It looks like it’s Jerry Coyne. Those two need to be separated — every time they get together they start hooting and jumping on the furniture and throwing unmentionables out the window.
The New Zealand Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor is so ignorant of science that she thinks sex isn’t binary. She may be right about “gender” (whatever that might be) but sex is binary, defined by gamete size. A government’s Chief Scientific Advisor should advise on science, not on the latest fashionable opinion of Generation TikTok.
In case you’re curious to know what outrageous insanity the science advisor, Juliet Gerrard, said, it’s this: “Sex and gender are different but related things. Neither is binary. For an accessible introduction to why sex isn’t binary, Wikipedia is not a bad place to start.”
Are you reeling in shock? No? Neither am I. That’s actually an eminently sensible statement, since sex and gender are different but related, and neither is binary. This is the kind of thing biology professors all around the world, at least those who aren’t poisoned by an ideological freak-out, are saying all the time. That’s a mundane, normal, healthy expression of our current understanding of the science of sex. Calm down, guys.
I have a couple of other objections to Dawkins’ statement.
- Pretending to not know what gender is is childish and stupid, well beneath him. Yeah, Richard, you can look up “gender”. It’s what we’d expect of a serious scholar.
-
Biologists do not define sex by gamete size. Gamete size is one of the many consequences of sexual development, and not the only one.
-
Come on, complaining about “Generation TikTok”? Do you also shake your cane at those kids on your lawn? Face it, we’re older than most people, the young’uns will be taking over the world soon enough. Get used to it.
You know, those two olds are making the rest of us look foolish. If you can’t keep up, Grandpa, go back to gumming your pablum while watching Wheel of Fortune. Some of us still have brains that are relatively uncalcified and can enjoy watching the world progress around us.
Ooh, Coyne is probably over the moon today that senpai noticed him.
Nurse!
I’d kind of understand if he was referring to something outside his field, but Dawkins is, or was, a respected biologist. How do you end up in an argument about the definition of such a simple, but important concept? I don’t mean ‘how can you be wrong?’, but rather if you are going to engage in research, or even talk about it, you have to be using the accepted definitions used by the rest of the people doing similar work, right? Making declarative statements about the definitions of important words in your field, statements which are at odds with the consensus definitions used by everyone else, seems to me to be tantamount to declaring yourself no longer a part of that field. He might as well just stand up and say ‘I am no longer a biologist.’
Someone explain to me, or post a link about what the fuck he’s talking about when he says gamete size. I found this on wikipedia;
Is he saying that size difference between ovum and sperm has something to do with sex/gender. I don’t get it, it sounds like he’s latched on to this arbitrary datum in an effort to hide his discomfort and distaste for people who don’t conform to outdated gender roles.
Everything I’ve seen in the last year or two indicates that Dr. Richard Dawkins really is too old now and should find another hobby.
Why is an 82 man, a wealthy and Ph.D educated member of the UK ruling classes, beating up and bullying Trans people?
A very small minority that makes up an estimated 0.6% of the population. Who are an otherwise a harmless subset of the population.
It makes no sense really unless he is lonely and seeking attention like your average internet troll.
His statements on sex, gender, and Trans people are wrong and he could use Google and spend an hour or two reading and figure that out. Or he could at one time.
Perhaps it is time for some well respected biologists to write up a terse but correct statement on gender and sex to correct these sorts of nonsense. And get as many biologists as possible to sign their names supporting that. Get it posted online, and make it available to main stream media outlets, and anybody who wants to get the straight facts by qualified experts. Sort of like the Climate scientists did with their site Skeptical Science. That way, when somebody barks “Do some research!” one could do some research getting facts from bonafide experts with credentials and years of research to back them up. Plus some reports to go into more depth for those inclined to read them. And as Eminent biologist Laurence Moran of the Sandwalk site does, keep a close eye on Wikipedia, who sometimes does a poor job on such issues. In Moran’s case, the facts about junk DNA. On that issue there is a lot of bad science by some people who should know better.
So genuine biological question, PZ, I could not give less of a f about people identifying as whatever, and more power to them, but I know that the term “sex” is rather irrelevant if we are talking about, lets say plants. And also there are “edge-cases” in primates like ourselves, in terms of people being born in biological androgyne states. But surely as a fellow woke leftwinger (as I have no shame “admitting” I am) For us humans, in particular, ignoring for the moment plants and other non-binary sexual organisms, you must atleast admit that there is something to this “binary theory” in GENERAL, the human sexes are binary, on a genetic level, unless this whole deal would not work. I fully appreciate and support the idea that one does not culturally have to abide by the “rules” so to speak, but I dont think Dawkins is 100% wrong here, biology has, for one reason or another, favoured sexual reproduction for our species, and that cannot be completely overlooked in the biological sense. (I’m fully committed to overlook it in the cultural sense)
I realize now that I did not actually ask a question, so here goes: Do we completely disregard biological sex as a concept? is it meaningless, given our commitment to the cultural appreciation of people that do not subscribe to the given dogma?
Genuine, non-rethorical questions.
Do you think, for instance, that classifying Richard Dawkins, or you, or me, as “male”, and Taylor Swift as “female” is wrong? Should we just consider eachother as “human” or by our given, or chosen, names?
I think Siegfried (of Siegfried and Roy, the famous magig/tiger duo) expressed it quite well, he was telling a story about a woman he once slept with, and someone said
“but..Siegfried.. arent you gay?”
