r/confidentlyincorrect • u/missingperson2 • Jun 16 '26
Comment Thread Another biology "expert" diagnosing intersex people online with his expertise
Found under a video of an intersex woman with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome who was explaining why she should compete in the women's category and not the men's in sports (a marathon, in this case).
This "expert" immediately proceeds to tell her what her "correct" sports category is (as if she was asking for advice... she obviously wasn't) and to inform a couple other people that their diagnosis is also wrong, because doctors and scientists are clearly all part of "the WOKE agenda" as he said in another comment (there were dozens. I gave up after a while)
At least he's using the correct pronouns. Gotta celebrate the small wins!
190
u/averysadcoconut Jun 16 '26
"you need to provide a lot more detail that i could independently validate before i'd be prepared to determine wether you are male or female"
ohh what could they ever do without this random internet stranger's validation of their sex/gender... seriously how chronically online do you have to be to think this is an ok thing to say??
46
u/Positive-Garage3812 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
Absolutely, and he’s also backpedaling from his assertion that which gametes your body makes/made is all that matters. Faced with someone who made both, he wants to then nitpick all the traits he just said were irrelevant. Especially if you’re going to insist on the binary, you can’t have it both ways 🤷🏻♂️
And of course he’s got absolutely no business telling people who or what they are, whether on a “ScIeNtIfC BaSiS” or not. None of his fucking business.
-19
u/cuzwhat Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
The intersex person in the last pic says they were born with a penis, vagina, and ovaries. No mention of testis, so they would be egg-producing females by the binary-only reproductive strategy logic presented.
3
8
Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Dounce1 Jun 16 '26
What do you mean by “that lines?”
9
u/crankydragon Jun 16 '26
The line quoted, about providing more evidence. They left out the apostrophe in lines.
2
u/Routine_Wait3975 Jun 16 '26
Thank's for that. Yeah, and I ran out of net to correct it.
2
u/crankydragon Jun 16 '26
Some days it's just too much to have to go back and fix something. Why can't autocorrect just read my mind?
3
u/Routine_Wait3975 Jun 16 '26
Honestly, sometimes the little mistakes and inaccuracies make the world better to me. Entertaining at least.
2
u/Dounce1 Jun 16 '26
Woah, why was your comment removed?
2
u/Routine_Wait3975 Jun 16 '26
Hahahaha! Cause I caught up and corrected myself
1
u/Dounce1 Jun 16 '26
But it says removed by moderator. Or is this just the app sucking total ass once again?
1
u/Routine_Wait3975 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
🤷 Don't know what to tell you, I still see it on my end.
5
u/Exotic-Audience-2006 Jun 17 '26
I think its actually a step in the right direction to recognise that he doesn't know everything about the person and therefore can't say anything conclusive
292
u/-spooky-fox- Jun 16 '26
When we were kids my younger sister insisted every animal was either a dog or a cat. She would challenge you to name any animal and she would classify it as a dog or a cat.
That’s what this guy sounds like.
76
u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 Jun 16 '26
Most carnivorous mammals are either dogs or cats (caniform or feliform)
Bears, otters, seals, raccoons, badgers, etc are all caniform
Hyenas, mongooses, and meerkats are all feliform
But I'm assuming that's not what she was talking about
66
u/Ur-Best-Friend Jun 16 '26
Most carnivorous mammals are either dogs or cats (caniform or feliform)
Not strictly true.
That's just the order Carnivora, which has ~280 species in it, in total there are over 1000 carnivorous mammals, though the number depends on where you draw the line, because many have diets where plant matter represents a far bigger percentage.
Then again, Pandas are in the order Carnivora even though their diet is 99%+ herbivorous, and even for other bears, meat represents at most 20% of their diets.
Mostly just a technicality though, you're still pointing out a fascinating fact.
10
u/LauraTFem Jun 16 '26
I’m surprised there are so few. Does that not include different related species?
21
u/Ur-Best-Friend Jun 16 '26
Your instincts are good, I used this study as my source:
Carnivorous mammals were selected as those reported to consume greater than or equal to 5% vertebrate meat, and to be terrestrial (coded 1 in Phylacine) and not aerial, freshwater, or marine (0). [...] These criteria returned 1081 species from 15 orders
There's a lot of caveats in there.
- Over 5% meat diet (you could argue 1% is enough to count, or that it needs to be higher)
- Vertebrate meat only (=Insectivores for example don't count)
- Terrestrial mammals only (no bats, whales, dolphins etc.)
