• meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    3 days ago

    Here’s the thing though, pretty much everything you just said is wrong. It’s not that simple if you think of humans as any other animal. Here’s a video link that is pretty long, but dives fairly deep into this topic that is massive from a scientific point of view.

    https://youtu.be/nVQplt7Chos

    • venusaur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 days ago

      Woah. I don’t have an hour and a half to dissect all the ways an animal with a penis and an animal with a vagina may not fit the standard classifications of male and female. Not discrediting that there are so many different life forms out there that can’t possibly just be two categories, but you also can’t say that “pretty much everything I said is wrong.” If I wanna breed dogs, I’m gonna need two types of genitalia. Elephants? Same. Salmon? Ducks? Lots of animals can be classified in that way. Not all their characteristics, but their reproductive traits for sure.

      • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah but toilets and changing rooms aren’t for reproduction.

        If you go entirely by who has a penis or not, at least you allow some post operative trans people to live freely, but I’m not going to be checking any genitals at the toilet door, nor doing any blood tests for that matter.

        This guidance deliberately leaves trans people with two bad options: go in one toilet and be harassed or attacked for being trans or go in another and risk being attacked legally.

      • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        That “paper” literally starts off deliberately conflating sex and gender in order to muddy the waters to reframe the conversation. He used a lot of words to essentially define male as “has penis that can go in vagina for purpose of procreation” and female as “has vagina to receive penis for purpose of procreation” (which still wouldn’t make sex binary since intersex exist) and had very little to do with biology on the whole.

        • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          The paper is peer-reviewed, from a Evolutionary Biology PhD, submitted to a journal specializing in the topic. He starts off talking about sex, mentions gender briefly for context, and then sticks to sex for the rest of the paper. The mention is “In recent years, however, this previously uncontroversial fact has been challenged in popular discourse, […] seemingly driven by cultural and political debates surrounding the concept of “gender identity” and transgender rights.” The paper is entirely about sex, and says “some people misunderstand sex because of gender”. That’s not conflating sex and gender, that’s specifically calling out other people that have confused them.

          had very little to do with biology on the whole.

          🤦

          You should fix your ignorance. It’s painful

          • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            24 hours ago

            The thesis relies on conflating sex and gender. Sex from an evolutionary biology standpoint and gender from a modern sociology standpoint are mutually exclusive. Literally apples to oranges.

            • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              22 hours ago

              The thesis relies on explicitly differentiating sex from gender, because it defends the overwhelming consensus in biology that sex is binary. It doesn’t address gender at all other than to briefly note that some people confuse them.

              • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 hours ago

                Except he uses the justification to push his anti trans agenda or he wouldn’t getting to gender at all and you’re deliberately engaging in bad faith because you know this already

                • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  14 hours ago

                  He uses the justification to talk about sex. The paper is limited to talking about sex. If that’s transphobic, then reality is transphobic.

                  • edible_funk@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    7 hours ago

                    No he goes out of his way to being up gender and conflate sex and gender to push his transphobic agenda, like you’re doing right now too. Gender isn’t relevant when discussing gametes but he specifically goes out of his way to conflate gender and sex because he’s a transphobic pushing an agenda. He’s not respected and generally fringe in his field because he uses junk science to push right wing culture war bullshit. And on top of it all an evolutionary biologist is in no way an expert on anything gender related what with gender having nothing to do with evolutionary biology which again doubles down that he and you are pushing a bigot agenda. Fuck off bigot. Gamete differentiation in mammals is not in any way relevant to any discussion on gender, but you know that because you’re here in bad faith to be transphobic. And all this because you right wing chuds are afraid to admit you’re attracted to chicks with dicks.

      • M.int@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Colin M. Wright, the author of the book you linked, is an “anti-transgender activist”. Here is a nice collection of his bigotry.

        • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          🤦🤦🤦

          That’s not a book, that’s a peer-reviewed paper published by a PhD Evolutionary Biologist in a journal specific to the topic. Nobody in the field has published a response disputing it, because he’s right.

          If you don’t like being told the truth by him, take your pick of anyone else listed here that signed a statement affirming the same thing:

          https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/

          Fuck’s sake. Reality isn’t transphobic. Do better.

          • M.int@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            Reality isn’t transphobic, but that guy definitely is.

            Also I’m not discussing sex in humans with you again. I and many people, who’re are way more knowledgeable, have wasted hours of their life doing that. Much less under a post about a stupid bathroom law.


            PS: I’m sooo sorry that I said that the piece of written work you linked to was a book.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Tell me you didn’t watch the video without telling me you didn’t watch the video. This cringey war against facts you’re waging is why people talk shit about you when you’re not around.

        And no it’s not “cAuSe ThEy ArEn’T bRaVe EnOuGh To SaY iT tO mY fAcE!” It’s because you’re exhausting.