/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes he's absolutely correct, sex is a social construct.

You can pick any arbitrary physical feature, say people with bigger left nostrils than right nostrils, give them a label (floopflops) and then say all people are floop-binary (either you're floopflop or you're non-floopflop. Then segregate restrooms/sports etc based on your floopiness. If people disagree just call them pseudoscientists and point out that different sized nostrils are an empirical fact.

This is basically what the alt right/ultra conservative crowd is doing.

>>11369595
>What do historians of medicine study?
a ways to say retarded things in public to humiliate themselves
guy's an expert

>>11369605
can you procreate with flopflops?

>>11369615
Completely irrelevant, that's just another arbitrary thing you chose to define people.'

>can you recite the alphabet backwards while doing a handstand?

>>11369624
>>11369624

it's not arbitrary it's pretty damn relevant.

I don't choose life partner based on if they have big or small noses but wrong chromosone pair disqualifies 50% of earth's population immediately.

how did "unpacking" become a trans buzzword?

>>11369605
Boys have a penis and testicles, girls have a vagina and womb. To reproduce as a species, boys put their penises into girls' vaginas and insert sperm from their (boy) testicles into the (girl) wombs. Penises and penises aren't compatible, vaginas and vaginas aren't compatible. It's hardly arbitrary, and that's only the most surface-level explanation possible

>>11369624
>everything is arbitrary
Arbitrarily kill yourself.

>>11369632
So you're basically saying if the government makes a new law that says 4channers who browse /sci/, speak english, and are transphobic will be considered a new identity called foobar, and these foobars have to use their own separate restrooms, can't play teamsports with everyone else, and can't marry the people they love you're okay with it?

>>11369656
>So you're basically saying if the government makes a new law that says 4channers who browse /sci/, speak english, and are transphobic will be considered a new identity called foobar, and these foobars have to use their own separate restrooms, can't play teamsports with everyone else, and can't marry the people they love you're okay with it?

I don't give a fuck, like biology.

>>11369656
>So you're basically saying
Like pottery

>>11369656
The difference is that foobars isn't a real biological gender, whereas male and female are real biological genders. Kys

>>11369661
>So you're basically saying

>>11369664
>>11369662
based

>>11369663
>>11369661
Ah yes, the same biology that says racists use to establish the existence of race despite the fact studies show individuals within a single local population exhibit more genetic diversity than individuals across racial boundaries?

Oops I forgot you're scientifically illiterate.

>>11369663
>>11369661
>biology

ie the brainlet field for people who are too dumb for physics, kys so you don't accidentally spread your low IQ genes

>>11369672
t. angry physics undergrad tranny

>>11369681
>>11369663
>>11369656
>>11369605
kys tranny, back2reddit

>>11369605
Sex is a biological reality, and quite an important one.

You can say that our categorisation of it is our own invention... but then that's the same for everything. What is a mountain? Is there a specific height above sea level that something must be in order to be a mountain? What about when sea level changes due to tides (caused by the moon's gravity)?

Our categorisations are never perfect, but biological sex is definitely a real phenomenon, even if there are edge cases (intersex people). Most animals have two sexes, and you need one of each having sex (mating) in order to facilitate reproduction.

Anyway, by your logic, everything is a social construct. Mountains are social constructs. Bees are social constructs (I bet you could find examples of bees that lie on the edge of the bee species, and then you would wonder, is this thing a bee, or something different?). Literally everything, by your logic, would become a social construct. And then you wouldn't be saying anything meaningful about whether the concept exists in reality or not. You'd just be saying that our conceptions are created by us, which is obviously true. Our conceptions are mental representations of the world, they're not perfect. But they still do represent things that are real in the world. Unless you're going to engage in Cartesian scepticism, in which case you can fuck off, because I don't have time for that.

>>11369656
>can't play teamsports with everyone else
Are you saying you want women and men to play all team sports together?

Let's say that happened in football (soccer if you're American). You would end up seeing NO female players at the World Cup, it would just be 100% male players, because men, on average, are stronger, faster, etc.

This is due to TESTOSTERONE, which is a biological hormone. Men produce, on average, TWENTY TIMES as much testosterone as women, due to the presence of TESTICLES, which manufacture this hormone. Men also metabolise testosterone TWICE AS FAST as women, which means that male blood levels of testosterone are about TEN TIMES as high as in women (20x the production, divided by the 2x metabolic rate, means 10x the blood level).

Source:
>the daily production is about 20 times greater in men
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone

So you want women to basically be excluded from team sports? Why do you want that? If women are allowed a separate category, it allows them to actually compete. They can't fairly compete against men, because men are stronger, due to testosterone. But they CAN fairly compete against each other. That's why women play separately from men in sports.

>>11369605
no

In the social sciences, sex is usually defined as a collection of traits—X/Y chromosomes,
gonads, hormones, and genitals—that cluster together in most people but may also occur in
atypical combinations (e.g., Blakemore et al., 2009; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Helgeson, 2016; Joel,2012). This definition is the basis for the widely repeated claim that up to 2% of live births are
intersex (Blackless et al., 2000). Few researchers and commenters seem aware that the 2% figure is a gross overestimate. To begin, correcting for inaccuracies and counting errors in the original report brings the total frequency down to less than 0.5% (Hull, 2003). More importantly,
Blackless et al. (2000) defined intersex very broadly as individuals who deviate from the
“Platonic ideal” of sex dimorphism; accordingly, they included several conditions (e.g.,
Klinefelter syndrome, vaginal agenesis, congenital adrenal hyperplasia) that affect the
development of sexual characters but can be classified as “intersex” only in a loose sense (Sax,2002). If one restricts the term to conditions that involve a discordance between chromosomal and phenotypic sex, or a phenotype that cannot be classified unambiguously as either male or female, the frequency of intersex is much lower—almost certainly less than 0.02% (Sax, 2002;
see also Hull, 2003).

- del giudice, 2009

>>11369624
HA! Life is not arbitrary. You lose.

>>11369692
I'll humor you and pretend that biological sex exists. Please, do tell how that dictate use of pronouns, which I hope even you're not stupid enough to admit *isn't* a socio-linguistic construct.

Why don't we have separate pronouns for people who are under 6 feet tall? How about instead of referring to you as "he" I refer to you as "manlet" every time I talk about you in the third person?

Turns out he was just another MEMBER of the cabal...

Get it? Member? hehehe

>>11369709
Black men are faster than white men.
Ashkenazi jews are smarter than black men.
White men have tinier dicks then black men.
Asians have slanted eyes.

Why the fuck don't we use separate pronouns for each race because races EXIST?

>>11369712
continued. Sex is binary and is based on gamete size, no in betweens.

From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987).1 Dimorphism in gamete size or anisogamy is the dominant
pattern in multicellular organisms, including animals. The evolution of two gamete types with different sizes and roles in fertilization can be predicted from first principles, as a result of
selection to maximize the efficiency of fertilization (Lehtonen & Kokko, 2011; Lehtonen & Parker, 2014). In turn, anisogamy generates a cascade of selective pressures for sexually differentiated traits in morphology, development, and behavior (see Janicke et al., 2016; Lehtonen et al., 2016; Schärer et al., 2012).

"The biological definition of sex is not just one option among many, or a matter of arbitrary preference: the very existence of differentiated males and females in a species depends on the existence of two gamete types. Chromosomes and hormones participate in the mechanics of sex determination and sexual differentiation, but do not play the same foundational role. Crucially, anisogamy gives rise to a true sex binary at the species level:
even if a given individual may fail to produce viable gametes, there are only two gamete types with no meaningful intermediate forms."

>>11369712
Destroyed it. Thread OVER. GO home NPC's.

>>11369722
We do separate races... Are you retarded? Seriously, you're dumb as shit.

>>11369605
Incorrect.

Read Human Diversity.

>>11369726
>we separate races in sports
>wre have separate pronouns for races

is english your fourth language you stupid faggot?

>>11369726
From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987).1 Dimorphism in gamete size or anisogamy is the dominant
pattern in multicellular organisms, including animals. The evolution of two gamete types with different sizes and roles in fertilization can be predicted from first principles, as a result of
selection to maximize the efficiency of fertilization (Lehtonen & Kokko, 2011; Lehtonen & Parker, 2014). In turn, anisogamy generates a cascade of selective pressures for sexually differentiated traits in morphology, development, and behavior (see Janicke et al., 2016; Lehtonen et al., 2016; Schärer et al., 2012).

