Page 16 | Have I completely misunderstood GCSE biology...

proximalhumerous · 2025-05-23T17:15:40+00:00

...or is the purpose of spotting an anomaly not specifically ^to disregard it in order that it doesn't lead to an inaccurate conclusion^? If so, why is everyone fixating on DSDs as "proof" that sex is a spectrum, when the anomalous 1.7% (if indeed it is as high as that - from what I've read that figure is only achieved if you include conditions such as PCOS which have a tenuous claim at best to be one of the "intersex" variations) is clearly a set of results that ^don't fit^. Because something has deviated from the norm. It's not like calculating the mean of a range of heights, FFS. Please can someone more scientific than me explain what is going on here? Or is it simply that certain factions are so hell-bent on arguing that anyone with ladyfeels can be a woman they're happy to completely disregard any sort of science or logic in order to do so?

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:42

No, it's not illiterate.
It may be complex, but that's not the same thing at all.

As for what the standard of education is ....even at GCSE level biology, the biological facts of DSDs and variations of human development is part of the syllabus - because those are the known medical facts.

Medical understanding develops continuously and education always plays catch up.
Unfortunately there are lots of people with lots of catching up to do.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/11/2025 09:39

Your gotcha sophistry might draw gasps at your cleverness on Reddit, but here we understand what human reproduction consists of.

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:38

Typo above. "Ask a brain surgeon....."

TheKeatingFive · 14/11/2025 09:38

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:36

Could I suggest READING my post before commenting.
I said the use of words 'male, female....etc' predate ANY understanding of biology.

The words 'male, female etc' do not have any fixed biological meaning.

As a brain surgeon what they mean and you'll get one answer. An endocrinologist will say something completely different. A fertility clinician will have a different understanding to a geneticist.
The words we use DO NOT HAVE biological meaning.

What definitions of male and female will a brain surgeon give you versus an endocrinologist?

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:37

Yes, of course people who understand human biology always point out why assertions about what something is or isn't, are very often wrong.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 14/11/2025 09:37

Don’t be silly.

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:36

Could I suggest READING my post before commenting.
I said the use of words 'male, female....etc' predate ANY understanding of biology.

The words 'male, female etc' do not have any fixed biological meaning.

As a brain surgeon what they mean and you'll get one answer. An endocrinologist will say something completely different. A fertility clinician will have a different understanding to a geneticist.
The words we use DO NOT HAVE biological meaning.

TheKeatingFive · 14/11/2025 09:33

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:23

I've also noticed a few people including 'Brainworm' referring to notions such as immutability of biological things or sex .

The big problem with all these notions is that the terms used in the first place don't have a biological basis.

The words 'male, female, man, woman' all predate ANY understanding of biology by thousands of years. Humanity used these words when it was no more scientific than putting a label on someone met based upon the clothes they were wearing at the time.

To be "immutable" something has to be capable of determination in the first place. The words we use have no single determinant.
Sex is NOT determined by any single thing that we can say 'every person who is female dies or has.....x'. That concept just doesn't exist.
We cannot determine a person's sex by
ANY particular organ, or gamet production, or appearance,not pregnancy, or any other standard.
There are ALWAYS repeating natural variations that disprove EVERY attempt to find a determinant.

Of course that is precisely why medical science does not consider human biological sex to be a strict binary, and hasn't done for years.

God this is just so illiterate I can't even.

If this is what our current education system is teaching, then we need to burn it down and start again.

nicepotoftea · 14/11/2025 09:33

Igneococcus · 14/11/2025 09:18

" In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans. However, self-fertilization was detected in mammals."
From the linked abstract, a claim that is repeated several times throughout the article.

Show quote history

In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans.

As we approach Christmas, should we not be remembering St Matthew and St Luke and the Virgin Birth?

Igneococcus · 14/11/2025 09:33

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:23

I've also noticed a few people including 'Brainworm' referring to notions such as immutability of biological things or sex .

The big problem with all these notions is that the terms used in the first place don't have a biological basis.

The words 'male, female, man, woman' all predate ANY understanding of biology by thousands of years. Humanity used these words when it was no more scientific than putting a label on someone met based upon the clothes they were wearing at the time.

