That’s the definition biologists have always used. It’s just a description of the reality that they found in their field. Lay people have started using it recently because of culture wars, but they’re not incorrect to do so.
There still aren’t “intersex” people as you’re probably thinking. The closest you’ll find in humans is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotestis, but that’s not “fully functioning gonads of both types, producing healthy gametes of both types”. It’s “maybe a functioning gonad of one type, with a bit of non-functional tissue of the other type”. Their sex can still be determined, even if it’s not readily apparent.
Lol. The meaning is a bit delusional. You are implying that you elevate your own academic status and understanding to something that is well outside of what you can claim. XD
Edit: Oh, holy shit, your moderation history is hilarious. Mostly for being an idiot or transphobes. XD
Ah, so you do misunderstand. You’re very obsessed with me. That statement makes no claim about me.
That sentence means that, just because some random conservative on twitter talks about the sex binary, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. They might be right for the wrong reasons, but they’re still right.
I’ll use a simple analogy to help you. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is bad. Are you able to understand now?
Again, I’ll spell it out. I’ll use simple words. That sentence does not talk about me in any way. “Others” is you reading your meaning into it, based on your obsession with me.
If you think you’re up for the challenge, I can explain it more using adult words too.
You may say it. You may shout it. Your words are still there for anyone to inspect. The truth is you are a member of the group you choose to slight. You just have far too much iamverysmart going on to understand it.
I’m actually thinking of people who have neither sets, working or not, but you’ve got me thinking: if a non-functional set would still count in the case of it being the only one (I.e. someone infertile but otherwise nothing out of the ordinary) I’m not sure why it wouldn’t when it’s beside a working one. If it’s binary, surely they either count or they don’t?
That falls into the “organized around” bit. They won’t have any other structures necessary for supporting the bit of tissue, and their body won’t be trying to create those structures. As a loose analogy, think of it like transplanting an ovary into a human male. You haven’t changed his sex, you’ve merely created a man with an ovary grafted onto him. His body is still organized around production of sperm.
In the case of someone that’s infertile, if you fixed the issue that was causing their infertility, they would produce the normal gametes that their body is organized around producing. They wouldn’t then magically start producing both gametes or gametes from the other sex.
You’d have to point to a particular case for a good answer. Nobody is simply born live and healthy and simply lacks any plumbing. You’d have to get into nonviable embryos or the like to get something with truly undefinable sex.
These are the same individuals that would be ignored by science unless it’s a study specifically on these people. And if they happen to be the subject of study, the resulting paper would be defining the vocabulary they use.
That’s the definition biologists have always used. It’s just a description of the reality that they found in their field. Lay people have started using it recently because of culture wars, but they’re not incorrect to do so.
There still aren’t “intersex” people as you’re probably thinking. The closest you’ll find in humans is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotestis, but that’s not “fully functioning gonads of both types, producing healthy gametes of both types”. It’s “maybe a functioning gonad of one type, with a bit of non-functional tissue of the other type”. Their sex can still be determined, even if it’s not readily apparent.
Oh my God this is hilarious. Just caught it.
Who are these lay people?
Dude you trolling online without an advanced degree or research history. XD
I think the meaning is clear. You seem rather upset. Are you having trouble understanding it?
Lol. The meaning is a bit delusional. You are implying that you elevate your own academic status and understanding to something that is well outside of what you can claim. XD
Edit: Oh, holy shit, your moderation history is hilarious. Mostly for being an idiot or transphobes. XD
Ah, so you do misunderstand. You’re very obsessed with me. That statement makes no claim about me.
That sentence means that, just because some random conservative on twitter talks about the sex binary, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. They might be right for the wrong reasons, but they’re still right.
I’ll use a simple analogy to help you. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is bad. Are you able to understand now?
Nah, man, you don’t get to imply that others are lay people and not yourself. XD I understand completely because clout chasing is not at all uncommon.
And no obsession, just still having fun with a transphobe. Lol.
Again, I’ll spell it out. I’ll use simple words. That sentence does not talk about me in any way. “Others” is you reading your meaning into it, based on your obsession with me.
If you think you’re up for the challenge, I can explain it more using adult words too.
You may say it. You may shout it. Your words are still there for anyone to inspect. The truth is you are a member of the group you choose to slight. You just have far too much iamverysmart going on to understand it.
Clout chaser. Lol.
Are you still confused? I can use simpler words, if that will help. Maybe you could ask chatgpt for an ELI5, if human text is too hard?
I’m actually thinking of people who have neither sets, working or not, but you’ve got me thinking: if a non-functional set would still count in the case of it being the only one (I.e. someone infertile but otherwise nothing out of the ordinary) I’m not sure why it wouldn’t when it’s beside a working one. If it’s binary, surely they either count or they don’t?
That falls into the “organized around” bit. They won’t have any other structures necessary for supporting the bit of tissue, and their body won’t be trying to create those structures. As a loose analogy, think of it like transplanting an ovary into a human male. You haven’t changed his sex, you’ve merely created a man with an ovary grafted onto him. His body is still organized around production of sperm.
In the case of someone that’s infertile, if you fixed the issue that was causing their infertility, they would produce the normal gametes that their body is organized around producing. They wouldn’t then magically start producing both gametes or gametes from the other sex.
Fair enough. So somebody with no plumbing at all would just be undefined in terms of sex then?
You’d have to point to a particular case for a good answer. Nobody is simply born live and healthy and simply lacks any plumbing. You’d have to get into nonviable embryos or the like to get something with truly undefinable sex.
Don’t have a particular case, just curious how this definition works. I appreciate the answers.
These are the same individuals that would be ignored by science unless it’s a study specifically on these people. And if they happen to be the subject of study, the resulting paper would be defining the vocabulary they use.