"The biological definition of sex is not just one option among many, or a matter of arbitrary preference: the very existence of differentiated males and females in a species depends on the existence of two gamete types. Chromosomes and hormones participate in the mechanics of sex determination and sexual differentiation, but do not play the same foundational role. Crucially, anisogamy gives rise to a true sex binary at the species level:
even if a given individual may fail to produce viable gametes, there are only two gamete types with no meaningful intermediate forms."


Read before you spout more bullshit.

>>11369729
HAHAHAHA! You lose.

>>11369732
Bloombot retard. Niggerfaggot, King of the NPC's. All hail the great cocksucker!

>>11369733
>RACE DOESNT EXIST BECAUSE WYPIPO ENSLAVED MY ANCESTORS

kys nig

>>11369738
>>11369732
>>11369729
>>11369726
reddit btfo

>>11369739
Become an hero today, niggerfaggot.

>>11369668
I really hope you're trolling, it sounds like you're a teenager who has just discovered this topic for the first time.

I am not a typical /pol/ racist by the way, in fact I think racism is stupid. And yes, there is a ton of genetic diversity WITHIN each racial / ethnic group. But the races do also have some distinct genetic differences from each other. If they didn't, you wouldn't be able to recognise a black person / white person / East Asian person / etc. by their appearance.

Some health conditions are more common in some races than others. Cystic fibrosis is much more common in northern European people than other ethnicities. Sickle cell anaemia is more common in African people than other ethnicities. And "Asian flush" (a genetic condition that causes someone's skin to turn redder with blood when they drink alcohol) is unique to East Asians. Pic related, you can see that 45% of South Chinese people have this condition, and 42% of Japanese people. But 0% of ethnic Europeans have it.

>[T]here is a distinct statistical correlation between gene frequencies and racial categories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

It's a controversial topic obviously. And I think we should judge each individual on their individual qualities. Like I said, I think racism is dumb. But there are genetic differences between races. Even though each "race" is a fuzzy category. But then again, so are species, and many other categories that humans have. What is the difference between a hill and a mound? Again, fuzzy categories.

>>11369743
>>11369692
>hurr gender doesn't exist because intersex people exist

holy shit you're retarded read >>11369732

>>11369739
Go give your money to a nig, you stupid goy.

>>11369744
>>11369732
>>11369723
>>11369712
>>11369709
>>11369692
Absolutely based, peterson toddlers getting absolutely destroyed. Thank you for your service.

Procreation is not arbitrary. You stupid fucking goys.

>>11369668
You are so stupid that you confuse two basic statistical phenomena: Illusions of Patterns and Patterns of Illusions.

>>11369749
>>11369746
go shill on reddit kyke

>>11369718
>I'll humor you and pretend that biological sex exists
Some people have dicks and testicles and they produce viable sperm cells; others have vaginas and ovaries and produce fertile eggs. In fact it's nearly 50% of the human population that are the former, and nearly 50% who are the latter (yes there are intersex conditions, but they are a very, very tiny percentage). So I'd say it's pretty real.

The thing is that every categorisation is fuzzy. Where do you draw the boundary between the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean? I think there are international standards that define this, but remember that tectonic plates move, so over time, this line is probably going to move. So everything, even things we think are very well-defined, are fuzzy. But they're still measuring something real. Even if it's basically impossible to draw strict, 100% clear lines.

>Why don't we have separate pronouns for people who are under 6 feet tall?
Because biological sex is important to humans (and other animals that reproduce sexually), and height is not that important.

Humans didn't come up with pronouns for tall people because it just wasn't an important distinction to us.

A man can make babies with a fertile woman, regardless of whether she's 4 feet or 6 feet tall. But he can't make babies with another male.

And babies are obviously important to survival. Natural selection produced humans who highly value reproduction - natural selection dictates that those humans who are best at reproducing will be the ones that surive.

>>11369754
Reddit is for fags like you.

>>11369759
>>11369744
Ok, if gender doesn't exist explain why it's only Han Chinese getting 99.5% of the coronavirus cases. dumb fuck

>>11369595
>>11369605
samefag troll.
don't waste your time on this bullshit.

>>11369754
Your shit is so weak. I'm disappointed in 4chans lack of balls these days.

You newfags are a disgrace.

>>11369761
>From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987).

Haven't seen you refute this piece of science yet tranny.

>>11369746
You fucking moron, my post (the second one you quoted) SAID THAT BIOLOGICAL SEX IS REAL YOU FUCKING STUPID CUNT

>>11369751
I'm the first and last two posts that you've replied to. And I'm agreeing with Peterson, that biological sex is real.

Where have I been destroyed exactly?

THE POSTS YOU QUOTED ARE AGREEING WITH PETERSON, YOU FUCKING MORON

>>11369763
MY POSTS, WHICH YOU'RE REPLYING TO, ARE SAYING THAT BIOLOGICAL SEX IS REAL, YOU FUCKING MORON

>>11369763
rofl

>>11369770
>And I'm agreeing with Peterson,And I'm agreeing with Peterson,

>"Basically it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex. I'm a historian of medicine, I can unpack that for you at great length if you want"

Are you fucking retarded? Historian of Medicine (whatever the fuck this bs field is) is NOT biology. Probably some post modern academic field made for feminists who can't get into stem.

>>11369595
i dunno mate, pretty sure you can tell whether someone is male or female based on their biology, so its as mucb a social construct as any other arbitrary label, like whether or not someone is missing their leg or if they have a cold

What's more important?
Penises or Vaginas?

>>11369773
>>11369763
>g-gender doesn't exist! but race does!

based retard

>>11369785

>>11369770
That's nearly the entire career of Fausto -Sterling that you wrongfully called a thought experiment. She poured through medical records and reports and found plenty of people who were intersex were put under surgery or placed within a sex that wasn't truly representative, e.g 46XX DSD cases or other cases where XX humans have a penis-like structure. Also you can be born a eunuch. The things you mentioned are definitely not conditions of sex, they are consequences of certain biological features but that's not how anyone in biology or medicine defines sex. But just like the the more relevant conditions of sex they have a fair number of outliers that aren't dealt with in an objective manner, but through social forces. A penis doesn't make you male, people who are born with a penis aren't always considered male (46 XX DSD), a Y chromosome doesn't make you males, people born with a Y chromosome can and have been categorized otherwise (eunuchs, 46 XY DSD, 47 XXY, androgen insensistivity, etc). The same goes for sperm production, testes, and other traits. The way we categorize off of those traits is not objective it relies on social perceptions of people to decide where those lines are drawn for those biological traits. Acceptance of intersex as a category has changed through time and cultures, which just shows the social construction of sex.

There's no definition for a gene that people can agree on, it's an ongoing philosophical discussion. Genes are a conceptual unit we talk about that doesn't have a concrete biological analog. I would hope you don't find this contentious

>>11369759
No
Stating that sex determination only results in a penis or a vagina and that those are sufficient to classify as male or female is blatantly wrong considering how much classifications have shifted through time. The shift in classification of eunuchs and other intersex conditions clearly shows how sex is a social construct. A penis hasn't always been an necessary condition of being male, neither has a Y-chromosome (even though it's existence wasn't known at certain times).

Just like gender, sex is a social classification based on biological factors but how we organize those factors isn't objective or built solely upon biology. What those biological factors indicate is decided and determined socially, whether sex means a penis, y-chromosome, or the 3-G model is not inscribed in the natural world for us to see, it is decided by our society at a given time and place.

I still don't see the trepidation with recognizing sex is social constructed. Genes are socially constructed, yet we know they're still real and the field of genetics still functions perfectly. All a socially constructed sex means is the way we try to use sex to be an immutable factor that is weapon used to oppose certain human rights movements is unjustified. The science of sex determination will remain unscathed, only the social implications of sex will change

So aftre all this retarded bickering, can someone tell me if the demarcation between sexes exist in reality or just in our minds?

>>11369803
The concept is arbitrary and exists only in our minds, but this is valid for every concept. When everything is a X, then being a X is irrelevant. Thus, it's irrelevant if the concept is arbitrary.
The physical manifestation of the concept, ie males and females, are obviously as real as any other physical manifestation of other arbitrary concepts such as "mothers", "mountains" or "flowers".

>>11369811
what about taxonomic ranks above species? how arbitrary are things like genus and family?
I remember reading that even the definition of species isn't univeral even though I thought it was pretty clear cut (x and y can have viable offspring)

>>11369656
>transphobic
What are trannies transitioning from and to?

