The author seems to be some sort of ill-read hack. There are fungi [0] with thousands of biological sexes. Additionally, within humanity, there are more than two configurations of sex chromosomes [1].
Sex Is Real
21–30 of 38 posts
Re: Sex Is Real
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like it's making a case that people pretend the concept of biological sex doesn't exist as some kind of defense for social concepts of sex, but that seems like a straw man. I've rarely (never?) heard anybody insist that there are not multiple contexts for the concept of sex/gender.
I encourage you to google “biological sex isn’t real” and acquaint yourself with this line of thinking. Radical gender theory does in fact make the bold claim that biological sex isn’t real. That’s right, sex, not gender. The postmodernist underpinnings used to support these types of ideas are rooted in concepts like “objective truth does not exist” and “everything is a social construct”.
Biological sex has more than two configurations of sex chromosomes possible, in humans. This isn't rocket science, although it is biology.
Also, on your other points: Objective truths can exist, but not all measurements are objective. Not everything is a social construct, but the things that humans believe without empirical evidence are all social constructs.
Postmodernism isn't hard. Y'all're just extremely convinced that reality is locally real, just because you can sense it so vividly, and you're blind to your biases as a result.
Re: Sex Is Real
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that sex is non-binary and socially constructed is certainly around. The first time I heard it was about a year ago on an podcast interview from Sam Harris with an expert in the field of gender studies or something, saying we should consider that gay men might actually be women. One recent event that brings it to light is JK Rowling said something along those lines, basically that women menstrate¹, and that…
Sure. But they aren't saying biological sex doesn't exist. They are saying there is sex and gender and that these two things can be different. Specifically sex is biological, while gender is a social and physiological construct. What is explicitly NOT being said is that biological sex is non-existent. And they are saying that a person's gender may be female while their biological sex can be male (or ambiguous), and t…
That is comprehensible except it isn't related to what I said. This thread isn't about gender - it's about sex.
It's good you haven't understood people saying sex isn't biological, because it's not a defensible position. Hopefully their voices don't become more prominent.
Re: Sex Is Real
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Biological sex is important to consider in biology but that doesn't mean it's important elsewhere." AKA "you might ignore biology when it comes to make political decisions so that me and other biologists are not labelled bigots"? The conclusion of that article is a cop-out.
I'm not sure how you took that from the paragraph. What they're saying is that biological sex is a real, valid concept to biologists. No biologist is going to be called a bigot for saying that biological sex is a thing. (However, in non-academic contexts this statement is used by bigots as a dog-whistle. It's pretty darn obvious when this happens though.)
> No biologist is going to be called a bigot for saying that biological sex is a thing
The fact that this article was flagged proves you wrong.
> However, in non-academic contexts this statement is used by bigots as a dog-whistle.
A dogwhistle for what exactly? please explain.
Re: Sex Is Real
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like it's making a case that people pretend the concept of biological sex doesn't exist as some kind of defense for social concepts of sex, but that seems like a straw man. I've rarely (never?) heard anybody insist that there are not multiple contexts for the concept of sex/gender.
I encourage you to google “biological sex isn’t real” and acquaint yourself with this line of thinking. Radical gender theory does in fact make the bold claim that biological sex isn’t real. That’s right, sex, not gender. The postmodernist underpinnings used to support these types of ideas are rooted in concepts like “objective truth does not exist” and “everything is a social construct”.
> Radical gender theory does in fact make the bold claim that biological sex isn’t real.
No.
Transphobes[1] will say that sex is obvious and the binary is clear.
The argument being made against transphobes is that definitions for "female" (or "male") can't exclude trans-people while including everyone else traditionally thought of as female (or male). That's something that transphobes claims is easy, and they're wrong.
[1] Many transphobes say this. It doesn't mean that anyone who says this is transphobic.
Re: Sex Is Real
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
I took your challenge, and, well I couldn't find it. I did find articles like this one https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2020/06/15/the-myth... . If you read only the headline you might think it's making the argument your implying, but if you actually bother to read it you'll find it doesn't. From the article: "The biology of sex is real, but it’s extremely complicated, and there is sometimes no easy way to dr…
The idea that sex is non-binary and socially constructed is certainly around. The first time I heard it was about a year ago on an podcast interview from Sam Harris with an expert in the field of gender studies or something, saying we should consider that gay men might actually be women. One recent event that brings it to light is JK Rowling said something along those lines, basically that women menstrate¹, and that…
> basically that women menstrate¹
Lots of women don't menstruate. Children, older women, women who've had hysterectomies, some women with intersex conditions, and transwomen.
Some men do menstruate. Transmen, and some people with intersex conditions.
