Re:An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science
by MrJohz on Wednesday November 09, 2022 @07:50AM
(#33530812)
But sex by that definition is a question of gametes, which cannot really apply to individuals within a species. Some people produce male or female gametes, but others develop the organs for both or for neither - they are truly intersex. That seems to be the point of, for example, the "gender unicorn" model that the author disagrees with: that, at the level of an organism, sex already is more complex than a simple binary state.
Re:An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science
by yetin on Wednesday November 09, 2022 @04:36PM
(#33538231)
These various developmental anomalies of don't map to some sort of sex continuum though - they are all discrete conditions caused by specific disorders, and from a biomedical point of view are still analysed within the framework of male and female sex development.
> But this is obviously not the only definition we have for sex.
It's the only definition that matters when it comes to the field of biology.
The people who insist that sex is a continuum of some sort are getting confused with sex and sex-linked traits. As an example of the latter, consider testosterone levels. If you sample a random population of humans and plot this, it shows a bimodal distribution.
Some will argue that this demonstrates sex is a continuum, but what it really shows is two discrete populations that have an average difference between them: males and females.
As an example: a man with lower testosterone than most other men is not less male, or more female. He's just a male with below-average testosterone levels. The value of this hormonal trait doesn't define or alter his sex.