Siegfried answered “No, I’m just Siegfried”
As has been said repeatedly, sex is bimodal, not binary.
Male and female have distinct, significant meanings…IF we’re talking about individuals in a sexual species who are trying to reproduce. The overwhelming majority of interactions between humans, though, are not reproductive. They’re about building social networks. Dawkins is male, near as I can tell Taylor Swift is female, but I’m not planning to have sex with either one, and I haven’t examined their gametes, so why should we care?
I’m not PZ Myers but this has already been dealt with a few million times.
It’s simple.
Sex is bimodal.
Sex is not binary.
Bimodal does not = binary.
Yes, there are males and females.
If sex is bimodal then it is a continuum with a middle group that we can call intersexes.
Which we do. Intersex humans exist and are estimated to be 1.7% of the population.
If sex was binary, then intersexes wouldn’t exist.
Claiming sex is binary is simply an attempt by Trans haters to erase a small 0.6% subset of the population, the Trans people.
I’ve explained this in grade school level language. If anyone can make it simpler, go for it.
No bimode (binary-ish) abandonment for me. It shapes development. I hate how people seem to need to cling to it when attention to what we are in full is a good thing. There’s a huge pile of social attitudes, assumptions, policing and more that I don’t like.
It’s also not actually real because it’s still a set of individuals and a trend, hence society acting out the binary and not the bimode. It makes fearful feel better to socially display about a binary instead of acting like it’s a bimode.
@12 you said it yourself, you borke it down in a simple manner, but as this little reminder from this very blog shows: https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/02/20/monday-is-going-to-be-tricky/
there is more to it than “left, right and inbetween”
If sex was binary, then intersexes wouldn’t exist.
Neither would men less unequivocally masculine in features than Ray Lewis, or women less unequivocally feminine in features than Morena Baccarin.
Another excess in dichotomous thought. Society is full of them and they are all weaknesses. Doubling down against how human nature works even creates politically useful flaws sometimes and I look for those.
This is the problem with biology, you have to deal with nuance and complexity. This is why we have multiple definitions for species, none of which are universally applicable, or why there is no universally accepted definition for a gene. Biology is not a digital system of 1s and 0s, despite what techbros may wish to believe. If you want everything to fit into nifty little non-overlapping boxes, I recommend studying something else.
Anders @ # 7: … the term “sex” is rather irrelevant if we are talking about, lets say plants.
Uh, no. Pls look up “dioecious” and “monoecious”. Or ask any sinsemilla farmer or gingko grower.
Do we completely disregard biological sex as a concept?
Do we? Does anyone? To your knowledge, Anders, has anyone ever really said “we” should do so? If you can’t cite and quote any well-known scientists or other expert saying we should “completely disregard biological sex as a concept,” then there’s your answer. QEDuh.
Looking at lekking birds makes them a bit more funny. It’s exactly a socially role-modeled response. “Here’s a part of the bimode” “Wahhh! BINARY!”
@19 i would also like to add that if something along the lines of “disregarding” happens it is not “denying” biological sex” but rather critically examining the need for the “biological” moniker and instead seeing “sex” as a broad multi-facotiral contrstruct which is not a binary single-cause state.
Why does Dawkins have his knickers in such a knot over human sex and gender? Why, it’s almost as if…
Wait. You still read Coyne’s blog?
Um M’kay; to each their own
You asking me? No. No way.
Notice that the Dawkins’ tweet specifically cites it, though.
Yeah, that is kinda curious. No reference to anything Coyne himself said; maybe Dawks was citing Coyne’s blog because that’s where he’d originally dropped his latest gem of win?
@Anders #7-8,
But…they’re not. Not every human is uniformly XX or uniformly XY. There are people with a mix, there are people who are XXY or XXXY or XXXXY or X0, there are people with missing or translocated SRY genes or a score of other genetic variations that impact sexual development.
The reason anti-trans folks are harping on “gamete size” at the moment is because, of all the aspects of biological sex in humans, it’s the closest to binary. Certainly more so than our genetics. But it’s still not actually binary, because a lot of people don’t make gametes at all, and a lot more people make gametes but they’re not viable because of morphological weirdnesses including size, and a very small number may make both sperm and eggs.
So if you’re going to say that “some aspects of sex in humans are binary, kinda, in general, except for all the exceptions”…might as well just say “bimodal” instead. It’s shorter.
The whole reason we keep saying “biological sex is a multi-dimensional spectrum” is that we don’t want to disregard it as a concept. It’s useful, but it’s far more useful when it’s allowed to be more complex than a binary.
Remember that, by and large, there’s nobody more aware of the realities of biological sex than trans and intersex people. Because we have to be! If I’m going to plan hormone treatments and gender-affirming surgeries and preventative medical care, if I’m going to decide whether and how and when to have children, I have to be up to date on my body’s gross anatomy and histology and endocrinology and gamete production. I can’t just glance at my driver’s license and go “eh, apparently I’m male, make all decisions accordingly” or my quality of life will drop severely. So it’s absurd to suggest that we’re the ones trying to erase or deny the biological facts about sex.
As someone who doesn’t produce any gametes I guess I don’t exist?
