American solar farms

[1] Sex is purely defined by gamete size. (Already incorrect, but if that makes the argument easier we can play pretend.) [2] Humans are a gonochoric species. (true) [3] In gonochoric species, unlike simultaneous or sequentially hermaphroditic species, gamete-size generally remains constant throughout the lifetime of the species (also true). [4] Therefore, humans generally maintain the same gamete size throughout an individual’s life (sure, not many people are switching their gamete size throughout their life).

We’re in agreement humans aren’t generally switching gamete sizes through an individual’s lifetime. That would honestly be ridiculous and no one is arguing this. However, while some of these ideas are true and are convenient for talking about various species, it’s not always correct when talking about individuals.

An example of this is using generalized words or labels on anything or anyone. “English-speaking” could mean someone who speaks only English, someone who speaks only a little English. What matters is context and relevance.

Human sexual phenotype can be described by three discrete categories if you want: male, female, intersex. This is what I mean by “spectrum,” I’m literally just mentioning it doesn’t fit the definition of binary (being able to be completely described with 0 or 1 without loss of data). Please see my previous explanation for further details on this. I literally did a proof-by-contradiction.

In individual humans, our genotypes do not always match our phenotypes. For example, XY + No SRY would be functionally identical to XX. XXY and XYY are both viable and happen, and a lot of people might not even realize they don’t have the chromosomes they think they do.

Obviously intersex is about the same proportion of the population as red heads, for context.

So intersex is a perfectly normal and natural human sex phenotype. There are literally human beings living with both gamete sizes for their entire lives, living hopefully happy, healthy lives. This has nothing to do with gonochoric or hermaphroditic species. We’re still a gonochoric species, even if intersex humans exist. Humans aren’t spontaneously changing gamete sizes throughout their lives, but some people literally just have both and have had both since birth. That’s just how it is.

So human sexual phenotypes don’t always match genotypes. They mostly do, probably over 80%, but we’re not honestly sure about the true rate of intersex mostly because it matters so little. As you saw in the textbook chapter I referenced, human sexual phenotype has many factors, but yeah, we can summarize it with three discrete categories: male, female, intersex. That’s again, just how it is. We can debate what to do with intersex, sure, but it honestly doesn’t matter very much.

Your sports argument seems a little strange, I’m honestly not sure I fully understand it:

[1] Gamete size is the only determining factor in human sexual phenotype [obviously incorrect, please see that book chapter] [2] As a society, we divide up sports by sex or gender [yeah, sure, we sometimes do that] [3] Gamete size is relevant in sports [very obviously incorrect, but what you probably mean is that gametes CORRELATE with testosterone, muscle mass differences etc, which is true, and we can measure those correlations] [4] People can’t change their gametes [no one is talking about this, ridiculously irrelevant] [5] Therefore people can’t change their sex?

Trans people exist. We have accepted that there is both biological sex and gender (social construct). Just like genotype and phenotype, they normally match, but sometimes they don’t. I honestly don’t understand why there’s any upset about this, there’s been evidence of this going back pretty far throughout history. We literally get the word hermaphrodite from the ancient Greeks.

So do you only care about transpeople because of sports? There are transmen in the Olympics, so I think they’re doing fine, and I literally linked several papers on transwomen in the Olympics, but I can link them again.

We’ve measured it. This is what science does.

More links: Sex differences and athletic performance. Where do trans individuals fit into sports and athletics based on current research? https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-livin...

SPORTS AND PERFORMANCE IN THE TRANSGENDER POPULATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

https://www.scielo.br/j/rbme/a/CDkTksYcMPcKYTHGfcJLX4K/?lang...

Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3

Honestly, if there is some advantage, they’ll measure it, try to understand it, and then change the rules. I’m sure it’s an ongoing discussion. I’m not sure I see your point with all this.

I'm not super clear on why gamete size has become a popular argument for a so-called binary model, since intersex still exists and there are individuals with both gametes. Not to mention, for sports, gamete size seems much less relevant than hormones and natural variation within each sex/gender, and that seems to be the favorite example. Do you have any insights as to why gametes have become a popular argument?

1a: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures 1b: the sum of the structural, functional, and sometimes behavioral characteristics of organisms that distinguish males and females 1c: the state of being male or female 3: genitalia

Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender). This delineation also tends to be observed in technical and medical contexts, with the term sex referring to biological forms in such phrases as sex hormones, sex organs, and biological sex.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sex

So what dictionary are you using where "sex" is purely defined by gametes? Please use references and support. I have literally provided studies, textbook chapters, and dictionary entries. You're not actually arguing anything, or if you think you are, you're begging the question. Sex is based on more than gametes and we've known that for decades.

> I see after reading those papers you linked that they further illustrate the point I made earlier: that suppression of testosterone weakens males in some ways, but they still retain physiological advantage from testosterone-driven development earlier in their lives. To advocate for the inclusion of such males in female competitions is to advocate for female athletes to compete at a disadvantage.

They literally concluded there wasn't a measurable difference in most of the aspects that they're considering after two years (though there was still an advantage in running after 1 year), so that's a very creative interpretation. There are more studies too, but I can see there's limited point in listing them, since you're reading with your own bias.

Also, keep in mind with the papers that I provided, the authors of these papers are PhDs in this specialty studying trans individuals. Meaning that people who are way more knowledgeable about all this view trans individuals as exiting, since before you seemed to be denying that. Also please notice, that they aren't measuring gametes, they're measuring the effects of hormone therapy specifically and how that might apply to sports. Rules etc in sports, sure, we can measure and change them, but there are plenty of phds out there studying both gender and sex. If you're trying to argue that nuances in the Olympics and college-level sports means trans can't exist, that seems like very faulty logic.