To be "immutable" something has to be capable of determination in the first place. The words we use have no single determinant.
Sex is NOT determined by any single thing that we can say 'every person who is female dies or has.....x'. That concept just doesn't exist.
We cannot determine a person's sex by
ANY particular organ, or gamet production, or appearance,not pregnancy, or any other standard.
There are ALWAYS repeating natural variations that disprove EVERY attempt to find a determinant.

Of course that is precisely why medical science does not consider human biological sex to be a strict binary, and hasn't done for years.

OFFS, it's always biology people spout this shit about. There've been planets and suns and entire galaxies before we made up words for them but still most sane people don't claim that means we can't know and make statements about these things.

Namelessnelly · 14/11/2025 09:31

Igneococcus · 14/11/2025 09:18

" In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans. However, self-fertilization was detected in mammals."
From the linked abstract, a claim that is repeated several times throughout the article.

Show quote history

But that article clearly states humans can’t impregnate themselves. So your “evidence” completely contradicts your claim. I’m sure you’ll be able to point to lots of papers showing humans have changed sex won’t you? I don’t mean sex characteristics such as breasts. I mean full, to the DNA changing sex. I mean,that would be a huge discovery and published widely.
I hope you’re not trying to co-opt those with VSD into your “sex is not binary”argument. The fact they have VSD show thst sex is indeed a binary. Otherwise how would they know they have a VSD.
Looking forward to your reply.

catontheironingboard · 14/11/2025 09:30

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:23

I've also noticed a few people including 'Brainworm' referring to notions such as immutability of biological things or sex .

The big problem with all these notions is that the terms used in the first place don't have a biological basis.

The words 'male, female, man, woman' all predate ANY understanding of biology by thousands of years. Humanity used these words when it was no more scientific than putting a label on someone met based upon the clothes they were wearing at the time.

To be "immutable" something has to be capable of determination in the first place. The words we use have no single determinant.
Sex is NOT determined by any single thing that we can say 'every person who is female dies or has.....x'. That concept just doesn't exist.
We cannot determine a person's sex by
ANY particular organ, or gamet production, or appearance,not pregnancy, or any other standard.
There are ALWAYS repeating natural variations that disprove EVERY attempt to find a determinant.

Of course that is precisely why medical science does not consider human biological sex to be a strict binary, and hasn't done for years.

Humanity used these words when it was no more scientific than putting a label on someone met based upon the clothes they were wearing at the time.

You actually think this? This is the most amusing claptrap. The idea that ancient people thought biological sex was all about the clothes people were wearing is one of the daftest ideas I’ve ever heard 🤣

Your notions here are charmingly naïve, but a tissue of entirely wishful nonsense. The terms man and woman pre-date any biology? These people bred animals for domestication and farmed plants for food. They had no idea about biological sex? Do you know how silly you sound?

Igneococcus · 14/11/2025 09:29

Bangbangwhizzbang · 14/11/2025 09:24

We are not meant to actually read the linked articles. We are meant to take their claims about them at face value.

Show quote history

Dammit, am I doing this sciency thing wrong?

Bangbangwhizzbang · 14/11/2025 09:24

Igneococcus · 14/11/2025 09:18

" In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans. However, self-fertilization was detected in mammals."
From the linked abstract, a claim that is repeated several times throughout the article.

Show quote history

We are not meant to actually read the linked articles. We are meant to take their claims about them at face value.

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:23

I've also noticed a few people including 'Brainworm' referring to notions such as immutability of biological things or sex .

The big problem with all these notions is that the terms used in the first place don't have a biological basis.

The words 'male, female, man, woman' all predate ANY understanding of biology by thousands of years. Humanity used these words when it was no more scientific than putting a label on someone met based upon the clothes they were wearing at the time.

To be "immutable" something has to be capable of determination in the first place. The words we use have no single determinant.
Sex is NOT determined by any single thing that we can say 'every person who is female dies or has.....x'. That concept just doesn't exist.
We cannot determine a person's sex by
ANY particular organ, or gamet production, or appearance,not pregnancy, or any other standard.
There are ALWAYS repeating natural variations that disprove EVERY attempt to find a determinant.