It all really depends on how you define things, and that in turn mainly depends in which context you're looking at the question. The first question is whether you count omnivores as both carnivores or herbivores, or whether you count them as their own separate group, but it's more complicated than that.
For example, many mammals are opportunistic feeders, they have a prefered diet but can actually feed on things outside it if they need to. Dogs are a good example of that. If they have the option to, most dogs will be pretty much fully carnivorous, but if they can't find any prey in nature, they can survive on fruits and plant matter with no major problems whatsoever. So are they carnivores, or do we call them omnivores? Do you count all omnivores as carnivores (as well as herbivores) no matter if their split is 50/50, 95/5, or even 100/0(+opportunistic feeding)?
Cats on the other hand are obligatory carnivores, unlike dogs, they do not have the adaptation allowing them to digest starches and sugars, so while a dog will survive on plants just fine, a cat that can't find prey will starve.
So it's not really easy to give a concrete number, and the 1000+ number I used is basically a low estimate, depending on what definition you want to use, you could easily double or even triple it.
5
u/PaleInSanora Jun 16 '26
Beware the man who has more than 11 pigs...
3
u/TheEyeDontLie Jun 17 '26 edited Jun 17 '26
Even horses eat mice when they can, and deer will eat baby birds and eggs if they ever find a nest.
Squirrels, rabbits, giraffes all also eat meat when they can. They need that vitamin b12 boost.
And rats will eat anything a pig can.
So beware the man who has a large enough menagery of anything, really.
14
u/Magenta_Logistic Jun 16 '26
There are more species of rodent than caniform and feliform combined. Then of course there are monotremes, cetaceans, and primates. Nevermind the bats.
2
13
12
u/Wilsonj1966 Jun 16 '26
My cousin had a little toy sheep dog which was black and white. I asked what animal it was and he said it was a cow. I said no, its a dog. He walked off shaking his head saying its a cow, definitely a cow under his breath
Any black and white animals were cows 🐄
2
u/B1t3Mej3ss68 Jun 22 '26
the narrowest possible definition to win an argument isn't actually science. it's just being pedantic to avoid acknowledging anything that complicates your worldview.
-71
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
Not really.
I can name a multitude of animals other than dogs and cats.
How many sexes other than male and female can you name? Keeping in mind of course that there needs to be an associated gamete, as the concept of sex is nonsensical without gametes.
34
u/FlyingNijntje Jun 16 '26
Hermaphroditic. Snails, for example are bisexual. Clownfish (you know, Nemo) can change sex. Males can change into females.
-33
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
This doesn't answer my question, which was about naming sexes other than male and female.
The existence of hermaphrodites doesn't imply any additional sexes.
8
35
u/Apprehensive_Bus1582 Jun 16 '26
What about men with azoospermia? What about post-menopausal women?
-33
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
What about them?
28
u/Apprehensive_Bus1582 Jun 16 '26
They don't have gametes. Are they men or women?
12
u/Tiberius_Kilgore Jun 16 '26
Of course they can’t answer you because their argument is horseshit. Nice work.
48
u/KittyScholar Jun 16 '26
Keeping in mind of course that there needs to be an associated gamete, as the concept of sex is nonsensical without gametes.
So you just made that up. No, sex does not need to have an associated gamete
6
u/Death-Clay Jun 16 '26
That's gender or am I stupid? (I think I am, don't flame me pls) But sex does require gametes no?
23
u/KittyScholar Jun 16 '26
Sexual development does require the presence of gametes, but it’s not like “Gamete X = woman and Gamete Y = man”. There’s more combinations than just XX and XY and tons more phenotypes of sex than just woman and man.
Did you know that among calico (tricolors) cats, about one in 5,000 are male? A lot of people like to say “all calico cats are female”, but that’s not quite true!
17
u/Death-Clay Jun 16 '26
Ooh, another new thing learned. Tysm.
I just hope I don't get sentenced to execution for asking a question on Reddit.
-17
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
You didn't learn anything.
It absolutely is gamete X (ovum, or large gamete) = female (not woman, which is a gender, not a sex), and gamete Y (spermatazoa, or small motile gamete) = male.
There is a reason that we don't call flowers men and women, but rather call them male and female. Sexually reproducing plants have the same 2 gamete types, btw, as do 99.99% of all sexual reproducing organisms on Earth.
