”, others are kidnapped and sent to concentration camps. Is the education system legitimate, or corrupted by authority?
A person’s biological sex usually refers to their status as female or male depending on their chromosomes, reproductive organs, and other characteristics. Chromosomes are tightly packed DNA, or molecules that contain the genetic instructions for the development and functioning of all living things. Humans typically have forty-six chromosomes. Two of those are sex chromosomes that contain instructions for the development and functioning of characteristics related to biological sex, such as reproductive organs. There are two kinds of human sex chromosomes, X and Y. Individuals identified as males tend to have one X and one Y chromosome, while those identified as females tend to have two X chromosomes. However, other people are born with other chromosome combinations, such as XXY, that lead them to develop a mix of characteristics. People who fit that description are often referred to as intersex, a category for people whose bodies do not conform with stereotypical expectations of males or females at birth.
Taken from here
Evidence seems pretty strong to me.
removed by mod
This article seems to disagree. But I don’t know much on the subject so I might be misunderstanding.
Also, no matter what the correct answer is, pretending the answer is binary is definitely wrong. Since it’s obviously a lot more complicated.
removed by mod
No, not magically, no. You’re right.
removed by mod
You’re the only one talking about this. A change can occur without any surgery. Reread the article to understand better, please.
You read the article and you even quoted it. It says how xx people can be men and how xy people can be women. Nobody said anything about any surgery or magic pill that grows a penis or whatever you’re imagining.
…and all in between, hormonal and/or physically. “Only two genders” is false
The phrase is funny but you wouldn’t catch me dead wearing a logical fallacy
Can I interest you in a logical phallus?
To be fair, a Person with a PhD still can have Dunning-Kruger on other subjects.
Ben Carson is a great Neurosurgeon, but dumbass on politics.
Neil deGrasse Tyson and literally anything other than astrophysics
They can also on their subject.
I guees it needs (relevant) inserted?
Yeah, both sides are wrong here.
Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.
One time a woman told me that my lack of a second X Chromosome meant I would “always be a man”
So I gaslit her into thinking her husband had klinefelters.
I hate how Republicans think transphobia is science
That’s gloriously devious
Wait until they learn about XXY, XYY, and XO individuals.
There hugs AND kisses people?
We prefer “asexual” or “ace”.
“Yeah but science can be proven wrong an change over time, while my beliefs and biases are forever!”
Bayesian updating converges, surprisingly, to that idiot’s belief system.
Can I get a T shirt that says “I have Dunning-Krueger and your Phd looks cute”? I just have a lot of BS to share and I don’t want to be sorry about it.
Dunning-Krueger effect is the delusion that you are smarter than a serial killer who stalks teenagers in their nightmares.
Actually, the science says you will feel regret and will grow to resent that shirt over time. /s
That’s because today’s t-shirts are made of such poor materials.
But the economics says I should print them and make a fortune selling them to idiots. Hmm decisions, decisions.