Of course that is precisely why medical science does not consider human biological sex to be a strict binary, and hasn't done for years.

Igneococcus · 14/11/2025 09:18

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:14

There seems to have been a few comments in relation to my explaining that some men born 46XX46XY can and do give birth.
One post requested a link.... Well, always happy to help..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313454996_Potential_autofertility_in_true_hermaphrodites

In the article, although it is considering auto fertility, there are very handy tables of known and studied cases

All the research listed in pages 6+7 address various individual cases and processes including spermatogenesis in those who have given birth.
So, that is quite a body of work from most of the leading research clinicians in the field, as published in the Journal of Neonatal and Fetal Medicine in 2017 and regularly cited today (although some of the individual research has been updated with additional examples).
If anyone only has a little time to consider research, perhaps those listed in footnotes 19-24 will be of most assistance.

" In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans. However, self-fertilization was detected in mammals."
From the linked abstract, a claim that is repeated several times throughout the article.

Anteater1 · 14/11/2025 09:14

There seems to have been a few comments in relation to my explaining that some men born 46XX46XY can and do give birth.
One post requested a link.... Well, always happy to help..
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313454996_Potential_autofertility_in_true_hermaphrodites

In the article, although it is considering auto fertility, there are very handy tables of known and studied cases

All the research listed in pages 6+7 address various individual cases and processes including spermatogenesis in those who have given birth.
So, that is quite a body of work from most of the leading research clinicians in the field, as published in the Journal of Neonatal and Fetal Medicine in 2017 and regularly cited today (although some of the individual research has been updated with additional examples).
If anyone only has a little time to consider research, perhaps those listed in footnotes 19-24 will be of most assistance.

Helleofabore · 11/11/2025 05:28

DeanElderberry · 10/11/2025 13:18

I don't know about -phobic, but that seems excessively anti homosexuality, considering it some kind of aberration rather than a normal and usual expression of human sexual attraction..

It is a bonkers article. Having read it, and knowing the dude is a lecturing neurologist, I can see where there might be a very confused cohort of recent graduate neurologists out there.

And yet, we were told that it might educate us about the nature of human sex classification. Bonkers.

nicepotoftea · 10/11/2025 15:19

Using a back of an envelope calculation to calculate the impact of my reproductive system on my life, so far:

Time spent pregnant and breastfeeding = 3+ years?
Time on pill or IUD = 2 + decades?
Time spent dealing with periods = several days a month for many decades
Time spent dealing with reproduction related health conditions = difficult to estimate but I'm going to say 2 years

Time spent having sex = ?

But if you spent half an hour 3 times a week, that would be 78 hours a year, and if you multiply that by 60 years it is 4680 hours or 195 days. Even if it's an hour 6 times a week for 70 years it's still only 2 and a half years. But I suppose for men that generously estimated 2 and a half years is the only time they are practically involved in the reproductive process, and somebody else is taking care of contraception, and they may never know whether they have a child. Maybe it is all very abstract to them?

Haulage · 10/11/2025 15:12

To be fair, men's contribution to reproduction is pretty much limited to sex. Maybe he just can'f fathom that there is more to it.

Yes, some men get fixated on the couple of seconds where their willies have relevance and inflate the importance of that out of all proportion, while others get very opinionated about what happens in the ‘more to it’ phase of reproduction, despite their lack of contribution to it. Either way these weirdos men get upset because the objects of their obsession, whether woman as sex object or woman as gestator, is a whole other human being with a mind of her own.

Helleofabore · 10/11/2025 14:43

This reminds me of Colin Wright highlighting a recent paper. He wrote of it:

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/data-activism-and-the-death-of-truth

'The paper presents this approach as a “trans data epistemology,” supposedly a new “way of knowing” based on “trans experiences.” The authors argue that “mainstream Western epistemology”—the normal way of doing science—has historically favored the perspectives of the dominant group—white, cisgender, heterosexual men.” Because there’s “no universal knowledge system,” they claim, “epistemologies based solely on the perspectives of one group are necessarily limited and incomplete.” Every group must therefore have its own truth, and the truth according to marginalized groups trumps all others.

