this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2026
530 points (97.8% liked)
Science Memes
18233 readers
2159 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is a bad analogy because there's 100+ types of atoms. In anisogamous species (like humans), there's exactly 2 gamete types, sperm and ova. Which of those two gamete types one's body is organized around producing is how sex is defined.
See here for charts showing the spectrum of sex determination and how that relates to sex definition. Each chart can be labeled as male or female based on this definition of sex, which is the one that is used across the field of biology.
https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts
There's no third sex, and there's nobody born with a body that isn't trying to produce gametes (and potentially failing).
Isn’t this the same shit you said the last time this was posted?
Get outta here.
Yes, it's still true
Okay bud. I do not care.
The issue with your argument is that you're ascribing a simple explanation of how biology works to the actual reality of things. When doctors or evolutionary biologist say that something was "supposed to be done", in the context of biology, they usually mean "this is what the being (as in, its system) does for the possible outcome of reproduction or survival, but there are other possibilities", because it is implied that what they say is to be interpreted as something that comes with the intention of being empirical. They don't actually mean that this is what is supposed to be done. It's a way for people to understand it more simply.
You should read the Wikipedia article on Teleology in biology. But this paragraph is the most central part of the argument against your point. Teleology means a certain "goal-oriented"-ness.
As an example, take a meteorologist providing forecast for tomorrow's weather. With whatever means they collected data, they assert: "it will rain tomorrow". Tomorrow comes, and it is sunnier than ever. Scientifically speaking, the meteorologist cannot say "the atmosphere failed to make it rain, even though it tried to". If this seems absurd, it's because it is. In that case, the meteorologist is supposed to adapt their model into something that more accurately reflects the data given.
The problem is even more visible once you take the example of an intersex person, born with XY chromosomes, but with a uterus (Swyer's Syndrome). One person could base themselves on the XY chromosomes to say that the person was "supposed to produce small gametes", as you put it. Another person could base themselves on the fact that (with medical intervention) the person can produce large gametes, therefore, that the person was "supposed to produce large gametes". Either answer is wrong, since the body isn't actually "supposed" to do something. It just does what it does, regardless of what you think it is supposed to do. The correct thing to do would be to say: "They aren't supposed to do something. If our model is to be empirical, it should be supposed to reflect what is actually going on with their body, not ascribe a will to it. We should rethink how we see the definition of sex"
Edit: Clarifications
It's good to be careful about language like "should", but that doesn't really refute anything that I've said. Taking a step back, this is what the consensus is in the field of biology, which certainly has dealt with teleological arguments before. It's nothing new, and yet the consensus is still that sex is entirely defined by the gamete type one's body is organized around producing.
Why exactly do you think your comment is a counterpoint? I understand the limitations of phrasing like "should" or "supposed to", but concretely, how do you think that applies?
People with Swyer syndrome are female, not because of "supposed to"s, but because the end result is that their bodies are organized around the production of large gametes. It's an empirical description, just as you call for. From the link:
That's the difference between how sex is defined and how sex is determined.
No it is still not empirical. The definition of sex is difficult to set in stone, and yours fails to argue for itself on the basis of a result that is just a stretch of the empirical truth. In fact, you saying that it is a consensus in the field of biology when a notable amount of biologists argue against this is very far-fetched.
Again, take someone with Swyer syndrome that don't have the ability to produce any large gametes. By saying it is "organized around the production of large gametes", you are extending that empirical fact related to that person, and ascribing them an alternate reality where there can produce large gametes. You're defining someone around something that they cannot do.
Concretely, this means that sex is way more complicated than just "revolving around the production of gametes". I am not an expert in biology, and will not be able to tell you exactly what it is without not considering all of the edge-cases of it's definition. But there are too many contradictions with saying that it's binary because XYZ.
I am of the opinion that our society's obsession with figuring out someone's sex, if it is assigned by birth by a doctor, determined by an onlooker, etc. is in it of itself harmful. Not that there's anything wrong with knowing about your body, but the way it's been morphed into these essential classes is harmful for those that defy said class, intentionally or not.