Meanwhile another IDW twit gets shredded because his ignorance of basic biology:
If you want to destroy your keyboard or device with a spit take check out around 3:07ish where Bret “Game Theory” Weinstein tells us how our cells take up mRNA vaccines and TRANSCRIBE them. Um ok…!!!
An “evolutionary biologist”! Wow.
Oh and this wasn’t a one-off oopsy. He said something similar to biological expert (sarcasm) Shermer at around 1:30 here:
The Youtube autotranscribe of Weinstein:
At around 11:21 Marc Veldhoen takes it easy on him:
Face palm. Weinstein “knows” biology? I don’t have a graduate degree and I see he is a blowhard poseur. Damn!
“Transcribe?” Pretty soon the anti-vax loons are gonna start saying vaccines transubstantiate human tissue…
Hemidactylus, “Meanwhile another IDW twit gets shredded because his ignorance of basic biology:”
So, a featured video that has nothing to do with the featured topic. Again.
(Strange it is that I note that, again, eh?)
Did you yourself destroy your keyboard or device with a spit take check out around 3:07ish?
I think not. Nor shall others.
Anyway: for out of topic shit, perhaps try the Endless Thread, which I have in the past (and probably shall in the future, given your predilections) brought to your attention.
(Shredded, eh? That is to what bodybuilders strive, and what is needed for papier mache, too!)
—
Now, lest I be a total hypocrite, to be on topic:
Dawkins posted an article on the The New Statesman (https://12ft.io/proxy)
There, he does express his befuddlement about to what it may be that ‘gender’ refers, but is quite happy to use the term “biological sex”, meaning that he felt he should distinguish it from non-biological sex — and it seems to me that he thinks that’s to what ‘gender’ actually refers, despite his ostensible confusion.
—
It seems obvious to me that all these protestations are an attempt to deprecate the concept of transgender people, despite their historically-documented existence since the dawn of history.
I imagine that, as time goes by, he must feel aggrieved that the consensus is not only not on his side, but that they are gaining acceptance (well, losing rejection, but much of a muchness).
BTW, in that months-old article, his closing line is “A woman is an adult human female, free of Y chromosomes.”
(The gamete size is apparently the new paradigm, for him — chromosomes are now deprecated)
Raging Bee @30
Transcription is a thing. It’s roughly how messenger RNAs come off DNA and then eventually mRNAs will be translated (roughly speaking) into proteins. Weinstein at least twice gets his steps mixed up which seriously calls his knowledge of basics into question. Evergreen may have been very lax it seems.
Weird thing is confusing the two could lead into the canard of reverse transcription which doesn’t occur with an mRNA vaccine as it lacks the enzyme for that. COVID mRNA vaccines just get translated into Spike protein. Full stop.
Morales
Get over yourself.
Hemidactylus, Richard Dawkins made quite a few noises about vaccines since COVID became a thing.
But hey, since you apparently think the topic is now vaccines, I’ll compromise and bring the Dick into it:
A tweet:
“Even if, which I gravely doubt, a Covid-19 vaccine turns out to have adverse side-effects, Covid-19 itself is almost certainly far worse. It is a very very nasty disease indeed. Anybody who doubts this is suffering from a massive, dangerous and arrogant delusion.
1:24 AM · Jan 15, 2021”
An article (https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2021/03/richard-dawkins-hope-covid-science):
—
Are you seriously gonna try to link Dawkins with anti-vaxxers?
(Or are you just indulging here, since you are still unaware of the Endless Thread?)
Hemidactylus, aww.
Your piteousness is touching, but your topology is lacking.
But sure, let’s not talk about me, let’s talk about Dawkins (as per the post topic) and about vaccines (your little digression). See? I address you and your topic, nothing at all do do with me. I’m over me!
Surely you will find this most amusing:
Bill Maher Schools Biologist Richard Dawkins on COVID Basics – December 13, 2022
(https://www.hollywoodintoto.com/bill-maher-richard-dawkins-covid-barrington-declaration/)
Pullquotes:
Seriously. The article fawns over Maher and how he schooled Dawkins.
(But hey, better being schooled than shredded, eh? ;)
Well my target was the IDW (adjacent enough to Coyne and Dawkins, no?) in general yet you translate that into me thinking Dawkins is an antivaxxer. Why you ascribe that to me with no justification I have no idea. Look in a mirror.
I was talking about Bret Weinstein specifically. PZ started with Coyne yet focused on Dawkins instead. I steered clear of Coyne on this thread as you would probably drag me for that too for some oddball reason. Screw your pedantic games. Not my problem. You go to the Infinite Thread. I won’t meet you there. I’ve probably given you way too much consideration here already. I don’t feel compelled to justify anything to you especially in your ridiculous keelhauling mode.
@7
It never ceases to amuse me how transmisic trolls insist “gametes” in one sentence and then switch to “genetics/chromosomes” in the next.
Dawkins says there’s nothing “genetic” about sex, because sex is only gametes. Not chromosomes. Not time-travel genitals. Not ability to win at sports. Just gametes and nothing else.
The article fawns over Maher and how he schooled Dawkins.
And later, someone else schooled Maher on the same subject.
Maybe I’m out of touch, but I haven’t heard anyone (except this page) talk about Dawkins in years. So, you’re safe on the looking foolish end of things.
@7. – 10. Anders :
That’s simply wrong. Sex is very relvant to atleats some plants as most gardeners esp fruit tree growers know.
