Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
6. Defend your opinion
This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
Sex is actually that simple. It's entirely defined by gamete production. Any edge case you can think of can be resolved to one of two sexes. Note the sexes listed for each DSD here:
https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts
You're right that sex testing is not as simple
If you reduce sex to ONLY gamete production you esssntjally declare castrated males, menopausal females, children, and anyone with complete infertiktiy to be sexless.
Which has the benefit of keeping categorical simplicity, but most people who argue against nuance in the sexing of humans are against either either the two sexes being "yes/no" questions or the human sexs being three categories of "male", "female", and "other".
(And it still obscures the nuance and variation in human gender and sexuality. Nobody's sexually attracted to gametes.)
It's the other way around. Categorical simplicity is observed in nature. Gametic sex is the only coherent definition.
Everyone has a sex. Some people don't produce gametes. Their bodies still contain sexed structures.
Stomping your feet and pretending the exceptions dont exist doesn't make them not exist.
Nothing in nature is ever absolutely so.
What exceptions exist?
I already listed a bunch. Here are the relevant comments.
https://lemmy.world/comment/23168319
https://lemmy.world/comment/23272499
I'm sure you can find some other examples if you do apply a proper skeptical review of your idea and search out arguments that disagree with you or examples that break your categorization.
I suggest starting with the relevant Wikipedia articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_differentiation_in_humans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans
Those aren't exceptions. Castrated males, menopausal females, children, and anyone with complete infertility all have a clear sex.
Please read this link, as previously suggested
https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts
Some more reading
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
Those are variations within the sex binary. Not an exception. You're confusing sex with phenotype and genotype.
Please apply a proper skeptical review of your idea. I've saved you the effort of searching. Here is more:
https://www.gwup.org/skeptiker-artikel/sonstiges/one-reality-two-sexes-and-many-endless-debates/
Dude, you are the one arguing the position that sex is merely gamete production.
My position is merely "it's complicated and we need to leave space for edge cases." (I am perfectly fine with male/female being separate yes/no questions or having the sex options be m/f/x)
Linking to a transphobic advocacy site just identifies you as either an embarassed transphobe or a sucker.
I'm relaying what the overwhelming consensus is in the field of biology.
No, you're repeating a transphobic oversimplification of biology. And resorting to a bad argument from authority when the easy gaps in your simplifications are called out.
I'd ignore you at this point, but I have a macbre curiosity as to if you are yourself a transphobe or if you're instead just a useful fool for transphobic activism.
Why do you think the truth is transphobic?
Oh, you're transphobic yourself. Got it.
"Truth" is for religion, philosophy, and encouraging honesty in courtrooms. Neither science, medicine, nor langauge give two shits about truth, only utility.
(And systems of categorization between N states have substantially less utility than those that include N states plus "other")
The truth is that there is an observed binary in this case. N = 2. Gametic definition provides utility. That's why it's the only definition used in biology.
Do you want to learn? Would recommend.
So, are you a hateful troll because you're transphobic, or are you transphobic because you're a hateful troll?
There is no "utility" in demanding that intersex humans be categorized as either male or female. No actual medical researchers study "biology", and actual science tells us that models where we treat human sex, gender, and sexuality as having only a coincidental correlation to reproductive cells are substantially more useful.
I mean, unless you're a transphobic bigot scared that the kids you love might realize that they are trans and dump you the way all victims dump their abusers. I guess a transphobic model could have some utility in spreading transphobia. Not that it even passes the first requirement of parsimony, though, since you need to ignore all of those damn edge cases....
There is no demanding. Intersex is a confusing term. It has confused you. Please learn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development
https://theparadoxinstitute.org/articles/sex-development-charts
You're confusing the scope of sex. The sex binary is fact. Sex is different from gender, is different from sexuality.
It doesn't matter how many times you share the same transphobic oversimplification, it's still a transphobic oversimplification.
Why is it transphobic? Why is it an oversimplification?
Why? You'd have to ask the authors why they put up a transphobic site. My guess is that they're either personally hateful bigots or just amoral cowards who take money from the same.
As for how...
Go read the "about us" link on that advocacy page you keep pushing. Specifically the part about how "activists" are trying to confuse their "truth".
The advocates they're talking about are non-cis LGBTQIA+ folk whose dastardly agenda is "just let us be who we are." I suspect that if you scratched down to their funding source you'd find some of the same people pushing bathroom bills and gender marker shenanigans on official documents.
For the Nth time, it's an oversimplification because categorizing all humans based on which reproductive cells they make ignores or misgroups humans who either don't produce any or who look and smell like they might produce the other ones than those they might once have produced.
So the link isn't transphobic. Each chart has links to sources. Please learn.
Sorry, you're confused. Nobody is ignored or misgrouped. Everyone has a sex. Some people don’t produce gametes. Their bodies still contain sexed structures.
Looks and smells aren't how sex is defined. You're confusing gender and sex. Please stop.
I'm not confused, you're just a transphobe.