103
FediForum Has Been Canceled
(wedistribute.org)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2025
103 points (100.0% liked)
Fediverse
32518 readers
365 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Indeed, just as gender is a spectrum so is sex. I love when someone says "Its basic biology" because the best response is "and this is intermediate biology".
Sex is indeed a spectrum. Intersex presentation makes up a meaningful though small percentage, somewhere around the 0.05% range. If it were a binary there would be two options, mutually exclusive. This is a bimodal distribution, with two very strong peaks for XX or XY karyotype and a bunch of variation around either different karyotypes, XXY etc, or differing activation or expression of those karyotypes, eg androgen insensitivity etc.
On top of that, what would you say sex is exactly? Which gamete is larger? In seahorses the males have the smaller gametes but the females use something very similar to a penis to deposit the egg into the male who then raises it and performs all the roles we associate with females in humans.
Is it based on which chroonosomes? In some animals it is a WZ or W karyotypes, so that can't be it. In others it is just a presence or absence of a sex chromosome. In some plants they have more than two sets of everything, like strawberries with 7 copies of each chromosome. In others they have one, two, or four in some parts of the life cycle, but sometimes the thing we see is the higher number, sometimes it is the lower number. Some have a mix of male and female parts, having sperm and egg producers on the same plant but separated, some have both right next to each other in groupings. Some animals can undergo sex changing due to environmental factors.
Nothing in biology is as simple as the models we use to represent them. Sex is complex and while it sometimes seems simple that is the less common state. Genes are not often all the way on or all the way off, they are usually moderated and running at different levels across the organism cell by cell, and changing with time. The same goes for traits.
I would recommend learning more about ut biology if you really do believe sex is a simple binary. The world of biology is far more complex and varied than that idea can capture and honestly it is fascinating, I find it extremely exciting to find the examples of my own ignorance, they are usually super cool. Good luck!
So in other words, not a binary? What you're describing is more accurately described as a bimodal distribution.
It's far closer to a binary distribution than a bi-modal distribution. You can be pedantic, but that's not a real arguement. I admitted there are edge cases.
This is not tied to pure outcomes and is derived from actual earth bio-chemistry.
There is no triple helix or quadruple helix as a foundational system of genetic bio-chemical reproduction.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
Then it's not binary.
Absolutely. For day to day life, "there are two outcomes" is safe way to describe coin flips. But given that a coin landing on its side can happen, it's not a binary system. It only becomes binary when we ignore the edge cases. Just like sex...
And that's before we get to the point that there isn't even a single definition of sex that accounts for all scenarios. People can change their legal sex, people can change their morphological sex, "genetic sex" isn't foolproof, as it doesn't always correlate with morphological sexual characteristics, or even gamete production.
Calling sex binary is either a generalisation, or something you want to be true. At no point is it reality of the situation though...
I strongly disagree. I am only happy for people to be the best version of themselves and to feel comfortable in their skin.
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
I already mentioned that there are edge cases. Edge cases do not discredit foundational frameworks that define reality.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework. This has been true for hundreds of millions of years. There is no such things as a triple helix or quadruple helix in terms of reproduction. Even trees and plants have a binary sex.
You claim that this is something I want to be true. I would argue the same (on a vice versa basis) for you and that you're framing the discussion using irrelevant examples (how is a morphological change in sex even relevant to what we are discussing).
But when you are trying to define or classify things it is the edge cases that are key. It is at the edges that we hope to find a clear divide between one set of things and another.
Unfortunately, with sex chromosomes, their impact on development and that effect on performance it feels like the more we know the less we understand.
International sporting bodies have huge resources and access to the best experts in the various fields and they can't come up with a good way to classify male and female. I could, at least, see the logic in their going for testosterone exposure during puberty as being a useful guide, although it is complex and rather arbitrary, but there are counter-arguments to that which suggest it isn't useful. So the sporting bodies seem to be falling back on chromosome testing, which is no guide at all to performance and seems to be favoured because it is easy to test for - like the drunk looking for his keys under a lamppost because the light was better there.
Of course they're relevant. Sex being immutable, easy to define and binary is at the core of the tactics that transphobes use to exclude and legislate against trans folk.
