@freemo @realcaseyrollins I need a citation for that sorry
@freemo @realcaseyrollins regardless, individuals that represent a vanishing minority aberration in a species that doesn’t become a trait found in any large portion of the population doesn’t seem like it warrants a category, no? If 10% of the population was women with penises growing out of their pubic mounds then now that would be a new sex, we’d give it a name, you know?
🇳🇱
Who is giving them a category? We are recognizing the nature of sex as a continuous thing rather than discrete.
With intersex being 2% of the population if we use the broadest definition of intersex I'd say thats more than common enough to understand and describe it.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins hopefully biologists. It’s not helpful to anyone to have more than two categories, or three really with the third being intersex which is defined in relation to the other two as we established, it’s only helpful to gender ideologues
Why do you keep going on about more than two categories, no one said anything about multiple categories... again we are talking about a spectrum, spectrums always have two ends.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins because there’s not nearly the same number of individuals between the categories as there are inside of them
@freemo @realcaseyrollins it’s not a spectrum, a spectrum implies some kind of even distribution, or continuous, as you said, and the one-time aberrations are just that, aberrations with no relation to one another, and very rare
your mincing terms.. I think you may misunderstand what continuous means.. an "even distribution" means something entirely different than a "continuous distribution" and I suspect your confusing these two may be where the problem lies.
A spectrum implies a continuous distribution NOT an even (uniform) distribution.
and no they arent one-time aberrations, there are literally 20 million intersexed people on the planet, far from one time aberrations. They arent all that exceptionally rare, just uncommon.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins I’ll tell you what, I’ll meet you halfway. Intersex is a spectrum. Intersex people can have any number of traits from males and females, and account for .25% of the population. But since intersex is a spectrum of sexes and not a sex, then that leaves 99.75% of the population with two distinct categories. Most of the .25% cannot reproduce.
Now, you’re a biologist. How many sexes does this species have? It has two, and a very small number of individuals that exhibit a mixture of the two but not a consistent mixture, it varies from individual to individual, so basically it’s two.
If the rainbow was the ‘sex spectrum’ as you describe it, it would be a red bar that covered 49.875% of the length that was solid red and 49.875% that’s solid violet and a tiny sliver in the middle of all the other colors.
Is that really a spectrum? Is that the most descriptive term you’d use for that pattern? No, it’s two categories, with some un-inheritable exceptions.
Well no, your still trying to apply discrete thinking to a spectrum.. you were closer with your lead-in statement about it being a bimodal distribution.. it is still continuous and even in the majority where we like to simplify things and say "male" there is still a spectrum there, we just dont really bother to make the distinction in any useful way.
you will have some males that are more male than others, women who are more women than others. Its rude to point that out in humans, but no less true. A guy with a larger penis, more testosterone, less estrogen, bigger muscles, broader shoulders, more facial hair, he is closer to to the extreme end of male than someone who has much less of those qualities.
Moreover there isnt some point where all of a sudden its intersex, the point on the intersex part of the spectrum as you call it that is closest to the part where you start saying "male" isnt all that different either.
You are discribing a **continuous** spectrum, bimodal as you said, but with relatively low variance, thats all. The fact that you want to categorize things into discrete terms is imaginary, there is no cutoff where if you step a toe over the line and have just a little less testosterone your suddenly intersex or something. its continuous but the distribution is not uniform, thats **all**
>you will have some males that are more male than others, women who are more women than others. Its rude to point that out in humans, but no less true. A guy with a larger penis, more testosterone, less estrogen, bigger muscles, broader shoulders, more facial hair, he is closer to to the extreme end of male than someone who has much less of those qualities.
no, this isn’t true, sex isn’t just hormones. You know why? You pump a guy full of estrogen and he will never menstruate and he will never be able to bear a child. It’s about the roles fulfilled by the healthy members of the species during reproduction, and that’s it, that’s what ‘sex’ is describing. There is no ‘intersex’ role during reproduction. There is a male role, and a female role. What is the intersex role? What other role could there be, for a dimorphic species?
sex, unsurprisingly, is about sex! and babies!