That said, I hope you look at more examples of teleology in biology. In fact, what I explained should be understandable if you have a look at the wikipedia article. If you do not mean "organized around" in a teleological sense, then what do you mean? Also, you failed to address my previous analogies in your response. If it's because you feel like it's fallacious, or that it's simply wrong, then why not respond accordingly? I'm starting to suspect the use of AI...
Edit: I think this is the last piece of effort I'll put into this, because it gets obvious up to a point. Your argument falls into this category of teleological arguments:
Taken from the wikipedia page. This is a teleological sentence, but it is used to explain a concept, not actually what is going on. No one actually designed said functions. If you want to know more, read the section on Irreducible teleology in the wikipedia article, which addresses the limitations of getting rid of teleology completely and how to go about it, whilst navigating things empirically.
Which biologists are arguing against it? I think that's a more concrete claim.
Your argument is basically "This person was born without something at the end of their leg, but we can't say they're missing a foot. Maybe it was a fin! Or a baboon! Or an aircraft carrier! There's just no way to tell"
A human body tries to build a foot at the end of the leg. Sometimes it fails, but until we observe a stable, inherited body plan that doesn't grow a foot at the end of a leg it is not teleological to use "tries" in that sense. It's descriptive
Few examples of biologists arguing against it:
https://www.asrm.org/advocacy-and-policy/fact-sheets-and-one-pagers/just-the-facts-biological-sex/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40199245/
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/ideology-versus-biology
By the way, when I look towards more sources for your claims, I often find christian institutions and TERF adgacent sources. Some even argue for teleology. This, again, contredicts the theory of evolution, which we are still abiding by, correct?
Also, your section on determination vs. definition (in your last message) is cyclical. People determine based on definition. To say the opposite would beg the question: "determined based on what?", and the answer will be a definition, right or wrong.
I'm not the one saying "it could be a baboon, who knows". You are lol. I'm saying that there is no such thing as a "could be" in concrete empirical analysis of nature, just a "be". We can make educated guesses based on the empirical data, but they're just that: guesses. We can say "they are missing a foot", but it is a shorthand for "this person has no foot. Usually, people have a foot there. It might allow them to walk more stabily, so let's try sollutions that mimic the structure of a foot".
Because how can they be lierally "missing a foot" if they never had one in the first place? The supposition that something is "supposed to be there" is a cognitive shortcut, but nothing is supposed.
It is teleological, because there are two options in interpreting this sentence:
Using this interpretation, it would be ridiculous to define a human empiricaly around the fact that they are "supposed" to have feet at the end of their leg, since "supposed" is not empirical (neither is organized, which implies a plan and therefore a bias). You can find a trend, but not a "supposed". You can try to define it empiricaly, by saying "typicaly", but that implies other possibilities, as it should do. Finaly, you can try by simply ignoring it by saying "humans have feet at the end of their legs", but you'd just be plain wrong, since there are examples contradicting you. Remember, right now we are using terms in order to explain something more concrete.
The "stable, iherited body plan" is still a teleological sentence lmfao. You're basically disaproving my argument on the basis of it not being teleological.
Since you're arguing for teleology, I suppose that you have a fickle understanding of evolutionary biology. Tne human body doesn't "try to do something". It either doesn't or it does. Ascribing a certain attempt or will to the body is a shorthand, like i've said several times, but it is not accurately depecting the experience.
As a thought exercise, can you describe your definition of sex without using teleological language? But then again, your reply shows a lack of understanding on what teleology is, so if you reply with anothe misunderstanding of the concept, I'll just move on from this.
You also stated that you're autistic in your bio. As someone that is also autistic, you might want to reflect if you're actually arguing for science, or rather for a more rigid worldview that you want to stay the same. This argument of yours seems repetitive and circular, so I'd suggest reflecting on
This post probably isn’t about sex but about gender. Those are two very different albeit related concepts. Sure, biology is mostly binary (although not quite as black and white, if you’re looking at any other features than gamete types. Femininity and masculinity do not define themselves by gamete type), but psychology very much isn’t binary.
There are only two genders: binary, and non-binary
There are 10 types of people in this world...those who understand binary, and those who don't.
You're right that sex phenotypes (features other than gametes) and gender form a spectrum and not a strict binary. This is often a point of confusion and I've had people try to argue about sex, after I've explicitly differentiated between sex and gender.