So the fact that it's not easy to define, has multiple definitions in different contexts, and has no single definition that works in all instances is very relevant.
You talked about "genetic bio-chemical reproduction" earlier. There are women who have literally given birth, who have XY chromosomes. Similarly, there are XX men with SRY genes. Using your "genetic sex is the truth" approach, they are both folks with a different genetic sex to their physical and legal sex. A transphobe would catch those people and throw them under the bus too whilst they target trans people.
Yep. I'll agree with that. But the framework it is built on is not the end result. There is no meaning or intent behind the framework. There is nothing about it that is more "real".
The real part isn't the genetic plan that was used to create someone. The real part is the body they're actually walking around in.
To you, this is all an interesting argument. You're arguing about things in black and white, because none of it actually matters to you. So you can argue for how you think things should work.
The very same arguments you are using are being weaponised and turned against gender diverse folk and intersex folk. Your re-use of them, arguing about some sort of ideal that exists only in your head isn't harmless. The fact that sex is nuanced, that gender is nuanced, that they both have multiple, contradicting definitions, and neither have a single definition that is more true than the others is incredibly important, because the only reason to ignore that is either to hurt people, or because you're so far removed from the reality of what's happening, that you place a higher priority on things being neat and tidy than on the people that false belief hurts.
Let me take a step back for a second.
We are not discussing the strategies used by the far right to demonize trans folk (or anyone else). We are discussing something completely different that has no bearing on the strategies used by the far right. What will me moving away from what you call "my ideal" change in this world?
Let's say we have some deus ex machina method to close the discussion around the nature of sex and make everyone believe that sex is a spectrum.
Do you really think this will magically get rid of transphobia? I would even go as far as saying a lot of the people who claim to be concerned about "trans issues" don't actually care about them and they are simply being led by oligarch propaganda. And oligarch propaganda will leverage anything that they think will have an impact.
So how will me rejecting my understanding of genetic bio-chemical reproduction (as is proven by hundreds of millions of years of life on earth and the a reproductive framework that span millions of species) change anything?
Do you see what I am getting at?
Here are 11 different animals that can change their gender.
What's this got to do with anything? What element of what I wrote in this thread makes you believe I didn't know this?
I will add that what you reference actually confirms that the binary sex model is a universal element of life as we know it.
Yes we are. The only reason these discussions come up in the first place is because of that.
You thinking that this has nothing to do with the far right doesn't make it so. Normalising the idea that sex is black and white, and conversations about that only occur in a wide spread way because there is political reward in presenting things that way. 10 years ago you weren't having these discussions. Today, you are, because the politics of transphobia has made it happen.
You are the one who claimed that I was diverting in to irrelevancy. I bring up the political context, because it's not irrelevant.
This whole conversation, the thread you are talking in, exists, because a transphobe was using the same talking points you are arguing for, to normalise transphobia. You doing it, also normalises transphobia, whether that is your intent or not.
You want a sex binary to exist. It doesn't, unless you smooth away the edges and ignore some of the data and the lived realities of people. Evolutionary biologists don't share your perspective. Geneticists don't share your perspective. This whole conversation exists for political reasons, designed to push exclusion. In a topic about a person using these exact talking points to push for exclusion, you have arrived, repeated the talking points, and then tried to argue that actually, it's ok, because your perspective is correct, so long as we ignore some of the details.
Which is exactly what the next transphobe will do too.
Even if you don't agree with me, and to you, this is all about the purity of ideas, your choice of getting involved in this discussion, in this context, isn't removed from reality. It's not detached. It's actively empowering the exclusionary voices by talking over and fighting with the people pushing back against that exclusion. That's a choice you made that has nothing to do with the truth of your idea
I strongly disagree (btw I am not downvoting you). Let me try and explain; I am going to go on a bit of a tangent, but it's all relevant to our discussion.
I am from Ukraine. I have exposure to the local LGBT community and generally I try to stay informed on social and governmental attitudes to LGBT rights in Ukraine.
I interact with queer Ukrainians (not trans Ukrainians though) who don't speak English and aren't exposed to the arguments and polemics inherent to English-language debates on the topic at hand (they have their own interests and priorities that reflect local realities).
