"If it were true, we would have "gender characteristics" instead of "sex characteristics" both primary and secondary. We wouldn't have SEXual dimorphism but GENDER dimorphism. We wouldn't have SEX chromosomes, we'd have GENDER chromosomes."
Wait, what?!! I'm not following this at all! I said that male and female, which are SEX based terms…
"If it were true, we would have "gender characteristics" instead of "sex characteristics" both primary and secondary. We wouldn't have SEXual dimorphism but GENDER dimorphism. We wouldn't have SEX chromosomes, we'd have GENDER chromosomes."
Wait, what?!! I'm not following this at all! I said that male and female, which are SEX based terms, relate to gamete production. Which they do. I didn't refer to gender at all. This is why I say that transGENDER people have basically nothing to do with interSEX people (and why I keep pointing out how much time we're spending talking about interSEX people when Dawkins' tweet was about transGENDER people). It seems as if we're using the terms sex and gender in completely opposite ways.
But yes, reproductive SEX, as in the trait that all animal species have, relating to reproduction, is based on gamete production. It's the trait that means 100 male humans on a desert island will never produce any offspring. Even if some of the identify as women, even if they strictly adhere to feminine stereotypes, even if they have androgen insensitivity syndrome.
For example, male seahorses give birth (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seahorse.html). So why do we still classify them as male? Because they produce small gametes. The female seahorse transfers her large gametes into the male brood pouch where he fertilises and carries them. Again, this gamete production distinction is what classifies the sex of all sexually dimorphic organisms.
This idea that our understanding of sex has dramatically changed since 1984 is so bizarre to me. Mainly, what's changed is that the language we use has been so deliberately warped by activists that we're not sure what we're talking about anymore. The CDC definition is an excellent example of this.
Sex is not assigned at birth. This linguistic construction is ideological rather than scientific and should act as a red flag for any information that follows it.
Most obviously, sex is not assigned at birth because it's not assigned *at all*. Sex is an objective fact. It's like saying that skin colour is assigned at birth or the number of fingers and toes is assigned at birth.
Sex can be *observed* at birth, usually trivially easily, by taking a look at the genitals of any animal. Because the genitals (along with chromosomes, cells, hormones, etc.) align, in 99.998% of cases, with the gamete production system of the organism. When the genitals are ambiguous, several other tests can be used to verify sex.
But sex is observable about 7 months *before* birth. A simple pin prick blood test on a pregnant woman can determine the sex of the child (https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/131632-test-can-determine-fetal-sex-at-7-weeks). And even ignoring that, sex is also observed during an ultrasound many months before birth. The doctor does not, as it's become popular to teach kids, "take a guess."
The sex that the doctor observes doesn't directly impose (or "assign") any gendered stereotypes on a child. But of course, I agree that male/female children are funnelled down separate behavioural tracks in many ways. Liberating children from these gendered expectations would be great. I just don't think the way to do that is to teach them that if you're a boy who likes makeup and Barbie dolls, you're actually a girl.
Following on from the above, there isn't "something else" other than male or female because there is no gamete type other than sperm or egg. It's like saying you can be sighted or you can be blind or you can be something else. Nope, those are your only two options. And though there are gradations (some people, for example, can see even better than what is considered perfect vision), you are still always within one of the two categories.
Again, the information here doesn't represent an upgrade in biological understanding but a downgrade in accurate biological language.
And I promise, this isn't just me being stubborn or closed minded. I'm willing to learn. I have learned a great deal about all of this over the past few years. But nobody has ever discovered a reproductive sex other than male or female. I'm pretty sure this will still be the case in 2064. Unless the aliens arrive by then.
"If it were true, we would have "gender characteristics" instead of "sex characteristics" both primary and secondary. We wouldn't have SEXual dimorphism but GENDER dimorphism. We wouldn't have SEX chromosomes, we'd have GENDER chromosomes."
Wait, what?!! I'm not following this at all! I said that male and female, which are SEX based terms, relate to gamete production. Which they do. I didn't refer to gender at all. This is why I say that transGENDER people have basically nothing to do with interSEX people (and why I keep pointing out how much time we're spending talking about interSEX people when Dawkins' tweet was about transGENDER people). It seems as if we're using the terms sex and gender in completely opposite ways.
But yes, reproductive SEX, as in the trait that all animal species have, relating to reproduction, is based on gamete production. It's the trait that means 100 male humans on a desert island will never produce any offspring. Even if some of the identify as women, even if they strictly adhere to feminine stereotypes, even if they have androgen insensitivity syndrome.
For example, male seahorses give birth (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/seahorse.html). So why do we still classify them as male? Because they produce small gametes. The female seahorse transfers her large gametes into the male brood pouch where he fertilises and carries them. Again, this gamete production distinction is what classifies the sex of all sexually dimorphic organisms.
This idea that our understanding of sex has dramatically changed since 1984 is so bizarre to me. Mainly, what's changed is that the language we use has been so deliberately warped by activists that we're not sure what we're talking about anymore. The CDC definition is an excellent example of this.
Sex is not assigned at birth. This linguistic construction is ideological rather than scientific and should act as a red flag for any information that follows it.
Most obviously, sex is not assigned at birth because it's not assigned *at all*. Sex is an objective fact. It's like saying that skin colour is assigned at birth or the number of fingers and toes is assigned at birth.
Sex can be *observed* at birth, usually trivially easily, by taking a look at the genitals of any animal. Because the genitals (along with chromosomes, cells, hormones, etc.) align, in 99.998% of cases, with the gamete production system of the organism. When the genitals are ambiguous, several other tests can be used to verify sex.
But sex is observable about 7 months *before* birth. A simple pin prick blood test on a pregnant woman can determine the sex of the child (https://www.reliasmedia.com/articles/131632-test-can-determine-fetal-sex-at-7-weeks). And even ignoring that, sex is also observed during an ultrasound many months before birth. The doctor does not, as it's become popular to teach kids, "take a guess."
The sex that the doctor observes doesn't directly impose (or "assign") any gendered stereotypes on a child. But of course, I agree that male/female children are funnelled down separate behavioural tracks in many ways. Liberating children from these gendered expectations would be great. I just don't think the way to do that is to teach them that if you're a boy who likes makeup and Barbie dolls, you're actually a girl.
Following on from the above, there isn't "something else" other than male or female because there is no gamete type other than sperm or egg. It's like saying you can be sighted or you can be blind or you can be something else. Nope, those are your only two options. And though there are gradations (some people, for example, can see even better than what is considered perfect vision), you are still always within one of the two categories.
Again, the information here doesn't represent an upgrade in biological understanding but a downgrade in accurate biological language.
And I promise, this isn't just me being stubborn or closed minded. I'm willing to learn. I have learned a great deal about all of this over the past few years. But nobody has ever discovered a reproductive sex other than male or female. I'm pretty sure this will still be the case in 2064. Unless the aliens arrive by then.