this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
57 points (100.0% liked)

Science

13051 readers
2 users here now

Studies, research findings, and interesting tidbits from the ever-expanding scientific world.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
alyaza@beehaw.org
Gaywallet@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
57
Beyond XX and XY: The Extraordinary Complexity of Sex Determination (www.scientificamerican.com)
submitted 3 months ago by elfpie@beehaw.org to c/science@beehaw.org
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I believe the problem is never showing evidence, but that the evidence is overwhelming. I could explain the general idea and, maybe, one or two specifics. People that use the XX/XY binary argument wouldn’t be able to explain either, but it’s usually only used because it conforms to a bias. And we are only talking about humans here. Language would implode if we tried to maintain convenient binaries and still back it up with science.

all 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] luciole@beehaw.org 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This is a nice graph for debunking the idea that biology offers a sort of refuge for the proponents of a strict binary sexual framework. Let it be known that once in a while some people born with penises are XX while some people born with vulvas are XY, and that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Maleness and femaleness might be fact as poles of a spectrum (might be more complicated); what they are NOT is an either/or mutually exclusive phenomenon. The distribution of the population on that supposed spectrum probably look like an inverted bell curve, with most persons closer to either end... but to be honest I suspect the curve is not as pronounced as we are led to think.

Personally speaking I’m forty something and by now I’m convinced I’m not 100% pure male stuff. I don’t give a shit if it’s biological or social. I feel it in a myriad of ways. I’m comfortable enough in the way I’m treated and perceived though so I let sleeping dogs lie and ride the male label. I’m hairy, I have a dick, I don’t want trouble. So this is totally unscientific, but I swear sometimes I recognize this same ambiguous essence in someone else; there’s a faint feeling of kinship. I’m willing to bet the silent majority has plenty of folks who wouldn’t have minded being a wee bit further from the poles if others didn’t make such a fucking fuss about it.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Say it with me now: Sex is a social construct.

A 'convenient' fitting into boxes usually two, but accurately not always.

The problem with such a system is that it's limiting and not at all useful in trying to help people.

We should be specific in what we are trying to say, because the miasma of a sex binary isn't useful, even in medical fields as it conditions doctors to think in very limiting ways and not actually help accurately.

It also has many roots in patriarchal violence in determining what a person (though to them a body) is for.

It's also problematic in a racist sense because of the colonialist white 'western' ideas of what makes a certain sex or gender often don't fit those who aren't in those categories (except colonised).

Which is why the 'science' is very problematic in this regard because that is the bias/lens with which it looks at this specific 'field' through.

[–] bokster@lemmy.sdf.org 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Sex is not a social construct. Gender is.

It's true - we are learning more about sex every year and understanding it's not completely binary. But your sex is assigned at conception.

That's one of the reasons doctor's don't ask about your gender, but your sex - because treating could be different. And, as an example, IHE (medical standard) recognizes about 7 sexes.

Gender, on the other hand, defines social norms we expect from certain sex. How gender is perceived changes from culture to culture and from one period of history to another - sex doesn't.

That being said, I do believe that gender roles should be a thing of the past. You do you, whatever you're comfortable with.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 5 points 3 months ago

The concept of a rigid biological sex binary is a social construct, that's basically the entire point of this post.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, sex is a social construct in terms of that it's just a thing that is assigned and a label that has been assigned to people based on what it's assumed their bodily makeup.

Doctors and others don't exactly do karyotype or other genetic testing at birth, they look at the genitals and usually apply one of two boxes to you and unless you look into it that label follows you around the rest of your life. Often, if you don't fit into those boxes they try to make you.

It isn't helpful nor accurate, because bodies are not the same. This is what we mean when we say sex is a social construct, it's just a label, a shortcut through language meant to imply homogeneity forgoing accuracy and meaning, and it doesn't mean anything because it's not specific enough to.

Sex is a social construct in all the ways gender is, because as stated it's just a label that gets assigned to you. What with HRT, surgery etc most, if not all biological characteristics of a body can be changed and this makes the distinction useless. Especially because people are so hung up on what bodies look like and what their functions are supposed to be, yes this is partially to do with gender but it also speaks to 'sex' too.

Even scientists understand this now and though I don't necessarily agree nor disagree with this, they call sex a bimodal distribution, not a distinct binary any more.

But regardless of what it's called or how many 'sexes' are recognised, it's still a social construct because it's taking a bunch of characteristics and applying labels to it. That's it.

[–] bokster@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 3 months ago

Labeling something does not make it a 'social construct'.

We label rocks based on how and when they were formed. This does not mean it has any sociology behind it.

But I do respect your opinion and if you do think so, you are well within your rights to do it.

[–] freeman@feddit.org 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

A good image to have if a discussion about "men in women sport" breaks out. I heard so often: if XY then Man.

The whole spectrum of intersex is too complicated for the average today joe...

And then comes the even more complex topic of transgender people and gender affirming care/therapy, which can be a totally separate thing besides the intersex-biology-discussion

[–] sculd@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago

Great article. The right wing trolls who try to cite "biology" apparently doesn't even understand biology.

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't care.

The site doesn't want readers, I'm gonna go back to reading memes.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You cared enough to comment. "The site doesn't want readers" what does that even mean?

[–] Comment105@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It means I open the site, and I can't read the article because it had some obligatory signup.

Granted, this was on mobile. On desktop it seems I can read it.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 1 points 3 months ago

Ah right.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

So where do we draw the line in sports?

[–] elfpie@beehaw.org 19 points 3 months ago

I don't know. Sports conventions are not science. When I see the history of things being banned or allowed, it doesn't always make sense. Then we have stuff like weight categories. Anyway, that's beside the scope of this particular discussion.

[–] rockerface@lemm.ee 16 points 3 months ago

We draw the line by weight classes and/or muscle mass, not by what's in person's pants. It doesn't have to be just 2 categories or the same categories for every sport, either.

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why should we have to?

There is literally no reason for sex segregation in sports

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Chess has 2 devisions women's and everyone why all top chess players male then? Most basketball has he same arrangement why only men in best teams why no women?

[–] davehtaylor@beehaw.org 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's a joke, right? Sorry if I'm missing sarcasm here