this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
1122 points (97.1% liked)
Science Memes
18142 readers
279 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You posted two blog as evidence because the authors are really smart. You posted a recent paper arguing the point, despite insisting that it has been a closed issue for decades.
But, please, keep lecturing about the quality of sources.
I mentioned why credentials are relevant, but also directly addressed the meat of that opinion piece. Why are you ignoring that?
Also, it's not just that they're really smart lol. They have PhDs in biology and evolutionary biology. One is professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. They can be wrong, but looking at an opinion piece from an anthropologist is the same as "let's hear what RFK has to say about vaccines" lol. Just because RFK has some wackadoodle opinion doesn't mean the science isn't settled
OK, I'll spell it out, then. You don't come off as someone who knows much of anything. You are using blog posts and bullshit argument papers as actual sources beyond "trust me bro." There is a reason you are spinning your wheels on this post endlessly without actually resolving anything. You have no authority. Being a emeritus is honestly pretty meaningless--that shit gets given out all the time. Having a PhD has nothing to do with it. Lots of people have those. It isn't as difficult as you make it sound.
When it comes to the trade of ideas, you are just coming off as a conservative troll. If the definitions were that settled, no on would be publishing them in peer reviewed environments for the common folk, or whatever. If I wanted to defend the notion of primality, I would pull up a definition. It really is that simple.
Lots of people do.
The truth is you haven't made a single convincing argument, and I'm still waiting for a source that isn't on wordpress.
My PhD is not in biology, but your arguments and sources are flaccid at best.
What the fuck does RFK have to do with anything? And this is probably the stupidest claim. Science doesn't get settled, it gets consensus and that changes. If you want to do something more powerful than consensus, try some math or something.
This is the thing--you have ad homonyms, wordpress, and heaps of "this is a very smart guy's blog." From all of the posts that is literally all that I see that you have.
I can't say you are definitively wrong, despite the mass of articles I found without effort that say otherwise, but you have zero ability to back up your own bullshit.
Everyone here would love to see this mass of articles that you totally found without effort lol.
I've linked to actual papers that cite many sources, and also blogs from people with highly relevant credentials, respected in their field. I'm not personally making arguments, merely pointing out that the overwhelming consensus is that sex is binary, according to experts in the field.
You have nothing, so you're reverting to insults. Do better.
Do you even possess a PhD in your subject? For real--how many publications are under your belt? You don't seem to have significant information literacy or skill at argumentation. I'm not being deliberately crass, I'm pointing out that you have not convinced a single soul in these replies.
The sad part is that everyone is literally just you. You aren't convincing anyone, just flailing and giving WordPress blogs and a bunch of "trust me bro."
You can't run around posting piss and expecting everyone to hold some imaginary standard for their replies.
So you don't have a mass of articles then, much less anything academic
Man, you argued blog posts over the lancet. You keep thinking I owe you something.
What is your PhD in?
So you still have nothing?
What did you bring. To the table?
You can't bring piss and expect the rest of us to care.
So, you don't actually have a single credential? I asked pretty directly.
I'm irrelevant. The science is what matters.
This article was peer reviewed and cites sources:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
Here's another that people have linked to, thinking it supports their argument.
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
In fact, the author states:
Two papers demonstrating that you're wrong, and both better than anything you've linked to. Note that I linked these already and you apparently didn't bother reading them, but maybe try again? I'd love it for you if you tried learning.
I'm honestly not reading any more. You havent demonstrated real knowledge or ability to cite anything worthwhile, but have a far higher standard of evidence for everyone else. Again, you consider WordPress to be a real source.
Do you have real credentials?
Any more‽ You didn't start!
I just cited two worthwhile papers (and also cited them at the start, you've had this whole time to read them, don't give me any bullshit about reading more).
By wordpress, do you mean https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/? Jesus, are you really that dense? Did you not even bother to read one word from it? I'm citing the project spearheaded by someone with a PhD in Developmental Biology, collecting signatures from other scientists affirming a statement about the sex binary. You can go look at their credentials. Where the list is published is irrelevant, it's the fact that a) the statement is clear about the sex binary, b) the project was started by an expert in the field, and c) it has many signatories with relevant credentials. Are you sure your degree isn't just "i r smrt" written in crayon? I mean, come on.