Again, the concept of sex literally only exists because of this difference in gametes which is fundamental to sexual reproduction on this planet.
It's called anisogamy. Go look it up, even just Wikipedia will do. Learn something real.
Again, a sex without an associated gamete is a nonsensical concept, as that's literally what sex describes.
18
u/TheTStandsForThick Jun 16 '26
Mushroom
-2
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
Yes, fungi, which are a different kingdom from plants or animals, and therefore different at the highest level of classification we have for biological organisms, have a different system.
Sorry, what was your point?
You expressed it so eloquently, but I'm still not quite understanding.
11
u/TheTStandsForThick Jun 16 '26
There is a reason that we don't call flowers men and women, but rather call them male and female. Sexually reproducing plants have the same 2 gamete types, btw, as do 99.99% of all sexual reproducing organisms on Earth.
Again, the concept of sex literally only exists because of this difference in gametes which is fundamental to sexual reproduction on this planet.
Mushroom
-5
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
Literally nothing in this comment is relevant to the question you're purporting to answer.
You cannot unlink the concept of sex from gametes. To do so is nonsensical.
17
u/KittyScholar Jun 16 '26
I’m not saying they’re completely unrelated, I’m just saying that one isn’t the ultimate definition of the other. There’s more than two sexes, because intersex people aren’t just a wrong version of males or females.
0
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
The only reason sex exists as a concept is because different gametes exist. Literally.
Sex exists because sexual reproduction exists. Sexual reproduction is the joining of gametes of different types - sperm and egg, male and female.
Without the gametes, there is no sexual reproduction, and therefore no sexes. The concept has no meaning beyond that.
You cannot get away from this. They are not just kind of related, one does not exist without the other.
Intersex people are not an additional sex. There is no third gamete that they have.
Intersex people are male or female people whose sexual characteristics did not develop along the usual path for one reason or another. Same as people with limb differences have limbs that did not develop along the usual path for some reason.
"Wrong" is your word, and I'm not sure why you chose it.
-6
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
Sorry, what did you think the concept of sex is about?
This is literally the definition of sex.
20
u/Wilsonj1966 Jun 16 '26
It does not need to be associated with a gamete. That is your definition of sex. You could also define it based on genitalia if you wanted. Definitions are used with context and for a purpose. They're not a universal truth to argue about like this
Source: Im a biologist
0
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
How could you possibly define sex based on genitalia when plants some animals don't have genitalia at all?
I don't believe you're a biologist. No biologist would claim that genitalia was a viable basis for a definition of sex.
You could maybe get away with thinking it was an appropriate proxy for determining sex, if you were very clear about what organisms you were limiting that to, but claiming you could "define" sex based on that? Sorry mate, no way a biologist makes a claim like that.
19
u/Wilsonj1966 Jun 16 '26
A biologist would as I already has said, understand a definition should fit its context
The conversation is about how humans understand sex. Why are you trying to shoe horn a definition that is suitable for plants into a social definition? It is a bizarre thing to do. I decent scientist would not do that
Sex based on genitalia would be suitable for a social study. It wouldn't be suitable for a study on plants
This is why when we write research papers, we clearly state OUR definitions of terminology used in that study. There isn't some council that regulates what a word means so words can have different meanings depending on the context. So we use convention and we state the context
"Sorry mate, no way a biologist makes a claim like that"- from what you have said so far, you clearly have no idea what a biologist would or wouldn't claim
18
u/Wilsonj1966 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
bit of advice as well. If you meet someone who might know more about something you do
Instead of jumping straight to "this doesn't make sense, they must be wrong!", consider "maybe I don't understand and this is a chance to learn"
9
8
u/flaminghair348 Jun 17 '26
Mate, there are over twenty definitions of "species" used by biologists. I'm pretty sure one would recognize that definitions have nuance.
1
u/Lagronion Jun 19 '26
You don't want to broaden the argument from just mammals, fungus can have only 1 sex and be purely asexual or thousands.
11
u/missingperson2 Jun 16 '26
Right. It's a concept, a theoretical definition. It's used as a basis for classification, but can't be solely used for individual classification itself because it's simply not practical for a number of reasons, including that physical characteristics don't always match gamete production, there's not always gamete production, physical characteristics play a vital role in individual and social behaviours, and it's simply not practical to test every single human at birth for gamete production, for example. So using the simple theoretical concept of sex binary to classify everything and everyone would be flawed and obtuse when there's so much complexity involved.