> If you look at the world records for pretty much every sport, the difference between female and male athletes is very clear. That there exists some overlap between weaker-performing male athletes and higher-performing female athletes doesn't mean that male advantage is significant in almost all sports, especially in ones more reliant on raw strength, such as weightlifting.

There are many, many sports where this is not the case and separating between men and women happened late, if at all. Sharp shooting et cetera. There are other sports where yes, there are measurable differences. Testosterone can help in certain sports, that's certainly true, but though that CORRELATES with gametes, it's not absolute, once again demonstrating that what we're actually interested in in sports is testosterone etc, not actual gametes.

> You mention the transmen who compete in the Olympics. This is true but they are competing against other female athletes, e.g. Hergie Bacyadan in the most recent Olympics, competing in women's boxing (and in that same Olympics, two males - controversially - won gold, in two other women's boxing divisions). None of them would even come close to qualifying against elite male athletes.

Incorrect. The transmen are competing against other men. Chris Mosier had an injury at the Olympics, which is unfortunate, but he qualified. In 2015 Schuyler Bailar competed in NCAA Div 1 men's team and did pretty well, top 15%. 2018 Patricio Manuel boxed professionally and won. Transathletes are a small percentage of the population and haven't been allowed at the Olympics for very long, so we'll see what happens there.

Overall, I'm not sure what elite sports has to do with the existence of trans people or human sexual development phenotype or how sex is "only gametes" (or chromosomes, you seem to go between both). The rules in elite sports are always changing, and I'm sure they'll change more. You've essentially assumed your gamete argument is true, despite going against the dictionary, the book chapter I listed, and the studies that I provided, all of which acknowledge trans individuals. This is called "begging the question." If we're going into rhetoric, this is sounding very motte-and-bailey fallacy.

One thing I will say, is that fundamentally science is about asking questions and measuring phenomena, generally using models etc to try to discern causality (probability and statistics). Science is NOT about telling people who or how to be or denying people's experience. Science can tell us what will happen when we take a drug, not if we "should or shouldn't" take the drug (that's for us to decide). In studying other cultures or experiences, science isn't about labeling "good" or "bad," or erasing experiences we don't understand. For example, we know from studying many other cultures and languages that there are multiple understandings of "sex" across cultures, especially where there are explicit terms for intersex et, which is why terms like "gender" can be useful.

I'm not sure why you have such a strong reaction to "trans people exist" or why you're trying to act like your views on it are "scientific," when I have provided (1) textbook, (2) dictionary, (3) studies showing that your views that (A) trans people do not exist and (B) sex and sexual phenotype are only determined by gametes are not supported by science and you have fundamentally misunderstood several key aspects of biology and math (binary vs bimodal). I've provided explanations for how we use models in science and how we talk about data. If you're actually interested in learning about this stuff, I hope some of the resources I have listed are helpful. Otherwise, I'm going to assume that this is not a productive discussion of two people trying to understand the world better. I'm sad this is your view of what science is, and if you're ever actually curious about this kind of thing, I hope you find it interesting.

Imagine a biologist discovers a new sexually reproducing species. She does not yet know whether it is hermaphroditic or gonochoric, nor, if gonochoric, which individuals are female and which are male.

What does she investigate to find out?

She examines gamete production: which gonads produce small, motile gametes and which produce large, nutritive ones. That is the criterion that has defined "female" and "male" across all sexually reproducing organisms for well over a century of modern biology.

Everything else - chromosomes, hormones, genitalia, secondary characteristics - are species-specific downstream mechanisms that evolved to achieve that single binary outcome. They are not the definition itself.

I did ask a version of this earlier in my first reply to you, but I think its significance may have been missed. Anyone with a solid grounding in biology should recognise immediately that gametes are the root criterion. No other answer makes sense.

I read and corrected your previous comments then, and I will correct them again now. I know this is more or less what they teach in middle and high school biology, just like you might have learned "electrical current is like water flowing between between two voltages" (not a good metaphor, but one that is often taught) and "evolution is the survival of the fittest" (incorrect, but still sometimes taught). What you learn in college is that a lot of the metaphors that were helpful at the beginning can actually make it harder to learn a more nuanced view that's closer to reality. But there's a reason the dictionary definition is different and not just based on gametes. You're confusing applying abstract concepts to individuals.

>She examines gamete production: which gonads produce small, motile gametes and which produce large, nutritive ones. That is the criterion that has defined "female" and "male" across all sexually reproducing organisms for well over a century of modern biology.

Correct, when talking about species as a whole, this is quite useful. "Female" and "Male" can refer to many different types of species. We even refer to asexually reproducing species as "females" by default. Just like "English-speaking" can be a useful general label in numerous contexts. It's great being able to talk about "English-speaking people" as a generalization, but that label doesn't differentiate between someone who speaks at a first-grade level and a college-level. When we're talking about an individual person, we normally take a more nuanced view, as is reflected in the data.

Please see my previous comments on models, binary, etc. Being able to apply a label to something does not necessarily make it true, but we're back at the beginning and I see no point in going over my points again. You're also essentially confusing genotype and phenotype. There's a reason biologists differentiate between that. But again, I've gone over all this already. As someone with a solid background in biology, yes, gametes are important and are great abstractions for talking about specific things, but more than just gametes go into human sexual phenotype and we've known that for decades.

Anyone who has any kind of background in science or engineering at a college level should be able to understand models and data terms, like binary, type 1 and type 2, error, and abstraction. This is fundamental. If you're actually interested in learning more, please reread my previous comments.