Some species are hermaphroditic, but humans aren’t. Nobody’s body is organized around the production of both gametes. Ovotesticular doesn’t mean what you’re thinking. I’ll copy from my other comment
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.
but even then people who can’t produce either can’t be simply classified into what they were “supposed” to produce without involving karyotypes or other sex characteristics, which the paper you linked explicitly argues can’t be used for sex definition:
Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates
so for someone with complete gonadal dysgenesis:
they produce no gametes
their sex is defined by… which gamete they have the “function to produce”
we determine this function by… looking at their chromosomes (XY = male function, XX = female function) or other correlates
but then this is circular:
if sex is defined by gamete function
and gamete function can only be identified via determination mechanisms in non-gamete-producing cases
then determination mechanisms are also doing the definitional work
and I feel your lacking-an-arm comment doesn’t really apply here as humans aren’t solely defined by how many arms we have - the analogy would only work if:
sex were defined like humanity - as a cluster of traits with gametes being just one feature
but the paper explicitly rejects that (arguing the monothethic model is the only true one when the polythetic clearly covers more cases)
but I think the bigger question this whole biological definition/determinism sidesteps is the one that seems close to heart of the very-same intersex people linked in that Wikipedia page:
Paradigms for care are still based on socio-cultural factors including expectations of “normality” and evidence in support of surgeries remains lacking.
“Nearly every parent” in the study reported pressure for their children to undergo surgery, and many reported misinformation.
The report calls for a ban on “surgical procedures that seek to alter the gonads, genitals, or internal sex organs of children with atypical sex characteristics too young to participate in the decision when those procedures both carry a meaningful risk of harm and can be safely deferred.”
when these things affect human beings we can’t try to wash our hands by clinging to models that seem to give us simple answers - if we insist on monothethic definitions that don’t recognize the complexity of sexual development - we end up forcing ambiguous cases into boxes and providing intellectual cover to deny people agency over their own bodies.
Thank you for actually engaging. Too many people on Lemmy are worryingly anti-scientific due to their politics. To anyone that needs to hear it, join us on the science-accepting Left. Life’s easier without cognitive dissonance :)
To clarify, the fact of the sex binary doesn’t have any strong implications for surgically altering intersex children. People simply don’t understand that the sex binary is a limited, but factual claim. There’s several different domains here, and people keep confusing them and then arguing with me. The fact of the sex binary doesn’t mean that sex phenotypes or genotypes aren’t a spectrum, nor that gender roles need to be tied to sex. It also doesn’t mean that someone with a DSD needs “fixing”, particularly surgically before they can reasonably consent. It is possible that interventions are the appropriate course of action, but not just because someone is “supposed” to be a certain way.
Even in the case of complete gonadal dysgenesis, a person’s body is still “trying” to produce gametes, it’s just failing. My arm example is still relevant. It’s not about the number of arms, it’s about what’s missing. No person is born with a body that’s “trying” to produce a fish instead of a hand. Nobody was born with a body that’s “trying” to produce nothing instead of a hand. In both the case of a missing hand or gonads, the body was “trying” to do something and failed. Evolution is flexible, and it’s possible that someday, a new body plan would emerge that does lack a concept of hands or gonads or whatever, but that’s not the reality today.
Note that “trying” is a bit too anthropomorphic and loose of a term, but it’s good enough. It doesn’t imply that there’s a deity or sin or anything like that, it’s a description of a natural process, like gravity.
So experts can look at the correlates and determine the likely sex based on the apparent body plan. It’s not just karyotypes, they can also look at nearby structures like Müllerian/Wolffian ducts. The important thing to remember though is that experts can be wrong, but that doesn’t change reality. If an expert said “this person’s sex is male”, then gave that person a magic science pill that fixed whatever developmental issue they had, and they started producing ova, that says nothing about the sex binary. It merely means the expert was wrong and the person’s sex was female the whole time.
So when you say “if sex is defined by gamete function”, you’re missing the crucial “biological function” bit (a.k.a. “organized around” as I’ve been using). Here’s the corrected version:
sex is defined by the type of gamete one has the biological function to produce
in non-gamete-producing cases, experts would look at determination mechanisms to figure out the likely sex
those experts might be wrong
the sex binary remains unperturbed regardless of human hubris
in non-gamete-producing cases, experts would look at determination mechanisms to figure out the likely sex
those experts might be wrong
That’s an awful lot of words about trump’s definitions before you admit that some people have scientifically unknowable sex even with your supposedly binary definition. And that’s even before I put ten people I know in a room with you and you’re unable to use your definition in your own terms on them, not even if you check what’s in their pants.
Even of you were right, (which only you believe), it’s irrelevant to actual people’s lives. Stop trolling trans posts.
It’s not unknowable, you’re just being intentionally obtuse. It’s knowable with better science, it’s just possible that an expert is wrong. If they’re wrong, that doesn’t change reality.
Someone’s sex exists regardless of my ability to discern it. Your example is bad faith trolling.
If it’s irrelevant then just ignore it. You can’t handle the truth and so you troll and try to derail and accuse and insult.
Yes, your abject uselessness at that shines through most things you say. At last something we can agree on.
So having complained about me calling it unknowable, you admit that it’s undiscernable (which is of course completely different /s), we come back to the irrelevance of everything you said to everyday life.
I love that you admit that you can’t do it and even that the greatest experts mightn’t be able to do it but yet still believe it’s a useful definition! It’s a useless and crap definition! Actually useless! Complete crap!