>>11369815
You're wrong.

>>11369668
Its hilarious when people with absolutely no understanding of statistics repeat this and think they btfo someone. The insidious thing is the people that came up with this, “there is a greater difference in intelligence within a population then between populations” totally understand that it’s meaningless and why it is, but they say it to trick retards into their point of view. It’s really insidious.

>>11369722
We do
>nigger
>kike
>cracker
>chink

>>11369819
That's not an answer

>>11369823
Except you've been proven wrong here reddit:
>>11369744

>>11369813
>what about taxonomic ranks above species? how arbitrary are things like genus and family?
Every concept is arbitrary. This doesn't imply anything about the real world usefulness of each concept. Obviously genus, family etc are useful concepts.

>I remember reading that even the definition of species isn't univeral even though I thought it was pretty clear cut (x and y can have viable offspring)
Every concept has slightly or considerably divergent definitions. But this doesn't mean that every definition is right, some are completely wrong. I don't know if the definition of the concept of species has a low or high level of divergence, I'm not a biologist.

>>11369823
hilarious how undergrads think "muh statistics" is your magic key into manipulating reality. Let me guess you're also one of those retards who keeps citing that 95% climate scientist consensus on climate change paper?

>>11369832
>Obviously genus, family etc are useful concepts.

they're really outdated, like 70 years. behind the latest models in molecular biology outdated.

>>11369794
>everything is a social construct
You are mentally ill.

Sex and gender aren't science. This is the domain of philosophy.
>>>/lit/

>>11369830
What? That post mostly agrees with me. >>11369839
It is a statistics issue mate. And it’s a really simple one at that. Here’s another true statement.
“There is a greater difference in iq within the human population then the difference between the human and gorilla population”
Oh shit! That means gorillas are as smart as people right? Durrrrrrrrr. Again, the people that came up with this shit know exactly what it means, they say it to trick retards(like you guys)

>>11369842
And you're scientifically illiterate

Langman's medical embryology , chapter 2: The chromosome theory of inheritance

>Traits of a new individual are determined by spe- cifi c genes on chromosomes inherited from the father and the mother. Humans have approxi- mately 23,000 genes on 46 chromosomes. Genes on the same chromosome tend to be inheritedtogether and so are known aslinked genes. In somatic cells, chromosomes appear as 23homologous pairs to form thediploid num- ber of 46. There are 22 pairs of matching chro- mosomes, the autosomes, and one pair of sex chromosomes. If the sex pair is XX, the indi- vidual is genetically female; if the pair is XY, the individual is genetically male

Langman's medical embryology is a world reknown medical textbook with the utmost prestige. It should go without saying that it blows away your cutesy little website that appears to be hilariously unsourced.

You are not arguing against me, you are arguing against 80 years of accrued medical data that all fully corroborates what I said earlier, what is stated in Langman's medical embryology, what is backed by the entire disciplines of embryology, physiology and genetics. You are not only wrong, you are hilariously wrong.

>>11369849
Don't care.

Until or unless you directly refute 80+ years of accrued medical data, as presented in Langman's medical embryology, nothing you say is relevant. You don't seem to understand even the most basic concepts.... I am going to guess you are either very young, or your IQ is..... outstanding.

There is no reason to continue, this all appears to be going over your head. I will give you some advice; There are topics I am not well versed in, when such topics arise, I speak with caution and will concede when challenged on an issue, I can recognize that there are things I do not know.

You are arguing on a topic you have absolutely zero knowledge about. You don't even know how a medical textbook functions. Under these circumstances, you arguing against me is very foolish. Regardless of what you may think of my character, it should be obvious that I am familiar with these medical disciplines. Arguing against me like you are doing speaks very poorly of you and does nothing but reveal you to be foolish.

Never argue from ignorance. It speaks poorly of you. I hope you learn the lesson, gg'd.

>>11369775
PETERSON WASN'T THE PERSON TO CLAIM HE WAS A HISTORIAN OF MEDICINE YOU FUCKING MORON

YOU DIDN'T WATCH THE VIDEO IN THE OP DID YOU

YOU FUCKING IDIOT

PETERSON IS WELL-KNOWN FOR DISAGREEING WITH LEFT-WINGERS AND THEIR SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM

>>11369775
JUST TO CLARIFY, PETERSON IS NOT THE GUY WHO SAID "IT'S NOT CORRECT THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS BIOLOGICAL SEX"

THE PERSON HE WAS *DISAGREEING WITH* SAID THAT

>>11369854
Lmao that whole wall of text and you didn’t say anything. What even is your argument? Are you trolling or mentally ill or what

>>11369863
chill petersonboy, get you lobsterfix, you are losing it :)

>>11369849
How cute, when you graduate whatever 200 level humanities course you're taking with a C+ and get an internship at your local zoo maybe then you can come back an-AHAHA just fucking with you kiddo. I don't give a shit what you say. kys

>>11369868
What is the highest level biology course you've taken kid?

>>11369794

Technically every 'thing' is a socially constructed representation of reality. So it's effectively a moot statement. Now we are down to making value judgments about what's politically better or worse. And sociology and gender studies are organs of social activism, with no consideration for empiricism.

So I can say that this comment is an arbitrary social representation. That is socially constructed and is not useful enough as a representation of reality because. Trans, Kleine felters, are just abnormalities and outliers relative to the definition of male and female. Anything past that is a way to muddy the waters at the margins.

And yeah they changed over time. But as our knowledge has gotten bigger, the definitions can be more and more accurate. And more exclusionary to trans as real male or females, to kleine felters, intersex as simply others, or some part male to female, or vice versa.

>>11369785
I'm the first post you've responded to and I said that biological sex DOES exist and race sort of does too.

You fucking idiot.

>>11369791
As I've said in other posts, none of our categorisations in life are perfect. How do you define a mountain? Does something have to be above a certain height to be a mountain? What is that height? And is that measured as height above sea level? Sea level changes due to tides. So then how do you account for that?

None of our categorisations are perfect. Philosophers have argued for centuries about what the conditions for "knowledge" are, for instance.

In any case, roughly 50% of the human population have dicks, sperm, no tits, and greater muscle mass, while roughly 50% have vaginas, eggs, tits, and less muscle mass. So we call them males and females.

>sex is a social classification
Then literally everything is a social classification. "Mountain" is a social classification. "Duck" is a social classification. They're all classifications defined by US (the definition of "duck" isn't always going to be concrete; there are different species of duck, and there will be some animals where we think "does this count as a duck? Or should we put it in a slightly different category?")

>>11369873
I don't why you're still on some inane philosophical rant when we're talking biology here. I'm not the one talking about social construction.

For many years, scientists believed that female development was the default programme, and that male development was actively switched on by the presence of a particular gene on the Y chromosome. In 1990, researchers made headlines when they uncovered the identity of this gene3, 4, which they called SRY. Just by itself, this gene can switch the gonad from ovarian to testicular development. For example, XX individuals who carry a fragment of the Y chromosome that contains SRY develop as males.

>By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme — such as one called WNT4. XY individuals with extra copies of this gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes5. In 2011, researchers showed6 that if another key ovarian gene, RSPO1, is not working normally, it causes XX people to develop an ovotestis — a gonad with areas of both ovarian and testicular development.

>These discoveries have pointed to a complex process of sex determination, in which the identity of the gonad emerges from a contest between two opposing networks of gene activity. Changes in the activity or amounts of molecules (such as WNT4) in the networks can tip the balance towards or away from the sex seemingly spelled out by the chromosomes. “It has been, in a sense, a philosophical change in our way of looking at sex; that it's a balance,” says Eric Vilain, a clinician and the director of the Center for Gender-Based Biology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It's more of a systems-biology view of the world of sex.”

>>11369830
I'm the guy who made the second post, and the guy you're replying to (and who just replied to you) is right; I'm mostly agreeing with him. I didn't prove him wrong. I don't know how you came up with that conclusion.

>>11369880
>>11369873
Clearly this conversation is beyond you, because you're reverting back to your philosophical BS. How about you just stay in /lit/

>>11369880
I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

>My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,”

Holy fucking shit.

>>11369605
>>11369595
Don't bother making this argument. Nobody here has the mental faculties to understand it.

>>11369881
I am not any rant. I entered the thread way past conception.

I was responding to some everything is socially constructed retard. Was that you?

You could show me that sex is determined by two dudes blowing each other in an alleyway in an orobourous. That wouldn't change the accuracy of male and female definitions. It'd add a margin and an 'other' to it which covers the odd .5% at the end or whatever. In the same category you'd put mules or ligers, or other abnormalities.

