- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- fediverse@lemmy.ml
In light of recent controversy and its handling, the twice-a-year FediForum unconference for April 1st and 2nd has been canceled by its organizer.
You must log in or register to comment.
none of these transphobic losers who use autism to attack trans people even gives a flip about autistic people
none of these transphobic losers who use autism to attack trans people even gives a flip about people
Ftfy
Sex isn’t a “gender orientation” it is really simple biology.
Gamete size – its really simple.
Congratulations infertile people, you are now officially sexless.
That is usually how males and females of a species are differentiated in general: males have the small gamete and females have the large one. (As you said, some individuals may not produce gametes so it only applies in general).
Of course humans are a lot more complicated. We have a concept of gender which doesn’t necessarily align with biological sex, and many people modify their sex characteristics to match their gender, so applying generalizations blindly gets you nowhere.
Indeed, just as gender is a spectrum so is sex. I love when someone says “Its basic biology” because the best response is “and this is intermediate biology”.
With all due respect, sex is not a spectrum.
It’s a clearly a binary. Yes, there are many exceptions and edge cases, but they are all based around a universal binary biological structure.
You don’t have say three distinct sexes required for reproduction outside of sci-fi. It is a binary with some edge cases and variations in how exactly the two parts of the binary interact.
Sex is indeed a spectrum. Intersex presentation makes up a meaningful though small percentage, somewhere around the 0.05% range. If it were a binary there would be two options, mutually exclusive. This is a bimodal distribution, with two very strong peaks for XX or XY karyotype and a bunch of variation around either different karyotypes, XXY etc, or differing activation or expression of those karyotypes, eg androgen insensitivity etc.
On top of that, what would you say sex is exactly? Which gamete is larger? In seahorses the males have the smaller gametes but the females use something very similar to a penis to deposit the egg into the male who then raises it and performs all the roles we associate with females in humans.
Is it based on which chroonosomes? In some animals it is a WZ or W karyotypes, so that can’t be it. In others it is just a presence or absence of a sex chromosome. In some plants they have more than two sets of everything, like strawberries with 7 copies of each chromosome. In others they have one, two, or four in some parts of the life cycle, but sometimes the thing we see is the higher number, sometimes it is the lower number. Some have a mix of male and female parts, having sperm and egg producers on the same plant but separated, some have both right next to each other in groupings. Some animals can undergo sex changing due to environmental factors.
Nothing in biology is as simple as the models we use to represent them. Sex is complex and while it sometimes seems simple that is the less common state. Genes are not often all the way on or all the way off, they are usually moderated and running at different levels across the organism cell by cell, and changing with time. The same goes for traits.
I would recommend learning more about ut biology if you really do believe sex is a simple binary. The world of biology is far more complex and varied than that idea can capture and honestly it is fascinating, I find it extremely exciting to find the examples of my own ignorance, they are usually super cool. Good luck!
It is a binary with some edge cases
So in other words, not a binary? What you’re describing is more accurately described as a bimodal distribution.
It’s far closer to a binary distribution than a bi-modal distribution. You can be pedantic, but that’s not a real arguement. I admitted there are edge cases.
This is not tied to pure outcomes and is derived from actual earth bio-chemistry.
There is no triple helix or quadruple helix as a foundational system of genetic bio-chemical reproduction.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
I admitted there are edge cases.
Then it’s not binary.
When you flip a coin, there is a chance that it will land on the side, yet we still use a coin flip for a 50:50 probability scenario because it is close enough.
Absolutely. For day to day life, “there are two outcomes” is safe way to describe coin flips. But given that a coin landing on its side can happen, it’s not a binary system. It only becomes binary when we ignore the edge cases. Just like sex…
And that’s before we get to the point that there isn’t even a single definition of sex that accounts for all scenarios. People can change their legal sex, people can change their morphological sex, “genetic sex” isn’t foolproof, as it doesn’t always correlate with morphological sexual characteristics, or even gamete production.
Calling sex binary is either a generalisation, or something you want to be true. At no point is it reality of the situation though…
I strongly disagree. I am only happy for people to be the best version of themselves and to feel comfortable in their skin.
Changes in legal or morphological sex is not relevant. This is not what we are discussing.
I already mentioned that there are edge cases. Edge cases do not discredit foundational frameworks that define reality.
The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework. This has been true for hundreds of millions of years. There is no such things as a triple helix or quadruple helix in terms of reproduction. Even trees and plants have a binary sex.
You claim that this is something I want to be true. I would argue the same (on a vice versa basis) for you and that you’re framing the discussion using irrelevant examples (how is a morphological change in sex even relevant to what we are discussing).
Stop confusing young autistic vulnerable people.
— Date Unknown
I’m old and autistic and not confused by the fact trans women are women. Hope that helps.
I don’t understand why people don’t keep such comments to their anonymous, unofficial accounts. You can hold such views in private and still treat people with respect, but saying these things officially changes everything. The co-organiser is in a space where she should know better. She then even doubled down
When asked whether she still held her more problematic views in a follow-up comment, Young responded ambiguously with “I fully stand by the statement you are commenting on.”
In for a penny, in for a pound, eh?
I agree but also very unlikely it would make a difference if they were only sharing from their personal account.
