Advanced genders go hard
so true bestie
Somehow I don’t expect someone who touts “basic biology” to understand advanced physics.
Right: basic and fundamental don’t mean “immutable.” They mean “for children.”
oleep
oleep
oleep
People that say that don’t seem to knownthe difference between sex and gender. In humans there are only 2 sexes, male and female, but your gender isn’t based on your sex… Afaik anyways could be that im wrong too
that isn’t so binary, intersex people exist, that’s a whole rabbithole too.
Damn didn’t think of that thanks for reminding me
The exception verifies the rule. With humans, biologically, there are two healthy sex phenotypes. Everything else is a) extremely rare and b) the result of something going wrong.
Also, the fact that the sex/gender split in meaning was invented in the english language and many languages only have one word for it really confuses things. My other language, Swedish, only has “kön” for humans, which translates as sex. The Swedish words for sex are used both in instances where male/female would be used, and in the instances where man/woman would be used.
Nah fam u wrong x
someone quoted judith buttler to me in the past with “sex is a gendering of biology” (not word for word) and i think that makes things a lot clearer.
this does not necessairily explain how gender and sex as social categories came to be, but it does explain well why both are so inconsistent.
genders are social categories imposed on every aspect of human life, but it is not done because there is a material aspect to it, rather out of the mindset “when you have a hammer (gender), everything becomes a nail (gendered)”.
sex is this same thing done to biology. we gender chromosomes, hormomes, reproductive organs, bone structure, hair, biological capabilities,… as if they could be hard categorized, when they are only loosely related.
categories like gender, that attempt to categorize everything, are sometimes useful for simplyfied, generalizing analysis, but they do not hold up on an individual level. they should not have any final say over anything that will affect people and should definitly not be assumed to be applicable to individuals.
i think this meme is very correct, in that it points out, that reality is infinitely more complex than the flawed models we construct to think about it. we should not take these models as gospel.
there are two healthy sex phenotypes … and b) the result of something going wrong.
What about intersex people makes them “unhealthy”? What makes what their bodies do “wrong”?
Everything else is a) extremely rare
Intersex people are about as common than redheads. Would you agree with the statement that redheads are the exception that proves the rule that there are 3 hair colors, blond, brown, and black?
[Edit: more common -> about as common]
Though it’s also not a given that being intersex even shows itself in the phenotype, is it?
Karyograms aren’t something that’s being done for a lot of people, so who knows how many intersex people actually exist.
Unless I’m confusing something, I’m not 100% sure.
When they say gender they mean sex.
They mean different things to you. They don’t to them.
There, argument over.
And yet there are intersex people. It really isn’t just a semantic argument.
Made a more inclusive version, for future reference
When I initially read your version I didn’t even notice what was different. I think the article makes a lot of good points, and rereading the original and your version, I see the difference.
The mindset that annoys me is people being mean and closed minded, and malevolent ignorance. so why use a bad proxy for like stupid, for the actual behavior and attitude that I have an issue with.
I’ve seen similar arguments for not body shaming people for being toxic trolls, and found it quite compelling.
I find that a lot of people just like to feel superior to others, and slinging ableist slurs is an easy way for them to do that because it puts the other person down without them having to actually invest any critical thought in to why.
They also generally already look down at disabled people, so they don’t see anything wrong about using these slurs since the people they think they apply to, are, in their minds, already not worth considering as part of society.
You’re absolutely right about the similar arguments that extent to other bigotry and toxicity, especially in leftist spaces where you’d hope people would know better. I think this article also does a great job at explaining how the words we use shape the spaces we occupy, and who does and doesn’t feel welcome and included in them., but unfortunately as with so much other information, the people who need to hear it most are those who refuse to listen…
I opened a private window out of morbid curiosity, and every account that took offense at your link is an account that I block, so I feel like I’m on the right track.
I feel like people’s reaction to being told certain language is ableist is a good litmus test for how open-minded they are to accepting new ideas.
Lol, after posting, I almost instantly started seeing reply numbers go up, but I wasn’t seeing any of them, ngl, knowing I’d already blocked them all felt fantastic. I made the mistake of doing what you did, knowing what to expect but not being able to stop my self, and it was as depressing as I thought it would be. Not checked again though, which I’m very proud of!
You’re spot on about it being a litmus test, I especially hate it when someone I thought better of fights back, which sadly happens often, but didn’t this time, so yay.
nice
Thank you for not discriminating against us stupid motherfuckers.
As an ignorant motherfucker I don’t like this edit.
“Stupid” is a slur now? When did that happen?
The moment you say a word is a slur because it refers to the characteristic of having low intelligence (of some sort), someone is going to push for all of its synonyms to be considered slurs as well. It’s just stupid.
