I read this & had a complicated reaction. On the one hand, simple genotype/phenotype discrepancies already put the lie to universal male/female binaries. On the other, this is a largely political rather than purely scientific rebuttal from the top *science* journal. We’re lost.https://twitter.com/nature/status/1064694083090812928 …
Biological sex in evolutionary theory is defined by relative gamete size (sperm or egg), not by genitalia.
-
-
Part of the problem seems to be that we’ve raised people to think about biology, gender & sexuality as if reproduction wasn’t the generating function. Thus folks who think in terms of “my sexuality” & “my identity” as *primitives* usually have no idea what leads them into error.
-
so how many generations till this sorts itself out??
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I chose “Small Gamete” in my http://Match.com profile when it asked my gender.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would like a layout of what rules different groups play by. This topic seems unnecessarily opaque to us common folk.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So in evolutionary theory that are two sexes or multiple ones?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Syringammina fragilissima
- 2 more replies
-
-
-
OK, but that's not all that relevant to classifying individuals, unless you want people with normal chromosomes, hormones and genitals, and comfortable with their apparent sex, but infertile without gametes, to be considered sexless.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Do you agree with the article then Geoff?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.