You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.”
how it punishes
gendernon-conformityFit the mold or die. Always the same.
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.
deleted by creator
I’m a bit uninformed on this; it seems fascinating. Do these things happen due to something unusual during the growth of a fetus? What’s the name for this phenomenon?
There’s a bunch of them, but one more common example is Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.
It’s also possible to have a non-functional SRY (XY but female), or to be XX with an SRY translocation (XX but male).
Biology is complicated: pretty much anyone who says it only happens one way or is really simple is wrong.
“Yeah… SRY, but sex and gender are not a binary.”
Moron here: Are XY females sterile or is it possible for them to pass on the Y, along with a male partner Y gene to give the baby YY genes? Or is this combination non-viable and wont develop?
XY females aren’t always sterile! Most of the cases we know of are sterile though, because you don’t get tested for this stuff unless something’s wrong (the woman in the case study got tested because XY women are common in her family, her daughter is XY).
YY is non viable; the X chromosome has many genes which are essential. You can be XY, female, and fertile, but it’s pretty rare.
Mothers always pass the X chromosome due to how the egg works from what I remember. The sperm determines whether you get x or y for the second part.
There is a rare event where you can have multiple sex chromosomes, like XYY, but the X is always present (at least for humans). Considering the genes in an X chromosome are vital to life, even if we could artificially create YY, it would probably end up nonviable
Very cool. Thanks!
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.
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.
Dunning-Krueger effect is the delusion that you are smarter than a serial killer who stalks teenagers in their nightmares.
…and all in between, hormonal and/or physically. “Only two genders” is false
“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???
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
Tap for spoiler
You don’t technically need particles!
Meet me next week for more hot physics takes nobody needed.
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.
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.
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?
The phrase is funny but you wouldn’t catch me dead wearing a logical fallacy
Can I interest you in a logical phallus?
Wait until they learn about XXY, XYY, and XO individuals.
There hugs AND kisses people?
We prefer “asexual” or “ace”.
Are there cases that these are none sterile? I know 1/4 of trisomy 21 moms can get pregnant but klinefeld and other gonosomal trisomy were taught being sterile when I last looked.
I hope this criticism is valid :
https://economicsfromthetopdown.com/2022/04/08/the-dunning-kruger-effect-is-autocorrelation/ and
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2023/05/09/debunking_the_dunning-kruger_effect_898340.html#!
…
There is a “people think they are better than average” rule, rather than whatever Dunning-Kreuger suggested.Error: url1 and url2 are the sameThank you, I made amends.
I think it’s sus that a Math Lecturer decides to post an article about philosophy and then doesn’t describe any of the steps he took. The article basically just says i did a thing, but doesnt explain what he did/how to reproduce the result… On the other hand, philosophy is a field with many wrong conclusions and the like, so it is believable. But again in my eyes it’s not proven, since it’s just ‘one guy’ saying something and not replicated nor reproduced.
Edit after replied comment edit: The second article you linked (actually the first in the post) changes my believe about the dunning-kruger effect. Thank you for sharing!
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
deleted by creator
I guees it needs (relevant) inserted?
Yeah, both sides are wrong here.
Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.
Can someone explain to me how some XX people become cis male?
You’ve heard of xy people and xx people, but wait till you hear about X people!
Or xxx people, or xxy people, or… dies
Gene expression is not as straightforward as people think. All sorts of weird shit can happen, and that’s not even including gene mutations.
I googled it for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome
In 90 percent of these individuals, the syndrome is caused by the Y chromosome’s SRY gene, which triggers male reproductive development, being atypically included in the crossing over of genetic information that takes place between the pseudoautosomal regions of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father.[2][7] When the X with the SRY gene combines with a normal X from the mother during fertilization, the result is an XX genetic male. Less common are SRY-negative individuals, those who are genetically females, which can be caused by a mutation in an autosomal or X chromosomal gene.[2] The masculinization of XX males is variable.
De La Chappell syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, androgen exposure in utero, ovotesticular disorder of of sex development all result in a person with cis male characteristics and in some cases cis male typical genitalia despite having xx chromosomes
https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/File/Pitch_sketch_final.png?w=2000
This is the best resource I’ve seen to show things relatively simply.
The TL;DR is that a whole “Y” chromosome isn’t exactly responsible for “maleness”, the SRY gene is. It’s normally on the Y chromosome, but mutations can occur placing that gene onto the X chromosome. Inversely, someone could inherit a Y chromosome without that gene, in which case they would develop with female traits.
It’s not considered trans because someone with 46XX plus the SRY gene would develop male genitalia, be identified as male at birth, and likely identify themselves as male. For some types of these conditions, there are plenty of people walking around with no clue that their chromosomes don’t match their gender.
Disclaimer: I’m not a geneticist, so i could have explained something a little off.
I’m also not a geneticist but I did study genetics for a while and that’s pretty much what I remember learning, so you’re good.
The books Mutants: On Genetic Variety and the Human Body by Armand Marie Leroi explains it all very well and touches on many other related genetic conditions like the Klinefelter syndrome (XXY). It’s an incredible read all around that really opened my eyes to how malleable biology is.
Maybe she means the exceptions?
Exceptions: While XX and XY are the most common sex chromosome combinations, there are exceptions, such as individuals with variations in their sex chromosomes, such as XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) or XYY.
I can try. The cis part means the person’s naughty bits are aligned with their gender identity. The male is their gender identity. So post-bottom surgery it’s perfectly possible. If you use different definitions for concepts though you will have difficulty making it work.
None of this has anything to do with the claimed PhD in genomics though. These are socio-cultural concepts. So they should stick their PhD where it belongs and address the arguments head on instead of trying to argue from authority.