I think the cartoon is likely about sex, but if everyone agrees that sex != gender and biologists define sex as binary in humans, then it doesn't really matter and we all agree about the important things.
What is your obsession with this meme? The two times 1, 2 this was posted before, you spent over two days each writting dozens of comments. Under each post, people patiently explained to you that sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary.
A nice graphic from the last thread:
But you know what? Let me ask you a question. After taking a quick look at your moderation history, I'm interested in your answer.
What is Imane Khelif's gender and sex?
I don't really understand other people's obsession with attacking science. In each of those threads I posted once, and then had to respond many more times pointing out how they're incorrect. "Patiently explaining" is a weird way of saying "doubling down on being wrong".
Like here as well. As in the previous thread, that graphic shows sex determination, which is not how sex is defined. Each one of those situations ends up being male or female. I'm having to write another comment to correct your misinformation, even though you could've seen the exact same response in the previous threads. Why are people obsessed with defending their ignorance? I'd have a fraction of my overall comment count and everyone could've done something more productive with their time.
Your statement that "sex is not an easy binary and that the categorization of sex in humans includes many factors and is not always binary" is wrong. Again, I've linked to many helpful resources, but in particular I want to redirect you to the original comment I made in this very thread which goes over several different types of DSDs and shows how they still fall into the sex binary.
Before we start going off on a tangent from this thread, can you acknowledge biological truth? It's pointless to talk about Khelif if you misunderstand the basics.
Yeah, it seems it is pointless to talk to you about sex determination in humans. That's why I linked to previous threads where many knowledgeable people have already discussed the topic.
"You had to respond?" Most of the time, you just said the same things in slightly different ways over and over again without apparently reading the comments to which you replied. But you also spammed "Why do you care so much?" a dozen times.
I would still be interested in your answer to the question:
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
I responded "Why do you care so much?" to a user that started out engaging in bad faith by asking that question to start. I was simply mirroring their bad faith argument back to them. Elsewhere in the thread where they had an actual comment, I responded in good faith. I'm not going to waste my time on nonsense.
It's easy to say "it's pointless to talk to you". Other people have said that too, or "I'm just so tired" or "You're boring". I'll gladly talk about Khelif, but first:
Do you understand what sex determination is and how it differs from how sex is defined?
Let's get facts straight first.
They did respond with longer comments later, but you only spammed this (This was @oftenawake@lemmy.dbzer0.com)
You also spammed comments back and forth with Log in | Sign up @davidagain@lemmy.world. Nobody forced you to make those comments.
I'm also not of the opinion that you commented elsewhere in "good faith."
Now what is your answer to the question:
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
And before you ask again: I have read that you categorize sex determination in humans entirely based on gametes, and that you also binarily categorize the many edge cases/exceptions (you know what one interperation of this meme is about) as "organized around producing a type of gamete". Now please answer the question. I would be interested to read your answer.
If you can acknowledge that it's not me categorizing anything, but that I'm merely relaying how the field of biology defines sex, then sure. I make no claim other than referring to many sources saying exactly that.
The entire thread that started with "Why do you care so much?" was eminently silly and I didn't bother responding with effort, but that user engaged in other subthreads, where I did respond.
The other user is unhinged, to be honest. Like, something is wrong with them. I engaged in good faith a few times, but in the end they refused to acknowledge a basic fact and it wasn't worth engaging with effort.
Now, where's your answer to the questions I asked in my very first comment?
What is Imane Khelif’s gender and sex?
We are now really deep in the comment chain, but you still haven't answered.
Khelif identifies as a woman, and was determined to be male by sex testing. Khelif likely has the same condition as Caster Semenya (5αR2D), which often results in being incorrectly assigned female at birth due to ambiguous genitalia.
Khelif is male due to producing sperm, which is why I wanted to clarify how biologists define sex. It isn't based on chromosomes, testosterone, or anything other than gametes (slightly longer put, the gamete type one's body is organized around producing).
If you want to discuss the accuracy of the sex testing done that's fine too, but for the sake of answering your question I didn't go into that.
So gender is female and sex is male.
