Do you accept that 1) Gametes come in two distinct sorts 2) Reproduction takes place though the combination of two gametes, one of each type, in animals like us 3) We call the biology associated with small gametes male; and large gametes female - the two sexes. What is wrong with these statements?
Nothing, except that it’s not what you have have actually been talking about. You said that we need to take an evolutionary perspective, but here you are just talking about conception—not even all of biological reproduction. This doesn’t even get you to birth. 1/
So you accept male and female are tied to the gamete types. That is **big progress*. Do you now accept this?
No response.
Newsflash: no one likes bad faith assholes
You’ve been conflating things, throughout. Sexual reproduction at the cellular level with reproduction at the evolutonary level. Both science. Both have specialist biologists that study them, but not the same thing. Both are “reproduction” and “biological reproduction.” But different things. 2/
Explain how I have made that conflation,. Give an example. I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
Spare the bullshit, dude exited the chat. Some have better things to do than argue with a bad faith asshole on this little app.
David - you are a moron.
That’s some IMAX projection
There’s your jingle fallacy of equating “male”/“female” in the context of biological reproduction on the cellular level—really just the conception process—with the larger reproductive roles that are relevant. Especially from the evolutionary standpoint—which you said we should favor. 3/
There is a direct link between the "celular level" and reproductive roles in animals. Darwin was one to the first to study this. We knweo how very detailed understanding how phenotype evolve to support specific gamete types. e.g. peafowl. why do sperm producers create such phenotypes...
You’re right, they evolved to form into razor sharp contrasts. That’s why all women are small and petite while all men are tall and strong and built like gods. 😔🙏🏻
Oh shit, you actually believe that, don’t you?
Diversity in phenotypes. No way! That's impossible there is a direct link!
And then there’s been this subtext throughout of equating “male”/“female” in the sex context to that gender context. Again, that’s your basic jingle fallacy. 4/
I have never mentioned gender.
(Jingle Fallacy: mistakenly thinking that because the same word is used in two different contexts that they are not the same construct. Jangle Fallacy: Same idea. Mistakenly thinking that different words necessary refer to different things.) (I might have typed the wrong one the first time.) 5/
You keep trying to extend that simple cellular dynamic to a broader context. You claim that you’re not, but then keep slipping. 6/
That is what biologists do. Darwin was one of the first to analyse why male peacock phenotypes are so elaborate. The fact they are sperm producers is absolutely key to understanding why peacocks evolved to be so flamboyant.
This cellular contribution to reproduction has SO VERY MANY steps on the way to claiming it contributes something to discussion of gender. And yet, that’s the reason you are struck on it—despite your clear mistakes and conflations. 7/
Yes, at the *cellular* level of conception as one step in sexual reproduction, one can see two sexes. Yes. No one disagrees with that. Stick that THAT clear argument and no one would argue. And I’m gonna try not to engage with any of this any more. 8/8 FINI!