Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 182 posts

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#171

Post by swalling »

rayiner wrote: post #166
swalling wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you're dumb enough to assume that all or most of behavior is biologically determined, instead of being a complex mix of biology, culture, and learned individual patterns that produces a spectrum of individual expression. The question isn't "is gendered behavior rooted in biology?" it's "how much / to what degree?" and the honest answer is, we don't really know with confidence, especially when it comes to huma…

The assertion in the article is that gender is socially constructed. You don’t seem to be defending that point. You’re making a different argument nobody disagrees with—that humans also express learned cultural and individual behaviors. You could walk into CPAC and say that women would still be women if the social convention was for them to wear pants. Nobody would disagree with you. Ironically, the social changes in…

The mainstream liberal interpretation is that gender is a social construct separate from sexual identity/preference, and you can’t constrain the expression of either to the historical Western norms, because that’s an attack on Constitutionally-protected individual rights. There’s a more extreme leftist interpretation that says both are fixed identities practically from birth, but it ends up with the same conclusion: let people be and do what they want, even if it doesn’t fit into heteronormative expectations about gender or sex.

My entire point is that’s the morally and legally correct framework, because we shouldn’t be using scientific determinism to make decisions about how individuals with free will and rights can express themselves. The article is correct to have the disclaimer, in this light.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#172

Post by ben_w »

flippinburgers wrote: post #170
AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abstractions are useful, this is true, but the exceptions are a reminder that they are not reality, they are just a categorization we overlay on top of reality to help us understand it. Their utility is contextual. Your abstraction ignores all the sterile men and women too, by the way. That's because it is a particularly bad one.

The fact of the matter is that if someone is missing a leg they are absolutely human but they are broken nonetheless.

That analogy illuminates nothing.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#173

Post by Karawebnetwork »

closetkantian wrote: post #143
Karawebnetwork wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a tiny minority of human beings are transgender. Even in cultures where the concept of a third gender is celebrated, it is a rare phenomenon. Canada is the first country to provide census data on transgender and non-binary people: "Of the nearly 30.5 million people in Canada aged 15 and older living in a private household in May 2021, 100,815 were transgender (59,460) or non-binary (41,355), accounting for 0.33%…

"Even in cultures where the concept of a third gender is celebrated, it is a rare phenomenon"... As someone who lived in Thailand for a few years, I'm going to tell you that you are totally wrong.

"There are an estimated 314,808 trans people living in Thailand" https://weareaptn.org/

Thailand has a total population of 71.6 million.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#174

Post by rayiner »

swalling wrote: post #171
rayiner wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The assertion in the article is that gender is socially constructed. You don’t seem to be defending that point. You’re making a different argument nobody disagrees with—that humans also express learned cultural and individual behaviors. You could walk into CPAC and say that women would still be women if the social convention was for them to wear pants. Nobody would disagree with you. Ironically, the social changes in…

The mainstream liberal interpretation is that gender is a social construct separate from sexual identity/preference, and you can’t constrain the expression of either to the historical Western norms, because that’s an attack on Constitutionally-protected individual rights. There’s a more extreme leftist interpretation that says both are fixed identities practically from birth, but it ends up with the same conclusion:…

What you characterize as the “more extreme leftist interpretation” is actually the more conservative view. You can get most people on board with exceptions to social norms for biologically-rooted differences. Acceptance of same-sex marriage increased dramatically after the push in the 1990s and 2000s to educate the public that people are “born that way.” “Scientific determinism” is the lynchpin of the broad acceptance of same-sex marriage today.

By contrast, what you call the “mainstream liberal interpretation” is the radical position. It rejects society’s right and prerogative to impose norms and regulate voluntary self-expression. While a minority of conservatives will resist any changes to biblical categories, what generates widespread reaction across multiple groups is the feeling that liberals are using sexual minorities as a vehicle for loosening restrictions on voluntary sexual behavior and gender expression.

You’re correct the two positions lead to the “same” outcome—but only initially. Eventually, a conflict arises between liberals, who want sanction for a broader range of voluntary self expression, and gay or trans people, who often simply want to fit in as best as they are able. You’re seeing that conflict of interest play out right now. Bostock, which granted equal civil rights to trans people, was immediately accepted by the majority of conservatives. That caused liberals to pivot to causes like drag shows involving voluntary non-conformance, which generated immediate backlash and opposition. Liberals can’t tell the difference—to them, it’s self expression, whether it’s voluntary or biologically rooted. But to everyone else, it makes a huge difference whether someone is thumbing their nose at society’s rules, or trying to exist in society the way God made them.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#175

Post by msm_ »

kleiba wrote: post #9

Biologists use the word “female” to describe organs or organisms that produce eggs, and “male” for those that produce sperm; animals do not have socially constructed genders. Sad times when such disclaimers are necessary.

This is not a disclaimer, this is a prompt to click a link to their another article [0].

[0]: https://nautil.us/no-animals-do-not-have-genders-237938/

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#176

Post by flippinburgers »

ben_w wrote: post #172
flippinburgers wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact of the matter is that if someone is missing a leg they are absolutely human but they are broken nonetheless.

