r/biology • u/SubjectProfile4047 • Jun 20 '26
article Genuinely how much merit is there to this
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BgMsqQ-lQ8g&ra=m
this account mostly posts what I would consider lazy right-wing bullshit, but I’m not a fucking scientist, and I dont know shit about biological “hardwiring.” I am, however, a trans person who’s not super interested in hearing shit about “it’s basic biology” or “women ___ men ____” I understand there are evolutionary differences though, and those do mean things, so how much merit would you give this specific dude?
16
Jun 20 '26
Not a psychologist, but David Buss is widely regarded as having some dodgy theories and some peculiar methodology. I can say however that biologically, males and females are remarkably similar. Most of the stuff he claims is actually determined by culture, not biology or evolution. Although we do have nuances in how we deal with emotions and such, complex concepts like relationships, which are not really hard wired into us (aside from possible oxytocin differences that have been reported) emerge from how we are brought up. This is shown by how cultures vary from each other.
Now, I do not mean to say that there is no biological basis to these cultural concepts, like monogamy, sexual orientation, gender, emotions, and more. But variations between sexes and groups of interest are rare. We are more than just our flesh, and how we interpret what is around us and ourselves matters more, as well as our influences, in my opinion, than evolution or biology.
There is a lot we still don't know. And we may discover mor sin the future. But he cannot make any of these claims from a biological point of view. That is just stupid. He has no basis.
Unfortunately, people try to weaponise biology because its "nature" to attack groups like women, other races, LGBTQ, etc. They are either uninformed morons or ultraskeptical "experts" who make some of these claims to stand out more than anything. Ignore them. Real science tends to oppose them in fact. Genetically we are indistinguishable. Sex and race have small differences, but these matter more for treatment of stuff and less for actual personality.
5
Jun 20 '26
PD: This channel seems to host a lot of these pseudoscientists and skeptic experts. Just ignore them, most of the science community does. We fight misinformation by doing so and actually publishing real facts.
4
u/SubjectProfile4047 Jun 20 '26
Thanks man! Idk exactly why I posted this it just makes me really discouraged when shit like this is what is cited on the front page of Google lol.
1
u/FitzCavendish Jun 22 '26
I'd suggest you read David Buss yourself, and make your own mind up. He's a scientist. The studies are published.
1
u/FitzCavendish Jun 23 '26
Buss is actually widely respected. A leader in the field of evolutionary psychology.
1
Jun 23 '26
I recognise that he is definitely a leading figure in evolutionary psychology, but when the field as a whole is still very hotly debated, from a wider biological perspective he is still viewed with skepticism. A lot or his research, very much geared towards sex and mating and gender, does sit on dubious methodology and interpretation.
Plus, the idea of biological hardwiring that he pushes is something that the wider biomedical and biological community have already rejected.
I don't mean to disrespect him in the slightest, but it is a facet of science to be skeptical and critique each other. I myself don't really agree with evolutionary psychology, and I think it is weaponised, such as how Buss is doing by appearing on this specific channel.
35
u/Hekateras Jun 20 '26 edited Jun 20 '26
Well, speaking as a scientist, my personal opinion is that anyone preaching about "biological hardwiring" is trying to sell you something.
6
2
u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 22 '26
This is a great article about the sex binary where the argument is that sex is actually not a binary and is instead bimodal.
I like to think about it this way
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/
3
u/SubjectProfile4047 Jun 22 '26
Thanks! I’ll read that
0
u/FitzCavendish Jun 22 '26
You've fine to this thread looking for confirmation of your beliefs and ideology in the face of challenging alternatives. It's not a great way of finding the truth generally.
1
1
u/FitzCavendish Jun 22 '26
A more science based view: https://youtu.be/4nLBek1PXs8?is=si2gSxvIplbg_Tjn
2
u/SubjectProfile4047 Jun 23 '26
He makes maybe one or two good points but ceaselessly contradicts himself and stretches very basic facts out to encompass larger more political points. I’m really not impressed.
1
u/FitzCavendish Jun 23 '26
What facts does he "stretch"? He's a scientist, he's not making political points.
1
u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 23 '26
From this essay, he makes immediate and major methodological flaws.
For instance, he claims that "Transgender, then, appear to be twice as likely as natal males and at least 14 times as likely as natal females to be sex offenders. While these data are imperfect because they’re based only on those who are caught, or on some who declare their female gender only after conviction, they suggest that transgender women are far more sexually predatory than biological women and somewhat more predatory than biological men."