2018 according to the article.
Well that’s just stupid.
Sir this is the internet, you can’t just drop slurs like that anymore.
No, he does not.
I don’t think biology has much at all to say about gender though? Basic biology says there are two sexes, more advanced biology introduces chromosomal configurations other than XX and XY, and even more advanced biology considers a complex array of factors beyond chromosomes alone, but isn’t gender a social construct? Sure, historically it’s been correlated to biological sex, but it’s not really addressed directly by biology.
What results from a persons biology has people say a lot about gender, and that’s where the social construct comes in, yeah.
You have the genotype, karyotype and phenotype, that may or may not be strictly related to each other depending on what happens during development in the womb.
And now I realize I’ve already started to go on a tangent that wouldn’t even address your comment anymore, so I’ll stop myself
But it’s fascinating. I’d love to get a karyogram done, to see if my chromosomes actually match what people would expect from the person I lived as up to this point.
But it’s fascinating. I’d love to get a karyogram done, to see if my chromosomes actually match what people would expect from the person I lived as up to this point.
Would you expect something non-standard, or rather - would you be disappointed if it were one way or the other?
I don’t really expect anything, no.
Being a newly realized transwoman, it would be kinda fun to have XX chromosomes and show that to the Simple Biology™ crowd, not gonna lie.
But then again, science has already established that chromosomes don’t have to mean what many people think they mean, so that wouldn’t matter.
Though I’d also just like more karyograms to be done in general, to have a better understanding of how present certain karyotypes actually are
well he is getting laughed at in the meme, because he can’t differentiate sex and gender either
Wouldn’t it make more sense to educate the lad? I was confused myself there are two sexes (apparently gender is used for something else?)
If gender is who you like and how you feel and who you want to have sex with I don’t really care, you do what makes you happy. But if we are talking strictly biologically speaking then we’ve got two sexes.
Gender in puritanical definition clumps sex, sexuality, temperament, and cognitive ability into a single binary, and then takes that extreme quotient as justification for enforcing dress codes, vocations, social norms, etc. Along those gender lines. It is no wonder people are confused when first introduced to that concept.
You can’t educate people that don’t care to learn. They don’t want to understand, they want to hate trans people.
How is sex defined? Physical attributes? Chromosomes? Both?
I find it far easier to think in terms of the fuller expression: sexual reproduction. Humans reproduce sexually, and not, for example, asexually. This means we require a male and female gamete to create offspring. So sex is which gamete your body was designed to produce. I then round this out with a second element which is to recognize that humans are bipedal, but not everyone can walk. The point being the design laid down in uterine development to produce a specific gamete defines sex not the ability. Lastly this is biology, not sociology, when we talk sex. If we want to talk gender we bring in the latter. I find these core concepts have helped me and I hope they are helpful to others and would welcome other thoughts and ideas.
From the perspective of biology, sex is a bit more complicated in humans than with a lot of other animals. In primates sex is epigenetic in nature, meaning that the DNA that contributed to our sex is expressed as we develop. It’s not set in stone, and when we are developing into male or female that expression can vary.
Sex is not as important of a distinction in human biology, it’s epigenetic nature means that the difference between a female human and a male human is incomparable to the difference of animals who present with sexual dimorphism.
Epigenetics are also influenced by our environment, what we eat, and what we do, meaning that a lot of the characteristics we associate with sex can change or be developed over time based on the environment.
We have observed young female gorillas who behave more like male gorillas, and as they develop they are observed to not only be treated more like male gorillas, but start physically developing more like male gorillas.
In short, its really complicated. Namely because outside of a specific scenario, there is no real biological reason to define sex in such a dichotomy. And even in those scenarios which require more myopic detail, the difference between individuals of the same sex are great enough to need more information than just male or female.
Let’s throw “Neuroanatomy?” in there too, just for fun!
In short and what @miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml is alluding to:
Everybody who want’s to tell you there are only 2 biological sexes has a reductionist view of a very complex subject and likely doesn’t know how much about that subject they don’t know.
Excuse me, I have since transitioned to blahaj lemmy^^
Oh, my bad, sorry for dead-instancing you, good to see you’re better about your phobia now.
Haha, thank you^^
But if we are talking strictly biologically speaking then we’ve got two sexes.
Not really though, I mean intersex people kinda disprove that by themselves right? Unless we aren’t defining sex by what you have between your legs but instead more of just a genetic makeup, which would mean that the 2 sexes theory is disproven by any of the millions of people who have the “wrong” chromosome pair.
The 2 biological sexes thing works as a very broad generalization but it really doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. I used to say the exact same thing until I got a dump truck of examples thrown at me lol
It’s been explained endlessly. Doesn’t work.