@freemo @realcaseyrollins the fact that sometimes an intersex person has enough sex traits from one of the two categories to successfully reproduce doesn’t imply that there are other sexes along some spectrum. What spectrum? A man who produces slightly less testosterone than another is not, in fact, more of a woman, unless he also has a uterus and bleeds monthly
> the fact that sometimes an intersex person has enough sex traits from one of the two categories to successfully reproduce doesn’t imply that there are other sexes along some spectrum.
Why do you keep saying this when several times now I told you and reiterated over and over again that neither I nor anyone who discusses the topic for the most part, are claiming there are other sexes.. yet you keep saying it like your arguing against that point which was never made.
There is a spectrum, a spectrum that has two ends, male on one, female on the other, period. There is not more than 2 sexes, sex is a spectrum consisting of those 2, and only those 2 ends on either side of the spectrum
> What spectrum? A man who produces slightly less testosterone than another is not, in fact, more of a woman, unless he also has a uterus and bleeds monthly
he is though, but only slightly, hormones as I said is such a small part.. however if is a man and has a uterus even if he doesnt bleed, then even more so, if he bleeds too, even more so than that, if he fertile, again more so... every male or female characteristic adds to where you are on the spectrum. No one thing makes you a woman but it will push you to one end of the spectrum or another.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins you say this like every third guy has a uterus
I do? where did I imply it was common?
As we covered early on the spectrum is non-uniform.. non uniform spectrums are still spectrums.
Individuals cluster closely to being strongly on one end of the spectrum of the other.. it is a bimodal distribution with low variance, thats all.
Also while it isnt common it isnt so extremely uncommon either... You probably pass at least one significantly intersexed person every day, and have worked with them and had them as friends and never even knew it.. They are more than common enough to be part of everyday life.
@freemo @wiggles @realcaseyrollins No you don’t. ‘Significantly intersexed’ doesn’t mean anything. I’ve attached a useful graph.
thats the chromosomes, we are talking intersexed, that includes ambiguous genitalia (regardless of your XY makeup) as well as hormone sensitivity, and a host of other qualities.
According to peer reviewed papers (I'll be happy to link one) depending on which of several scientificially accurate definitions of intersex you use your looking at anywhere from 1 in 50 people being intersexed to about 1 in 1000... even at 1 in 1000 your probably encountering them more than often enough to be significant.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Nope. Every condition not listed there (CAH, LOCAH etc.) that is under the intersex umbrella are people who are plain old males and females.
Ahh so the scientific and peer reviewed papers that claim you are wrong and give other percentages are just wrong and your right, got it.. talk to me when you get some scientists to agree with you then, until that point its just your (incorrect) opinion.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles I know this area inside and out. I made that graph and I have read all the papers from where those numbers come from. But go ahead, explain to me how people with conditions like CAH are somehow a mix of male and female.
I'm not trying to explain anything to you.. I'm just saying a random dude on social media saying "I know this inside and out" and claiming peer reviewed scientific literature is wrong and he is right is worth very little to me.
Now if you wish to show me how you "know this inside and out" by sharing a paper you got published ina scientific journal that disputes the existing numbers then by all means I'll be happy to listen to you and give your opinion equal weighting as those professional scientists who disagree with you.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Which numbers are you disputing?
Well technically you are the one disputting numbers. I mentioned (and earlier in the coversation linked) scientific sources (professionals and some peer reviewed papers) that gave numbers on intersexed people in the population ranging from 1 in 50 to 1 in 1000.
You are the one claiming that all the scientists who gave such numbers are wrong.
Like i said that holds very little weight for me compared to actual licensed and respected professionals in their field.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles ‘intersex’ isn’t a scientific term, it covers a large set of completely unrelated conditions. Most people who are intersex are merely either male or female. The number of people with very specific conditions where SRY status isn’t aligned with sex phenotype (or the sex phenotype cannot be classified) is < 2/10,000. That stat should jump out at you an immediately remind you of the well known peer reviewed paper that it is from.
never said it was a clearly defined technical term.. in fact it cant be since sex is a spectrum there is naturally no cut off point on that spectrum where male ends and intersex begins.. which is kinda the whole point here...
