Defining sex is not a classification of humans. That is a very fundamental confusion. It is a classification system of reproductive roles based on gamete types.
Replies
It is in principal possible to say some people do not have a sex - because they have zero reproductive anatomy. But that does not happen in reality. Current **production** of gametes has nothing to do with the definition of sex. Again, a serious confusion.
aug 27, 2025, 6:21 pm • 0 0 • view
Your definition is explicitly based on gametes. Not reproductive anatomy, not reproductive roles, gametes. How do you define sex without gametes?
aug 27, 2025, 6:30 pm • 2 0 • view
You cannot define a sex without gametes as a sex if a reproductive role etc advocated with a gamete type. Your question is irrational.
aug 27, 2025, 6:41 pm • 0 0 • view
Can someone lack sex?
aug 27, 2025, 6:42 pm • 3 0 • view
That is a good question. But you need a robust definition of what a sex is to answer that. Don’t you?
aug 27, 2025, 6:50 pm • 0 0 • view
Let's assume your gamete definition is robust. Can an individual lack sex?
aug 27, 2025, 7:01 pm • 1 0 • view
You're just mad because you're a flatworm who keeps losing at penis fencing, aren't you?
aug 27, 2025, 6:32 pm • 3 0 • view
Then the classification system you're attempting to describe it has no business in a discussion on policy that deals with humans.
aug 27, 2025, 6:45 pm • 4 0 • view
Will that is not true. If humans have differentiated reproductive anatomy based on a gamete type then we can ask what sex a person has. We observe that humans do indeed have distinct phenotypes based on their reproductive anatomy around a gamete type.
aug 27, 2025, 6:52 pm • 2 0 • view
Humans do have a sex and it matters enough that some legal recognition it’s important. Only women can gestate children and that has social consequences. And humans are sexually dimorphic enough to make telling males from females trivial in most circumstances.
aug 27, 2025, 7:02 pm • 0 0 • view
So you are, in fact, categorizing humans and not reproductive systems. Why did you lie?
aug 27, 2025, 7:04 pm • 6 0 • view
No. I am saying if we can fit an individual human into the categories of male and female. You need to think clearly about his. You are not at the moment.
aug 27, 2025, 7:07 pm • 1 0 • view
* this
aug 27, 2025, 7:07 pm • 0 0 • view
In other words, we are asking what reproductive role based on a gamete type we can recognise in an individual.
aug 27, 2025, 7:08 pm • 0 0 • view
And since some humans have no reproductive role, that has no bearing in this policy discussion.
aug 27, 2025, 7:09 pm • 3 0 • view
Which humans have no reproductive anatomy?
aug 27, 2025, 7:12 pm • 0 0 • view
That's a different statement.
aug 27, 2025, 7:13 pm • 2 0 • view
Let’s just be clear here: you also said that identifying a person as belonging to the male or female phenotype is “trivial.” bsky.app/profile/quac...
aug 27, 2025, 7:12 pm • 7 0 • view
Indeed it is. You know this.
aug 27, 2025, 7:15 pm • 1 0 • view
Oh are we playing “we can always tell”?
aug 28, 2025, 1:18 pm • 18 0 • view
And yet…
aug 27, 2025, 7:18 pm • 3 0 • view
My guy. Did you or did you not say that defining sex is not a classification of humans but a classification of reproductive roles based on gamete types?
aug 27, 2025, 7:08 pm • 4 0 • view
Indeed. When we define sexes we stress classifying reproductive roles based in ac gamete type. When we ask if a human has a sex we are looking to see if they have a reproductive role based in a gamete type. This is a two step process. Be careful out there. Traps await.
aug 27, 2025, 7:12 pm • 0 0 • view
Okay, so you lied.
aug 27, 2025, 7:12 pm • 3 0 • view
No I did not. You misunderstood.
aug 27, 2025, 7:16 pm • 0 0 • view
Everything in your misunderstanding always boils down to a conflation of ontology and epistemology. You do not think hard enough.
aug 27, 2025, 7:17 pm • 0 0 • view
You did. You claimed that you were not classifying humans and now here you are classifying humans. There are no mental gymnastics that make the initial statement true.
aug 27, 2025, 7:20 pm • 1 0 • view