New topic[edit]
|
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.
Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @2620:7:6001:0:0:0:0:157 And where is this counterargument in the article? Can you please list the section and or quote from it? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Rockford the Roe Based a cursory examination of the source, it appears they are indeed talking about sex (for the most part). ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @GrammarCommie OP said and I quote : "I would like to contest this section "Sex binarism and bigotry"".
- @Rockford the Roe You're turning into one of those Conservatives who conflate gender with sex, congrats. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 14:38, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @TransChicken 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. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @TransChicken 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.
Rockford the Roe boop my snootpraise Oscar Wilde 14:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Now, I'm beginning to be skeptic about that IP's post. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 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 Sexual dimorphism
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)[edit]
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)