Where exactly do you get this informations from? I can't find any reputable reporting about 5αR2D in connection with Imane Khelif. The Wikipedia article about her links to quite a few sources and none of these discuss that.
The introduction has this sentence summarizing three sources:
The 2025 "sex verification testing" of the "World Boxing" would exclude her in many cases as not a woman, where she would be a "biological female" even under your definition (SRY gene, high testostrone etc.), where her body would still be "organized around producing a larger type of gamete".
I'm am positively suprised that we can agree that Imane Khelif is a woman. With my preconceptions, I almost expected you to say that she is a man (sorry about that).
This goes over the 5αR2D claim:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/20/imane-khelif-medical-records/
Note that it confuses gender and sex, and says that the reports are unverified, but that should be interpreted as "Nobody is willing to go on the record about leaked medical reports" which is a "no duh" because that's a good way to get sued. Here's a screenshot from the source:
There have been several leaks of medical records, and nobody has been willing to go on record saying "these are fake/edited/whatever". The IOC has directly implied it's a DSD case:
That's in addition to the sex tests that were requested by the IBA, but done by an independent accredited lab:
YMMV, but that along with other circumstantial evidence like Khelif avoiding any competitions that now require sex testing, is enough for me to conclude that the leaks are almost certainly correct. I'll gladly go back and edit my past comments if Khelif ever proves otherwise.
Well in this case my milage does indeed vary:
Some leaked Documents hardly prove anything in my opinion and even in your linked snopes article it says:
[assuming the above leak is true]
I can't find any concrete reporting about the IBA test in 2023 (here is the relevant section in the Wikipedia article). Only statements by the IBA itself that she has XY chromosomes (which does not,even if true, necessarily mean that she is male, female XY is possible.)
Sex is biological.
Gender is social.
Thanks for coming to my Ted talk.
But even sex isn't binary and doesn't contain everything often attributed to it.
Sex is binary in humans. Correlates like phenotype/genotype (often confused with sex) are a spectrum though.
What do you define "Sex" as ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
The thing I had with your dad last night.
that's cool. Do you think trans people should have bodily autonomy?
Yes.
Ok. What you are posting will assist in denying that.
I think that biology being real is not an affront on transgender individuals.
denying real biology just because it can lead to a few bad feelings is a very dangerous road. both can exist, and do. harmoniously.
Except this isn't "biology being real". It's non empirical. If you abide by the theory of evolution (which I assume you do), then you should be against teleology in biology, since there is no such thing, concretely, as a "body that's supposed to do things". It's just layman speech to inform those that aren't that far in biology (or to shorten things, since you assume your college knows anyway) "this is one of the possible things that a being (or its system) does in order to survive/reproduce", not that it is necessary. To imply that it's necessary would be to imply that nature has a will, or that there is some sort of supernatural will Teleology in biology
Edit: clearing things up and syntax
How does posting scientific fact assist in denying trans people bodily autonomy?
it adds further fuel to the opinion of "there are only two genders, trans people are ____" (insert insult here)
Literally every sentence you typed is entirely inaccurate. It's bad science promoted by bigots to create a convinient lie that permits them to discriminate and oppress people.
Edit to add: It's even a bad interpretation of the metaphor. It's like saying "akshually, there's only two atomic particles, the proton and the electron, and these are the only two particles that determine charge, so there's really only two types of atoms, positive and negative charged atoms, and that's why black people don't deserve civil rights."
That's you. That's what you sound like.
In short, fuck off with your nazi bullshit.
You're mostly arguing with what you want me to have said and not what I've said so there's not much point in responding to much of your post.
Your claims that "Human sex is not defined by gamete types" and "The actual science doesn’t support it" are incorrect though
Nah, you cant hide your bigotry behind peer reviewed… wait what 😂😂😂
Which is it, you don't want to defend the nazi argument, or you do want to defend the nazi argument?
What exactly are you qualifying as "the nazi argument"?
I feel like I was fairly clear about that. It's the one where you use bad science to justify bigotry and crimes against humanity. For example, your comment earlier in this thread about how certain people shouldn't exist because ova and sperm are the only gametes.
Where do I say certain people shouldn't exist?
Thanks for trying but you're pissing into the wind in this place.