Regardless male and female **are** technical terms and scientists use intersex to mean, to varying degrees, anyone that isnt going to fit perfectly and wholly the technical definition of either of these. Some may be stricter others may be weaker but in all cases they are defining intersex in terms of technical definitions of male and female
So yes, I am going to trust scientists a hell of a lot more to ensure they are drawing that line based on those technical definitions than some guy from the fediverse who "spent a lot of time on it"
The fact is, biologists know a hell of a lot better than you what the technical definition of the sexes are and your own definition appears ill informed and limited wholly to if a person has X or Y genes which not only are NOT the only genes that determine sex, they are not even the technical definition of sex which includes expression and function in the technical definition.
So yea, ill stick with the science on this one, sorry.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles sex is not a spectrum. male, female and 0.02% people who don’t fall into either of those two categories.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles nope. basic biology. sperm and ova. bipotential gonads, sexual dimorphism etc. look in any clinical trial and tell me how many level you find in the ‘sex’ column.
Suprisingly the "basic biology" you were taught in 3rd grade was only intended to be an introduction. Real biology is far more nuanced and complicated than what your 3rd grade teacher taught you about.
Not sure what it is with people lately trying to insist their grade school teachings are more right because they are simpler.. I see it with people against core math, the PEMDAS "riddle" that circulated, the sexes.. Real science is not that simple, never was.
But hey, like I said, the medical dictionary I quoted earlier directly disagrees with you. If you want to insist you know what medical terms mean more than a medical dictionary, go for it, I'll stick with the professional source until you get some credentials of your own.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Sigh. Here is the database of clinical trials in the US:
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/search/advanced?cond=&term=&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=
How many categories do you find under ‘sex’? Why do you think people involved in the serious business of clinical trials organize their data this way? You live in an imaginary world where sex means more than male and female when it doesn’t.
How many sex categories do you find here in this perspective on sex differentiation? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5369239/ Count how many sex categories you find on
How many sex categories do you find in paper that call for the standardization of reporting sex of tissue culture? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3919971/
I could go on with 1000s of papers and you’ll never be able to name a sex category in humans apart from male and female.
Huh, just because sex is a spectrum in no way implies that people cant be largely categorized under one or the other...
Hot and cold is a spectrum, I can still tell if something is hot or cold.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles We use real-valued numbers to describe temperature in scientific . Sex is always a categorical variable in science.
Thats because, as we discussed earlier, sex is a bimodal, low-variance distribution. Therefore for most purposes it works just fine to identify a person by which peak in the spectrum they belong to.
People can have a thousand shades of blue in their eyes too, yet you never see scientific data list the exact RGB value of a persons eyes, it will just say "blue".
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Nope. It’s a dichotomous categorical variable with two values: male and female, rooted in the idea that there are only two gamete types: sperm and ova and only two development states of gonads (testes and ovaries) with associated machinery.
People measure things like “blue” with colorimetry in a scientific context when they need to be precise with real numbers, colorspaces etc.
Male and female are precise sex categories that need no further refinement. Go find any paper you want with human participants (clinical or otherwise), the sex column only gets two values: male and female.
You can repeat incorrect information as many times as you want, wont start making it right.
I'll stick with my medical dictionary that disagrees with you and the multiple studies from actual doctors who also disagreed with you, thanks.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Try reading some papers on biology, you’ll learn a lot that way.
Was literally one of the developers on the Human Genome Project .. but thanks mr "I know better than everyone in medical science and even the medical dictionary"... clearly you read all the books.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles A shame you didn’t learn more from your experience there.
Yea I might be smarter than the entire medical community, peer reviewed journals, and the medical dictionary just like you.. but alas we cant all be the smartest person in the world.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles And did you find a sex category other than male and female or any continuous version of ‘sex’ which is only known as a categorical variable?
I never claimed there was a category other than female or male, and we already covered the topic of continuous values and why, like eye color, they dont tend to be used in most studies. Though I did provide examples earlier in the thread of how medical professionals do use continuous values when it is necessary.
Not sure why we are repeating it, I get it, when scientific sources directly prove your wrong as you said earlier they are just wrong , cause your right..but some link to a study that doesnt even address the topic can be twisted into some sort of reasoning to support you, you are all for it it seems...