That analogy illuminates nothing.

To be sterile is to be broken but it doesn't reduce ones humanity.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#177

Post by swalling »

rayiner wrote: post #174
swalling wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mainstream liberal interpretation is that gender is a social construct separate from sexual identity/preference, and you can’t constrain the expression of either to the historical Western norms, because that’s an attack on Constitutionally-protected individual rights. There’s a more extreme leftist interpretation that says both are fixed identities practically from birth, but it ends up with the same conclusion:…

What you characterize as the “more extreme leftist interpretation” is actually the more conservative view. You can get most people on board with exceptions to social norms for biologically-rooted differences. Acceptance of same-sex marriage increased dramatically after the push in the 1990s and 2000s to educate the public that people are “born that way.” “Scientific determinism” is the lynchpin of the broad acceptanc…

It's almost LOL wrong to state that conservatives have gladly accepted that trans people are entitled to full and equal treatment under the law.

Conservative groups have sued to get religious exemptions to Bostock (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/religious-g...) which is particularly pernicious given the number of religious organizations that operate large employers like hospitals.

Just one Tucker Carlson clip (https://www.foxnews.com/video/6324164359112) shows how American conservatives are continually frothing at the mouth about trans rights. There is a related wave of anti-trans laws being pushed through by conservative elected officials at the state level right now. They're specifically attacking trans children and school policy, as the soft underbelly that gets conservative parents riled up for a culture war and which is legally more vulnerable.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#178

Post by rayiner »

swalling wrote: post #177
rayiner wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you characterize as the “more extreme leftist interpretation” is actually the more conservative view. You can get most people on board with exceptions to social norms for biologically-rooted differences. Acceptance of same-sex marriage increased dramatically after the push in the 1990s and 2000s to educate the public that people are “born that way.” “Scientific determinism” is the lynchpin of the broad acceptanc…

It's almost LOL wrong to state that conservatives have gladly accepted that trans people are entitled to full and equal treatment under the law. Conservative groups have sued to get religious exemptions to Bostock ( https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/religious-g... ) which is particularly pernicious given the number of religious organizations that operate large employers like hospitals. Just one Tucker…

You don’t have to read tea leaves: https://www.kff.org/other/press-release/poll-large-majoritie... (“In each case, large majorities across partisan lines, including more than 7 in 10 Republicans, think such discrimination against LGBTQ people should be illegal.”). These folks are upset about the “existence of transgender people,” but also want to make it illegal to discriminate against them?

You can understand the “culture war” by applying your own description of the “liberal interpretation.” As you aptly summarized, liberals don’t care about biological determination because they believe in people being free to express themselves without being limited to traditional norms and categories. It was when liberals started to advance that view—for example by promoting drag shows, which are about cis men dressing up as women as a form of self expression—that they triggered the culture war.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#179

Post by swalling »

rayiner wrote: post #178
swalling wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's almost LOL wrong to state that conservatives have gladly accepted that trans people are entitled to full and equal treatment under the law. Conservative groups have sued to get religious exemptions to Bostock ( https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/religious-g... ) which is particularly pernicious given the number of religious organizations that operate large employers like hospitals. Just one Tucker…

You don’t have to read tea leaves: https://www.kff.org/other/press-release/poll-large-majoritie... (“In each case, large majorities across partisan lines, including more than 7 in 10 Republicans, think such discrimination against LGBTQ people should be illegal.”). These folks are upset about the “existence of transgender people,” but also want to make it illegal to discriminate against them? You can understand the “c…

Yeah unfortunately for conservatives, the annals of history are generally a story of culture evolving more rapidly than traditionalists are comfortable with. We happen to live in a country where the core Constitutional answer to that problem can best be summarized as: tough shit, get used to it. You can move to Saudi Arabia if you want to live in a traditionalist autocracy that will protect you from the horrors of drag brunch.

Re: Animal Sex Determination Is Weirder Than You Think

#180

Post by gassit »

ramblenode wrote: post #129
giantg2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand that historically. However, I would argue that those restrictions were actually by sex as changing gender was not really an option back then. Even if one tried, I assume most cultures would still enforce those ideas based on sex. We have very few restrictions on gender today, and the ones we do have still tend to exclude transgender individuals (combat roles, some levels of some sports, some bathrooms).…

> I assume most cultures would still enforce those ideas based on sex. Hijra is a third gender used by people in India that was first documented several thousand years ago [0]. There are similar third genders in other Southeast Asian countries. Galli: a priest/priestess in Hellenistic Greece and Rome that wasn't considered to be man or woman [1]. Muxe: third gender of Mexico that may have pre-dated Spanish colonizati…

Also common in Polynesian cultures - see Faʻafafine from Samoa, Fakaleitī from Tonga, Māhū in Hawaii and Akava'ine in Cook Islands. See also brotherboy and sistergirls which is found across Australian Aboriginal cultures.[4]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faʻafafine [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakaleitī [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Māhū [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akava%27ine [4] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-21/sistergirls-and-broth...

Post reply on HN