Let's take chickens. They predict at a day old whether a chick is going to produce sperm or eggs - be male or female. This is vital for profitability. They sex the chickens based on gamete types. They make their prediction based on subtle differences in the cloaca. Do you want to dispute this?
Are they 100% accurate in their predictions?
Even if they were we wouldn’t know because they immediately kill all the ones they think are male
What’s the confidence level of the prediction? 100.0000000000%? Do they ever sex as female a chick who doesn’t end up producing eggs?
This looks like a genetic defect of hens - female birds - one of the two sexes that exist. Just two sexes.
PS I am not going to laugh as you are a historian and we cannot expect historians to know much outside their narrow field.
What's yours?
Lmao at thinking history is a narrow field
Not so fast. You said gamete production was determinative. Here we have an example of an animal that starts out producing and later switches to producing sperm. On what grounds do you say it’s one sex and not the other?
If you contract an agreement with someone to deliver them a hen, and you turn up with a bird that looks and sounds like a rooster and can't produce eggs, do you think they'll consider you to have fulfilled the agreement?
This is such a cool example. Thanks
Yeah. Let’s take chickens. My daughter raised chickens. One of her hens started getting aggressive and stopped laying eggs. She grew a spur on the back of each foot (like roosters have). She grew a comb and started crowing. She became a rooster after a couple of years as a hen that laid eggs.
Turns out that’s a thing hens can do when the flock doesn’t have a rooster and the flock feels under attack. So, what immutable biological sex was that bird?
Indeed, so they are predictive, nobody is disputing that. So it’s possible that they don’t produce large gametes, and thus a rancher sexing a hen ends up not referring correctly to the gametes, yes? For the record, “no gametes” is also a possibility, so even using gametes, no binary.
When it comes to reproductive roles there are just two. "no gametes" is nto a reproductive role.
I disagree, if you ask me for a role in any niche or organization, null is a valid category. What is the large gamete’s role in shampoo production? Does it come in two types? Clarify for me whether or not re: if anyone commonly discusses sex beyond reproductive role of a gamete.
What about worker ants? They don’t have any children. None of the members of the colony are their offspring. Are they the same as the queen?
There are two sexes in ants. Male and female. But these social colonies suppress reproduction in most individuals.
Ok so what are worker ants?
Worker ants come from fertilised eggs and so are diploid in these species - and female. Haploid ants are male. The colony only allows one or two females to produce eggs. They suppress that in other females.
Ok, so there are females who do not produce eggs. So your definition of female as being defined exclusively by egg production is wrong.
I never mentioned egg production. I said with respect to eggs. So a female any could be induced to mature into a queen and produce eggs. You cannot do that with a drone - a male ant. SO workers are female as thy have a direct relationship to eggs.
Ok so if the latent potentiality for gamete production is part of an individual’s ontology, and a means by which we can determine an individual’s sex, then hens are both female and male an simply more commonly manifest as female. If not, worker ants are neither male nor female. No binary either way.
You are confusing ontology with epistemology. Two sexes exist - males and females based on their reproductive role. - ontology We can sex chicks through subtle differences in cloaca - epistemology - subject to mistakes etc. If we get the sex of a chick wrong it still has a sex.
Oh ho ho you can’t just bring up ontology with a Roy Bhaskar enjoyer and assume they haven’t thought about this. It is part of the ontology of hens *that they are capable of transforming into roosters.* What you are calling ontology is your simplistic assumptions about reality, not reality itself.
Good grief. Shall we go back to the beginning Emma. DO you know how babies are made? Or baby chickens? Can you you describe the biological process that leads to a new chicken? Or are you too dishonest?
Yes. As you learned in your sixth grade health class, the sperm fertilizes the egg, etc etc. The thing is: they were describing *a simplified version* of what happens *most of the time* to *people who were children.* It’s time to grow up. You have a parrot who depends on you.
What name do we give to the animals that supply sperm across nature. And what name do we give to the animals that create eggs across nature?
You know that I know this because I have already acknowledged it. It shows that you have nothing to contribute.
What name do we give to the animals that supply sperm across nature. And what name do we give to the animals that create eggs across nature? Please give an answer.
Are you going to go up to a rancher and insist on using gametes as “sex”, even when there is a possibility of a {null} expression? Even among biologists, sex is not exclusively used to refer to gametes, and many multiple (non binary) traits like these are viable for various applications.
Even half a decade ago, reactionaries *insisted* that sex was reducible to chromosomes! Some of them were biologists.