Chromosomes are testable. Verifyable. Take a blood sample, some time in the lab and it’s done! This is why scientists use them to define sex. Your definition is untestable! It’s not science. It’s pseudoscience. It sounds plausible because it uses technical terms, and stupid people believe it because it sounds clever. But because you believed trump, who is famously very stupid, you have believed a stupid thing, and you can’t stop talking about it, in public!
If I found out that trump had duped me into believing some pseudoscience, I would be ASHAMED. You, not so much.
Sadly I think you missed this. Again, not undiscernable. Are you able to understand that?
You should let the author of this text book know that his definition is complete crap lol:
In sexually reproducing animals, there are two sexes, the male and the female. There may be different ways to express maleness or femaleness, as we will see, but the divide is a real one. […] We have already defined male and female based on gonads and on the type of gametes produced in those gonads, either eggs or sperm.
Some species are hermaphroditic, but humans aren’t. Nobody’s body is organized around the production of both gametes. Ovotesticular doesn’t mean what you’re thinking. I’ll copy from my other comment
but even then people who can’t produce either can’t be simply classified into what they were “supposed” to produce without involving karyotypes or other sex characteristics, which the paper you linked explicitly argues can’t be used for sex definition:
so for someone with complete gonadal dysgenesis:
but then this is circular:
and I feel your lacking-an-arm comment doesn’t really apply here as humans aren’t solely defined by how many arms we have - the analogy would only work if:
but I think the bigger question this whole biological definition/determinism sidesteps is the one that seems close to heart of the very-same intersex people linked in that Wikipedia page:
when these things affect human beings we can’t try to wash our hands by clinging to models that seem to give us simple answers - if we insist on monothethic definitions that don’t recognize the complexity of sexual development - we end up forcing ambiguous cases into boxes and providing intellectual cover to deny people agency over their own bodies.
Thank you for actually engaging. Too many people on Lemmy are worryingly anti-scientific due to their politics. To anyone that needs to hear it, join us on the science-accepting Left. Life’s easier without cognitive dissonance :)
To clarify, the fact of the sex binary doesn’t have any strong implications for surgically altering intersex children. People simply don’t understand that the sex binary is a limited, but factual claim. There’s several different domains here, and people keep confusing them and then arguing with me. The fact of the sex binary doesn’t mean that sex phenotypes or genotypes aren’t a spectrum, nor that gender roles need to be tied to sex. It also doesn’t mean that someone with a DSD needs “fixing”, particularly surgically before they can reasonably consent. It is possible that interventions are the appropriate course of action, but not just because someone is “supposed” to be a certain way.
Even in the case of complete gonadal dysgenesis, a person’s body is still “trying” to produce gametes, it’s just failing. My arm example is still relevant. It’s not about the number of arms, it’s about what’s missing. No person is born with a body that’s “trying” to produce a fish instead of a hand. Nobody was born with a body that’s “trying” to produce nothing instead of a hand. In both the case of a missing hand or gonads, the body was “trying” to do something and failed. Evolution is flexible, and it’s possible that someday, a new body plan would emerge that does lack a concept of hands or gonads or whatever, but that’s not the reality today.
Note that “trying” is a bit too anthropomorphic and loose of a term, but it’s good enough. It doesn’t imply that there’s a deity or sin or anything like that, it’s a description of a natural process, like gravity.
So experts can look at the correlates and determine the likely sex based on the apparent body plan. It’s not just karyotypes, they can also look at nearby structures like Müllerian/Wolffian ducts. The important thing to remember though is that experts can be wrong, but that doesn’t change reality. If an expert said “this person’s sex is male”, then gave that person a magic science pill that fixed whatever developmental issue they had, and they started producing ova, that says nothing about the sex binary. It merely means the expert was wrong and the person’s sex was female the whole time.
So when you say “if sex is defined by gamete function”, you’re missing the crucial “biological function” bit (a.k.a. “organized around” as I’ve been using). Here’s the corrected version:
That’s an awful lot of words about trump’s definitions before you admit that some people have scientifically unknowable sex even with your supposedly binary definition. And that’s even before I put ten people I know in a room with you and you’re unable to use your definition in your own terms on them, not even if you check what’s in their pants.
Even of you were right, (which only you believe), it’s irrelevant to actual people’s lives. Stop trolling trans posts.
It’s not unknowable, you’re just being intentionally obtuse. It’s knowable with better science, it’s just possible that an expert is wrong. If they’re wrong, that doesn’t change reality.
Someone’s sex exists regardless of my ability to discern it. Your example is bad faith trolling.
If it’s irrelevant then just ignore it. You can’t handle the truth and so you troll and try to derail and accuse and insult.
Again, not undiscernable. Are you able to understand that?
I love that you admit that you can’t do it and even that the greatest experts mightn’t be able to do it but yet still believe it’s a useful definition! It’s a useless and crap definition! Actually useless! Complete crap!
Chromosomes are testable. Verifyable. Take a blood sample, some time in the lab and it’s done! This is why scientists use them to define sex. Your definition is untestable! It’s not science. It’s pseudoscience. It sounds plausible because it uses technical terms, and stupid people believe it because it sounds clever. But because you believed trump, who is famously very stupid, you have believed a stupid thing, and you can’t stop talking about it, in public!
If I found out that trump had duped me into believing some pseudoscience, I would be ASHAMED. You, not so much.
Sadly I think you missed this. Again, not undiscernable. Are you able to understand that?
You should let the author of this text book know that his definition is complete crap lol: