View all comments
Okay, assuming your implied credentials as an archaeologist is true, other archeologists on the internet openly disagree with you.
So maybe present some sort of meta study to establish a scientific consensus, or expect people to quote the scientists whose version aligns with their moral beliefs.
But seeing as binaries cannot evolve, and literally all traits are spectra including sex what you are saying isn't biologically possible. There aren't just two sexes. Hell even chromosomes determined from DNA studies are not conclusive. People exist with Y chromosomes and female bodies, some of them are even able to bear children. So if you found one, you would skeletally sex them female who gave birth, but genetically sex them male! And the SRY gene can transmigrate onto an X chromosome. So there are people born male bodied with two X chromosomes. Literally your genetic sex can miss match your chromosomal sex even though chromosomes are an aspect of genetics!
Evolution is a cumulative process. There is no reasonable way to cumulatively create a binary. Binaries almost certainly cannot exist in biology because they couldn't evolve. And evolution never stops. New variations of human sexuality are appearing in every generation: one child born today may be the first to have what will become a dominant feature. A child being classified as intersex now may have a trait that in a the future almost everyone will have. Many researchers think the Y chromosome is evolving away entirely. It's even possible for a sexual species to evolve back into a single sex species. There is a species of lizard in new Mexico that did just that. They have no males, only females. But those females cannot lay eggs until after they have lesbian sex with other females. There is no genetic exchange or fertilization happening, but the process of asexual reproduction requires a sex act to trigger it; because they used to be a sexually reproductive species who evolved back into an asexual one for some reason.
That absolutely COULD happen to humans. Your future archeologists could literally be from an all female lesbian society.
Evolution cannot be predicted. It doesn't stop. And it does do binaries.
This is honestly one of the most pseudoscientific things I’ve read in a long time and rooting trans rights in this sort of neo-Lysenkoism is terrible for them in the future when people actually have to use rigorous arguments in courts of law where this kind of mumbo jumbo just won’t fly. Sex as an evolutionary phenomenon is defined by reproductive role. “Male” refers to that class of organisms whose healthy members produce the small gamete and likewise for “Female” in the production of the large gamete. There are only two gametes (among humans). If billions of years from now a third gamete were to evolve then sure there would be more than two sexes but then it would still be a “trinary” not a spectrum. As of yet though sex is still binary in humans.
The sheer number of adjectives you had to use reveal the absolute bullshit of your argument. And courts of law have no scientific authority whatsofuckingever.
And there is no such thing as THE reproductive role. Reproductive roles themselves evolve. They get more or less complex. And sometimes new ones appear and sometimes others disappear(I literally provided an example of a species that evolved away males) We all had asexual ancestors. That evolved reproductive roles. In stages.
Also you clearly have no idea what Lysenkoism is. Nobody here denied genetics, on the contrary: I was acknowledging that genetics is far more complex than you acknowledge.
Courts don’t have scientific authority, correct. They have legal authority. However they take science into consideration when forming legal opinions. In humans we actually do have two (and only two) reproductive roles determined the gametes we produce as I’ve explained. We only produce sperm and ova. Therefore there are only two sexes. I’ve acknowledged that in the deep time future one can speculate on theoretical reproductive roles that may emerge but for now (and the past few million years) Humans only have two sexes. There is no third gamete. There is no “imbetween” gamete.
In humans we actually do have two (and only two) reproductive roles I reject this definition of sex by reproductive roles as patently fucking ridiculous as it leaves vast quantities of humans without any sex at all.
And even if that was true right now it wasn't always true and may not be true in future. Would we cease to be human if we evolve to have one less reproductive role? Maybe, but I would argue any descendants of humanity in other species would have access to all human rights by virtue of ancestry.
There isn't a definition of sex in biology.
There are dozens, each appropriate for certain and only certain fields of study.
Gametes are only appropriate for a tiny few fields. Lots of people don't produce gametes. No you don't get to add a bunch of adjectives to pretend they don't exist. Scientific theories don't get to have exceptions. As long as even one human for ANY reason doesn't produce gametes we have at least THREE gametal sexes! They exist so your definition, and it's count, HAS to include them. Trying to exclude them out with words like "healthy" is called the black swan fallacy. It only takes one black swan to prove that Swans aren't white. You don't get to ignore the observation of black swans by defining swans as a "a bird that is normally white".
Sorry I'm not stupid enough for such a basic fallacy to work on me.
Maybe, but I would argue any descendants of humanity in other species would have access to all human rights by virtue of ancestry.
So, wait, does that mean humans are also technically fish? Because, by ancestry, we're descendants of fish.
You say there isn’t a definition of sex in biology but your initial post that I responded to takes as a matter of fact that there is. You are free to provide a definition of sex that is more suited to your endeavor but until then I will operate on the most commonly understood view of sex at least in the EvoDevo sense. It is true that that not all human beings produce gametes but this is where notions like teleology come into play. I (and everyine else tbh) take as a matter of philosophical pragmatism that being “unhealthy” is a possibility. In this sense an “intersex” person (those individuals you perceived as exceptions that break down the sex binary) is simply someone who has a DSD (Disorder of sexual development). I.e. that someone who is commonly recognized as a “Male” and who cannot produce sperm is an unhealthy male. The same way I would view a person who was born without legs an “unhealthy” person. Now regarding gametal sexes, I don’t how else to put this so I cant help but repeat myself. A sex is a class of organisms whose “healthy” bodies produce a gamete. There are only two gametes. Therefore there are only two sexes. Not having ever produced gametes doesn’t make one a member of a third sex. It makes one an unhealthy member of either the male or female sex. An additional aside, you have very little knowledge of philosophy of science if you think “Scientific theories don’t get to have exceptions” is a relevant or meaningful statement given the context.
OK, so using your definition of sex how do you decide if someone is an "unhealthy male" or an "unhealthy female" then? Since your sex definition relies only on gametes produced, you can't do that while still using your definition of sex. You have to use the other sexual characteristics like hormones, genitals, chromosomes, etc.
Because, that "commonly recognised as a male" that you used there relies on nothing to do with gametes produced. When doctors say that a person is male or female at birth, no testing is done on if and what gametes are produced. You can't use that definition and then ignore it, that's not how science works.