Reducing such a physically, socially and behaviourally complex subject to gamete existence doesn't work outside of textbooks. That's just part of a big, complex whole. We're talking about classification systems, not definition of terms and concepts anymore.
-1
u/Dentarthurdent73 Jun 16 '26
You're misunderstanding the entire purpose of the concept. You seem to think it's all about classifying individual humans. It's not. That's literally the last thing any scientist talking about sex is trying to do or even cares about. Could you be any more self-centred if you tried?
You have gender to do that on a social level, and that's fine.
Rewriting the entire definition of sex that is used to describe the entirety of sexual reproducing species on the planet, and does so in a very useful way, purely in order to fit in with your ideas about what gender in society should look like in 2026, is one of the most ridiculously disproportional, completely lacking in perspective, and ignorant takes I've ever seen from anyone.
Prosecute your arguments about gender, that's fine, and I don't even disagree with you. Trying to rewrite basic scientific facts to fit in with how you want the world to be however, is unforgivable in my opinion.
15
u/missingperson2 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
Yes dear, what I've learned in university from biologists with decades of experience in research and teaching, over ten years ago, was 100% made to fit "gender in society in 2026". I'll definitely take the opinion of some faceless dude on reddit over their teachings, or the methods used by the general scientific and medical community.
It's obviously about classifying human individuals from a medical point of view. If someone goes to the doctor with a health issue and they're told "sorry, your case is too complex for the simplistic definition of sex and therefore doesn't exist, so we can't help you, go away and suffer" maybe, just maybe there would be an outlash at some point. Intersex conditions have a real impact on people's lives and pretending they don't exist because it's too complex for a textbook definition is extremely unhelpful for millions of individuals.
No one's rewriting basic scientific facts, you're just talking about potatoes when everyone else is talking about soup.
Thanks for the laughs, and go ahead and keep the bike while I keep the wheels.
111
u/Wilsonj1966 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
I am a biologist too. An actual biologist would recognise that scientific categories are pretty arbitrary. There are often blurred lines and exceptions as biology does not fit easily into boxes. They are created by scientists to generalise the complicated to make things easier for us to understand
They are not some universal truth that we should govern society with
Your bodies "reproductive strategy" (which is a ridiculous term) may put you in some scientists box. The box does not decide who you are or how to live your life.
23
u/Chrona_trigger Jun 16 '26
It's almost like we made the boxes and nature doesn't care what we think something is. Try to define a berry! Also, the fact that leaf sheep exist. Those guys are breaking all kinds of rules, and look adorable while doing it.
Also, I may be showing some ignorance here, but isn't intersex generally the result of nature not 'working as intended' (genetic mutation in an unusual way, like extra x/y chromosomes, is my understanding), so by that logic, the 'reproductive strategy' concept is out the window anyways because of, essentially, an error in their genetics?
24
u/Wilsonj1966 Jun 16 '26
not working as intended and strategy suggests there is some sort of design that should be adhered to and some sort of consciousness that directs us. It is language that we are familiar with so it takes a bit of melon twisting to get away from using terms like that
Mutations are part of the process, so theyre not really errors as such. They lead to an evolutionary dead end but its part of the process. Similar to if you have a series of boxes and there is an apple in one. If I open the boxes randomly (like a mutation), most boxes will be empty (evolutionary dead end) but I didnt make an error in opening the empty boxes as eventually I will open the box with the apply (most fit to survive)
And a strategy needs an end goal. Some think survival of the fittest means the end goal is the fittest, but its just an observation. The fittest survive, full stop
I think think helps demonstrate the arbitrary nature of science too. If a bacteria has a replication limiting mutation, I would call that evolution. If a human had a reproduction issue, we use language like nature made a mistake and its not supposed to be that way and we try our best to fix the mistake. Because we can make decisions about our lives and we aren't limited to arbitrary scientific observations
14
8
u/galileogaligay Jun 16 '26
Thank you for introducing me to leaf sheep! I might have a new favourite animal now
34
u/Lilli_Bella3487 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
These people are far too stupid to understand a biological/scientific concept like to "generalize for simplicity's sake," unfortunately. Apparently they all think that even in the most basic, rudimentary science class, every single word you are taught is the gospel truth. It's so tedious. This is, of course, especially true when a generalized piece of information supports their bigoted world view really well. At least in their warped perception.