Who gives a shit about the complexity of determining sex. It seems like you are muddying the water.

>>11369854
>>11369872
I'm not the guy you're replying to but he seems to be on my side of the argument (which is that biological sex is real).

And I just want to point out that your posts are LITERALLY just "argument from authority", which is a fallacy.

>DUDE I KNOW MORE THAN YOU
>DUDE, SOME GUY SAID X, SO THAT MEANS X IS RIGHT
>DUDE, YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS TOPIC

All of these "arguments" are fallacies of irrelevance. You're giving no reasoning whatsoever to substantiate your position (whatever that position is; you haven't stated it). You're just engaging in argument from authority and ad hominem, both of which are fallacies of irrelevance.

At least I think they are. Ad hominem definitely is. As for argument from authority, I know that it definitely isn't logically valid, for one thing.

>>11369894
Everyone can understand it, but to understand an argument is different than agreeing with it, specially in this case since it's plainly wrong.

>>11369815
It really boils down to this. What is there to transition from or to if there's no real sex/gender? What is male/female then, just behavior? Isn't that more of a social construct than biological features?

>>11369869
You are so fucking retarded that you thought Peterson said something that he didn't. The person he was DISAGREEING with said that.

And now you're trying to engage in ad hominem because you were found out, and now you're pissing your pants.

That's okay, I accept your admission of defeat.

>>11369887
Oh fuck off the cunt I replied to, was making a stupid social constructionist argument, and tapering that at the end with a fair bit of political activism.

>>11369595
>people are successfully arguing that sex is a social construct on /sci/
holy fuck i never thought i would see the day. this board has an iq above 70 after all. well done lads.

ITT: /pol/niggers getting absolutely BTFO

>>11369898
>specially in this case since it's plainly wrong.
You're replying to the wrong person then. Here you go >>11369881

>>11369887
I made the first post, not the second (but the second guy is right, I agree with him).

Your post here is just ad hominem - that is, not an argument. Are you admitting defeat?

The point about fuzzy categories is entirely relevant. Any credible scientist will tell you just how difficult it is to define things. Look at the definition of planet. Pluto used to be a planet. And there was a huge argument about what our definition of "planet" should be. And it's still not really perfect.

Biological sex is a real phenomenon. ~50% of the population falls into one sex category, and ~50% falls into another. Intersex conditions are ANOMALOUS - they are extremely rare. And many of them are infertile; they can't successfully reproduce. And the existence of sex categories in the first place seems to be in order to facilitate reproduction. So on that basis you could say that intersex conditions are not true sex categories, because they can't facilitate reproduction.

Take your social constructionist bollocks and shove it up your arse.

>>11369890
Are you the first post I responded to? So are you this post: >>11369785

You said:
>g-gender doesn't exist! but race does!
But I said in my post that biological sex / gender DOES exist.

>>11369897
You're clearly out of your depth child. So let the adults do the talking. If I'm in the middle of discussing a paper on gene sequency and some toddler butts in I'm not going to give him the time of day.
>argument from authority
OOOOH LOOK OUT HE BROUGHT OUT THE BIG GUNS NOT THE FALLACINOS
Let me guess, you're one of those "high IQ" crackpots AKA Langan who gets analblasted because real scientists won't give his CTMU the time of day right?

You keep talking about "social construction" and all this liberal arts philoso-linguo-metaphysical bullshit but at the end of the day that won't get you anywhere in the real world. You've made a stupidly arrogant claim, "biological sex" doesn't exist and have provided no evidence beyond your made up simp language fiddling. So either address the points I made or shut the fuck up.

>>11369911
No, they're not. Any argument they've used would ALSO entail that EVERYTHING IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

According to them, the categorisation of "mountain" would be a social construct. Same for "duck". Or anything else.

And to say that EVERYTHING is a social construct isn't really saying anything interesting at all.

The fact is that the term "mountain" is meant to relate to a type of thing in the real world, and we can try and make a specific definition of it, if needed. Same with biological sex. Males and females are real things, and we can make specific definitions if we need to.

>>11369911
What? it's literally this one guy who calls everything a construct lmao >>11369930

>>11369936
>"biological sex" doesn't exist
No, I'm the opposite. In all my posts I'm saying that biological sex DOES exist.

And the person you've replied to here - >>11369849 - seems to agree with me, that biological sex is real. And that races, to some degree, are biologically real.

scientism cultists and empiricists getting completely ravaged.
/lit/ would be proud.

>>11369605
Except there’s real inherent differences that come with sex. If the floopsfloops could give birth to children when the other one couldn’t then it’s not a social construct. Only actual retards affirm everything is a social construct.

>>11369942
No you fucking idiot. I've said in all my posts that biological sex is a real thing.

What I'm saying is that if the left-wingers want to call biological sex a "social construct", then we would have to call EVERYTHING a social construct. The idea of a "mountain" would be a social construct. The idea of a "duck" as well. Since none of these concepts have watertight definitions.

>>11369925
Yeah you're not going to tell me what your background is because you don't have any. So keep mouthing off about my "ad hominems" you clown.

Anyone that actually studied medical courses, specifically embryology, Must already know that the objective metric for sex is irrefutable and not debatable.

Sex is the basis for humanity's sexual dimorphism. It is determined immediately after the fecundation process ("conception") takes place, where the two haploid cells (23 chromosome cells) become a single diploid cell (a cell with 23 pairs of chromosomes). The last pair of chromosomes or "the sexual chromosomes" are what determine whether that human is male or female.

XY = man.

XX = woman.

All anomalies except XXX syndrome = man.

This concept has about 80 years of medical data across multiple disciplines to back it up. It's not something that is up for debate unless someone has a revolutionary breakthrough that somehow overturns this concept....... that's not going to happen. It would be more likely to manage to toss a coin one billion times and get one billion tails in a row.

>>11369947
You're not responding to any particular argument and you also have no argument.

You're saying nothing, except that some posts in this thread are making you butthurt, but you're too stupid to respond to them.

@11369959
imagine seething this much from a shitpost

>>11369959
Let me get this straight. The last and only time you took biology was in high school (ie now). You haven't published anything, haven't provided any sources for your idiotic claims, haven't refuted any of my points, want to refute the standard graduate text on medical embryology, and then when I call you out on it you bring out the "AD HOMINEM" card? And you wonder why Trump won?

>>11369605
>falling for the bait

The social categorization of man and gorilla is a social construction. That usually implies, that it's a noise interpretation and it might not be a proxy for an 'accurate' enough definition. Thefore I may deduce that the differences between a man and a gorilla are socially constructed, and they are exclusionary to gorillas. Therefore the right categorization would be inclusive of all ape-kind as equal. Because categorizations are political assets of the establishment to oppress lesser apes, as lesser than humans. And this must not be.

This is what you social constructionist sound like on anything. You are unironic social justice plants who are ruining modern science through activism

>>11369972
>The social categorization
> social construction

>>>/it/
>>>/lgbt/

OP is obviously a troll or very seriously mentally ill. How is there over 100 posts in this thread.

>>11369972
Stop polluting the thread kid. I'm trying to have a debate with the only other person in here who has any understanding of molecular biology (though a tentative understanding at best) and you're here having a one man conversation about social construction because that's the level your simp brain operates at. The argument between those two retards ended 50 posts ago. Keep up or get out.

https://strawpoll.com/4pwgpd66

>>11369605
>>11369894

>arbitrary
every single society in human history was built around two biological sexes

funny how human societies that have never been in contact with each other came to the same "arbitrary" conclusion

>>11369957
The posts you replied to (one of which was mine) AGREED WITH THE FACT THAT SEX IS BIOLOGICAL, THAT MALES ARE XY, AND FEMALES ARE XX

You're just so fucking stupid that you can't read.

>>11369962
Imagine seething so hard that you make posts telling us how butthurt you are, AND being so stupid that you can't articulate an argument against the posts that make you butthurt.

That's okay, I accept your admission of defeat.

>>11369967
In all my posts in this thread I have said that biological sex is real.

You are so fucking stupid that you keep replying to me and completely misunderstanding what I've posted. I keep clearly saying that biological sex is real, and yet you keep alleging that I'm saying the opposite, BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO THICK TO READ PROPERLY.

>>11370040
Or you're the fucking retard who's illiterate when I cited Langman and you disagreed with me. Maybe if your background was in the actual area you're debating in and not some useless shit like posmodern literary criticism you'd actually understand.

>>11370013
Yeah this thread is filled with actual discussions. I can really see all the citations of the relevant material. WTF is even the contested ground that you are discussing.

This thread has nothing to do with molecular biology. You are arguing around the point. Because there are no intrinsically hard limits. If you want to argue autistically about some arbitrary hormonal, or genetic line past the current XX, XY and endocrinological guidelines for normal hormones as indicative of normal physiology. Than I don't see why you tards don't pick another thread. It's a simple question that gains no clarity for going into the weeds.

>>11370018
Jordan Peterson was NOT the one who claimed he was a historian of medicine YOU FUCKING RETARD.

It was some left-wing professor who claimed he was a historian of medicine. And Peterson VEHEMENTLY DISAGREED with this dude.

You fucking moron.

>>11370053
>>11370040
Not sure why you're samefagging when it's clear from your writing pattern, reddit spacing, and use of all caps when riled who you are. And once again, because you're so fucking out of your depth you can't read biological literature you can't even defend your own points or understand any of the sources you quoted.
So once again, shut the fuck up simp clown and stay in school. Even whatever dogshit community college you're going to next year will give you better common sense than whatever crap you were spewing.

>>11370054
You started replying to multiple posts that AGREED with you (not just mine, some other anon's too), and you completely misinterpreted what they said, and you thought they were left-wing posts.

Because you're too thick to read.

Maybe you should go to another website, the discussion here is obviously too difficult for you to understand.

>>11369849
The fact that we can't use IQ to talk about gorillas effectively means that we've somehow established that gorillas are different from humans, not based on that one statistic. Non-statistically: your reasons for saying different races are equivalent to different subspecies are wrong. No genetic evidence. Really just boils down to your anecdotes. You're attempting to hodgepodge together scientific literature to justify your pea-brain's tendency to overgeneralize.

>>11370064
See: >>11370065

You're so fucking thick that you can't read posts properly and you think they're saying the opposite of what they're saying.

Sit down, shut up, and you might learn something. But I doubt it because you're as thick as pig shit.

>>11370065
This was me >>11369873
Why did you reply to me here if you agreed with me idiot?

>>11370069
I was the guy talking to the OP
>>11370069
>>11370065
>>11370064
these retards keep replying to me

>>11369605
>there is no such thing as biological sex
Is there such thing as sex?
Yes.
Is it biological?
Also, yes.

Hmm. Oh well. Guess you are beat.

>>11370074
Except I wasn't replying to you kid.
Read >>11369832
>>11369849
I posted the standard literature refuting everything the OP said and you and whoever this retard is >>11370069
>>11370078
kept saying I was ad homming them

>>11370074
You are replying to a different person, than the post you are quoting you tard.

>>11370093

I am NOT the guy you are replying to.

I don't know why you KEPT QUOTING ME REPEATEDLY to say you're agreeing with me here when that clearly wasn't the case

>>11370083
No you replied to me earlier about some textbook and started getting mad when I was agreeing with you.

>>11370105
I never said I agreed with anyone in this thread. Another person said they agreed with me. But only in one post. I am starting to think you are retarded

>>11369595
why is peterstein's daughter such a thot tho?

>>11370114
LOL I was arguing with the OP then you demanded I give you my fancy biologist credentials are started going off on a tangent about how I don't know anything.

>>11370074
I wrote the post you're replying to, this one: >>11370065

And I did not make any of the posts that replied to your post here: >>11369873

The first two replies to your post there are by an absolute fucking MORON in this thread who keeps replying to people who agree with him, and he thinks they're leftist posts / not agreeing with him, because he's a fucking moron who can't read properly.

>>11369605
one has the potential to have kids
the other is a man, baby
/thread

>>11370083
You are thick as pig shit. You keep replying to posts that are saying biological sex is real, and you think they're leftist posts / saying biological sex isn't real. Because you're too thick to read.

You're just as thick as the leftists in this thread. You are a fucking moron.

>>11370105
You are right, he keeps quoting people that are actually agreeing with him, but he thinks they're not.

Because he's so fucking thick that he can't read properly.

>>11370118
Is that one on the left Peterson's daughter? Doesn't look like her.

>>11370131
one on the right

>>11370131
Wait so are you this redditfag who types in occasional ALL CAPS or are you this retard with some supposed background in molecular biology >>11370013

Because in the former case you said I agreed with you the issue of race when I clearly didn't and in the latter I was never in the conversation regarding biology so I don't know why you're replying to me.

"agreed to the issue of race"
"saying biological sex is/isn't real"

lmfao, this isnt a discussion.
two sexes, niggers are animals.
end of THREAD

>>11370147
based,

>>11370131
>not educated about the subject matter at hand but keep talking
>blames others for when you get confused
So you're a dunce got it.
>>11370142
Sex and race both fall under biology. You deny one you deny all.

>>11370147
based

>>11370147
>issue of race
>niggers are animals

why are retards unable to think in anything but extremes?

>>11370240
I don't know, why are niggers unable to form a society that doesn't collapse?

>>11370240
>>11370250
kek
bodied hard

>>11370140
Yes the one on the right is clearly Peterson's daughter. I just don't get why the left and centre are included, because I don't think the left is her.

>>11370142
Ad hominem means you're a moron. You are also clearly new here.

You haven't been able to make an argument against my post, and therefore you concede the argument.

I accept your concession.

>>11370155
>argument from authority
Is a fallacy, and thus you are conceding that you have no argument. Thus you concede the argument to me, and you concede that you are a moron.

I accept your concession.

The real thing that trannies are exploiting so they can live out their anime-induced autogynephilic fantasies is that any series of articulated statements around a particular phenomenon that exists in reality can inevitably be found to have some kind "minsterpretation" or "loophole" if you like, from which all manner of chaos can be funneled in with an appropriate amount of work.

This is an issue with "manifest reality" itself: as surely as we can arbitrarily impose certain models, interpretations, mathematical or otherwise on the world, we fail to truly capture the world as it is. Newtonian mechanics may capture the overall motion of a ball through the air, or an object sliding on a surface, but it fails to capture electrons moving around the atomic nucleus, and the models we have for that fail to capture the subatomic particles interacting amidst the electrons and protons and neutrons, and so on and so on. There is an inherent failure in imposing structure on the world. To be sure there is validity in doing so; we can "impose structure to solve problems" if you like, and how much structure you'd want to impose depends on the problems being solved.

Reality is "infinitely complicated," or "the dimensions for modelling it" are so high that we require some kind of relaxation on the model-to-reality correspondence. So we do so; but we sacrifice our ability to be 100% sure on our boundaries. Generally, this isn't an issue, in technical fields the necessary background to even understand these structures is too much for the layman, let alone for the layman to challenge them. But trannies, motivated by their addiction to pornography, self-gratification, intellectually inert brains have done their absolute best to exploit every minor loophole in biological definitions of sex. They are an egregore that has infiltrated every facet of society, from sociology to mathematics, driven by one compulsion, and only one compulsion: coom and raep and gay and fail and AIDS.

>>11370296
You're one of the few people on this rotten pisshole of a board to understand this.
The best analogy is when the Russian communists tried to 'engineer' the course of a river and ended up causing massive flood damage.
It's just hubris plain and simple, a jejune assumption that contemporary theory is some kind of 'truth' or 'ultimate reality'.

The midwit problem of now knowing how ignorant one is, basically.

>>11369605
You can generalize all you want but differences in biology have social consequences and people can make predictions based on these. In 20 years you'll be disgusted with yourself and sit alone in your apartment trying to "unpack" and "deconstruct" your own misery.

>>11369595
From /our guy/ Paul Cockshott-

>I have read a number of papers that claim to detect differences between the brains of people who have undergone transexual treatment compared to others of the same sex. These papers suffer from a number of weaknesses, small sample sizes, failure to control for the effect of hormone treatment, failure to compare against homosexual samples, failure to control for brain size. None of them, to my knowledge, has ever demonstrated that blinded detection of transexual subjects can be performed solely from NMR scans. It is unclear what conclusions you are drawing from these studies.

All behaviour has material causes, none is freely chosen.

The notion of free will and free choice is part of Catholic theology and alien to the materialist world view. Saying that homosexuality, or transgender identity is not freely chosen may be of relevance if you are debating with a priest, but not when debating with a Marxist.