My argument is that the discussion around the nature of sex is irrelevant to promoting transphobia. The far right (English-language or otherwise) will find something else to latch on to. I would even go as far as saying that the polemics of transphobia, in say the US, are largely defined by the propaganda strategies used by local oligarchs to maintain their economic power and enable corruption. On a certain level, the only reason why the American far right is even involved in transphobia, is because they are exposed to transphobic propaganda polemics pushed by local criminal/oligarch groupings. This is not unique to the US.
I would also argue that many in the Ukrainian LGBT community are more likely to agree with my interpretation than what you are arguing for (keep in mind that discussions around the extent to which sex is binary is not something that Ukrainian homophobes/transphobes engage in). Economic issues, the role of corruption, russian imperialism are far more important for the local LGBT community in shaping their worldview.
Now while I have exposure to the Ukrainian LGBT community, I don't have any trans friends, so I am less confident about making statements regarding the attitudes of the Ukrainian trans community.
That being said, how do you know that Ukrainian trans folks (e.g. people who don't speak English) completely agree with your interpretation on the interplay of "sex discussions" and transphobia?
Forget Ukraine, what about say Pakistan or India or Uzbekistan?
You claim that I want "purity of ideas" and an easy and neat framework. I could argue the same for you!
You are welcome to disagree with me and say I am wrong in my understanding of the binary nature of sex. It is what is. I am just trying to show you that my worldview has a level of nuance and it's not a mere matter of wanting "neat solutions" while ignoring the weaponization of this discussion by the English-speaking far right.
My instance doesn't have downvotes, so it makes no difference to me. They're disabled precisely because they get
Yes and no. I transitioned 8 years ago. Before the current wave of transphobia had settled on us for politcal gain. And transphobes were around then. The same arguments were around then. However, the only people who used those arguments and the only time those discussions came up, was when transphobes were talking about trans folk. What wasn't happening then, was regular folk, unconnected to the trans and gender diverse community, weighing on on what their opinions on sex and gender were. Mostly, folk didn't even distinguish between sex and gender.
What has changed since then, is the politics. And yeah, the politicians didn't come up with these arguments out of thing air. They didn't create the transphobia. But what they did was popularise and normalise it, and that is the reason that a Ukranian is arguing with an Australian, about the actions of a transphobic American.
The fact that you (and I) are having this conversation, or that you're even aware of the topic enough to have strong opinions on it, is absolutely shaped by the transphobic political environment around the world.
That's the point I was making! You're talking about sex using absolutes. I'm saying there are no absolutes. Sex has multiple definitions, some are cultural, some are physical, some are genetic, some are medical, some are legal. And they all overlap, and they often contradict each other. There is no clear cut definition of sex that can apply a consistent standard. The cultural contexts you highlight are actively a part of the reason that is so!
To be honest, your reasons don't matter. What matters is that you are parroting the arguments actively used by the transphobic folk, in a time when trans folk are facing ever growing abuse. The fact that you think you have good reasons for holding those opinions doesn't change the fact that in this environment, choosing to share those opinions, especially in the context of arguing with folk actively pushing back against transphobia, isn't harmless.
I feel like you are conflating "the different combinations of directly reproduction-related traits which can occur in species which have sexes" and "the kinds of viable gametes which exist in creatures that have sexes".
It seems like your definition of the sex framework is based on "the kinds of viable gametes of creatures which have sexes" (I do think this is a binary, let's call this X), while other people are arguing for a definition more like "the combinations of traits in these creatures of which certain combinations are directly responsible for the creation of viable gametes" (there are more than two of these, and it's not clear how to enumerate them).
That said, I might be wrong about what you are arguing and what other people are arguing. I'm sorry if I've wasted your time in some way.
Also (a pedantic complaint) you said these things:
There are multiple species of terrestrial fungi which use "mating systems" which aren't sex-based and aren't necessarily binary.
Again, I'm sorry if I've wasted your time in some way.
No worries, we are all just taking part in an online discussion. Don't think the notion of wasting time is relevant.
I am arguing that sex is binary. That there are edge cases, but these exceptions largely prove the rule.
The use of universal should have been "close to universal" or "very close to universal"
Beyond fungi, there are many other examples as well, single strand DNA life and so on.