18

11 comments

"If you can't describe your theory in plain language, it's obvious that you yourself don't actually understand it."

That advice has helped me countless times. I think it applies here.

Do babies exist and get made somehow? Or are they also context-dependent multidimensional variable spaces?

Professional biologist here. These people have their causality backwards. Sex doesn't "summarize" all those other variables, it causes them.

From an evolutionary point of view, sex is quite well defined. Two people of the same sex can never, ever, produce a child through intercourse. Exactly one male gamete and one female gamete are required for reproduction. No individual person produces both male and female gametes. Done.

Theoretical physicists should just redirect their attention towards sex instead of universe.

"It is important to recognize the context-dependent and multidimensional nature of sex." Uh huh....do go on....

Okay,,,silly me...here I was just thinking that the most important thing to realize about sex is that approximately 50% of the population is subject to menstruation, impregnation (sometimes forced), pregnancy, and partition, and that the other approximate 50%, faster, stronger, more powerful, and subject to strange, persistent & atavistic drives and sexual fetishes, is able to impregnate the first group.

But, what do I know?

Could OP please explain this like you are talking to a 5 year old.

These TIMs seem to purposely make biological sex more complex to be able to CLAIM that terms "biological sex " is unstable at the "micro" level because of individual variables in the construction of genitals and thus can't be seen or determined in the AGGREGATE.

TIMs are biologically MALE. We know this by what synthetic hormones they are given scripts for and the specific surgical intervention available for them to try to "look " Female, while not actually being this things.

TIFs are FEMALE and requires synthetic hormones to artificially change the "look" of secondary sex characteristics. But they still will never be Male.

I never in a million years thought that Actual Scientists would become TRAs in the service of Gender Ideology and the corrosive misogyny that is the foundation of their movement.

I am off to tell the Anatomy teachers at colleges that they need to destroy their models and change their lectures STAT!!! Obviously the only people that actually understand biology are TRAS, and the rest of those biologists are dead wrong about their being two sexes.

It’s obviously bullshit, and the authors seem to be making a category error: “No one trait determines whether a person is male or female, and no person’s sex can be meaningfully prescribed by any single variable.”

Maleness isn’t a single, unified property that inheres in bodies to make them male, as the authors appear to bizarrely suggest. Rather, the sum total of certain properties taken altogether is what makes someone male. The error they make is assuming that maleness is a single property the presence of which makes someone male. But in fact maleness is the description of the sum total of a number of properties (having a dick, having x Y chromosomes, producing sperm) rather than being a property itself.

Also, ignoring the fact that it’s false that sex depends on a single variable… why is this an important argument to make? Yes, being make doesn’t solely depend on the presence of one property (like a penis). The male sex is made up of a few interlinked properties. Er but so what ? It’s a complete straw man argument that doesn’t even appear to go anywhere.