All ideological beliefs have material supports. If a person believes in transubstantiation or sees visions of the Holy Virgin, these beliefs and experiences have a material support in the state of the believer’s brain. One would expect, were one able to put a person having a Marian vision in an NMR machine that they would show activity in areas of the visual cortex.
But were one to detect this activity, one would not concede that the vision of Mary was real in any sense other than it being an internal brain state.
That there are patterns of brain activity associated with the internal modeling of the body, including perceptions of whether the body is male or female, is only to be expected but it is unclear a) how reliable current NMR techniques are at detecting non-conforming perceptions, b) why one should give particular credence to such states even if they can be detected.

>>11369605
>if nothing has actual meaning then everything I say is right

>>11369605
But say floopflops have different instinctual desires compared to non-floopflops , what then

>>11369595
Sex is a biological reality (barring hermaphroditism cases). GENDER, however, is purely a social construct that works like Tumblrites say it works believe it or not.

>>11369605
>you WILL submit and you WILL stop noticing that penises and vaginas are different NOW

holy shit man the left is so fucking cringe now

>>11370374
>these beliefs and experiences have a material support in the state of the believer’s brain
>conflating the mind and the brain

pseud level off the charts

>>11370408
What are secoundary sexual characteristics?
-Higher Agression, higher physicality, higher need for rough and tumble play, differences in personality from infancy.
You can describe personality as having infinite permutations. Gender as in secoundary sex characteristics and resulting cultural artifacts has little to do with it.

>>11369605
lmao is this what lefties unironically believe?

>>11370465
They believe whatever their kike masters/sexless loveless wizen femoid professors tell them to believe, which changes on a weekly basis in correlation to the progress of the globohomo agenda.
Not a single one of these mentally ill deadbrains has an internally consistent set of beliefs of which to speak.

>>11370465
>>11370472
I don't think most of them believe it but many go along with it anyway.

>>11369722
Because, unlike sex, race is actually a spectrum. A white and a black parent make a mulatto child, and that child can then have reproduce with a black spouse, resulting in a 75% black - 25% white progeny. The combinations are endless, and thus, you cannot make an endless number of separations in sports. But you can make 2 divisions for men and women.

>>11370296
ie: post modern bullshit that create this chaotic trash called socialbiology and gender studies

>>11370490
If you pretend for long enough then you forget you are pretending.

>>11369595

My response would be as follows. "It's because you used the word, "unpack". This is what allows me to legitimately dismiss you out of hand."

>>11369607
can you unpack this?

>>11369595
>Unpack
I fucking hate this onions word, fuck whoever says this.

>>11369595
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXXTXIgpu8

>>11369605
>arbitrary
Cringe
Nothing in any system of meaning is "arbitrary"
Nothing in a causal world is "arbitrary"

>>11369605
>>11369624
>that's just another arbitrary thing you chose to define people
Just like their age, height, weight, skin color, blood type, metabolic rate, cholesterol level, etc., right?

>>11369605
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163638300000321

Sex differences in human neonatal social perception

Sexual dimorphism in sociability has been documented in humans. The present study aimed to ascertain whether the sexual dimorphism is a result of biological or socio-cultural differences between the two sexes. 102 human neonates, who by definition have not yet been influenced by social and cultural factors, were tested to see if there was a difference in looking time at a face (social object) and a mobile (physical-mechanical object). Results showed that the male infants showed a stronger interest in the physical-mechanical mobile while the female infants showed a stronger interest in the face. The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin.

>>11369605
www.nature.com/articles/srep19669

Experience-independent sex differences in newborn macaques: Females are more social than males

Human females exhibit greater social interest and skills relative to males, appearing in infancy, suggesting biological roots; however, male and female infants may be treated differently, potentially causing or amplifying sex differences. Here, we tested whether sex differences in social motivation emerge in infant monkeys (n=48) reared in a controlled postnatal environment. Compared to males, females at 2–3 weeks looked more at conspecifics’ faces (d=0.65), especially the eyes (d=1.09) and at 4–5 weeks exhibited more affiliative behaviors (d=0.64), including gesturing, looking and proximity to familiar and unfamiliar human caretakers. In sum, converging evidence from humans and monkeys suggests that female infants are more social than males in the first weeks of life and that such differences may arise independent of postnatal experience. Individual differences in social interest have wide-ranging developmental consequences, impacting infants’ social interaction quality and opportunities for learning. Understanding the evolution of sex differences and their developmental emergence is necessary to best support infants with varying levels of sociality.

>>11370366
>implying they'll likely get to that level of introspection rather than trying to make the next generation mentally crippled to join them

>>11369605
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/icd.2064

Sex differences in children's toy preferences: A systematic review, meta‐regression, and meta‐analysis

From an early age, most children choose to play with toys typed to their own gender. In order to identify variables that predict toy preference, we conducted a meta‐analysis of observational studies of the free selection of toys by boys and girls aged between 1 and 8 years. From an initial pool of 1788 papers, 16 studies (787 boys and 813 girls) met our inclusion criteria. We found that boys played with male‐typed toys more than girls did (Cohen's d = 1.03, p < .0001) and girls played with female‐typed toys more than boys did (Cohen's d = −0.91, p < .0001). Meta‐regression showed no significant effect of presence of an adult, study context, geographical location of the study, publication date, child's age, or the inclusion of gender‐neutral toys. However, further analysis of data for boys and girls separately revealed that older boys played more with male‐typed toys relative to female‐typed toys than did younger boys (β = .68, p < .0001). Additionally, an effect of the length of time since study publication was found: girls played more with female‐typed toys in earlier studies than in later studies (β = .70, p < .0001), whereas boys played more with male‐typed toys (β = .46, p < .05) in earlier studies than in more recent studies. Boys also played with male‐typed toys less when observed in the home than in a laboratory (β = −.46, p < .05). Findings are discussed in terms of possible contributions of environmental influences and age‐related changes in boys' and girls' toy preferences. Despite methodological variation in the choice and number of toys offered, context of testing, and age of child, the consistency in finding sex differences in children's preferences for toys typed to their own gender indicates the strength of this phenomenon and the likelihood that has a biological origin.

>>11369605
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982210014491

Sex differences in chimpanzees' use of sticks as play objects resemble those of children

Sex differences in children's toy play are robust and similar across cultures 1, 2. They include girls tending to play more with dolls and boys more with wheeled toys and pretend weaponry. This pattern is explained by socialization by elders and peers, male rejection of opposite-sex behavior and innate sex differences in activity preferences that are facilitated by specific toys [1]. Evidence for biological factors is controversial but mounting. For instance, girls who have been exposed to high fetal androgen levels are known to make relatively masculine toy choices [3]. Also, when presented with sex-stereotyped human toys, captive female monkeys play more with typically feminine toys, whereas male monkeys play more with masculine toys [1]. In human and nonhuman primates, juvenile females demonstrate a greater interest in infants, and males in rough-and-tumble play. This sex difference in activity preferences parallels adult behavior and may contribute to differences in toy play [1]. Here, we present the first evidence of sex differences in use of play objects in a wild primate, in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). We find that juveniles tend to carry sticks in a manner suggestive of rudimentary doll play and, as in children and captive monkeys, this behavior is more common in females than in males.

>>11369605
www.youtube.com/watch?v=E577jhf25t4

Hjernevask ("Brainwashing") - Part 1: The Gender Equality Paradox

>>11369605
>separate bathrooms for men and women is "alt right/ultra conservative"

My God, this board is completely infested with faggots and faggot apologists. You would think on a board called /sci/, people would give more attention to the objective. Instead it's a bunch of teenage trannies and faggots pretending that science they don't like doesn't exist. Yes, let's pick and choose our own reality! I'm a fish because I said so, and any scientific facts you put forward to invalidate my opinion are completely arbitrary, except they're also hatespeech (and therefore non-arbitrary.)

>>11369634
Not specifically, it seems to originate with """progressive""" pseudoscience, another pretend big brain word to lend a shine of academic credulity to themselves.

>>11370688
We base of classifications on functionality and utility , that doesn't mean they aren't arbitrary.

>>11370025
>every single society in human history was built around two biological sexes
objectively wrong

>>11370763
You're right. You can smash your head with a hammer or not. It's arbitrary.

>>11370756
As I see it, politics, in the end, depends more on your opinion on how society should be what a perfect society is rather than what is factually "better".
I put "better" in quotes because on any issue, there is no metric that everyone finds valuable.
For example, if the United States enforced a very strict gun control program, in the very long run, lives will likely be saved.
However, if I'm a rural guy who likes some safety and control or even just a normal guy who likes his gun - I am going to place that metric of freedom over the metric of lives. This is not evil, because everywhere options are being made to either compromise freedom or security.
This also demonstrates the reason you often can't convert people on their political beliefs - it is not based on facts.

