/sci/ - Science & Math

Binary for humans, bimodal for a few animals.

>dick
>vagina
>tragic birth defect
>extremely rare genetic disorder
pick one

>>15033191
sex may as well be binary i dont think this is controversial. or it shouldnt be. even among lgbt and gender abolitionist circles.

>>15033191
You could feasibly change the Y chromosome into an X chromosome, one trinucleotide at a time. So spectra I guess.

>>15033206
>>15033197
>>15033206
A bimodal spectrum absolutely destroys and disproves a sex binary. Intersex people (which we all are to varying degrees across five levels of sexual development) completely blow up a sex binary. This isn’t even a discussion anymore, biologists know that sex isn’t a binary.

No, sex is a spectrum. Look at normal sexual development and the range of perfectly healthy and natural varieties. I’m not talking about genetic anomalies.

Exceptions don’t invalidate discrete categories, the very basic biological fact that there aren’t discrete categories invalidates that nonsense. What practical benefits do you think your imaginary sexual binary confers that the reality of sexual variation doesn’t?

>>15033233
1) XX, 2) XY, 3) Genetic disorder. These are your choices. Being short with moobs, a wide ass and a high pitched voice doesn't mean you're akshually a girl.

>>15033233
>penis
>vagina
Anything else can't breed. Is a person missing a foot mean humans don't have feet?

>>15033251
>>15033240
Imagine thinking I haven’t heard all of that before. We could talk about colloquial usage and average usage, but aren’t we talking about ontology? What is the defined criteria for ‘woman’, and is that different than a ‘female’? Don’t give me generic definitions, I thought we wanted to be precise here? What does a biologist say? What about people who study culture? What about linguists? What about philosophers?
You seem to be saying everything is about averages. If that’s the case, does a woman become a man when the averages are weighted beyond some arbitrary point you define? What can you tell me about the six layers of sexual development? What can you can tell me about all the genders and gender norms in different cultures that have nothing to do with biology?

>>15033700
>appeal to authority with no refutation of the central argument
1) male (penis/XY)
2) female (vagina/XX)
3) disordered
Cope.

>>15033738
So the 46 xy pregnancies, are they male or female? Ah, so a woman or a female with a chromosome deformity? a biological male who gets pregnant,
expresses themselves as a woman? A
deformed hand is still a deformed hand
we don't confuse it with a foot. In the
normal case we can clearly delineate
between a hand a foot due to the structure and function, there are no blurred lines here. Neither of these apply to sex and gender obviously, since we still can't say what is physically a female or culturally a woman. We've just established that someone who is predominantly xy (and none of us are 100% can have a healthy pregnancy, so
we can't rely on chromosomes. So where are we at?

>>15033191
Explain the x-axis to me

>>15033700
>Imagine thinking I haven’t heard all of that before.
I don't need to imagine. I both know you have and know you're too retarded to understand. Many such cases.

>>15033700
Rarely see someone genuinely making an idiot of themselves.
Wrong-think comissars aren't here to protect you from the truth. They also won't be there in the near future when tensions boil over and you're face down in a ditch in minecraft.

>>15033750
>So the 46 xy pregnancies, are they male or female?
There has been one (1) known case of this happening without embryo donation, and it was in a person with 45,X mosaicism who gave birth to a completely infertile child.

>>15033233
What is the x axis? You say that sex is bimodal, but what's the variable that is continuously varying?

It's one thing to say that individual secondary sex characteristics are bimodal (which many are) and it's an entirely different thing to say that sex itself is bimodal (which implies a single continuous variable that you can use to plot the variation between male and female).

>>15033927
>>15033914
>>15033958
Again male or female with a deformity compared to what? You need to define male or female that doesn't fail by 'deformities'. With that your definition
fails. And then you need to address what
you're ignoring - the fact that sex and
gender are different. It's strange that you're this stubborn despite the fact you clearly aren't making any ground here... what is your agenda?

>>15033191
Is gamete production a spectrum? No, so it is not a spectrum.

I hope this is bait

Is mayonnaise a sex?

>>15034446
I'm not sure what you are saying. I posted the question asking what you even mean by "bimodal" given that there's no clear single continuous variable that defines "sex" such that you could have this kind of variation. The other posts were not made by me, and I do not have anything to add to what they have said.

My question has nothing to do with gender or gender roles or social perception of sex. I'm solely asking you to explain what you even mean by claiming sex is bimodal.