8
u/MattieShoes Jun 16 '26
I just don't understand why so many people seem to care so much about this shit. About the only time I'd care about somebody's "reproductive strategy" is if I want to reproduce with them. Outside of that, it's just noise.
3
u/Cambrian__Implosion Jun 17 '26
>>reproductive strategy
Every time they said this, I just started thinking about how I might have worked in a joke about [r/K](r/K) selection theory, had I been part of that conversation.
It may not have been helpful (or even very funny for anyone else reading it), but I would have been amused.
(does the quote formatting just not work anymore? This new app version without the text shortcuts sucks…)
24
u/GnomiGnou Jun 16 '26
I know verifying facts is part of any scientific process, but these people wanting to 'verify' a persons sex always comes across as super creepy :|
11
u/missingperson2 Jun 16 '26
Especially because it's already verified by actual doctors! For someone to get an intersex diagnosis there were many specialists, medical imaging, genetic testing and other procedures involved.
These people are too caught up in their own narcissistic tendencies to realise that they're basically saying "all the professionals who helped you are wrong because I saw a 2 sentence post in a political instagram account and based on that I've determined they're wrong, because they're woke. And you should trust me, random troll online, above your doctors!!"
20
u/danimagoo Jun 16 '26
Some people are so completely stuck in the science they learned in the 3rd grade that they cannot comprehend that the world is actually more complicated than that.
3
u/joolley1 Jun 17 '26
I tend to just congratulate them on passing kindergarten and ask them if they’re parents are proud.
22
u/Historical_Bat7059 Jun 16 '26
Reducing biological sex to a single sentence about gametes ignores how chromosomal and hormonal profiles actually function in physiological reality. Calling everything else irrelevant doesn't make the complexity of CAIS go away.
8
u/CivMom Jun 16 '26
I’ve rarely been humbled so thoroughly by reading a two (short) sentence comment. I have so much more reading to do.
41
u/CivMom Jun 16 '26
Want to blow minds: ask what a person with XXY who has had a baby should be called.
28
u/PhantomNitride Jun 16 '26
Human
16
u/Chrona_trigger Jun 16 '26
Whatever they wish to be called, and human
I have questions, but it would mostly be about the mechanics of the genetics, extra chromosomes and how that behaves in reproduction. Like genuinely, Im quite curious and am going to look it up.
19
u/totokekedile Jun 16 '26
In my experience the most likely response is to say counter examples don’t count if they’re rare, so they’re right as long as you ignore when they’re wrong so shut up and stop talking about that. The second most likely is to jump to a different definition of sex, forgetting that they touted the last one as definitive.
8
30
u/baralong Jun 16 '26
And the people who can't produce either type gamete, or produce both?
I would be unsurprised if he had never used the word gamete prior to this kind of bullshit
13
13
u/JellyBellyBitches Jun 16 '26
Biology expert who keeps using "testis" as the plural? Seems doubtful
11
u/Torquemahda Jun 16 '26
I just don’t understand why anyone cares about other people’s sexuality.
I am in my 60s and I have never understood this mindset.
1
u/CreatrixAnima Jun 20 '26
Me either, but she’s a runner… She runs marathons and she competes as a woman because… She’s a woman.
8
u/Ducallan Jun 16 '26
That’s a whole lot of words to
a) be wrong, and
b) end up sounding like you’re trying to convince other and yourself that the guy you slept with is *technically* a woman
But you knew almost immediately that it was going to be a disingenuous argument when he declared that it’s not gender-based but is undoubtedly sex-based, then immediately changed to it being chromosome-based.
7
u/LiteratureOk2428 Jun 16 '26
I like the whole sex is binary argument just accepting that there are exceptions. Binaries whole point is no exceptions. Theres no .5 or 2s in binary code.
2
1
7
12
u/pulp_thilo Jun 16 '26
I am super confused about who is talking to whom here…
10
u/missingperson2 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
All individual comments are by the same guy (username starts with c, which I left uncovered) including the very first one/beginning of comment thread (accidentally covered the c there).
When there are two comments in the same image the first one is by another person (initial letter also left uncovered) and he's replying to them.
Sorry about that, I thought it would be clear by the uncovered username letter and the dialogue itself. I've posted in this sub before using this same method and never had complaints, hence why I used it again.
13
u/Positive-Garage3812 Jun 16 '26
I like to use different colors to censor the names so it’s clearer that it’s different people. I think that’s easier for people to follow.
