Talk:Biological sex

New topic
Hello, I would like to contest this section "Sex binarism and bigotry". Sex is defined by your gametes as shown on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=521NRGQjLW8 and I'm pretty certain scientists even agree with that. 2620:7:6001:0:0:0:0:157 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And the only argument is "but that's not inclusive" there is nothing scientific about "inclusivity". 2620:7:6001:0:0:0:0:157 (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Videos that keep repeating "gender is based on genes" over and over again are not worth anyone's time. 14:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And where is this counterargument in the article? Can you please list the section and or quote from it? 14:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Based a cursory examination of the source, it appears they are indeed talking about sex (for the most part). 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * OP said and I quote : "I would like to contest this section "Sex binarism and bigotry"".
 * You're turning into one of those Conservatives who conflate gender with sex, congrats. 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see what they wrote. However, their second post asserts a counter-argument that I can't seem to find in the article. So I would hope that they, having sought a dialog, might engage and clear this matter up. 14:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * They're clearly not here in good faith if they posted: "And the only argument is 'but that's not inclusive' there is nothing scientific about 'inclusivity'". The point is YouTube nobodies can't be taken seriously. 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Now, I'm beginning to be skeptic about that IP's post. 14:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bait. 2A02:120B:2C60:8280:D6E:5802:6B72:C872 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Source is pretty shit. The OP is probably the same person who earlier wandalized the article and claimed that we should stop reading tons of articles in actual scientific publications like Nature and Scientific American, that says sex may not be as binary as we think, and instead listen to a 20 something architecture undergrad student who knows everything about sex for some reason. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really fucking fed up of all those TERFs vandalising our articles on gender and sex. Now, I do think we should add a topic or even an article about here. The amout of cranckery on both sides, from people literally denying any difference between a biological male and female body  (I've seen people saying that biological men being taller and stronger than biological women is just a coincidence) to others resorting to a biological determinism that makes no sense, is astonishing. Unfortunately, my knowledge on the subject is almost nil, and I don't have time to research and write on this subject. GeeJayK (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The chromosome gambit (transphobia)
All males have XY and all females XX, right? That depends on what's more important, the empty shell of the Y chromosome or its function of giving genitals. Turns out if you play with genes on the Y chromosome, you can have functionally female rodents (yes, this can work for humans), that produce even ovum1. Indeed, some of these mice even gave birth. So much for that whole "muh chromosomes" argument. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the cold hard reality is that chromosomes almost unanimously determine one's sexual phenotype, so it's safe to say that one's sex is determined by this factor in the vast, vast majority of cases.
 * —cosmikdebris talk stalk 23:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * the cold hard reality is actually more complicated than that and that oversimplies sex determination in mammals a bit. The only reason why the Y chromosome typical results in the development of testes and related external genitalia is the presence of the SRY gene which works in tandem with various other genes that produce proteins that allows cells to respond to the presence of related androgens to trigger that development of penis, scrotum, testes, etc. Sometimes an SRY gene is translocated onto an X chromosome so you get similar development of testes and related anatomy but on someone with a XX karyotype. The absence of the SRY gene on a Y chromosome can also result in the absence of testes, penis, etc. Even sometimes with the presence of the SRY the genes it work with may be faulty or absent resulting in membrane proteins insensitive to androgens. Sure in the “majority” of cases XY karyotype results in the expected functional sex development but that doesn’t discount the unexpected or less probable cases. Sounds an awful lot like the argument that the vast majority of people who catch covid don’t die from it. It kind of misunderstands that working with large enough populations the “small minority” to start to add up and neglecting them would have sizeable externalities on the majority. Also it’s not how things work in science. If there existed even one oxygen atom that somehow had more or less than 8 protons in it’s nucleus it would refute the atomic number of oxygen. These definitions are supposed to be universal, not merely highly probable. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)