Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Trausti]

Post proof or retract

I think he means Jesus.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think he means Jesus.

Lol, that's something that would never have occurred to me.

ETA... although it is an opportunity for me to express my sympathy with Mary. It's really hard to get a rape conviction when your rapist is god.

 

[smartcooky]

Spare me the biology lesson, I have had college level Biology and Biochemistry.

It doesn't show.

So not a completely different gamete, but a single individual that produces both types of gametes.

Still not a third sex.

And math does not exist in the real world, it's its own separate entity, and discoverable by any sentient species.

.... and?

I believe in the holy trinity, the strong force, the electroweak force, and gravity. Those are the three Gods.

...and?

 

[smartcooky]

The title of the thread is strict biological definitions of male and female.

...and?

Yes, some people can biologists classify them as either of two sexes,

FTFY

I find that arbitrary and forced.

Then you are one of the few... and you are still wrong

Others are free to classify them differently.

Others can believe anything they wish... it still doesn't make them right

You see my point, you are not using a strict biological definition.

Do you not understand strict or is biological the term giving you fits?

The OP in this thread quoted Dr. Emma Hilton, who was EXCLUSIVELY talking about humans. Not clownfish, not trees, or plants, but humans.
If you want to talk about the reproductive biology of species other than humans, go make your own thread about it so that all the people who are interested in that discussion (that will be no-one other than you) can join you there.

And yes, I understand both the words "strict" and "biological" very well... and a lot better than you do it seems.

Human biological reproduction (sex) is a strict binary. It consists or two, and only two gamete types. Those gamete types are small (male, sperm) and large (female, ova). For it to be anything other than binary, there would need to be...

1. A third gamete type, something that is not sperm and not ova. No such gamete type exists.
2. A third type of human individual whose reproductive system is organised for production of a third gamete type. No such individual exists.
3. A third type of reproductive role for this proposed gamete. No such reproductive roles exists.

And if you want to talk about who is being "Strict", and who isn't, it is posters such as myself, Emily's Cat, Paul2, Trausti, Rolfe, Louden Wilde, MatthewBest, jt512, Agatha, ahhell et al, who have remained strict in their insistence that human biological reproduction is binary, and that no third sex or gamete type exists.

Meanwhile, you are all over the place like pig-**** in a sty... you've been flailing about giving us beehives, people with DSD's, claims that sex is bimodal (which is also wrong), botany etc as you desperately Google for a gotcha you are never going to find.... because it doesn't exist!

 

[Elaedith]

One thing that I keep encountering in these arguments is that people promoting the idea of sex as bimodally distributed or a spectrum make the claim that this is based in advances in knowledge, and those who disagree are out of date. The opposing view is that the deconstruction of sex is ideologically rather than scientifically motivated (based on postmodern ideas that there is no objective truth, and all knowledge just reflects the interests of the groups that produced it, therefore concepts like sex binary are constructed in the interests of those with power to oppress other groups).

A key requirement of genuine scientific knowledge is that it only changes based on actual improvements in understanding (ie new discoveries), not for social, political or religious reasons. I have only ever seen two reasons given for the idea that sex is not binary; 'intersex' people, and sexual characteristics being bimodally distributed. But neither of these represent new knowledge. We have known about DSDs for decades at least, and have always known that many characteristics associated with sex are bimodally distributed with overlap between male and female. But nobody ever claimed that either of these demonstrate sex is non-binary, until it became politically fashionable to do so. There have been recent claims that 'intersex' is more common than once thought, but that was based on changing the definition to include conditions where sex is completely unambiguous based on observation at birth.

It did occur to me that some people who are very scientifically illiterate might think that DSDs have only very recently been discovered, but I find it hard to believe that applies in many cases. I would be curious to hear if anyone has heard any claims about what 'new discoveries' supposedly underpin the deconstruction of sex. I have never been able to get advocates to say what these are.

 

[bobdroege7]

Post proof or retract

Proof is fifty bucks.

Odds are you know one of them.

3% to 4% of live births in the US.