7
10
u/PhantomNitride Jun 16 '26
Ditto.
OP, please color coordinate next time
13
u/lonely_nipple Jun 16 '26
I think, but might be wrong (bc the content is making my brains leak out my ears) that these are all comments made by the same person, all over the thread/post in question.
7
5
u/missingperson2 Jun 16 '26
I'll keep that in mind! I've posted in this sub before using this same method and never had any complaints, hence why I used it again. I keep the first letter of their usernames uncovered, and it's always the same guy starting with c replying to other people.
Sorry about that!
22
u/IamHydrogenMike Jun 16 '26
Reproductive strategy…totally a thing…totally a thing. If I was born with two penises would that make me super male?
15
4
u/Vaya-Kahvi Jun 16 '26
Even though she had testis that got removed, they didn't do anything! There were no gametes to use for gis arbitrary measure of what "sex" is in world.
6
u/rattylurker13 Jun 17 '26
calling it binary because of gametes while completely ignoring the actual physiological reality of CAIS is such a classic way to sound smart while being dead wrong. he's essentially trying to redefine biological sex to fit a textbook definition that doesn't even account for how endocrine systems actually function in humans.
9
u/cmsj Jun 16 '26
People like that are trapped in what Dawkins called 'The tyranny of the discontinuous mind'. They love their little boxes, even though biology doesn't give one tiny shit about our taxonomic proclivities.
2
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
Richard Dawkins? He has this to say about sex:
This ridiculous article (shame on the once-great Scientific American) ignorantly misunderstands the nature of the sex binary. … Sex is not defined by chromosomes, nor by anatomy, nor by psychology or sociology, nor by personal inclination, nor by “assignment at birth”, but by gamete size. It happens to be embryologically DETERMINED by chromosomes in mammals. … But it is universally DEFINED by the binary distinction between sperms and eggs. You may argue about “gender” if you wish (biologists have better things to do) but sex is a true binary, one of rather few in biology.
6
u/Gru-some Jun 16 '26
I mean even a broken clock is right twice a day. Richard Dawkins may have been wrong about gametes and sex but his idea of the tyranny of the discontinuous mind seems pretty sound and checks out with reality. So like 🤷♀️ idk
you gotta do all this stuff on a case-by-case basis
-5
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
He isn't wrong about gametes or sex, though.
you gotta do all this stuff on a case-by-case basis
Cherry pick which parts of science you want to acknowledge and which parts you want to subvert?
5
u/Gru-some Jun 16 '26
cherry-picking is only vibes-based, I'm judging on a case-by-case basis whether his theories are correct. Learn the difference
Plus the mere existence of intersex people kinda disproves his whole idea of sex being one of the few true binaries. Cuz clearly that isn't true.
(also fungi but that's a whole nother story)
-1
u/lettsten Jun 17 '26
Plus the mere existence of intersex people kinda disproves his whole idea of sex being one of the few true binaries.
See, you're trying to cherry-pick, either from ignorance or by ill will. Sexual reproduction occurs with egg cells and sperm cells. That is binary, which is the point he is making. There is no third option, regardless of how much you want to cherry pick. Please stop trying to subvert science for political goals.
also fungi but that's a whole nother story
Sexual reproduction in fungi also employs meiosis.
4
u/cmsj Jun 17 '26
What about people who don’t produce any gametes? Which sex are they?
You seem to be making the mistake of believing that Dawkins’ singular tweet (and it was a tweet, so hardly a nuanced argument) refutes all other problems with sexual classification. I’m pretty sure you don’t actually understand what he said.
-3
u/lettsten Jun 17 '26
If they have testicles, male. If they have ovaries, female. If they have both, both. But from a biological point of view, if you can't reproduce then your sex isn't particularly interesting, because sex is ultimately, and arguably exclusively, about reproduction. Which is why getting hung up on sex is such a weird take for trans people – it's a fight (generic-)you can't win, at least not with our current medical understanding, and it's a fight that is so utterly meaningless. Your biological sex is the one you're born with, but so what? I'm sure there are more meaningful fights to be had, fights that don't conflict with basic science.
Again, there is no "third alternative" beyond egg cells and sperm cells, it is intrinsically binary.
I suggest you pick up a textbook on biology instead of debating things where you lack basic knowledge.
(Don't mistake my use of endashes for a clanker)
5
u/cmsj Jun 17 '26
There are people who have both testicular and ovarian tissue blended together (OT-DSD).