>>11369722
How the hell did you demonstrate proper then/than use twice before fucking it up on the third, a biological lie? Freudian?

/pol/ absolutely cannot take being exposed as charlatans ITT by one single guy with an IQ north of 110 that they're even fighting with themselves

get help whitoids

>>11369595
>"Basically it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex. I'm a historian of medicine, I can unpack that for you at great length if you want"

He was already a hollow shell of a man, and apparently, literally so now as well. You should give him antidepressants, not attention.

We could do without the millionth iteration of this same old shit.

>>11369634
>>11370543
>>11370553
>>11370662
>>11370857
"Unpack" is not the only word that I see leftist degenerates use a lot. Another would be "nuance".

They've completely ruined the word "nuance" for me because they've turned it into a faggy word. They say shit like "a nuanced opinion". Which basically means "a milquetoast opinion because I don't have the balls to say something gutsy".

This is why I deliberately use the word "subtlety" instead of "nuance" these days.

>>11370861
Peterson is not the one saying biological sex doesn't exist, you dumb fuck.

Some leftist professor in that video said it. And Peterson vehemently disagrees with him. Which is in keeping with the fact that he thinks leftists are insane.

>>11369595
So what are you? You identify as a "trans woman"? What's a woman, then?

>>11369605
Nigga boys and girls pee differently, which is why there are separate restrooms

>>11370922
Only black men, with their low IQs, can put end to whypipo's degeneracy

>>11369605
King and/or Queen of (You)s.

>>11369595
>unpack
It's going on the list of banned words right next to problematic

>>11369605
The simplest counterpoint to your argument is that the physical features designated by 'sex' are not arbitrary.
>>11369718
Pronouns are used to indicate, by means of language, individuals of one sex or another. Since all humans fall into one of those two non-arbitrary categories, it follows that pronoun designations are appropriate for [a] uttering truths about other individuals, and [b] helpfully designating other individuals. Regard for the truth and social utility in designation is not arbitrary either; the use of language facilitates the acquisition of truth and makes our collective lives easier. So sex dictates the use of pronouns.
>>11369794
Sex determination has never been inconsistent over time. Sex is determined by the reproductive function of an individual under conditions of statistically normal physiological development and functioning; outside of normal physiological conditions, we can determine what the reproductive function *would* have been under conditions of normal development. This is sufficient to determine sex.

I study history of sci and the history of medicine people are notoriously the worst of the bunch, imagine the most stereotypical combination of post-positivist social constructionism and obsession over "recovering the subaltern" (to the point that something must be valuable simply because it was subaltern, wasn't "hegemonic").

There's nothing wrong with showcasing that hyper-reflexivity in the epistemological domain. Like yeah, contemporary philosophical consensus is (more or less) that everything is "constructed," in a certain sense. All this means is: everything is mediated through historically contingent concepts, including things that claim to have special access to what is "really there," prior to any conceptualization. That's why it's fun to study history of science, because you're almost necessarily studying people and ideas that took themselves to be true representations of reality as it really is in itself, and yet somehow they believe all kinds of wacky shit.

Good historians of medicine use this suspension of judgment about what is real to deconstruct the social/political/cultural biases layered into any science or medical knowledge, like this dude doing a social history of modern circumcision:
http://www.cirp.org/library/history/gollaher/

This stupid cunt is doing the opposite, taking a suspension of judgment about what is real (gender) and making a metaphysical claim about it (the truth about gender is that there is no gender). No, the truth about gender is that gender norms are culturally contingent, like any other norms from the perspective of the historian. And the question at issue is precisely: "What about the biologist? Are you saying chromosomes and hormones aren't real?" etc.

This is a good example of why college is worthless by itself. You can train someone for 40 years in all sorts of sophisticated philosophical techniques for critical thinking, but they can still be a retard. They'll just be a retard misusing really sharp tools.

imagine sinking to actually argue against such a fundamentally retarded proposition

words are not for war
in war words are only good for conveying threats

your place in society is being attacked
this is war
don't talk to these subhuman abominations

KILL THEM

>>11369605
This is correct, unfortunately. Inter-subjective vs. Objective is the name of the game.

>t. from /lit/

>>11371191
And insofar as there are humans being born that are intersex, to where you cannot tell if you are biologically male or female, it stands that male and female is not some intrinsic universal truth

>>11371195
>>11371191
>i can believe insane bullshit as long as I fool myself by saying words i don't understand because understanding is subjective lol

>>11371195
I feel most sorry for the truly intersex individuals who get thrown around in transgender debate to justify men cutting their dicks off.

Fuckit.
I propose we begin using Penisperson and Vaginaperson from now on

>>11371195
Their sex is whatever reproductive function they would have had if they had developed in a statistically normal way.

>>11370413
The mind doesn't have material existence in the brain? Okay tranny.

>>11371201
You are quite honestly too dumb to understand what I'm saying, STEMinsect. Pick up a non-textbook for once.

>>11371291
>mirror my retarded babble or else I'll pick one of my favorite excuses not to believe I can possibly be wrong
you're going to be burned to death or commit suicide out of the fear of it

>>11371195
>, it stands that male and female is not some intrinsic universal truth
XX is female
XY is male

>>11371291
>STEMinsect
is this how you cope with your shitty salary

>board called /sci/
>30 people falling for an obvious and lame troll

>>11369904
Not that you need the confirmation, but thank you for BTFOing the shill/retard. +1 internetz to you, keep up the good work.

>>11369605
There are sure some things that are man-made in terms of gender, but most are biologically hardwired. For example a study done in England showed that newborns (with no way of learning/absorbing social constructs) always choose toys by their geneder-girls chose toys for girls and boys toys for boys.

>>11371368
>always choose toys by their geneder-girls chose toys for girls and boys toys for boys
woah kids choose toys that look more like that! who would have thunk!

MtF trans are sex-obsessed fetishists. Often pedos too.

>>11369668
Lewontins fallacy.

>>11369794
>The shift in classification of eunuchs and other intersex conditions clearly shows how sex is a social construct.
Who cares? Our ancestors were retarded. We have better, more accurate tools now.

1/3

So, this is the first time that I tell my views on this topic to anybody, so make sure to destroy so I can shut my retarded mouth for good.

Biological genders exist. Without any mutations or deformities, there are exactly 2 biological genders.

Society has created a lot of norms, that can be different but mostly overlap from culture to culture, on how each gender should behave, based mostly on their biological strengths for survival in a natural enviroment. All of this is also shown through our languages, with seperate pronouns and idioms that refer to it.

The survival of the human race has shown this to be quite effective.

Even tho we are biologically born with a certain gender, psychologically we can prefer for ourselves the norms given for the other gender, i.e. we can feel more like "ourselves" if we live out the norms that are usually ascribed to the other gender. This behavior could be a mental illness and lead to confusion and disaster for a society that has to survive in a natural enviroment, but it is understandable as human behavior because we are not of a single mind, be we men or women. What causes this I personally don't know, and I doubt that it is only the current political climate at all, because lots of examples are there through history for this.

However, we are not living in a society that has to battle much with nature anymore, in a way that we did before, thus for our survival it is not important if the norms given for each gender are upheld anymore, and individuals from a gender should be, therefore, free to define themselves as they please, because it is not hurting the survavibility of the race anymore.

This is where the conversations went bat-shit crazy with lots of missunderstandings of the two groups (pro and contra for it).

cont...

is this pic scientifically accurate?

>>11371569
2/3Men who wanted to live out more feminine norms where told that they were not men if they did that, so they started indentifying themselves as female, even tho all they wanted was to just live out the norms of the other gender. Over time and thanks to modern methods, this gave them the opportunity to try and biologically alter themselves as much as our current methods would allow through hormone injections and surgeries, which do not alter they biological gender whatsoever, since it is hard-coded and defined by their DNA, but does allow them to live out the norms of the other gender more freely in the society at large.

The initial critique of this, before it even got to the point that we have now, ultimately led us from men just wanting to act more feminine, to men wanting to be women (and vice versa), and the critique of this then, led us to "ThErE aRe MoRe tHaN 2 GenDers" rhetoric, because at one point, the debate of social genders, shifted to biological genders, and how they are inseperetdly tied to each other, because both parties viewed it as favourable to shift the debate from the core issue to gain traction.