Or to put it the other way around “I’m woke and left wing BUT..” IOW you’re probly really not. Atleats wehn itcoems to, saym, trans issues. Pre-emptive defensiveness already noted. as a red flag. Are you familiar with the whle Ï’m not racist but “” saying which the “not-racist” then immediately follows with saying something very racist?
No, we don’t have to admit your transphobic, gender-essentialist assertion there and wow, do you ever contradict yourself quickly! First you note “edge cases” then you state flat out that sex is binary when you have just a sentence ago noted that it isn’t.
Wait, wut? What “whole deal” would’t work” because why? Why “gentic level” and what’s meant by that? Unless?
Perhaps becuase its only in the last few decades that humans have developed cloning? Biological sense meaning what? Our species doesn’t have to have every member reproducing any more that bees do FWIW. Bioology is a field of study / science and doesn’t necessarily “favour” humanity at all , just explains – among other things – how we are what we are and how our bodies work – or sometimes don’t.
Phrased in an ideological accusative terminology. Dogmas? What dogmas? Are they dogmas? Revealing word choice on your part, Anders.
Context FWIW matters. There are times when “biological”(as opposed to “artifical / mechanical / non-biological I guess) sex may be relevant and many others where it isn’t Whether it “means’ somethig or not depends on the context which were asking about. What situations do you think there may be in which it is meaningful may I ask?
No because that’s ther pronoun just as others also have other pronouns of their choice and reality.
Yes. Why not?
You seem to be confusing sex in terms of biology here with sex in terms of sexual activity and orientation. Separate things. Trans & intersex are genders NOT orientations.
hemidactylus–
This is way OT so I’ll keep this brief. Weinstein’s mixing up transcription and translation is clumsy and unprofessional, but the real clanger in that video is his utterly stupid, contra-evidentiary insistence that mRNA vaccines will inevitably lead to autoimmune disorders.
Hemidactylus @ 33, spot on, was going to make that point and you did a superior job.
Agree on John. Invaluable at rare times, pedantic PIA the rest of the time and I’m infamously known as Mr Pedantic.
But then, John doesn’t seem to enjoy the Socratic method. Most of the readership do.
I usually try to defuse the idiots with, “Sex, why, thank you, but you’re not my type”.
Given their emotional context, that tends to derail the dogshit out of their train of excuse for thought.
Only once did I have a True Believer, who found God in the “details” that were phenomenally sparse and well, they got derailed by suggesting we depopulate the planet entirely, as pervert and ubiquitous fungi and bacteria, not to mention beyond perverted earthworms, many snails and more didn’t fit their Bill of Bullshit.
Facing someone even more unreasonable than they, they did what I wanted first and foremost, to leave me alone and thankfully, the rest of the social occasion.
A bit sociopathic? Yep! So is soothing a patient you damned well know is going to die. That’s literally a learned skill in medicine.
And well, not totally to heart, a NICU would destroy me, likely far earlier than many professionals.
Sorry for the absence, distraction due to a wisdom tooth angst, resolution much delayed (by two months and ongoing), by a dentist phobia and now, decay and well, agony depriving me of sleep. And thyroid, winning sleep, due to dosage and delayed response by my resident…
Confused? Welcome to my life, have a noon snack, literally pass out. Told Doctor to go for free T3 and free T4, resident went with FT4 and TSH.
TSH basically doubled normal and FT4, borderline normal.
Just waiting for doctor to announce new dosage of methimazole.
At least, until my replacement body comes in. Had to reject the last half dozen, as they all included a brain.
[OT + meta]
wzrd1, hey! We’re both retired, so no worries.
Whether or not it was pedantic (it wasn’t), it was correct.
Actually, you and he both should appreciate that I deleted a good fisking I almost posted after previewing.
Because that whining post was truly ripe for it, and I am most certainly in the mood. Still, self-control.
Pity for the puny.
I did most particularly like “I don’t feel compelled to justify anything to you especially in your ridiculous keelhauling mode.” as the closer. How I’d tell the difference were he compelled and other such considerations featured in my deleted reply, of which I here provide you with a brief adumbration so that you may gauge my perception of it in contrast to yours.
Try me. Really. I mean it. Others have, but somehow they never last very long.
You will find I thrive on it, maybe even get a bit elated and drop some of my careful self-control.
(Not here; perhaps in the Endless Thread, but do try. I do like it when people try)
—
183231bcb @38, he says both; as I noted above @32, the previous version was about chromosomes, not gametes.
(heh. apparently, the penis is now deprecated, and boobs are just too easy)
@Raven #12 I don’t think he’s erasing intersex or DSD people, he thinks its irrelevant to the definition of sex in the same way medical conditions are considered irrelevant when saying humans have two arms or two eyes etc when some people are born with medical conditions resulting in missing or non functioning limbs or eyes. He’s still going on twitter for anyone interested:
“The way the non-binary faithful obsess about intersexes, and about individuals who can’t produce gametes, amounts to a pathetic clutching at straws while they drown in postmodern effluent. Yes, some fish change from sperm-producing male to egg-producing female (or vice versa). That very statement relies on the gametic definition of male & female. Ditto hermaphroditic worms & snails who can produce both male & female gametes.
In any case, the existence of intersexes is irrelevant to transexualist claims, since trans people don’t claim to be intersexes. Also, as if it matters, humans are not worms, snails, or fish.