Ant education will get overwritten by Joe Rogan at the next opportunity
The people who would deny genders would totally deny all the crazy extra dimensions.
Eh… nah. They wouldn’t understand it, but Alex Jones and Joe Rogan talk about extra dimensions all the time, as well as people like the Happy Science Cult and space weirdos like Project Camelot. All while most of them have regressive sexual and gender opinions.
Why are you using that alphabet soup to do algebra? There are only 10 digits, it’s basic math!!1!!
How about some advanced biology where you take into account each individuals hormone production levels, types of hormones produced, amount of receptors for each hormone and probably a bunch of other stuff that I don’t know about.
The idea that you can cleanly separate parts of a whole is a useful lie. Gender is a separate part of a person, except for all the ways it’s not. A person is a separate part of the world, except for how they’re not.
We’re all fundamental particles doing a bajillion things per second in an indescribably complex dance and we label a subset of the near-infinite patterns in this mess “gender”.
(☝◞‸◟)☞
According to supersymmetric gender theory, there are 10 genders. Other commonly studied theories include 11 or even 26 genders.
They say the additional genders curl around each other and vibrate.
Hey baby, wanna curl around each other and vibrate?
I’ve been told I’m one-dimensional and that’s just flat out wrong. I’m at least three dimensional.
4, counting time. String Theory proposes more, up to 11 if I remember correctly, but there is no evidence for String Theory.
Not a scientist, but from what I gather, String Theory was a popular genre of science, not really a discipline. Things like dark matter, black holes, etc were lumped together under “string theory” like drum n bass, jungle, and garage are all EDM. but that doesn’t mean that all EDM is jungle, that The Weeknd or Kidz Bop are jungle because they use drum machines and synthesizers, and calling them jungle music would be inappropriate at best.
To belabor the metaphor - string theory also fell out of favor as a term more than a decade ago, hitting peak popularity in the 90s. Like jungle.
String theory is an attempt at a theory of everything, and not really a standalone concept. Just like the word “music” encapsulates Beethoven, Miles Davis, Islamic call to prayer and tribal drum circles… you can’t really talk about all music in one definitive statement.
I’ll preface this with the fact that I am also not a physicist.
String theory isn’t best described as a genre of physics - it really is a standalone concept. Dark matter and black holes are subjects of cosmology, while string theory is an attempt to unify quantum physics with general relativity. Could string theory be used to study black holes and dark matter? Sure, but it isn’t like physicists are studying black holes and dark matter using methods completely independent from one another and lumping both practices under the label string theory as a simple matter of categorization.
You are correct to say that string theory is an attempt at a theory of everything, but what is a theory of everything? It’s more than a collection of ideas that explain a large swath of physical phenomena wrapped into a single package tied with a nice bow. Indeed, when people propose a theory of everything, they are constructing a single mathematical model for our physical reality. It can be difficult to understand exactly what that means, so allow me to clarify.
Modern theoretical physics is not described in the same manner as classical Newtonian physics. Back then, physical phenomena were essentially described by a collection of distinct models whose effects would be combined to come to a complete prediction. For example, you’d have an equation for gravity, an equation for air resistance, an equation for electrostatic forces, and so on, each of which makes contributions at each point in time to the motion of an object. This is how it still occurs today in applied physics and engineering, but modern theoretical physics - e.g., quantum mechanics, general relativity, and string theory - is handled differently. These theories tend to have a single single equation that is meant to describe the motion of all things, which often gets labeled the principle of stationary action.
The problem that string theory attempts to solve is that the principle of stationary action that arises in the quantum mechanics and the principle of stationary action that arises in general relativity are incompatible. Both theories are meant to describe the motion of everything, but they contradict each other - quantum mechanics works to describe the motion of subatomic particles under the influence of strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces while general relativity works to describe the motion of celestial objects under the influence of gravity. String theory is a way of modeling physics that attempts to do away with this contradiction - that is, string theory is a proposal for a principle of stationary action (which is a single equation) that is meant to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity thus accurately describing the motion of objects of all sizes under the influence of all known forces. It’s in this sense that string theory is a standalone concept.
There is one caveat however. There are actually multiple versions of string theory that rely on different numbers of dimensions and slightly different formulations of the physics. You could say that this implies that string theory is a genre of physics after all, but it’s a much more narrow genre than you seemed to be suggesting in your comment. In fact, Edward Witten showed that all of these different string theories are actually separate ways of looking at a single underlying theory known as M-theory. It could possibly be said that M-theory unifies all string theories into one thus restoring my claim that string theory really is a standalone concept.
appreciate the thoughtful response- thank you
