fringol__

6 ms·

1.
by fringol__ 9mo ago
You can take offence if you want to, but objecting to a mention of the sex of a group of people, on a topic where the fact of their sex is highly relevant, comes across more as an attempt to stymie discussion. Note that I was very specifica
2.
by fringol__ 10mo ago
I do not consider it disrespectful to state someone's sex, particularly when it's relevant to the topic. Consider my original comment on this thread: " Most of the actual work to stop males from competing in women's spor
3.
by fringol__ 10mo ago
It is very straightforward to show that sex is defined by gametes. Imagine a biologist discovers a new sexually reproducing species. She does not yet know whether it is hermaphroditic or gonochoric, nor, if gonochoric, which individuals are
4.
by fringol__ 10mo ago
Sexual reproduction certainly does involve more than just the gametes themselves, but the definition of sex is based on gametes - and that they comprise two distinct classes of cell, in size and form. Otherwise, in gonochoric species, how w
5.
by fringol__ 11mo ago
I think you've missed my key point which is that sex is fundamentally defined by gamete type, and is not a post-hoc clustering of traits. The underlying biological concept is reproduction via anisogamy, which is robust across a multitu
6.
by fringol__ 11mo ago
It makes sense but it is a false framing. The whole point of female and male is to distinguish the two reproductive roles in sexually reproducing species, whether those are hermaphroditic or gonochoric. The sex binary is based on anisogamy,
7.
by fringol__ 11mo ago
That textbook chapter you linked is quite revealing, thanks. I see that diagram in particular as a good demonstration of how the "sex is a spectrum" concept can't possibly work in practice. The number of arrows criss-crossing