On the other hand, there are also people who just want to be the other gender, regardless of the norms they want to act out, and the freedom to be, at least partially, it, was given by modern science. People used that freedom and that's it. They may be "mentally ill", but in my opinion it is a "victimless crime".

Of course, the debate changes entirely on the topic how children should be treated, but this is, in my opinion, a totally seperate problem from the problem of what freedoms should adults have to do with their own bodies as they see fit (pro tip: it's not a freedom if they loose rights by doing it, like marriege and such.) We take extra care to always seperate these problems.

>>11371573
3/3
I, a straight white male, for myself don't care much about trans people at all. I see no way they can effect my life, except when they get to be the focus of political debates instead of more pressing problems, but if we just let it be a non-issue, they also wouldn't get so much traction.

Of course, if we lived in a more natural society, having a lot of people acting out from their gender would have a much harsher consequence for us as a species... but we just don't, so it is a non-issue. Also, there is the next question: Do you want to live in a more "natural society" or in a more humanly engineered society? I am more of a fan of as much liberties as possible to individuals, hence why I don't mind not living in a natural society whatsoever.

It's the same as homosexuals. I see no way in which what two people do in their bedrooms and with whoom, affects my life in any way, so why should I be against them marrying and being happy? I see no reason against it, except religious reasons, but for those I say: Let God punish them after death if He sees fit to do so.

Also, the question of it being public and acceptable: It is your god damn problem how you will explain something to your kids and just because you are not able to, does not mean that other liberties need to be limited. Of course, here, I want to point out that Pride Parades in the US are not a very fair picture to be taken as objective truth of what would happen if trans or homosexuals would get all the rights as every other person. The problem of public nudity and exhibitionism is, again, a totally seperated problem from the intial problem, and we need to be very careful in always seperating those two.

>>11369634
synonym for deconstruct

>>11369605
It boggles my mind that there are people that unironically think like this.

A lot of things are social constructs. Sex is literally the one exact thing that cannot be a social construct. Did nature arbitrarily evolve penis and vaginas? Do they do the same thing and are purely cosmetic? How has education gotten this bad?

>>11369605
>tfw thread is DOA

>>11371647
go back

>>11370691
>The results of this research clearly demonstrate that sex differences are in part biological in origin
I can't believe someone actually did a study on this and basically concluded "yes, there are distinct biological sexes". We've known that for thousands of years; it's instinctively intuitive. It's like doing a study on palm trees and oak trees and saying "there are clear differences between these two species in addition to their taxonomy". What a retarded paper.

Sex is obviously a social construct. When you look at a pride of lions, it's quite clear that the penis lion and the vagina lion's roles in society are arbitarily created. The penis lion, if it wanted to, could actually give birth. The only reason it cant is because of the social constructs that exist within the lion pride. The vagina lion, which overwhelmingly handles the hunts across lion prides, also found itself in this role arbitrarily. If the vagina lion wanted to, it could grow a mane and become a penis lion. The only reason it doesn't is because of the oppressive social constructs in lion society.

We can see this pattern replicate across other animal societies as well.

Lets look at hyenas. In this case, the vagina hyenas perform the aggressive and dominant role, while the penis hyenas are actually far more submissive. Now, let me state, it is entirely arbitrary that the vagina hyena's reproductive organs are bizarrely penis-like and that the vagina hyenas are 10% larger than the penis hyenas and dominate the hyena hierarchy. Let me repeat. THIS IS ARBITRARY. NO CORRELATION. IT IS ARBITRARY THAT THE ONE SPECIES OF ANIMAL WHERE THE FEMALE RESEMBLES THE MALE, SEEMS TO PERFORM A MASCULINE ROLE IN SOCIETY. IT IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

Of course, if you read french lit you would know all of this

>>11369972
This
If sex is a social construct then the difference between a chimpanzee and a homo sapien is even moreso one

>>11369605
>Believing in sexual dimorphism is now ultra conservative
If I could slaughter every American I saw, I would

>>11369718

>Why don't we have separate pronouns for people who are under 6 feet tall? How about instead of referring to you as "he" I refer to you as "manlet" every time I talk about you in the third person?

Because he and she are very inclusive categories. They literally include 50% of the population each, while being mutually exclusive. That means we cover 100% of the population barring some freaks of nature. They also distinguish much more than just obvious outward appearance. It is one of the deepest codings of sensible categorization that humanity has come up with ever. Differentiating by how tall someone is is not an important category for most things - differentiating between sexes is life and death important

>>11369718
Pronouns are supposed to carry information. The LGBT redefining of gender makes pronouns meaningless. Now if someone says "I have a friend you just have to meet. I think you would like her a lot," you now have to ask what they mean by "her." What's the point of pronouns, then? We'll need to come up with something that does what pronouns used to do.

>>11371569
>>11371573
>>11371575
bump

>>11369718
>How about instead of referring to you as "he" I refer to you as "manlet" every time I talk about you in the third person?
how about I sue you for it because you violated my sexual identity?

>>11369794
>Stating that sex determination only results in a penis or a vagina and that those are sufficient to classify as male or female
fucking retard didn’t even read the post he replied to
>dick testicles and the potential of producing viable sperm

Since you based your whole fucking argument on your flawed reading comprehension, it is moot.

>>11369850
>And you're scientifically illiterate
Social science is not science anymore. It is pseudoscience at best, complete hogwash at worst.
You are following a terrible, anti-human ideology. And you are in the wrong. Either you will cede back to a common sense viewpoint (that is also the truth), or at some point your "comrades" will put you in the Gulag for wrongthink in a category that hasn't been invented yet.

Good luck you brainwashed, useful idiot.

>>11371906
Also, don't we already have maximum diversity? Everyone gets their own name that defines them so much more than any pronoun could ever hope to achieve.

>>11369751
>can't even read
Those postings proved that Peterson is 100% right on this issue.

>>11369605
All taxonomy is arbitrary.

All distinctions are arbitrary.

There's only the One.

>>11372044
What's anti-human about it?

>>11372156
It comes exactly from the same ideology that has killed ~200 million people in the last century, incarcerated millions more and generally is diametrically opposed to any kinds of freedom.

>>11369605
>denying reality so much you're now comparing nostrils to human reproductive organs

This is the state of the left. And the right is no better. Why are people so dumb? How is there this many people so uneducated that they think our ability to reproduce is a social construct? How can this many people not understand evolution?

>>11369759 <-This guy gets it

>>11371569
>>11371949
you've got some things right and many things wrong. if you want to learn, here's a good video: https://youtu.be/KGCN7OHe0qk?t=54

>>11369605
Wow you're right I am only attracted to women because of a social construct like nostril holes.

>>11369718
Because men want to fuck women and women men. We don't give a shit about height you moron it is all about sex.

>>11369794
The social construction of mental illness is far more damaging to people than sex. Sex fulfills a role of mating and love which is fundamental to our existence it is far more helpful than harmful. The concept of mental illness such as gender dysphoria is just dehumanizing and damaging.

>>11369803
Everything is actually entirely mental including physics.

>>11369605
>you cant talk about circles because you could never create an infinite set of equidistant points
>you cant talk about colors because red could just as easily be blue
>you cant talk about day and night because you could just as easily classify times by earths axial tilt
behold postmodern intellectualism

I thought it was gender, but now it's sex, down to the DNA level. lol

>>11372301
>>>11369759 (You) <-This guy gets it
Thanks anon, keep on keeping on.

>>11369634
google unpacking the invisible knapsack

unpack
deconstruct
problematic
systemic
*phobic
identifying

>>11369595
>I'm a historian of medicine

>>11369595
I hate term unpack, I don't know why. Deconstruct, elaborate, anything other than "unpack".

>>14691422
No you fucking retard. I KNOW why women's sport's are segregated, this is not subjective or up for debate because its a statement about our current society, the reason WE segregate sports by sex is because of differences in biological capabilities.
Stop being dishonest.

>>11369605
Going with this logic the distinction between humans and animals is also arbitrary. You can take spider and you and say that arbitrary physical feature like number of legs is irrelevant, you are basically spider, there is no difference that isn't arbitrary, and spider-human is arbitrary distinction anyway.

>>11373588
I make sure women, and men mind you, call me by my correct pronouns: daddy long legs.

funniest thread this year so far, never change you glorious imbeciles

>>11373262
>hates a word without knowing why
sounds like you have some cptsd going on there, bud. let's unpack that