Been down that road, we did that, im over it.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles You are making no sense. Eye color is nothing like sex. That’s it.
Sex is not a spectrum, it is not represented by a continuous variable in the context of serious scientific work (unlike color which is). This isn’t a matter of ‘most’ studies, this is how ‘sex’ is defined and used in the most serious, critical contexts.
There are only two values for sex in any serious piece of scientific work wrt humans: male and female. That isn’t some sort of approximation, it’s simply reality. Do go out there and read some papers (like the ones I sent you) that focus on the matter of thinking about sex from various perspectives (cell culture, development differentation etc.) they explain why there are only two values: male and female.
Repeating the same disproven facts over and over isnt going to suddenly make you right.. again, going to stick with the scietnist and medical dictionary, thanks.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles No credible scientist or medical dictionary has any argument against what I am saying.
Except for all the ones linked earlier in the conversation that directly contradicted you I guess... but other than those...
I'm done here, please move along, the last 5 or so mewssages are just you being either rude or repeating yourself, I have no more time for that.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Don’t see those links (could be lost in the thread) but they can’t be honest science.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles If you want to read some really clear biology:
In Humans, Sex is Binary and Immutable https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12129-020-09877-8
I told you I was done, anyone who discounts peer reviewed scinece out of hand as "dishonest science" simply because it disagrees with them, without even following the link first, is **not** someone I wish to engage with.. please dont make me mute you, I'd like you to have a chance in the future to talk with me on a different subject (I always give people a second chance)... the conversation is over now.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Smart scientists discount peer reviewed research all the time. A great deal of it is incorrect.
You arent a scientist in the field, you have never achieved any accomplishments to claim that honor, and no scientists dont discount peer reviewed papers without even reading them, afterwords with a careful critique maybe. Needless to say your not at that level
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Which field? Sex is a key biological variable from cells, to mice, to human physiology/psychology etc. pretty hard to avoid if you are anywhere near cells.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles And what makes you think I don’t have one?
Your statements have made that painfully obvious. I've worked alongside enough of them (One of my degrees is in bio-algorithms). As I said earlier, whare any peer reviewed paper in biology to show you have a Ph.D. and id be happy to give you the consideration that entails, but seems obvious to me you dont.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles I don’ have any need to share my publication record with you nor does it matter for this discussion.
It is an elementary facts that there are only two sex categories in humans: male and female. These categories are not any sort of approximation like the hue of one’s eye color. Sex, the dichotomous categorical variable is a key biological variable in biological and clinical science. The NIH requires things like reported sex and sex balancing in general.
There is no mystical continuous version of ‘sex’ that the dichotomous variable is approximating. It’s categorical like you’ll find in every single clinical trial and in any scientific investigation involving human participants.
I already shared a link to a peer reviewed study where the subjects were literally categorized on a continuous scale by sex using several factors including one such scale that pretty much every neonatal doctor knows and uses when given birth to a child who is ambiguous.. so not that has already been disproven, and frankly, no one who had a PhD in biology wouldnt know about this, its common place.
As I already said if you really cant find the links ask me in the morning and ill get them again, I am literally on a different computer in bed. trying to sleep
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Oh Fuck Right Off. You are referring to a Quigley scale. That is not a continuous measure of sex for christ’s sake. Your genitals can be shaped any which way, you are still almost certainly either a male or a female.
I literally shared with you a chart from the biology community showing one way they grade sex on a spectrum... so not sure what your on about.
Gender studies people get a lot wrong and you have every right to criticise a lot of the nonsense that comes out of them. But the idea of sex being a nuanced property with many factors, each one on a scale, and thus creating a spectrum, is not their creation, and goes back a good ways in biology studies in general, its not some new aged thing.
The gender studies contribution, and where it gets rather absurd, is when they start claiming there are multiple genders/sexes and not just a double-ended spectrum.
@BeachBleach @freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Yep, it is remarkable how this particular brand of magical thinking has captured many scientific establishments and scientists.
@freemo @realcaseyrollins @wiggles Didn’t bother reading any of the completely non-controversial biology papers I sent you, huh?