Comment by zz3
3 months ago
Let me see if I understand your argument. I'm not sure about several aspects, and it sounds like you have multiple arguments.
[1] Sex is purely defined by gamete size. (Already incorrect, but if that makes the argument easier we can play pretend.) [2] Humans are a gonochoric species. (true) [3] In gonochoric species, unlike simultaneous or sequentially hermaphroditic species, gamete-size generally remains constant throughout the lifetime of the species (also true). [4] Therefore, humans generally maintain the same gamete size throughout an individual’s life (sure, not many people are switching their gamete size throughout their life).
We’re in agreement humans aren’t generally switching gamete sizes through an individual’s lifetime. That would honestly be ridiculous and no one is arguing this. However, while some of these ideas are true and are convenient for talking about various species, it’s not always correct when talking about individuals.
An example of this is using generalized words or labels on anything or anyone. “English-speaking” could mean someone who speaks only English, someone who speaks only a little English. What matters is context and relevance.
Human sexual phenotype can be described by three discrete categories if you want: male, female, intersex. This is what I mean by “spectrum,” I’m literally just mentioning it doesn’t fit the definition of binary (being able to be completely described with 0 or 1 without loss of data). Please see my previous explanation for further details on this. I literally did a proof-by-contradiction.
In individual humans, our genotypes do not always match our phenotypes. For example, XY + No SRY would be functionally identical to XX. XXY and XYY are both viable and happen, and a lot of people might not even realize they don’t have the chromosomes they think they do.
Obviously intersex is about the same proportion of the population as red heads, for context.
So intersex is a perfectly normal and natural human sex phenotype. There are literally human beings living with both gamete sizes for their entire lives, living hopefully happy, healthy lives. This has nothing to do with gonochoric or hermaphroditic species. We’re still a gonochoric species, even if intersex humans exist. Humans aren’t spontaneously changing gamete sizes throughout their lives, but some people literally just have both and have had both since birth. That’s just how it is.
So human sexual phenotypes don’t always match genotypes. They mostly do, probably over 80%, but we’re not honestly sure about the true rate of intersex mostly because it matters so little. As you saw in the textbook chapter I referenced, human sexual phenotype has many factors, but yeah, we can summarize it with three discrete categories: male, female, intersex. That’s again, just how it is. We can debate what to do with intersex, sure, but it honestly doesn’t matter very much.
Your sports argument seems a little strange, I’m honestly not sure I fully understand it:
[1] Gamete size is the only determining factor in human sexual phenotype [obviously incorrect, please see that book chapter] [2] As a society, we divide up sports by sex or gender [yeah, sure, we sometimes do that] [3] Gamete size is relevant in sports [very obviously incorrect, but what you probably mean is that gametes CORRELATE with testosterone, muscle mass differences etc, which is true, and we can measure those correlations] [4] People can’t change their gametes [no one is talking about this, ridiculously irrelevant] [5] Therefore people can’t change their sex?
Trans people exist. We have accepted that there is both biological sex and gender (social construct). Just like genotype and phenotype, they normally match, but sometimes they don’t. I honestly don’t understand why there’s any upset about this, there’s been evidence of this going back pretty far throughout history. We literally get the word hermaphrodite from the ancient Greeks.
So do you only care about transpeople because of sports? There are transmen in the Olympics, so I think they’re doing fine, and I literally linked several papers on transwomen in the Olympics, but I can link them again.
We’ve measured it. This is what science does.
More links: Sex differences and athletic performance. Where do trans individuals fit into sports and athletics based on current research? https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-livin...
SPORTS AND PERFORMANCE IN THE TRANSGENDER POPULATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
https://www.scielo.br/j/rbme/a/CDkTksYcMPcKYTHGfcJLX4K/?lang...
Transgender Women in the Female Category of Sport: Perspectives on Testosterone Suppression and Performance Advantage
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-020-01389-3
Honestly, if there is some advantage, they’ll measure it, try to understand it, and then change the rules. I’m sure it’s an ongoing discussion. I’m not sure I see your point with all this.
> We have accepted that there is both biological sex and gender
This is close to the real point of dispute, on which there are approximately three main positions, which amount to two political camps because the last two positions drive the same political conclusion (and can be hard to distinguish):
(1) Sex, socially-ascribed gender, and gender identity are real and distinct things, all of which are (or in the case of active gender should be) multidimensional spectra though they may have something like a bimodal distribution which can naively look binary, and normatively ascribed gender should be aligned to gender identity;
(2) Sex and ascribed gender and gender identity are real and distinct things, the former is a crisp binary defined by particular physical traits (which traits varies among holders of the belief and over time; gross anatomy was popular, combination of X & Y chromosomes was popular, gamete size is currently the most popular), and normatively both ascribed gender and gender identity should conform to sex; when gender identity specifically does not it is a kind of mental illness, that should be treated and corrected, not accommodated and validated;
(3) Sex and ascribed gender are real and distinct things with the nature and relationship described in #2, but gender identity does not exist and is a myth invoked to excuse personal moral deviance and/or sexual perversion.
Thanks! I'm on the biology side of things, so I tend to avoid going into gender because I don't understand it as well, but the biology seems clear enough. The gender side also makes sense to me broadly, since we have complex and varied cultures, and having a term to talk about different societies also seems helpful. There are multiple languages and cultures with explicit terms for intersex, for example.
I'm not super clear on why gamete size has become a popular argument for a so-called binary model, since intersex still exists and there are individuals with both gametes. Not to mention, for sports, gamete size seems much less relevant than hormones and natural variation within each sex/gender, and that seems to be the favorite example. Do you have any insights as to why gametes have become a popular argument?