The rare tetra-amelia syndrome (babies born without limbs) does not negate the statement that Homo sapiens is a bipedal species. The rare four-winged bithorax mutation does not negate the statement that Drosophila is a Dipteran (two winged) fly. Similarly, the occasional individual who can’t produce gametes doesn’t negate the generalisation that mammals come in only two sexes, male and female, defined by games size.
Sex is binary as a matter of biological fact. “Gender” is a different matter and I leave that to others to define.”
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1753045097959100600?t=9Qfyr_3Y6CB3HOgPfNfqvQ&s=19
fal1 is back! Another round of imbecile showcasing, hooray!
Fal1 , bacon, pschaeffer : I really wonder why such cretins continue to come here after they have been REPEATATEDLY refuted by the commentators and tzhe host himself, every time their idols get some slack, it is the principle of religion that unifies the theists ,lgbtq-phobes alike, they have their holy ideals and they are defnded with complete disregard to actual, rationally recognisable rality. How pathetic
fal1:
“Obsess”, he writes, on the basis that it’s adduced as an extant counterexample to the claim that sex must be either/or and can’t possibly be either/neither/and, and so the fact that the either/and indubitably exists is just dismissed (so there you go, not actually erased, only functionally so) as a “medical condition”.
Like someone saying that a coin can only land on one side or the other, and were it to land on its side it was a coin condition and should be ignored, since it is a fact that a coin can only land on one side or the other.
(Were it so easy to dismiss reality, nobody would be sick or starving, would they?)
[grr — lazy copy paste; on its edge, of course]
Weird, all of the people that don’t fit the human created categories fal1 brought up still stubbornly exist. I’ll just keep taking them into account despite the need to ignore and neglect reality.
Yes Brony no one said they didnt exist? Merely pointing out that people don’t argue that humans aren’t bipedal because a small percentage of people are born without limbs or because some people lose them in accidents etc. There’s medical issues or conditions that effect every aspect of human biology, you couldn’t define anything about humans if you took the approach being discussed in here. Would you agree that outside of DSDs sex is binary and not bimodal or are there other reasons as well?
You don’t think anything.
You are a Trans hating troll.
Who is obsessing about Trans people, intersexes, and individuals who can’t produce gametes here?
You didn’t even address the simple point I made.
Sex isn’t binary it is bimodal.
And it has nothing to do with Trans people who have a gender mismatch with their sex assigned at birth.
We all know the answer to that question. It’s also real simple.
Creepy trolls like Fail hate because hate is its own reward.
He also clearly has a lot longer list of hates.
Postmodernism doesn’t even exist anymore.
It’s like Cultural Marxism or Woke.
Meant to be a scary word for liberals and progressives.
That lie is too old.
Find another one to express your hate with.
Weird, I didn’t type anyone typed no one existed.
It’s just sarcastically impossible to define human by any way that fal1 simply indirectly refers to instead of concretely responding to.
Snnnniiiiiiiffffff
Fear
Fail is obviously rather stupid.
Quoting Richard Dawkins here just screams idiot troll.
Dawkins vaporized his credibility years ago.
He didn’t even read the OP or the thread.
A lot of people have noticed that Richard Dawkins’s mind appears to be slipping away.
He is 82, has had a stroke, and isn’t really doing science any more.
Instead of talking about biology, he is supporting a hate campaign to marginalize and erase a small minority of the population for no obvious reason.
@Raven, I never even mentioned trans people. Dawkins clearly said this discussion has nothing to do with trans people. You’re the one who keeps bringing them up.
@Brony have you been on the fire water? Not following what you’re on about.
Fal1 insincerely claims to not something they don’t point to.
And fal1 uses a racist reference to alcohol, no sincerity, just group dominance and insults.
@fal1
Did you notice you had to lie about me typing that you typed people did not exist, instead of interacting with the fact that I will act like they do exist? What I actually do will keep existing too.
If more than half of all human babies were born without legs and more than half of humans over 60 had no legs then saying humans are “always” bipedal would get you a lot of stinkeye.
Normally, I wouldn’t spend a lot of time pointing out that some unfortunate older person is losing their ability to think.
But Dawkins and his hero worshippers like Fail are making it an issue and using Dawkins to cause as much as harm as they can to an already marginalized population,
Trans people and as collateral damage, the intersexes.
They have a right to defend themselves.
Dawkins has gone so far away from who he was that now the American Family Association is supporting him.
This is a fundie xian hate group that hates gays, women, Trans, scientists, Democrats, nonwhites, nonxians, and…atheists.
This poor guy was 80, known to have age related cognitive problems, and got lost driving home.
He was found dead in a forested area where he had gotten stuck and then hit by a snow storm.
I hope someone is looking out for Richard Dawkins, although it doesn’t really look like anyone is..
I know it gets cold in the UK in the winter, and it is common for old people with cognitive problems to get lost and end up dead.
This is what Dawkins did with harassment and sexual abuse and other issues, ignore relevant perspectives and scientific professionals and just go with his own perspective. Terrible qualities in a “leader”.
All you have are lies.
Lies this blatant are useless.
It has everything to do with Trans people and Dawkins has spent years now demonizing and marginalizing Trans people.
This whole issue didn’t even exist a year ago.
And the only people who keep bringing it up are old white male Trans haters.