When you claim that sex is bimodal, what specifically is continuously varying such that you can plot the "intermediate states" of sex between male and female?

This kind of thing could make sense for individual secondary sex characteristics, which can vary in this bimodal fashion. I don't think this makes sense for the concept of sex in and of itself which doesn't have a clear cut metric by which you could declare some intermediary value.

>>15034446
>to what?
Normal males and normal females.

>>15033191
I feel like there is a spectrum, but for simple medical and statistical reasons it should be simplified adding outliers for special cases. Biology is a great and vast subject. Our cells perform what appear to be miracles daily. Math, however, is set for now. Medicine is just math and scientific study applied to human bodies.
Or whatever.

>>15033233
>the very basic biological fact that there aren’t discrete categories

>>15034689
>>15034628
Define it both physically and culturally. There's no actual way to do it.Words aren’t things. Words are tools and all the words we use change their meaning. That’s cultural evolution. Words don’t have ontologies. Even if you want to misdefine the word woman by claiming that it refers to biological sex then you’re still lost because science has revealed how far away biological sex is from being a binary. Humans are low in sexual dimorphism compared to other mammals and there’s no perfectly consistent or objective criteria to demarcate people into the categories of male or female. Taxonomies aren’t things either, they also don’t have ontologies. Are they not women beyond some arbitrary point you define? You’re not going to deductively argue away your ignorance and the complexities of the world, I’m sorry.

>>15035324
>Define it both physically
something something chromosomes
>and culturally
insignificant

>>15033191
I'd say sex is "trinary", (XX, XY, XXY), and gender is bimodal. Beyond Klinefelter's, I dont know of any sex that would fall outside of the XX-XY dichotomy. Honestly you could make a solid argument that even people with Klinefelter's are male because of the presence of the Surrey gene, but since they make up such a small portion of the population I suppose it doesn't matter either way.
Also, when I say gender is bimodal, I mean that in the humanities "gender" sense of the word; that is, masculine and feminine personality traits.

>>15033191
This question is 100% tranny.

>>15035616
Holy shit I'm retarded, I meant the SRY gene

>>15035324
Males = Many small gametes
Female = Few large gametes

It's possible for some species to be neither, or to go from one to the other (I think there's some who're both?). Humans are either male or female, hyopethetically they could be neither or both to defects or genetic experiments, but there's nothing that isn't male, female, both, or no sex.

>>15035324
>Define it both physically and culturally
Functional genitals, xx/xy chromosomes. Culture is meaningless, ask /his/ and /lit/.

>>15035791
Chromosomes are not sex. The SRY gene has already been mentioned.

As for "functioning genitals" that's vague. What do you mean? I assume you mean fertile and capable of reproduction. Which is entirely possible with various levels of intersex or hermaphroditism; it's been documented. Development of genitals is not binary. They start undifferentiated and drift one way or another depending on hormonal triggers. But it's not either/or. Women have testosterone, too. Just smaller amounts. If there is a bit extra in the womb, the woman could develop a larger clitoris, even approaching micro-penis size; this is also documented. Therefore she would be "more male" than a normal/average women, but still perfectly functional.

Sex is a range. You cannot dispute this by complaining about what is typical. Most motor vehicles have two or four wheels, but that doesn't mean those silly motorcycles with three wheels aren't one, or are somehow malformed. They simply exist.

>>15036895
Sex isn't a fucking range. Secondary sex characteristics that are the result of sex steroid hormones are.

>>15036895
>that's vague
Nope. Can't reproduce, dysfunctional.

>>15033750
They fall into the third category my dude.
XY+no penis = disordered
XX+no vagina = disordered
Let me try to say it again:
XX+vagina = woman
XY+penis = man
Anything else = disordered

>>15033233
>extremely rare genetic disorder

>>15037161
You should abandon the hard principle of the chromosomes. There are XYY men who're clearly men, XXY women who're pretty clearly women, etc.

Gametes is simpler and more accurate.

>>15037169
failure of meiosis is not a sex.

>>15037169
>abandon the hard principle of the chromosomes.

>>15038548
The chromosomes are just the blueprint your body follows, they aren't always exact.

>>15038790
True, some get fucked up and create fem-men homosexuals and other oddities against nature.

>>15033700
very simple:

produce male gamete = male
produce female gamete = female

for humans, the male gamete are sperm, the female gamete are eggs.