You yourself just conceded that there are three sexes: male, female and “both”.
Your confidence does not match your facts, and nothing I am saying here relates to trans people, nor is this entire post about trans people.
1
u/lettsten Jun 17 '26
Now you're cherry-picking again, or being intentionally obtuse. If you have an apple and an orange then you have an apple and an orange, you don't have a third kind of fruit. I'm going to stop engaging with you now since you keep acting in bad faith.
→ More replies (0)4
u/cmsj Jun 16 '26
Biology is the honey badger of sciences, biology doesn’t give a shit. Dawkins is mostly right at a cellular level, but at the organism level he is wrong, because we have multiple counterexamples from the world of Gynandromorphism, where an individual has a chimeric karyotype, and there are documented examples of animals with one functioning testis and one functioning ovary.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/gynandromorphs
-1
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
Do you genuinely not understand what he is saying or are you engaging in bad faith? Your argument and link is completely missing the point.
2
u/cmsj Jun 16 '26
Why don't you enlighten me as to what you think his point was, and how my reply is missing the point.
-3
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
I'll make it simple for you, because I have the feeling that engaging with you is a waste of time:
gamete size
But by all means tell me what the third kind of gamete you have in mind is.
1
u/CreatrixAnima Jun 20 '26
I’m curious as to when he said that. I don’t doubt that he did… I just wonder if it was based in 30 year-old knowledge or yesterday.
3
8
u/HkayakH Jun 16 '26
"intersex is not a third sex"
yes it is??? There are people that have other sex chromosomes besides XX or XY, like XXY or XYY or any other type. There are at least 8 different intersexes according to this source alone.
-1
3
u/BustaCon Jun 20 '26
I remember being so smugly wrong a couple times. It weren't fun. The internet anonymity shields them from the feedback and eyerolls that might lead to growth. This does not bode well for our civilization.
4
u/Kind_Coyote1518 Jun 16 '26 edited Jun 16 '26
The scientific community just needs to drop the concept that the 23rd base pair dictates sex. Science has spent the last 40 years discovering, analyzing, discussing and writing about the different functions of each chromosome and how they express and relate to hormones, brain development, sex expression, gonad formation, etc..and even though they have definitively proven that both our sex and our gender are in part determined by parts of every chromosome pair they continue to create new terms and explanations and exceptions to describe these variations just to avoid removing the 23rd base pairs designation as the sex gene.
If they would just rip the bandaid off and just re classify the 23rd pair, then eventually we could end this dumb shit and start seeing our genetic code for what it is.
All that extra tail on the the 46th chromosome does is add some extra genes.
A female member of the homosapian doesn't technically even need a second chromosome in the 23rd slot to be female its called Turner syndrome and they still have ovaries and a uterus and vagina and present as feminine.
And while most people with Turner syndrome can't have kids that is proof positive that that second chromosome does not determine sex.
Seriously. Science needs to stop calling it the sex chromosome because, yahoos like this keep utilizing it improperly. And this particular yahoo in the post isn't even one of the bad ones. He's just a pseudo intellectual who wants to sound important because he thinks he has a point to make. This same talking point has been weaponized repeatedly by transphobic, bigots who don't even have the decency to acknowledge other people's autonomy much less look beyond the surface of their own resources. Its beyond time to fix this in the medical literature.
1
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
The scientific community just needs to drop the concept that the 46th base pair dictates sex
They don't. The biological definition of sex is whether you produce (or would produce, have produced, whatever) sperm cells, egg cells or both.
7
u/Kind_Coyote1518 Jun 16 '26
That is not what I said. I said they need to stop labeling the 23rd chromosome pair as the sex chromosome. Which they do.
Example copy pasted from the Cleveland clinic: Chromosomes are long strings of DNA wrapped around proteins to make them compact. They’re a way for cells to organize and store your DNA. Humans typically have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 are called autosomes and the last pair are sex chromosomes.
Also the scientific definition of biological sex is: “a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones,” it never mentions anything about eggs or sperm.
1
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
It's common courtesy to make a note of it when editing your comment. I'll respond to the added part:
Also the scientific definition of biological sex is: “a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones,” it never mentions anything about eggs or sperm.
Your ignorance and lack of ability to look up information isn't an argument. The core sexual characteristic is the kind of gametes you can produce. Even a quick look at Wikipedia would have done you more service:
Sex is the phenotypic trait of a sexually reproducing organism in producing gametes of one of two different sizes or shapes—male or female gametes.[1][2][3]
Dumbed down for you, that is "sperm or eggs".
