I've just been called "unscientific" for saying that you cannot change sex

allmywhat: "Academics in scientific fields, by contrast, try to make complicated things appear simple. They don’t use big words for their own sake, if they’re competent writers. So a competent academic in a scientific field writing about sex determination in mammals, is going to sound quite simplistic because that really is a simple topic"

Exactly. Even at my level of competence.

Although I am chagrined to realize how much time I wasted studying when I could have just googled. Oh well.

...don't blunder into such simple traps when making your simplistic distinctions. If 'a woman' is to be defined as 'a person with a cervix.'

A woman is not defined as a person with a cervix.

A person with a cervix is defined as a woman.

But what is the question?

Well the average (mean) person has less than two legs.

You aren't even an academic ... I can see that from the simplistic tone in which you write.

this is so revealing.
It is true if you’re a professor of genderbollocks, writing in big words is all you’ve got going for you. The only method you have to signal you’re not one of the plebs is making simple things appear complicated.

Academics in scientific fields, by contrast, try to make complicated things appear simple. They don’t use big words for their own sake, if they’re competent writers. So a competent academic in a scientific field writing about sex determination in mammals, is going to sound quite simplistic because that really is a simple topic, DSDs not withstanding.

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128035061000516

As them what is on their chromosomes are they xx or xy in their cells. Ask them what biological natural sex organs they have / had - then explain you can remove these but you can’t remove dna

Then don't blunder into such simple traps when making your simplistic distinctions. If 'a woman' is to be defined as 'a person with a cervix',

A woman isn't defined as a "person with a cervix". A woman is simply an adult human female, and a female body normally has a cervix as part of the female reproductive system. The absence of it either means there is a developmental disorder or the woman has undergone surgery to remove it.

And of course, as @NecessaryScene pointed out upthread, the fact that something is not a simple binary does not therefore make it a spectrum.

It seems to be a very common idea amongst gender ideologues that there are only two possible forms of genetic variation: discrete binary or continuous spectrum. That in itself is a fundamental logical fallacy. There might for example be two sexes and (for the sale of argument) say, 12 different DSD variants, but that still doesn’t make them a spectrum, any more than the existence of other chromosomal abnormalities means that we all exist on a chromosomal spectrum of those either.

Ides it may interest you to know that the author of that article explained that she wasn't saying that there were more than two sexes:

My guess is it wouldn't interest Ides in the slightest.

I’d say Ides has a rather prejudiced expectation of how a uni biology professor should write a post on MN.

Pity you didn’t do further research on Claire Ainsworth’s article. She has clarified as per Old Crone’s post. Two sexes.

By all means though, please tell us what the names of these other sexes are, and could you please tell us what they contribute to reproduction?

Myself, I only have a GCSE in Biology. Yet I'm able to google.

Sums the entire thing up really. I have a GCSE in Biology and I can GOOGLE! (as well as the misplaced "myself")

This is embarrassing. please don't do this again.

Ides it may interest you to know that the author of that article explained that she wasn't saying that there were more than two sexes:

She was asked: 'In your piece 'Sex Redefined' are you making the claim there are more than 2 sexes?'

Her reply: 'No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.'

twitter.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680

"In mammalian vertebrates there are always and only two sexes and we can't change between them."

Can I ask where you're a university professor in Biology, Quixote9?

Myself, I only have a GCSE in Biology. Yet I'm able to google. This article seems to express the standard view: www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

... that there aren't, in fact, just two sexes. What would you say to it?

I get so tired of this stuff. Of course you aren't a Biology professor. You aren't even an academic ... I can see that from the simplistic tone in which you write.

This is embarrassing. Please don't do this again.

Uni biology prof here. I haven't read the whole thread, but did want to support all those who say sex is real.

The sexual arrangements of invertebrates or crocodilians or fungi or fish or plants vary in many interesting ways. In mammalian vertebrates there are always and only two sexes and we can't change between them.

It's gender that's in the brain....

If it was sex, then how would a jellyfish, erm, "identify" since it doesn't have a brain? How would liverworts "know" whether to produce antheridia or archegonia?

It's such utter bollocks, you'd have to be a flat earther to even imagine how anyone could fool themselves so badly.

There are animals (mostly fish) that change their sex.

There are jellyfish that live forever (immortal-jellyfish.com/). This means that human beings can live forever. isn't that great?

"But never let obvious facts get in the way of a sneery response, especially if you can make it as offensive as possible."

Then don't blunder into such simple traps when making your simplistic distinctions. If 'a woman' is to be defined as 'a person with a cervix', you're going to have to have something to say regarding a person who's just had hers removed, for instance.

As a general rule one person's smugness will always lead to another's sneering in the end, I'm afraid. Try to think ahead.

Lol rabhan

Recant!!!

There was a fascinating OU /BBC series a few years ago about development of unborn babies. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06dsmn1
There's a particular condition where male babies are not exposed to a testosterone surge in the womb and their genitalia doesn't develop. They appear female at birth, but when they reach puberty the hormones kick in and they become male.
That's quite close to changing sex, but is obviously to do with genes etc rather than feelings.

Galileo wouldn't last 5 minutes with this mob. Good job he was only up against the Vatican.

But never let obvious facts get in the way of a sneery response, especially if you can make it as offensive as possible.

Mishy

Or anyone else

I've never seen a news story in my whole life about a bog standard male or female spontaneously changing sex during their life.

Has anyone got any?

I'm sure it would be big news.