Look, you're a lost cause, but for anyone else curious:
I guess I'll go edit my previous comment to add that bit in. I didn't think it was necessary, but, some people.
I don't think you're capable of engaging in good faith. For anyone that's bothered to read down this far, feel free to ignore this user. The thread speaks for itself ("masses of articles" lol get the fuck outta here).
I'm not reading that because I was looking for something worth reading. much earlier on.
You seem pissed, but not at all convincing.
You got things worth reading in my original comment. Stop bullshitting.
Lol. You keep replying dozens of times to people. You don't have meaningfull contributions to the field. You think that blogs for some random Chicago emertis are reasonable sources. You constantly post opinions without a single definition to prove your point..
I think you are a sad child. Stop putting my science in your mouth.
Lol. You keep ignoring the papers I link you, then disparaging a well-respected biologist in the field by calling him a rando. If you don't even know who Jerry Coyne is, you have no business bullshitting about the field of biology. He's not the end-all-be-all but you've just displayed an amazing lack of knowledge about the field in general.
I'll spell it out for you, since I fear you might have a learning disability: I've linked peer-reviewed papers. Read them and learn. I also cited Jerry Coyne writing on his blog about his field of expertise, as an example of an expert opinion on this matter. That's a reasonable source for that purpose. I also cited a project led by a PhD developmental biology, collecting signatures from other scientists with relevant credentials. That it was published on wordpress is immaterial.
If your PhD is even real, you're a perfect example of why they're a mark of perseverance, not intelligence. I suggest you persevere at something more productive than wallowing in ignorance.
Truth is, you've already outed yourself. I eat lunch with a group of mixed biologists and I came into the conversation already knowing that reality (as is always the case) is much more complicated than you would say. I've heard this same conversation before by people who actually do research in the area. Not like mine--my research is rather trite compared to some of these dudes. They essentially publish in nature and the equivalent in their respective areas.
So, no, you are just a troll. To summarize:
I would agree 100%, but the difference is (once again) that as a holder of a PhD (albeit in a completely different area), I have the experience and authority to make that sort of claim. You are just some loser behind a keyboard.
But you go on and have a nice day. This was a laugh for a while but now it's just boring watching some dude pissing in the wind.
You're once again refusing to engage with peer-reviewed sources. Stop bullshitting.
Ask your biologist friends to explain to you slowly why you're wrong.
No, I just honestly don't care what internet trolls have to say. Lol.
You are so tied up in proving yourself but are laughably bad at it. XD
Right, so you're refusing to engage with peer-reviewed sources.
Dude, in your first couple of posts you only managed to cite yourself. XD Peer review my ass. XD
This is not a serious conversation.
Sigh. I linked to a comment I had previously made, which links to the author of Sex Redefined (peer-reviewed paper) clarifying that there are two sexes, and quote her inline for easy reading.
You're right that I don't link to the paper there, but it's in the grandparent comment. Hit the "Show Context" button to get the link. Just so you can't evade again, here's the link:
https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a
That's a peer-reviewed paper published in Nature by a PhD Developmental Biology. When asked to clarify, She directly stated that the papers claims there are two sexes.
You have no excuse to not engage with it. Stop acting in bad faith.
EDIT: You originally responded in the thread for my comment that linked directly to this peer reviewed paper, so you have no excuse. Stop your bullshit:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
Look, I'm just finding it more productive to continue making fun of you. You just make it so easy. XD
Right, so you’re refusing to engage with peer-reviewed sources.
Oh, man, I have bad news.
I wasn't even taking you terribly seriously yesterday and it's been like 12 hours since then. XD
Right, so you’re refusing to engage with peer-reviewed sources.
"Debate me," he screamed, but no one was there to listen, for they were all laughing at him.
Right, so you’re refusing to engage with peer-reviewed sources.