Most biologists including ones who work in relevant fields have already publicly rejected your and Dawkins lies.
Wait, fire water isn’t gasoline?
Actually, I’ve used that term as well, usually when referring to an accident I was involved in that centered on grain ethanol, a modest spill, a fragmenting match head and quite the brisk and highly inextinguishable fire in an apartment trash collection point. Indeed, it was the reason that I ceased drinking that crap.
A side effect was a profound respect for federal flammability standards for household furniture.
Tried using it as a solvent once for making some home made extracts, had to dilute it to under 50% ABV for it to be effective.
As for fail (to liberally steal raven’s adaptation of the moniker), living up to that name by disregarding data that doesn’t fit one’s preconceived theory. Welcome back to Dark Ages scientific methods!
Just when we thought P torturing was bad, really ancient shitty practices rear their well dented, ugly heads.
I did notice that Dawkins finally mentioned hermaphrodites and hand waves them away, but oddly fails to mention menopausal individuals and their lack of gametes. So, when a solid and sizable portion of a population fails to meet one’s posited views, one has a choice, ignore the data, proclaim a condition that’s normal for advanced age as an illness or dismiss them from the species?
I do know, should anyone declare that I’m no longer human due to normal aging effects, they’ll become intimately acquainted with my bowling ball.
@Brony, ok apologies I didn’t meant to lie about you I was confused because I clearly said they existed and then you said its weird these people exist. I don’t know what your point was then or now. Also firewater isn’t racist – its used regularly where I live and one of my local pubs is literally called firewater. There’s no racist implications associated with that word here.
@Raven what lies? Dawkins objects to defining sex as non binary because of the existence of DSDs, he’s never denied they exist. Do you agree that outside of DSDs sex is binary? How does quoting Richard Dawkins in a thread about Dawkins scream idiot troll? It’s the 3rd post on here in a matter of days about him so I thought his next tweets may also be of interest.
@183231bcb not sure what you are getting at? What more than half of all human babies are you referring to? Somehow Drs all over the world successfully sex babies without issue…
@wzrd1 firewater is booze where I’m from, there’s a movie quote about it but I cant think of the movie. Also I’m (and Dawkins) isn’t disregarding data – acknowledging medical conditions exist and using common sense (everyone knows what a male or a female is no matter how much navel gazing on the subject you do) isn’t disregarding data.
I don’t see quotes. I don’t care what is thought about my label of an accusations of being drunk as being racist.
No sincerity. fal1 would quote what they don’t understand. No work for the liar.
Fal isn’t worth spending any time on.
But he did manage to also attack intersex people while trying to attack Trans people.
To quote the Cleveland Clinic,
But being intersex isn’t a disorder, disease or condition. Being intersex doesn’t mean you need any special treatments or care.
Intersex people aren’t diseased or disordered.
What they are is not average. Or not typical of humans.
And that is OK.
Dawkins isn’t average either. He was a bright guy with a Ph.D.
Olympic athletes aren’t average or typical humans.
Taylor Swift isn’t average. The Beatles aren’t average.
Intersexes and Trans people are just…people. People who want to be left alone, not attacked and murdered, to live their own lives like anyone else.
Don’t insult people for characteristics that they were born with and have no control over.
Seriously, nitpicking over an accusation of drunkenness instead of concretely responding to anything? Like it becomes better?
This is fun. Awful personal characteristics to point out.
You are very helpful in showing the quality of your political side fal1. You should probably just go. We’ll see what your social dominance priorities lead you to do.
@Raven more nitpicking and word games. You know what I meant, heck even wikipedia calls DSDs a birth defect, and here’s the reference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082839/
Same old lies repeated over and over.
Sign of a very stupid troll.
Don’t insult intersexes by calling them Disordered. We’ve moved on from that a decade or two ago.
Dawkins keeps babbling on because he hates Trans people. He’s been attacking Trans people for years now.
I’m done with Fail.
He is a waste of time and will repeat the same old tired lies over and over for days if you respond to him.
More than half of all babies are born without gametes. No babies are born with sperm. Doctors assign sexes to babies without using gametes because sex is not about gametes and doctors know it.
@183231bcb ok I see now, it is all just word games with you lot. Not about gametes? It’s the two body types that evolved to two produce the two sex gametes associated with the two sexes.
I still don’t see quotes liar. You just type “word games”.
Genitals, gametes, genitals, gametes, genitals, gametes… so what? I don’t have to limit myself. This is like homophobes and policing what is done with penises and anuses.
The evolutionary history of our species hasn’t made the bimode go away. Weird. I’ll keep acting like it exists and being more complex with language is a good thing.
For anyone who is interested.
The Trans haters have been weaponizing lies in their efforts to harm and erase Trans people.
They’ve also been using the intersex groups as weapons in those efforts.
The intersexes are well aware that they are now collateral damage.
They really don’t like be called diseased, Disordered, abnormal, or having birth defects.
They are just people, more or less normal, living normal lives as best they can like the rest of us.
The Trans haters are always extreme reductionists.
According to them, people are just genitals and gamete producers and the entire rest of the body including the brain and mind are unimportant after thoughts.
In reality, we humans are far more than just sex organs and gender identities.
How many people are born with what some would call perfect bodies, perfect minds, and perfect health anyway? Not many. That is why there people like…orthodontists.