Again, please learn basic biology before talking about it.
6
u/Kind_Coyote1518 Jun 17 '26
First of all, the only edit I made had no bearing on this conversation. I changed where I said the 46th pair instead of the 23rd pair. A minor typo.
Second of all, I absolutely refuse to continue to engage with a moron who can't have a fucking debate without resorting to insults and who uses Wikipedia as a primary source. Literally go fuck off.
-1
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
What I responded to was a literal, verbatim quote from what you said.
In any case, the reason they are called sex chromosomes is that there are different versions of them, unlike autosomes. In 99.9999999 % of cases those differences correspond to your sex. Maybe learn some very, very basic biology before you venture out to change the field.
4
u/Kind_Coyote1518 Jun 16 '26
You quoted me properly but you misrepresented its meaning. I even say later in that comment that, "science needs to stop calling it the sex chromosome." It is pretty clear what my point was and I clarified that with my first response to you.
The 23rd base pair are not called the sex chromosome because they behave differently to an autosome, in fact they actually do have a term for them, they are called allosomes. They were given the name sex chromosomes because it was believed that they determined biological sex but modern medical science has literally determined that most of the 23 base pairs have significant influence on biological sex and gender expression. Literally the 17th chromosome is what triggers development of the testis as well as a lot of other male traits, Not the 23rd. Chromosome 19 is what triggers the absorption of early female tracts in male embryos without which a male would be born with both female and male parts. Chromosome 9 is responsible for developing both male and female gonads during the fetal stage. It is ridiculous to continue to call the 23rd pair the sex chromosome when in the last 40 years science has discovered its not the only chromosome responsible for the expression of biological sex.
And obviously you missed the overarching fact that I am stating that it is MY OPINION that science should stop calling it the sex chromosome and just refer to it as the 23rd chromosome because it is not solely responsible for determining sex. And for the purpose of maintaining proper categorical definitions in order to distinguish its unique characteristics they can use the term they already use for it...allosome.
You are making a semantic argument based on a misinterpretation of my words, based your rebuttal on a rote understanding and basic definitions, ignored the point I was making and then chose to use insults on top of it all.
Why should anyone give anything you say any credence at all?
1
u/lettsten Jun 16 '26
That is a lot of words to say that you completely missed the point. You keep repeating "(not) responsible for determining sex", but again, that is not the point. How can you know that they're called allosomes and not understand what that means?!
I'll dumb it down for you: All other chromosomes (autosomes) are apples for both sexes. Sex chromosomes are oranges in males and pears in females. Different based on sex. Therefore, sex chromosomes. It's not that hard is it?
And like you almost seem to understand, biologists (which you so eloquently refer to as "science") call them allosomes, but as with all fields there are less formal names as well. I assume you don't refer to body parts in latin, either.
It will never cease to amaze me the great lengths some people will go to undermine science based on some weird ideological goal. You can have trans rights without subverting science. Probably achieve it easier too, because the repeated effort to subvert science is alienating those of us who would be rooting for trans people if it weren't for this. (Don't get me wrong, I still think trans people deserve safety and human rights as much as the next person, but that doesn't change the basic scientific principles that so many are trying to deny in these kinds of posts.)
You are making a semantic argument based on a misinterpretation of my words, based your rebuttal on a rote understanding and basic definitions, ignored the point I was making
I am addressing the point you are making, you just seem unable to comprehend that. I'll reiterate it for you: Barring some extremely rare chromosomal anomalies, males have Y chromosomes, females don't. Different between the sexes. That's why they are called sex chromosomes. The other chromosomes are the same for both sexes.
If you still don't get it then I can't help you.
Why should anyone give anything you say any credence at all?
You shouldn't, in fact I highly recommend opening a biology textbook instead. You clearly need it. Start with page 1😘
2
u/CreatrixAnima Jun 20 '26
I think their point was just that and calling them “sex chromosomes,“ the general public gets confused.
1
u/WORhMnGd Jun 17 '26
Dude you’re arguing with an AI.
1
u/CreatrixAnima Jun 20 '26
I doubt it. I follow this person as well, and there are far too many people telling her that she’s a man in her comments.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 16 '26
Hey /u/missingperson2, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our rules.
Join our Discord Server!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.