Would you if it’s something you care about and want to be vocal about? I’d rather know that she’s full of shit and now out of the whole thing than supporting someone who spews against trans people on a secret identity.
Would you if it’s something you care about
Did you forget a word?
I’m having trouble with the rest of your post too. Autocorrect must’ve struck or something.
Sorry, English is not my first language, bit I thought the post is somewhat clear?
I didn’t forget a word, maybe a comma - in the given context, the meaning is “Would you keep your opinion for yourself if it’s something you care about?” as the post I replied to suggested exactly that.
Sorry, English is not my first language, bit I thought the post is somewhat clear?
English is my first language and it was clear to me.
Good to know, thanks!
No worries, as a European, English isn’t my first language either :P
And as a response: if my job depended on being on the “right side of things” I wouldn’t make such controversial statements. Not only is it dumb in the moment, but also for the future. People are very polarised and even if she had changed her mind by now, there’d still be outrage “omg, look at what she said years ago! I don’t trust that she changed!”. Of course she supposedly doubled down, which is even dumber IMO, but you get the point.
I use this anonymous account because what the opinions I express here will probably evolve and I don’t want any future employer putting me into a box due to a comment made in jest, rage, or whatever. Revealing your identity online for anything other than business is just asking for trouble.
I don’t think Fedi forum was her job, but maybe it is?
I strongly disagree with it generally being dumb to (unanonymously) raise your voice on a topic that might cause you problems in the future. It’s a consideration of priorities and going “this is my name and I stand up for xy” (maybe by a coworker even) is usually more impactful than some anon accounts or persona. Of course it might impact your career or whatever, but for some people it’s worth the potential consequences.
I too use (semi) anonymous accounts for different things, but I don’t go “neutral” at work or anywhere really. Most political organizations won’t work with only anons (Anonymous is an exception). Saying using your real name for “controversial” politics stuff is dumb? Hard no.
Also, which topics are controversial and which aren’t is always subject to change. Maybe she lives somewhere where transphobic positions will help her? She’s rightfully gone from this position and I wish transphobia would be a unacceptable everywhere but it isn’t and she might find other people/orgs/position where it’s a benefit even.
In pshych 101 they teach that sex and gender are two different things.
That’s great. Since when and does everybody take psych 101?
And just to give a wider perspective (regardless of her origins), not every language makes the distinction and some up until recently did not. Look at the translations on (wiktionary). Many of them are transliterations of the English word. Which is not a surprise since the concept of gender is quite recent (1950-1960s) and was most likely very US-centric.
We didn’t make a distinction in english until about ten? years ago. Most people used the terms interchangeably. That’s part of why people got so pissed off about the whole thing. Suddenly they were being screamed at by a militant tumbler user for using the wrong word when they were using it that way their whole life.
I’m a bit confused about this, isn’t the whole lgbtq movement advocating for the distinction between terms “sex” and “gender” exactly the same way as those quotes do? Or do lgbtq people advocate for equating “sex” to “gender”? Honestly, this whole thing is always a huge mindfuck to try to comprehend.
Posting from another thread:
Her comments cover everything from “trans women are mostly autistic boys who have been gaslit” to “there are only two sexes” to “trans people are unfit to play in their gender’s sport.” However, there are far worse comments floating around out there that talk about genital mutilation and all kinds of other heinous shit.
It wasn’t just “I have a different opinion, we can agree to disagree”, it was full-fledged unhinged stuff that all followed the TERF playbook.
I was a bit confused too, but OPs answer to your comment clarified it quite well.
And after thinking a bit on it, and from my very basic knowledge of lgbt movment, here’s what i think they advocate for (pls correct me if i say bs) : sex and gender are indeed different, they aee not necessarily connected and both are spectrums rather than binary options. This means you could have a lot of options between what sex you are (male/female/intersex), what gender you are (a lot of options) and what gender you were assigned at birth (generally either male or female). Some trans people need their “physical” sex identity to match their gender, other don’t.
The problem in this case seems to me that she advocates for a strict binary conception of sex identity and that she pushed for it to be more important than gender in social situations such as sport. Part of the confusion also comes from the fact that she acknowledges parts of what the lgbt movment fights for but she fights against the rest, which happens frequently in TERF rethorics afaik
Yup pretty much. It’s… complicated if you really dive into it. I’m saying this as a trans person - there are biological differences between people. In literally everyone, though - it’s not just a sex thing. No two males, females, intersex, or otherwise are alike biologically. Everyone’s biological stats are different. Even twins are different.
These categories exist in science to easily communicate basic ideas based on medical observations. But once you get to the nitty-gritty of a person’s personal medical history it’s really hard to categorize certain things. You can have “true” females with more male hormones than “true” males and vice-versa. You can be born without any sex organs and still develop into an adult.
Bodies are weird. Medical science is very complicated and interesting. We really don’t know what we’re doing still or how a lot of our biology operates. Can you attribute someone’s sports prowess to their hormones? Maybe? I don’t know. I don’t think it matters in the grand scheme of things. I think someone’s determination to do something is a bigger indicator of how well they’ll do in the end.
Nothing’s certain in science. Disproving something is easy. Proving things is a lot harder lol.