@Raven I literally haven’t mentioned trans people once, I could care less what anyone’s gender identity is (not a concept I can relate to though). The only people weaponising people with DSDs are the likes of yourself and the others on here pretending it’s incredibly difficult to sex humans and, aside from the DSDs that everyone is aware of, every single person born with the body type associated with female sex gamete production is of the female biological sex and vice versa. There aren’t any humans that produce only the male sex gamete (or have that anatomy and a medical condition) that are biologically female. And again, nothing to do with trans people and I have nothing against trans people. The one trans person I’ve met (who has told.me they’re trans, of course I probably met more) was a lovely person and taught my partner guitar for several years and came to our wedding.
That’s a lot of gossip about people in 78. It appears that fal1 has abandoned the basic convention of quoting what others are doing with language. It’s common in gossips.
If I’m pretending something there should be a basic effort to concretely demonstrate it. Same for the other commentators.
Wait, “pretending” is someone’s actual position isn’t it? That’s an explanation for the lack of quoting.
fal1, you are just plain wrong in restricting the defintion of sex to gametes (which just happen to be binary.
I’m re-posting here, FYI alone, what I posted on the first Dawkins thread, day before this one.
You must accept the latest proven scientific literature, no matter if the old definition had one or two correct aspects. Even if you’re not anti-trans and have an ulterior motive, the newer, more correct definition is what is right.
Chemist have completely stopped using the planetary model of the atom, even though it has some correct aspects and predicts some atomic behavior correctly and we used that definition for at least more than a decade. But, the newer Schrodinger model definitely proved, in the newer scientific literature, to be more accurate, and that is the correct definition until some other definition is proved in the literature to be more accurate. Even though the planetary model has some correct features, like gametes in the sex definition, anyone who used (let alone insisted on) the planetary model as the best or the easiest description would be laughed out of science. Even freshman chemistry teaches the Schrodinger model.
Dawkins and Coyne insist that the spectrum between the two modes is “too few people to count as defining sex”, thus they are throwing away data because it doesn’t fit their emotionally-preferred theory, the antithesis of science.
As for your fallacy about limb birth defects: so, you just say that those people are too small to count in defining the category “human”, so you just throw them out and declare that only those who are developmentally perfect are humans?
The latest data that the scientific literature has proved is scientific fact, end of story.
O lordy, another dumbass transphobe repeating the same bullshit yet again…
@Raven #12 I don’t think he’s erasing intersex or DSD people, he thinks its irrelevant to the definition of sex in the same way medical conditions are considered irrelevant when saying humans have two arms or two eyes etc when some people are born with medical conditions resulting in missing or non functioning limbs or eyes…
I other words, he (and apparently you) is treating people who don’t fit his simple worldview as DEFECTIVE. But even if we accept that rubbish (which I, for one, don’t), it still doesn’t justify any of the bigotry he (and you) are trying to justify. After all, we do make accommodations for people born without arms, right? We don’t make a bloody ginormous fake-controversy about how they don’t “fit” our longstanding picture of what a human is — we just do what we must to accommodate them and let them live their lives as who/what they are. So why can’t we do the same with trans or intersex people — who generally don’t require half the accommodation of someone born with no arms or no legs?
Or are you saying we should go full-on-Nazi and herd all the “defectives” into camps so they don’t remind us they exist? Seriously, what’s the consequence of labelling trans and intersex people as “defective” or “not fitting some simpleton’s narrow, rigid, ignorant picture of what they’re ‘supposed’ to be?”
The way the non-binary faithful obsess about intersexes, and about individuals who can’t produce gametes, amounts to a pathetic clutching at straws while they drown in postmodern effluent.
Tell me honestly, little transphobe: Is that really the way an honest scientist talks about an issue within his area of expertise?
Also, quoting the ignorant ravings of Dawkins, AFTER it’s all been repeatedly refuted (by OTHER BIOLOGISTS, mind you), doesn’t win any arguments; it just shows you’re a pathetic little tw*t obsessing over simplistic categories because you can’t handle real people.
@Raven what lies? Dawkins objects to defining sex as non binary…
There’s the lie: anyone who pays attention and does an honest reading of the relevant material can tell you that sex isn’t “binary,” it’s BIMODAL. Did you ever look up that word? How about “spectrum?” Do you know the difference between “binary” and “bimodal?” If not, then you’re not at all competent to talk about this subject. Full stop.
@Raven I literally haven’t mentioned trans people once…
That doesn’t matter. Your “sex is binary” rhetoric, and your insistent pretense of knowing people’s sex by a single physical characteristic, are used by transphobes to bash both trans and intersex people. Your bigoted simpleminded rhetoric AFFECTS both trans and intersex people, whether or not you mention either of them.
…I could care less what anyone’s gender identity is (not a concept I can relate to though)…The one trans person I’ve met (who has told.me they’re trans, of course I probably met more) was a lovely person and taught my partner guitar for several years and came to our wedding.
So you’ve met at least one trans person, you know they’re a really nice person, you even invited them to your wedding…but you also don’t give a shit about issues that you know can have an enormous effect on that person’s life, health and basic freedoms? Ever think there might be a connection you’re not seeing here?
…the likes of yourself and the others on here pretending it’s incredibly difficult to sex humans…
NO ONE here — or anywhere else I know of — has ever said it’s “difficult to sex humans.” In fact, it’s real easy: let each human tell you what sex they are, either by words or by dress, mannerisms, etc.
