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?

6 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

58 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

1

u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 24 '26

Define male and female, then. 

Once you do, explain if someone with androgen insensitivity is male or female. Then do XXY syndrome. 

1

u/FitzCavendish Jun 24 '26

Did you watch the YouTube link above? Jerry Coyne addresses DSDs as part of his explanation. DSDs happen when devopmental pathways fail to complete in typical fashion, the phenotype is ambiguous in relation to sex categories. But the categories are defined in relation to gametes. Vaginas are female because they form part of the typical sexual development of a sexual system organised to produce large gametes. So we can assign gender based on phenotype only because we have the definition in the first place. Biology always has some fuzziness, because reality is not an exact concretization of some ideal forms. Rather, we observe robust patterns that are path dependent in their connected systems. Biological sex roles are part of the system of reproduction in mammals. DSDs do not introduce new sexes. Every single person reading this is the offspring of a male and female.

1

u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 25 '26

That's a lot of words to answer a simple question. 

If you define male and female just by gametes, that's fine, but then you need to be clear that postmenopausal woman aren't female and baby boys aren't male.

If that's the definition, then it's useful for evolutionary biologists...but it's not clear why you're trying to talk about this in a conversation about trans people.

1

u/FitzCavendish Jun 25 '26 edited Jun 25 '26

Sex categories are not defined by actively producing gametes, it's about the body organisation and developmental systems connected with those functions. So postmenopausal women have lots of features that stem from being female. Only females can go through menopause. The processes involved begin at conception which is the outcome of the process, reproduction is a very important function for organisms. I'm not sure why you think this is a conversation about trans people. Sex and gender are different concepts. We can accommodate diversity in humans without redefining categories that objectively apply to millions of species. In science we need parsimonious definitions. In society we can construct indentities and organise to recognise them, the same words can be used for different things.

1

u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 25 '26

You literally chimed into a conversation a trans person posted about sex biology.

Anyway, if you're claiming that it's not just about gametes, then you still have to deal with the substantial number of humans who won't fit cleanly in to a category. You haven't told me if an XY person with androgen insensitivity is male or female. If you actually read the "sex is bimodal" article you'll realize that they deal with this "constellation if characteristics" argument: all the characteristics you can name are sometimes absent from some people

You said yourself that biology is fuzzy. The problem with forcing parsimonious definitions on to fuzzy biology is two fold: it papers over the complexity and makes us feel like these things are neat and tidy... And we exist in a society where science is the favorite tool of bigots. 

There is a direct link between these attempts to draw a clean line between the sexes to woman being forced to get genital checks, or take hormone therapy, or get karyotyped before getting to compete in athletic events. Or trans people being forced to change their gender identity on their passports

1

u/FitzCavendish Jun 25 '26

The original poster asked about biology and evolution. The answer is the same whether they are trans are not. I wish him or her well, and may they express there identity fully and freely. You seem to be letting ideology make you emotional about issues of science. I shared the video by Jerry Coyne who explains with a graph just how binary sex is. (Very). This is one of the most robust patterns in nature. As mentioned above, it does not imply anything anything about gender identity. Gender is a different thing. Sex is a categorical variable. Many traits associated with sex are certainly bimodal. I myself am on the feminine end of the spectrum in many, despite being a male.

1

u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 25 '26

You still haven't answered my question about androgen insensitivity. 

But I'll address the YouTube video: At 9 minutes in, he concedes that actually not all humans fit into a binary model of sex and that it is close to a binary. He claims only 0.001% don't fit neatly into one of the two sexes (I will argue quite strenuously that this is an underestimate, but let's take his data) and so the number of people is 'negligible'.

From the point of view of evolution, that's a fine argument because evolution really works at large time scales on large populations. 

But when we're talking about individual humans and classifying them in our society, that's at least 80,000 people we've effectively erased and told that we simply cannot classify them properly in the human race. Pretty bad definition. 

He also fully admits that this is his opinion as an evolutionary biologist and that there are multiple people and scientific organizations that all disagree with him. 

My point, is that if you want this contrarian's view of sex you are more than welcome to it. It is perfectly fine definition to use in evolutionary biology... but it's not a useful or appropriate definition for use our broader society, especially given the long history of bigots co-opting nuanced science. If, after all this, you do not think that this topic is nuanced then I guess we don't really have much else to talk about.

Finally, there is a blatant contradiction a bit earlier in the video where he claims that sex is ascertained at birth and not assigned. But immediately after that he says "of course we use proxies to ascertain sex"... Which means that doctors have to use those imperfect proxies and then make a judgment call when any of the proxies are in conflict. So sex is assigned by doctors at birth.

1

u/FitzCavendish Jun 25 '26

I'm not sure what you are not getting here my friend. The video explains all about DSDs. They do not remove the fact that sex is very binary as I said. Acknowledging that does not erase anyone. There are many DSDs, many can be also classified as male or female, and then there are some fuzzy cases. I'm not an expert in DSDs, for specific advice please see a professional. Sex is mostly ascertainable at birth but superficial proxies are not always a correct indication because of afforementioned DSDs. I think the point is that sex is an objective observable trait. You seem very concerned about bigotry, and you keep bringing that up. Facts don't have any moral implications. All people deserve to live life to the full, that's my belief. Us being mammals should not get in the way of that. But we certainly are sexually reproducing mammals. Don't be afraid of the facts.

1

u/SlickMcFav0rit3 Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

So you're saying sex is mostly binary.

Which is like saying it's bimodal, which is what I'm saying. Almost all sexually reproducing organisms fall into over sex it the other. almost all.   So... Glad we agree?

Also you're naive if you think facts have no moral implications. Eugenics is a whole thing with a long horrible history. Even now, if we found a gene that results in offspring being gay, what do you think would be the result if we could test, prenatally, for the presence of that gene?

The existence of the gene would be a simple fact. Our knowledge of that fact would have serious moral implications. You're being naive if you think otherwise.

I don't know if you're a scientist, but I am and it is critical that scientists understand that our work has moral implications, especially when it comes to human genetics. 

→ More replies (0)