I don’t have a PhD, but my understanding of the basics is this:
All people start out developing as female in the womb before a certain point where a large dose of testosterone caused (usually) by the Y chromosome activating (basically the only time in life that it does apart from starting puberty AFAIK) causes the proto-labia and vagina to push outwards and form the ball sack and enlarging the clitoris and urethra into what we know of as the penis. This is why you can see that line down the middle of your ball sack; that’s where your labia fused together. It’s also why the tissue that makes up your ball sack is biologically identical to the tissue that makes up the inside of the vagina. It’s an outie vs. an innie.
There are many reasons why this wouldn’t happen “correctly” since biology is more a wonder of things somehow working at all after evolution is done with them rather than a perfectly designed, well-oiled machine. Sometimes the Y chromosome simply doesn’t activate, or it does, but the person has androgen insensitivity and so the testosterone doesn’t do anything, or they develop as female but have testicles where their ovaries should be, rendering them infertile but otherwise a perfectly normal woman. Sometimes a person is XX, but they experienced a higher than normal amount of testosterone during development and developed male instead of female.
And that’s before you get into the issue of intersex people, who are often surgically altered as babies when they’re born by the doctor to match with the genitalia that the doctor thinks should be the “correct” one. In a number of places, the doctors don’t have to ask permission or even tell the parents after.
Also, your definition of cis male is slightly off. “Cis” is the opposite Latin prefix of “trans,” meaning a non-changing/stable state of being, and in this case it’s used to mean that one’s gender identity matches up with the one that you were given at birth. It ultimately has nothing to do with what genitalia you have, and it’s simply an identification saying that your sense of gender matches up with the sex that the doctor declared and that you therefore aren’t trans. It’s an after the fact solution to the question of what to call people who aren’t trans and comes from the use of trans to identify somebody who transitions from one gender to another.
Chemists have moved away from cis and trans partly because of all of this. We use zusammen-together or entgegen-opposite now. I can attest to how politically charged a class about organic molecules can become.
I am not deeply versed on the socio-cultural side of it all, and there is clearly space to learn. I am reluctant to let cis hinge on a doctor’s proclamation but I’ll let it sit there for the moment.
As somebody with a bit of learning on the matter (it’s amazing the hats you have to wear to prove you deserve to live - from anthropologist to biologist to archeologist), it’s interesting to see how the language of the community has evolved as our scientific understanding of sex vs gender has.
The term started as transsexual, and there are older people who refer to themselves by that term, but by the 2000s the term had shifted in favor of transgender, noting the recognition that sex doesn’t equate to gender that happened around that time.
Then came the use of cis as well as AMAB and AFAB (assigned male/female at birth) in order to better describe the complexity involved around the fact that a doctor has to declare you one gender or another when you’re born, and the easiest way to do that with the highest likelihood of being correct is based on sexual characteristics - namely, what genitalia you have. So cis is used to describe people who have no reason to disagree with the doctor’s assessment, and there’s a lot of discussion around where intersex people fall in the community (do they fit in the trans umbrella term?).
People like Dunning-Kruger up there are basically arguing that isotopes don’t exist.
I think you’re misunderstanding the point the OP is making. Typically, male/female are used when referring to sex, and masculine/feminine and man/woman are used when referring to gender. So this conversation isn’t about gender identity at all, but completely about biological sex.
There are a bunch of factors that go into determining sex. The two main categories are related to the person’s genes (their genotype) and how the person physically presents (phenotype). The biggest genetic marker is whether the person has XX or XY chromosomes (or some other combination). The easiest marker for phenotype is the person’s genitalia, but there are others, such as gonads, gamete production, hormones, etc.
So even just talking about biological sex, a person’s genotype and phenotype might give conflicting determinations of sex. So an “XX male” refers to someone with the genotype of a female, but the phenotype of a male, but says nothing about their gender identity or any surgeries they might’ve undergone.
With that in mind, someone with a PhD in genomics seems to be in the right field to address gene expression and genotypes vs phenotypes. Although you’re right that we shouldn’t rely on authority, but instead on the arguments presented. What we’ve been shown here, though, isn’t a fully fleshed out debate. It’s about 60 words on social media that amounts to “your mental model of sex is wrong; here are cases to rebut it”
I also have a PhD. Not in genomics but in physiology. But we all do genetic work now.
The Dr. says that XX persons can become cis men. “CIS men” is explicitly about gender. I was trying to make the point (not very well as it turns out) that all of this hinges on definitions. So you have to unpack CIS men in this context. Without a sound understanding of the basics, all the rest is supposition.
And the gender identity and expression parts have nothing to do with gene expression, penetrance (giggity), DNA, RNA or epigenetic factors in gene expression.
Also the better example for the counter argument would probably be CAIS.
Oh, sorry if my response was too basic-level for your experience.
I get what you’re saying about “cis men” being explicitly about gender. I took it as meaning phenotypic males, and that they used “cis men” either for simplicity (perhaps to avoid getting into the details of trans people that they thought was irrelevant to the point they were making) or because they were just imprecise with their language. It’s also possible it was based off of something from earlier in the conversation that we can’t see because it’s just a screenshot.
Anyways, I agree, it was poorly worded, but I think the point they were trying to make was pretty straightforward (unless you insist on interpreting what they said to be something about genes affecting gender expression, then it doesn’t make sense).
Outward, their genitals might look like those of the oposite sex.
cis just means your current gender identity is the same that was assigned to you at birth. there are cases where someone has XX chromosomes, but the body develops as male.
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
“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.
That’s the fallacy of authority
I agree. Doctorate in Biology =/= Doctorate in Religion. She’s not right because she’s a doctor, she’s right because she’s right.
