Well no. You’re free to read the paper’s citations. The field of biology has always used this definition of sex, and that paper cites this definition from 1888. Somebody also helpfully set up a project for scientists to sign that affirms the same view:
EDIT: I didn’t think I needed to spell this out so directly, but Project Nettie was set up by Dr. Emma Hilton, who has a PhD in Developmental Biology, collecting signatures on a statement affirming the sex binary from other scientists with relevant credentials. You can go look for yourself, and here’s the description from the link:
Project Nettie is an online and regularly updated record of scientists, medics and those in related disciplines who, by signing their support for the Project Nettie statement (below), assert the material reality of biological sex and reject attempts to reframe it as a malleable social construct.
That it’s published on wordpress doesn’t matter, that was likely just a convenient place to publish. What matters is what the statement says, and who’s signing onto it. I didn’t think that needed to be said, but, some people 🫠
If they felt the need to write such a paper so recently, and the reviewers felt the need to accept it, then the issue is clearly more complex than you are presenting. Otherwise if it is truly that obvious the paper would be worthless.
I’ll let a professor emeritus, author of several popular books, etc etc respond (i.e. you should listen to him). From his commentary on the paper:
It’s important to recognize that the recent reframing of the two sexes as needing revision did not result from any new discoveries about biology […] It is not transphobic to recognize the two sexes that biologists have known for decades, but, unfortunately, we are dealing with ideologues who are largely impervious to both facts and reason,
There is no complexity here. It’s settled science. A few ideologues are trying to do something silly, and people outside of academia are taking that out of context. This paper was written to clarify that to lay people.
That’s an opinion piece from an anthropologist that doesn’t cite any sources. A priori, if you’re unsure, listen to the well-respected biologist talking about his field over a gender studies professor writing an opinion outside of her expertise.
But credentials aren’t everything, so let’s examine on its own merits. First off, it’s largely based on the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling, who is deeply unserious and has admitted to publishing bullshit and backtracking by calling it tongue-in-cheek and ironic:
It’s mostly about higher-level things like how sex is relevant to sports, though it’s kind of a confused mishmash overall. It doesn’t cite any sources, and doesn’t really say anything, but here’s a few relevant quotes:
If gonads were understood as the essence of sex, women who were phenotypically female but who had testes were men. This seemed illogical, so scientists proposed yet other traits
She doesn’t cite anything for this, but she’s incorrect. If you’re phenotypically female but produce sperm, then you’re male. There’s nothing illogical about it. People with CAIS are male. Scientists aren’t proposing anything of the sort.
Science does not drive these policies; the desire to exclude does. This intentional gerrymandering of sex opportunistically uses the idea of “biological sex”—which lends a veneer of science and thus rationality to any definition—to remove certain individuals from a category based on intolerance.
This is her gender studies woo showing through. She’s starting with a narrative and working backwards to shove reality into it, no matter how hard she has to twist it.
If reproduction is the interest, what matters is whether one produces sperm or eggs, whether one has a uterus, a vaginal opening, and so on.
In the end she acknowledges the binary, though she won’t outright say it.
To sum up, it’s just bluster about the social aspects of sex. If there’s something specific you want to talk about that you think is actually stating a viewpoint at odds with actual biologists, quotes would be helpful.
You posted two blog as evidence because the authors are really smart. You posted a recent paper arguing the point, despite insisting that it has been a closed issue for decades.
But, please, keep lecturing about the quality of sources.
I mentioned why credentials are relevant, but also directly addressed the meat of that opinion piece. Why are you ignoring that?
Also, it’s not just that they’re really smart lol. They have PhDs in biology and evolutionary biology. One is professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. They can be wrong, but looking at an opinion piece from an anthropologist is the same as “let’s hear what RFK has to say about vaccines” lol. Just because RFK has some wackadoodle opinion doesn’t mean the science isn’t settled
OK, I’ll spell it out, then. You don’t come off as someone who knows much of anything. You are using blog posts and bullshit argument papers as actual sources beyond “trust me bro.” There is a reason you are spinning your wheels on this post endlessly without actually resolving anything. You have no authority. Being a emeritus is honestly pretty meaningless–that shit gets given out all the time. Having a PhD has nothing to do with it. Lots of people have those. It isn’t as difficult as you make it sound.
When it comes to the trade of ideas, you are just coming off as a conservative troll. If the definitions were that settled, no on would be publishing them in peer reviewed environments for the common folk, or whatever. If I wanted to defend the notion of primality, I would pull up a definition. It really is that simple.
They have PhDs in biology and evolutionary biology.
Lots of people do.
The truth is you haven’t made a single convincing argument, and I’m still waiting for a source that isn’t on wordpress.
My PhD is not in biology, but your arguments and sources are flaccid at best.
Just because RFK has some wackadoodle opinion doesn’t mean the science isn’t settled
What the fuck does RFK have to do with anything? And this is probably the stupidest claim. Science doesn’t get settled, it gets consensus and that changes. If you want to do something more powerful than consensus, try some math or something.
This is the thing–you have ad homonyms, wordpress, and heaps of “this is a very smart guy’s blog.” From all of the posts that is literally all that I see that you have.
