You are imagining my argument rather than reading it. I adopt the definitions of male and female in this paper (for future reference). www.researchgate.net/publication/...
Replies
So, since you adopt this definition, you've proven that sex is bimodal and not binary. If an individual does not produce gametes, they are by definition neither male nor female.
aug 29, 2025, 1:00 pm • 4 0 • view
What does the definition of male and female say in this paper? It does not say what you have said. It is clearly a category definition FFS.
aug 29, 2025, 1:06 pm • 0 0 • view
You mean you don't know? You adopted a definition that you aren't aware of what it says? 🤡🤡
aug 29, 2025, 1:09 pm • 2 0 • view
I am pointing you to a source so you never have to straw man me again about what I mean by a sex If these definitions in the glossary are wrong how do you define male and female?
aug 29, 2025, 1:21 pm • 1 0 • view
Nope. That's not how it works. You said you adopted those definitions. Thus you have proven sex is bimodal, not binary, because some people do not produce gametes and some produce both. Thank you for clearly proving my point with your own definition.
aug 29, 2025, 1:23 pm • 3 0 • view
Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?
aug 29, 2025, 1:27 pm • 0 0 • view
Sorry, buddy, that's not how this works. You chose the definition.
aug 29, 2025, 1:28 pm • 0 0 • view
aug 29, 2025, 1:08 pm • 1 0 • view
I misunderstand nothing. It says males produce the smaller gametes and females produce the larger ones. It's your own problem that you adopted a definition that doesn't work for your political aims.
aug 29, 2025, 12:59 pm • 5 0 • view
It dies not say that.
aug 29, 2025, 1:06 pm • 0 0 • view
And there is an actual glossary. This is what I adopt. The definition is a class definition on phenotype. Please use this in future reference if you want to say what I think a sex is.
aug 29, 2025, 1:11 pm • 0 0 • view
Unfortunately for you, you apparently didn't read the whole glossary.
aug 29, 2025, 1:13 pm • 2 0 • view
Yes. The word sex is polysemous. So the authors clarify the context.
aug 29, 2025, 1:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Yes! And it's not based on phenotype, which isn't a thing anyway. It's unusual that someone so completely destroys their own argument, but you're doing it well. Again, you've demonstrated that sex is bimodal, not binary.
aug 29, 2025, 1:18 pm • 5 0 • view
The authors say it is exactly based in a phenotype. Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?
aug 29, 2025, 1:25 pm • 0 0 • view
No, actually, they very clearly don't. That is the definition of sex they use. But additionally phenotype is nothing more than how something appears. Sorry you're so bad at this, but that's your problem, not mine.
aug 29, 2025, 1:31 pm • 1 0 • view
You asking someone else to provide a robust and coherent definition of something is the funniest thing that’s happened in this thread.
aug 29, 2025, 1:26 pm • 3 0 • view
Can you do it? I have. And referenced the pet reviewed. Biology Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?
aug 29, 2025, 1:35 pm • 0 0 • view
aug 29, 2025, 1:34 pm • 2 0 • view
Ah, they're soooo close.... But still they flop! Have you totally missed the many people pointing out that "robust and coherent" definitions are just not possible, and therefore quacks trying to pretend otherwise must be wrong?
aug 29, 2025, 3:32 pm • 2 0 • view
Yes, of course you can you can have robust and coherent definitions. GOOD GRIEF. That does not mean there mere be soem cases that are difficult to classify - it is still objective, robust and coherent.
aug 29, 2025, 4:11 pm • 0 0 • view
That is exactly the same thing as what I posted. You're not helping yourself.
aug 29, 2025, 1:12 pm • 4 0 • view
Hey, why did you abandon our conversation about your “thought experiment”?
aug 29, 2025, 1:51 pm • 14 0 • view
Personally, I think it's because he's flailing madly after unintentionally proving sex is bimodal by adopting the definition in the glossary, but that's just me.
aug 29, 2025, 1:52 pm • 6 0 • view
The definitions in that glossary either ignore the existence of organisms within an anisogamous windows that don't produce gametes or imply that there exist organisms within an anisogamous species that are neither male nor female.
aug 29, 2025, 1:16 pm • 3 0 • view
Please give examples.
aug 29, 2025, 1:23 pm • 0 0 • view
"within an anisogamous windows' should read "within an anisogamous species".
aug 29, 2025, 1:20 pm • 3 0 • view
We need examples of your claim. And also. Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?
aug 29, 2025, 1:24 pm • 0 0 • view
What you're doing here is begging the question. It assumes there exists a robust and coherent definition. That's not how this process works. I need not provide an alternate definition to disprove yours, I only need to show yours is insufficient.
aug 29, 2025, 1:51 pm • 4 0 • view
If there isn’t, say so. Have the courage to say the terms male and female are meaningless. And then try to justify that.
aug 29, 2025, 1:54 pm • 0 0 • view
There are contexts in which you can assign firm definitions to male or female. But no definition fits every context. This is why scientists include definitions so the reader understands what the author(s) means when they say male or female. Adopting their definition for all situations is dumb.
aug 29, 2025, 2:12 pm • 1 0 • view
In your world, anything that can’t be cleanly defined, categorized and labeled is “meaningless.” That’s really the heart of all this.
aug 29, 2025, 2:00 pm • 0 0 • view
Saying there's no all encompassing robust and coherent definition does not mean the terms are meaningless. It means their value as defined terms is contextually contingent. When I taught intro to life sciences I used the terms differently than when in talking about networking plugs.
aug 29, 2025, 7:22 pm • 1 0 • view
For someone who keeps whining about science you sure seem to not know how the scientific process works.
aug 29, 2025, 1:51 pm • 2 0 • view
You ever stop and wonder why it's so goddamn hard to find legitimate peer reviewed literature in support of your bigotry? Or 'obvious' just not obvious enough?
aug 29, 2025, 1:26 pm • 1 0 • view