This argument is not saying that "sex isn't real". It's saying that using terms that define sex are not good enough for some topics.
Re: Sex Is Real
#27The author seems to be some sort of ill-read hack. There are fungi [0] with thousands of biological sexes. Additionally, within humanity, there are more than two configurations of sex chromosomes [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophyllum_commune [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
I'm not exactly being Gettier over here; if y'all have reasons why my counterexamples are wrong, then speak up. Otherwise maybe sit back and consider exactly why it's interesting that a professor of philosophy rattles off all of these biology facts in an attempt to back up the hilariously-bullshit utterances:
> The fact that no species has evolved more than two biological sexes is also a puzzle. It would be quite straightforward to engineer a species that has three, but none has evolved naturally.
This is straight-up wrong, and he attempts to use the nomenclature of "mating types" to dismiss the obvious counterexamples. He's attempting to be some sort of deep thinker about genetics, but he's reaffirming the idea that somehow there's only ever two sexes, which is literally binary gender theory and has already been debunked.
Re: Sex Is Real
#28The author seems to be some sort of ill-read hack. There are fungi [0] with thousands of biological sexes. Additionally, within humanity, there are more than two configurations of sex chromosomes [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophyllum_commune [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
I'm not exactly being Gettier over here; if y'all have reasons why my counterexamples are wrong, then speak up. Otherwise maybe sit back and consider exactly why it's interesting that a professor of philosophy rattles off all of these biology facts in an attempt to back up the hilariously-bullshit utterances: > The fact that no species has evolved more than two biological sexes is also a puzzle. It would be quite str…
Probably going straight for the ad-hominem is a reason why people are bothered by your otherwise reasonable observation. Not everyone that's wrong is a "hack". If I remember correctly HN encourages discussions in the spirit of being charitable to another person's opinion.
Re: Sex Is Real
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not exactly being Gettier over here; if y'all have reasons why my counterexamples are wrong, then speak up. Otherwise maybe sit back and consider exactly why it's interesting that a professor of philosophy rattles off all of these biology facts in an attempt to back up the hilariously-bullshit utterances: > The fact that no species has evolved more than two biological sexes is also a puzzle. It would be quite str…
Probably going straight for the ad-hominem is a reason why people are bothered by your otherwise reasonable observation. Not everyone that's wrong is a "hack". If I remember correctly HN encourages discussions in the spirit of being charitable to another person's opinion.
We shouldn't be charitable to racism, sexism, delusional religious beliefs, or fascism; they are too harmful to the world. In this case, you're asking me to be charitable to a sexist article whose author does not justify their credentials beyond being a professor of philosophy; perhaps they are only accidentally sexist here?
Seriously, do some close-reading. The very first sentence:
> It’s uncontroversial among biologists that many species have two, distinct biological sexes.
Note the word "many" here; not all species, but just some. In other words, many species do not have two distinct biological sexes. They then continue:
> It does so despite the fact that there are no more than two biological sexes in any species you’re likely to have heard of.
Ah, so while many species do not have two sexes, we're not likely to have heard of them. Okay, that's a fair cultural idea, I suppose... And then, suddenly, a one-two punch:
> Not all species have biological sexes, and biology seeks to explain why some do and others don’t.
Wait, okay, so some species have more than two sexes, and some don't have sex at all? This is a confusion tactic, because the very next sentence is:
> The fact that no species has evolved more than two biological sexes is also a puzzle.
We've done it. We went all the way from some species, to no species that we've heard of, to no species at all having more than two sexes. This is a famous rhetorical technique known as Iago's whispers [0]. By carefully restating the original thesis over and over, but gently changing it each time, the meaning of the entire article is shifted.
Now with this discrediting in hand, the author can continue safely down their binary-gender-theory path, writing slapstick like:
> Now imagine if there was a whole species like this, where three different kinds of gametes combined to make a new individual – a sperm, an egg and a third, mitochondrial gamete. This species would have three biological sexes. Something like this has actually been observed in slime moulds, an amoeba that can, but need not, get its mitochondria from a third ‘parent’.
You see, the idea of more than two sexes is now imaginary, relegated to thought experiments. And we see species that are like having more than two sexes, as a simile. But the author's carefully removed the actual physical reality from consideration.
HN rules forbid me from accusing folks of not having read the original article.
Re: Sex Is Real
#30The author seems to be some sort of ill-read hack. There are fungi [0] with thousands of biological sexes. Additionally, within humanity, there are more than two configurations of sex chromosomes [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophyllum_commune [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
If you actually read the article properly, you'll read the author has adequately anticipated and dealt with your objections. Please read the article before you comment.