 

[bobdroege7]

It did occur to me that some people who are very scientifically illiterate might think that DSDs have only very recently been discovered, but I find it hard to believe that applies in many cases. I would be curious to hear if anyone has heard any claims about what 'new discoveries' supposedly underpin the deconstruction of sex. I have never been able to get advocates to say what these are.

I know the DSMs are not recent, I did find an 19th century picture of a pseudohermaphrodite on the web, but forgot where I found it, so yeah, not recent.

Some of the discoveries, though, did come with the complete transcription of the human genome. That was 2003, so relatively recent.

 

[bobdroege7]

...and?

FTFY


Then you are one of the few... and you are still wrong

Others can believe anything they wish... it still doesn't make them right

The OP in this thread quoted Dr. Emma Hilton, who was EXCLUSIVELY talking about humans. Not clownfish, not trees, or plants, but humans.
If you want to talk about the reproductive biology of species other than humans, go make your own thread about it so that all the people who are interested in that discussion (that will be no-one other than you) can join you there.

And yes, I understand both the words "strict" and "biological" very well... and a lot better than you do it seems.

Human biological reproduction (sex) is a strict binary. It consists or two, and only two gamete types. Those gamete types are small (male, sperm) and large (female, ova). For it to be anything other than binary, there would need to be...

1. A third gamete type, something that is not sperm and not ova. No such gamete type exists.
2. A third type of human individual whose reproductive system is organised for production of a third gamete type. No such individual exists.
3. A third type of reproductive role for this proposed gamete. No such reproductive roles exists.

And if you want to talk about who is being "Strict", and who isn't, it is posters such as myself, Emily's Cat, Paul2, Trausti, Rolfe, Louden Wilde, MatthewBest, jt512, Agatha, ahhell et al, who have remained strict in their insistence that human biological reproduction is binary, and that no third sex or gamete type exists.

Meanwhile, you are all over the place like pig-**** in a sty... you've been flailing about giving us beehives, people with DSD's, claims that sex is bimodal (which is also wrong), botany etc as you desperately Google for a gotcha you are never going to find.... because it doesn't exist!

Try this guy, who thinks you are full of it.

Steven P. Novella, MD – Founder and Executive Editor

Email: SNovella@theness.comTwitter: @stevennovellaFounder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University S

sciencebasedmedicine.org

The Science of Biological Sex

What does the science actually say about biological sex?

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Try reading it.

And you posted that only Queen bees lay eggs and then immediately contradicted yourself.

And I am talking about human beings, not the gametes that they produce, and some individuals produce both.

 

[bobdroege7]

I think he means Jesus.

Nope, Jesus, assuming he existed, was the natural born son of Joseph and Mary.

Escaped the crucifixion and died in what is now France, but that is off topic and my pet conspiracy theory, everyone should have one and only one.

 

[Elaedith]

I know the DSMs are not recent, I did find an 19th century picture of a pseudohermaphrodite on the web, but forgot where I found it, so yeah, not recent.

Some of the discoveries, though, did come with the complete transcription of the human genome. That was 2003, so relatively recent.

What new discoveries from the transcription of the human genome show that sex is bimodal? Be specific.

 

[Elaedith]

Try this guy, who thinks you are full of it.

Steven P. Novella, MD – Founder and Executive Editor

Email: SNovella@theness.comTwitter: @stevennovellaFounder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University S

sciencebasedmedicine.org

The Science of Biological Sex

What does the science actually say about biological sex?

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Try reading it.

And you posted that only Queen bees lay eggs and then immediately contradicted yourself.

And I am talking about human beings, not the gametes that they produce, and some individuals produce both.

It has obvious for a while that you swallowed Novella's nonsense.

 

[Matthew Best]

So it's your theory that twins are not the product of the sexual binary?

 

[bobdroege7]

What new discoveries from the transcription of the human genome show that sex is bimodal? Be specific.

I have already shown sex to be bimodal, what more do you want, be specific.

Ambiguous genitalia should be enough.

 

[bobdroege7]

So it's your theory that twins are not the product of the sexual binary?

My theory!

Not only no, but you should know the rest.