I can’t say you are definitively wrong, despite the mass of articles I found without effort that say otherwise, but you have zero ability to back up your own bullshit.
Everyone here would love to see this mass of articles that you totally found without effort lol.
I’ve linked to actual papers that cite many sources, and also blogs from people with highly relevant credentials, respected in their field. I’m not personally making arguments, merely pointing out that the overwhelming consensus is that sex is binary, according to experts in the field.
You have nothing, so you’re reverting to insults. Do better.
Well no. You’re free to read the paper’s citations. The field of biology has always used this definition of sex, and that paper cites this definition from 1888. Somebody also helpfully set up a project for scientists to sign that affirms the same view:
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Feel free to post anything disputing the paper.
EDIT: I didn’t think I needed to spell this out so directly, but Project Nettie was set up by Dr. Emma Hilton, who has a PhD in Developmental Biology, collecting signatures on a statement affirming the sex binary from other scientists with relevant credentials. You can go look for yourself, and here’s the description from the link:
That it’s published on wordpress doesn’t matter, that was likely just a convenient place to publish. What matters is what the statement says, and who’s signing onto it. I didn’t think that needed to be said, but, some people 🫠
If they felt the need to write such a paper so recently, and the reviewers felt the need to accept it, then the issue is clearly more complex than you are presenting. Otherwise if it is truly that obvious the paper would be worthless.
I’ll let a professor emeritus, author of several popular books, etc etc respond (i.e. you should listen to him). From his commentary on the paper:
There is no complexity here. It’s settled science. A few ideologues are trying to do something silly, and people outside of academia are taking that out of context. This paper was written to clarify that to lay people.
OK. And it still constitutes a single perspective.
That’s an opinion piece from an anthropologist that doesn’t cite any sources. A priori, if you’re unsure, listen to the well-respected biologist talking about his field over a gender studies professor writing an opinion outside of her expertise.
But credentials aren’t everything, so let’s examine on its own merits. First off, it’s largely based on the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling, who is deeply unserious and has admitted to publishing bullshit and backtracking by calling it tongue-in-cheek and ironic:
It’s mostly about higher-level things like how sex is relevant to sports, though it’s kind of a confused mishmash overall. It doesn’t cite any sources, and doesn’t really say anything, but here’s a few relevant quotes:
She doesn’t cite anything for this, but she’s incorrect. If you’re phenotypically female but produce sperm, then you’re male. There’s nothing illogical about it. People with CAIS are male. Scientists aren’t proposing anything of the sort.
This is her gender studies woo showing through. She’s starting with a narrative and working backwards to shove reality into it, no matter how hard she has to twist it.
In the end she acknowledges the binary, though she won’t outright say it.
To sum up, it’s just bluster about the social aspects of sex. If there’s something specific you want to talk about that you think is actually stating a viewpoint at odds with actual biologists, quotes would be helpful.
You posted two blog as evidence because the authors are really smart. You posted a recent paper arguing the point, despite insisting that it has been a closed issue for decades.
But, please, keep lecturing about the quality of sources.
I mentioned why credentials are relevant, but also directly addressed the meat of that opinion piece. Why are you ignoring that?
Also, it’s not just that they’re really smart lol. They have PhDs in biology and evolutionary biology. One is professor emeritus at the University of Chicago. They can be wrong, but looking at an opinion piece from an anthropologist is the same as “let’s hear what RFK has to say about vaccines” lol. Just because RFK has some wackadoodle opinion doesn’t mean the science isn’t settled
OK, I’ll spell it out, then. You don’t come off as someone who knows much of anything. You are using blog posts and bullshit argument papers as actual sources beyond “trust me bro.” There is a reason you are spinning your wheels on this post endlessly without actually resolving anything. You have no authority. Being a emeritus is honestly pretty meaningless–that shit gets given out all the time. Having a PhD has nothing to do with it. Lots of people have those. It isn’t as difficult as you make it sound.
When it comes to the trade of ideas, you are just coming off as a conservative troll. If the definitions were that settled, no on would be publishing them in peer reviewed environments for the common folk, or whatever. If I wanted to defend the notion of primality, I would pull up a definition. It really is that simple.
Lots of people do.
The truth is you haven’t made a single convincing argument, and I’m still waiting for a source that isn’t on wordpress.
My PhD is not in biology, but your arguments and sources are flaccid at best.
What the fuck does RFK have to do with anything? And this is probably the stupidest claim. Science doesn’t get settled, it gets consensus and that changes. If you want to do something more powerful than consensus, try some math or something.
This is the thing–you have ad homonyms, wordpress, and heaps of “this is a very smart guy’s blog.” From all of the posts that is literally all that I see that you have.
I can’t say you are definitively wrong, despite the mass of articles I found without effort that say otherwise, but you have zero ability to back up your own bullshit.
Everyone here would love to see this mass of articles that you totally found without effort lol.
I’ve linked to actual papers that cite many sources, and also blogs from people with highly relevant credentials, respected in their field. I’m not personally making arguments, merely pointing out that the overwhelming consensus is that sex is binary, according to experts in the field.
You have nothing, so you’re reverting to insults. Do better.