this post was submitted on 19 Apr 2025
-26 points (17.5% liked)
Conservatives
115 readers
2 users here now
Pro-conservative discussions
Rules
- Pro-conservative or crazy liberal post.
- We are a discussion forum. No low effort, trolling comments.
- Everyone is welcome to opine, but be civil.
- Attack the topic, not the person
- Report violations of the rules
- Serial downvoting earns you a ban.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, that is a fact, as is the fact that sex is a spectrum because of intersex people. These are not incompatible facts.
Plenty of PhD's in evolutionary biology would agree with me, even in the article
"Sometimes, the complex machinery involved in reproduction can develop wrong, and people can suffer from infertility or exhibit reproductive traits that are atypical for their sex, including ambiguous genitalia (intersex conditions). However, as pointed out by others, these are not additional sexes because these body plans do not produce a new type of gamete besides sperm or eggs. Someone who does not produce any gametes would also not be a third sex since they would be fundamentally incapable of sexual reproduction."
They make the claim that this doesn't count as another sex, but even not being any sex would be a sex all on its own... resulting in it not being a simple binary. There's nuance here that is going over your head.
Are you misreading the article? When it says "However, as pointed out by others", that is pointing out that you're 100% incorrect. I'm not sure why you cited something that proves you wrong. Nowhere is a single PhD cited that agrees with you.
I am not, he addresses this point by saying "this is not a sex", there being sexless humans implies a non-binary of sexes, this is just one way to look at it and a matter of opinion. He did not disprove my stance, he merely stated he dislikes it.
I already gave this:
https://www.stateofunion.org/2024/03/07/poll-finds-majority-of-scientists-at-british-universities-agree-sex-is-binary/
You might think this source supports your claim, but notice "Specifically, 58% agreed sex is binary except in rare intersex cases, while 29% said it is not and 13% had no view. "
Plenty of PHD's agree with me, even the 58% agree with me.
Let's review, your claim is that sex is completely binary, my claim is that sex is not binary, because there are exceptions to males and females being the only option.
The article acknowledges that there are people where you cannot say if they are male or female, or they are sexless, therefore, my claim is validated by the article. Your claim is not.
So I would agree with that 58%, because there's no option for "Yes, and intersex is irrelevant". It's honestly a terrible poll, most likely not written by a biologist. I wouldn't be surprised if that 13% put down "Prefer not to say" as a sort of "This is a bad poll" response.
I'll let the quoted scientist in the source of the poll respond.
i agree that poll is insufficiently specific, however, even if 100% of that 58% agreed with you, that would still not meet the criteria for scientific consensus, which is typically in the 90's. Show me a poll that indicates those beliefs are agreed upon in the 90's without an intersex objection and you will prove me wrong!
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10563654/ this might interest you, if you bother to read it, I disagree that it has anything to do with a lack of evolutionary knowledge, in fact I find the people most ignorant of evolution strongly hold this belief regularly, but that is a mere anecdote. None of the roundtable had anything to do with that, those claims seem baseless and dataless.
That link is a great example of why gender studies degrees aren't worth the paper they're printed on, goddamn. They're not doing science, they're zealots pushing for a new religion to infect science just like creationists of old 🤦
https://www.lifescied.org/doi/10.1187/cbe.21-12-0343
...Your quote is about changing the culture of a workplace to increase the number of scientists, and their happiness with their job.
What's the problem with that? Why is that not worthwhile to have more scientists?
Should we also make science more Christian-inclusive? Avoid teaching things that are offensive to them? That would surely increase the number of scientists.
No, because that would be silly. Science doesn't care how you identify. Put up or shut up
Yes, being more inclusive is always good.
No, but nobody said we should do that, so, what's your point?
We aren't increasing it at all costs, we're just finding ways to increase it by being kind to one another.
Yeah, that would be silly... but nobody is arguing for it and this is entirely a strawman.
Humans do science, humans should care.