The only ones here “pretending it’s incredibly difficult to sex humans” are people like you, who keep on insisting it’s entirely defined by gametes, which no one else can verify without specialized equipment and a search warrant.
@fal1 #45,51,56,78,
Um…I don’t consider them irrelevant. I would say that “most humans have two arms and two eyes.” It’s more accurate, and it doesn’t erase or dehumanize all the people who are missing limbs or eyes, which seems like basic politeness when they or their loved ones might be part of my audience. I mean, why not? It’s nice to avoid ableist language.
And if someone kept tweeting and blogging and publishing articles about how “two arms and two eyes are a TRUE UNIVERSAL BIOLOGICAL PROPERTY OF OUR SPECIES,” I would start to wonder whether their dog was murdered by Disney pirates or something.
Re: your quotations of Dawkins:
Weellll, maybe he should stop talking about how sex is “universally DEFINED,” then? Either nonhuman species are relevant to how we should define sex in humans, or they’re not; can’t have it both ways.
Oh god, he’s going full Aristotle. Never go full Aristotle unless you want to end up…well, dehumanizing disabled babies.
Also, Dawkins apparently hasn’t glanced at Wikipedia” and noticed the “usually” in “An animal or machine that usually moves in a bipedal manner is known as a biped.” Nor has he noticed the subsection on “facultative and obligate bipedalism.” Describing humans as “bipedal” needs qualifiers.
Remember “Which creature has one voice and yet becomes four-footed and two-footed and three-footed?” Dawkins is lucky that sphinxes are extinct these days.
That is a terrible argument. There are over a dozen dipteran species with no wings at all. “Hemipteran” means “half-winged,” in allusion to the forewings of many true bugs that are hardened at the base, but there are tons of hemipterans (aphids, cicadas, leafhoppers, etc.) whose wings aren’t like that. Snakes and caecilians and whales and sea cows are “tetrapods,” but they don’t have four legs. And so forth.
Modern taxonomic groups are defined by common ancestry. It is critical for biology students to understand that, even if they happen to be named after a typical feature like the number of wings or legs, those features are not necessarily universal among the organisms in the group. Dawkins is being a bad teacher here.
Well, we don’t know what all you define as a disorder, so I think that would be hard for anyone to answer.
But no, there are obviously many ways in which sex is bimodal. Men tend to be taller than women, but there are some women who are taller than some men. There are flat-chested women and men with manboobs. There are relatively hairy women and relatively hairless men. Most of the phenotypic “sex differences” in humans involve some overlap.
Beyond that, people like myself who are transitioning have a mix of sex-typical biological markers. My estrogen and testosterone blood levels are typically female, and I require yearly mammograms like any other woman, but I have a Y-chromosome and many other parts of my anatomy are still typically male. But I don’t have a developmental disorder, and to my knowledge I am human!
Yes, and creationists clearly say attacks on “macroevolution” have nothing to do with “microevolution,” but we know they’re confused or lying.
A large number of intersex people identify as trans, for the same reason as the rest of us: they were socially assigned to one gender in childhood, and eventually developed a gender identity that didn’t match. Beyond that, trans and intersex people experience shared types of oppression and persecution, e.g. “you can’t use this bathroom or be on that sports team” and “you’re a unnatural freak” and “you aren’t really what you think you are, you’re just deeply deluded because sex is actually an immutable binary.” So of course this discussion impacts trans people, as well as queer people in general and basically anyone who’s ever had their gender policed, which includes most of humanity if you think about it.
I’m hoping you mean that in the sense that you identify as agender or genderless or something like that. Because otherwise you’re acting like a white person saying “I don’t see color!”, which is…not a great thing to do.
I’m sure you let them use your bathroom, too!
I’m curious—have you asked this trans person whether they think that human sex is “a true binary” and that any exceptions are the consequence of “disorders?” Or whether they think that “bimodal” would be a more accurate term? Or whether this argument has any impact on their lives? If they’re still alive and in communication with you, you might see how they reply.
@ 31 Morales
Your link doesn’t work.
I think what Morales was attempting to link to is this:
https://www.newstatesman.com/ideas/2023/07/biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins
A bizarre piece where Dawkins insists sex is binary, but starts by claiming it’s all about “gametes” and ends by claiming it’s all about chromosomes! Which means there are at least six “sexes”::
xx chromosomes, eggs
xx chromosomes,sperm
xx chromosomes, no gametes
xy chromosomes,sperm
xy chromosomes, eggs
xy chromosomes, no gametes
all of which exist. And that’s not to even mention that there are more chromosome combinations that xx and xy!
@ 56 fal1
Hahahah. You fucking liar. Here’s how Dawkins ends his polemic on “binary” sex that Morales tried to link @ 31 (and I actually linked above).
But sure dude. Nothing to do with trans people, he’s just randomly commenting on human sexual differentiation. X-D
Hey, Silentbob.
Yes, that is what it was. I didn’t go to the original, I copied the (evidently) time-limited proxy link.
—
So.
Are we resetting, or do we resume our previous dynamic?
You should know I’m damn genuine about this offer.
Entirely up to you.
[it’s OK, bob. Silent assent works, too — but the proof of the pudding and all that, no?]
No worries, bub. You’ve made your bed.