Identical twins are due to the splitting of an already fertilized egg, so one small gamete plus one large gamete, and you get two babies, only one act of sexual reproduction.

Is that not asexual reproduction?

 

[Elaedith]

I have already shown sex to be bimodal, what more do you want, be specific.

Ambiguous genitalia should be enough.

No, ambiguous genitalia do not show sex to be bimodal.
I was specific. I want to know what recent new discoveries have lead to changes in our understanding of sex, showing that these changes represent an advance in scientific understanding rather than the subordination of science to ideology. Nobody can ever name any.
You tried to claim that these advances come from the human genome project, but it seems you were bluffing.

 

[bobdroege7]

No, ambiguous genitalia do not show sex to be bimodal.

Yeah, I can play that game.

Yes, ambiguous genitalia do show sex to be bimodal.

 

[Elaedith]

Yeah, I can play that game.

Yes, ambiguous genitalia do show sex to be bimodal.

We can conclude that you have no evidence of any new discoveries that have changed our understanding of sex, from the human genome project or elsewhere. Unless you think we only recent discovered ambiguous genitalia.

 

[Matthew Best]

Identical twins are due to the splitting of an already fertilized egg, so one small gamete plus one large gamete, and you get two babies, only one act of sexual reproduction.

Is that not asexual reproduction?

 

[smartcooky]

Try this guy, who thinks you are full of it.

Steven P. Novella, MD – Founder and Executive Editor

Email: SNovella@theness.comTwitter: @stevennovellaFounder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University S

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Not sure what I am suppose to be reading here... a couple iof CVs?

The Science of Biological Sex

What does the science actually say about biological sex?

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Try reading it.

Have read it before. Have read most of his stuff before.
It was ideologically-driven nonsense then, and it is ideologically-driven nonsense now. Novella is a once-respected individual who has climbed onto the TRA grift train. He is the Andrew Wakefield of gender biology (without the falsification of research results).

And you posted that only Queen bees lay eggs and then immediately contradicted yourself.

You really do have a problem with cherry picking what people say don;t you... THIS is what I actually said

Worker bees and the queen are BOTH female - only the queen lays eggs. The drones are the male bees. Their only job is to mate with the queen, and the queen's job is to lay eggs. , Workers are generally infertile, however, they can lay viable eggs in rare circumstances, (such as when the queen dies) but those can only ever develop into drones. ​

I have to ask if English is your first language? Uou clearly do not undertand the difference between a contradiction and a clarification.

Once again, you seem to feel the need to resort to dishonesty to advance your arguments. What you did there was deliberately cherry-pick what I said, conveniently leaving out the other things I said that gave it context.

And I am talking about human beings, not the gametes that they produce, and some individuals produce both.

That may be so, but they still do not produce gametes that differ in nature from sperm or ova. Humans are completely anisogamous - there are no circumstances under which humans produce gametes that are anything other than eggs or sperm. Since anisogamy is fundamental to the biological definition of "male" and "female" ("The Origin and Evolution of Gamete Dimorphism and the Male-Female phenomenon" - G.A. Parker, R.R. Baker, V.G.F. Smith, 1972)... there are only two sexes. No matter how many mealy-mouthed weasel words you can dream up, there is simply no way around this.

No third gamete type = no third sex.
No third sex = sex is binary
Sex is binary = No sex spectrum

That is a definitive, scientifically irrefutable fact.

 

[Paul2]

Identical twins are due to the splitting of an already fertilized egg, so one small gamete plus one large gamete, and you get two babies, only one act of sexual reproduction.

Is that not asexual reproduction?

Wikipedia says you're correct, my bolding:

Polyembryony is a widespread form of asexual reproduction in animals, whereby the fertilized egg or a later stage of embryonic development splits to form genetically identical clones. Within animals, this phenomenon has been best studied in the parasitic Hymenoptera. In the nine-banded armadillos, this process is obligatory and usually gives rise to genetically identical quadruplets. In other mammals, monozygotic twinning has no apparent genetic basis, though its occurrence is common. There are at least 10 million identical human twins and triplets in the world today.

ETA: Still don't see how asexual production leads to more than 2 sexes.