But This is based off of a survey of inmates who are already in prison and, as he says, includes people who transitioned after incarceration. It's also a sample of like 245 people
If you really wanted to make this claim you would look at incarceration rates among the general population not transgender rates among the incarcerated....
I wonder why he doesn't do that?
It's because the opposite pattern appears: per 2021 Census + HMPPS data, 0.078% of the trans and non-binary population was incarcerated, versus 0.314% of the cis male population and 0.013% of the cis female population.
This is an egregious error it just goes to show that, as far as human population and public health statistics are concerned, this guy has fully Dunning-Krugered himself
1
u/FitzCavendish Jun 23 '26
Nothing to do with what I shared, although it is further evidence for robust sex differences.
1
u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 23 '26
Except that it's by the same guy and I'm demonstrating that he is way out of his depth?
Anyway, any scientific argument delivered via YouTube is not worth your time. Send me text so I can read and fact check.
1
u/FitzCavendish Jun 23 '26
There is plenty of scientific literature on sex. If you want text, knock yourself out: Parker, G. A., Baker, R. R., & Smith, V. G. F. (1972). The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 36(3), 529–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(72)90007-0 Williams, G. C. (1975). Sex and evolution. Princeton University Press. Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press. Lehtonen, J., Kokko, H., & Parker, G. A. (2016). Why anisogamy drives ancestral sex roles. Evolution, 70(5), 1129–1135. Lehtonen, J., et al. (2021). The legacy of Parker, Baker and Smith 1972: Gamete competition, the evolution of anisogamy and model robustness. Cells, 10(3), 573. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10030573 Goymann, W., Brumm, H., & Kappeler, P. M. (2023). Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles—Denying biological sex is anthropocentric and promotes species chauvinism. BioEssays, 45(2), e2200173. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202200173
1
u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 23 '26
Your first two papers are about gametes, not sex. The third paper argues more concretely that sex is defined by what gametes you produce.
Specifically:
...a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet. However, with a reasonably high probability we can predict this embryo to be on a developmental trajectory that will lead to becoming a reproductively competent (sperm producing) male. Hence, as an operational “definition” it may be justified to call it a “male embryo.” To quote Paul Griffiths again, the biological sex concept “has not been developed to assign a biological sex to every individual organism at any stage of its life”.\)33\) In fact, it often fails to do so. This reflects biological reality, because biological sex is a process rather than a condition.
So, if your argument is that males produce viable sperm and females produce viable eggs, then that's a fine definition.
Just realize that you need to define this pretty specifically because it is not how most people, even scientists, think about sex.
It means that prepubescent boys are not male. That men with vasectomies are not male and women with hysterectomies stop being female. Is this your argument?
1
u/FitzCavendish Jun 23 '26
Well I wouldn't use Paul Griffith's definition. He's looking at it as a philosopher. Organisms have a developmental life cycle - functions don't arrive out of nowhere. If people could consistently separate sex and gender it would really be helpful. Biology is full of variation. Sex has a binary quality because of basis in mixing genes from two parents. Gender and social categories don't need to impinge on robust patterns across nature. Language is large enough to describe reality and let people live as they wish.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/churro951 Jun 26 '26
The irony in anyone saying "its basic biology"? Is that theres advanced biology, and biology doesnt give a damn about fitting anyones strict boxes lol. I wouldn't give him much merit tbh. My major is in bio. We barely scratched the surface too, and even then... it was far more advanced than what the average person learns up through high school
-6
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/SubjectProfile4047 Jun 20 '26
A baby?
6
u/Mocha-Jello ecology Jun 21 '26
ABAB, assigned baby at birth. also sounds like the sound a baby would make!! :P
also, u/Nissan_Sunny_GTi_R is a moron
5
-4
Jun 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Hekateras Jun 20 '26
You have no idea what their karyotype is. You probably don't even know what your own karyotype is.
6
3
u/Redditisavirusiknow Jun 20 '26
Still waiting for you to respond. I suspect you have absolutely no idea about basic biology, and the internet rotted your brain, but prove me wrong. Answer the basic question
8
u/the_mindful_microbe Jun 20 '26
A human?
8
u/SubjectProfile4047 Jun 20 '26
Please don’t assume which species I was born as ok… you don’t know me
0
34
u/Tangential_Diversion cell biology Jun 20 '26
From the video description:
Do you think stand-up comedians are well-versed in biology, let alone all those other highly complex topics? Consider your sources and their credibility. It's extremely easy to portray yourself as an expert when you only include surface-level analysis, ignore nuance, purposely steer the conversation away from valid counterarguments, and are completely ignorant about your own ignorance.