No, not really. "Biologically male" organisms do not, as a class, have similar chromosomes, genitalia or ability to give birthhttps://twitter.com/ryancmack/status/814624085812670464 …
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect
Here's a convenient example: a male seahorse does not have a Y chromosome, does not have phallic genitalia and is the one that lays the eggs
2 replies 14 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
The actual answer is that in biology the "male" organism is the one whose gametes are smaller and more motile
3 replies 6 retweets 36 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Which chromosome arrangement causes this, and how this plays out in terms of how sex works on the macro scale, varies tremendously
1 reply 5 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
In seahorse sex the female seahorse puts its bigger, heavier gametes -- the eggs -- inside the male's body instead of vice versa
2 replies 6 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Which is less common than the reverse, but so what -- for tons of species "sex" happens completely outside the body of both organisms
1 reply 6 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
What it comes down to is that our use of "biological sex" is based on trying to form a category for all life forms based on human sex
1 reply 8 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
Trying to define everything as "male" and "female" goes back to our very human assumptions from before "sex" and "gender" were different
3 replies 6 retweets 23 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect
So what's the takeaway here? Does this change if we restrict our scope to mammals, i.e. animals more like us?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
For me it's that calling trans women "biologically male, socially female" is only marginally less wrong than just calling them men
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.