In other words, they believe truth itself depends on identity. Instead of minimizing bias, as real scientists strive to do, these authors maximize it. From that premise they outline the “four pillars of a trans data epistemology”:

Categories are provisional and productive

Data can be a tool of community care
Community well-being is more important than “accurate” data
Data makes us visible to institutions.'

‘Data Activism’ and the Death of Truth

A new academic paper argues that data should serve activism over truth.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/data-activism-and-the-death-of-truth

nicepotoftea · 10/11/2025 14:28

Bangbangwhizzbang · 10/11/2025 14:09

What percentage of pre-menopausal women not having sex for reproductive purposes are having to worry about the reproductive purpose of sex every time they have sex?

Show quote history

Exactly. It's quite a male thing to be able to detach sex from pregnancy.

Bangbangwhizzbang · 10/11/2025 14:09

nicepotoftea · 10/11/2025 14:06

The article gives the impression that he did a bit of googling then made up the rest.

"Sex, for example, is also about bonding, social relationships, power, and dominance. Think about this – what percentage of the time that humans have sex is the express purpose reproduction?"

To be fair, men's contribution to reproduction is pretty much limited to sex. Maybe he just can'f fathom that there is more to it.

Show quote history

What percentage of pre-menopausal women not having sex for reproductive purposes are having to worry about the reproductive purpose of sex every time they have sex?

nicepotoftea · 10/11/2025 14:06

Helleofabore · 10/11/2025 13:10

The link that was posted for Brianworm this morning is also on archive.

https://archive.is/LN6xf#selection-1601.0-1601.331

It is remarkable that a 'clinical neurologist' makes the claims that he does in this article. He is all about 'sex is bimodal' without ever providing the labels for the axis.

For a start, he also makes this claim:

"there are XY females who are chromosomal males but develop mostly or entirely female because of androgen insensitivity."

When the reality is that we already know that some people don't fit a strict 'chromosomal' category. That doesn't make them 'mostly' one sex! FFS.

This dude lectures at Hale AND is apparently a 'skeptic'.

Then it goes into, as expected:

First we need to consider all the traits relevant to sex that vary along this bimodal distribution. The language and concepts for these traits have been evolving too, but here is a current generally accepted scheme for organizing these traits:

• Genetic sex
• Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
• Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
• Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
• Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)

He also quotes the misinformation that is 1.7% of people are "intersex" as being an accurate reference.

He then conflates 'having sex' with the human sex categories, yet he then describes categorising human sex categories being about reproduction as being 'reductionist'.

"The argument often goes that sex is only about reproduction, and since gametes are binary, sex in total is binary. This is incredibly reductionist, and misses the fact that traits often simultaneously serve multiple evolutionary ends. Sex, for example, is also about bonding, social relationships, power, and dominance. Think about this – what percentage of the time that humans have sex is the express purpose reproduction? How many people have no desire to ever have children, but still have an active sex life? Can there be romance without sex? Why are there so many aspects of sex that are not strictly reproductive?"

Apparently now, sexual orientation is relevant to sex categorisation and whether sex is binary. Partly because of arousal patterns (well, no shit - penises and clitorises react differently to arousal)

"One brain feature that gets a lot of attention, however, is sexual orientation. I know I am framing this with a conclusion that some people contest, that sexual orientation is essentially determined by brain development, but that is the current consensus of scientific evidence and opinion. People are generally born with their sexual orientation, even if it is not fully realized until they go through puberty. In fact, I would consider sexual orientation to be part of biological sex (which is why I divided up sexuality as I did above)".

and

"If, then (as seems clear), sexual orientation is a brain function largely determined by genes, hormones, receptor sensitivity, and other epigenetic factors all affecting brain development and physiology, then it’s reasonable to consider sexual orientation an aspect of biological sex also."

I am sure that this will be a surprise to any lesbians reading this. Apparently, being a lesbian will influence what sex category you belong to.

What a remarkable article.

The article gives the impression that he did a bit of googling then made up the rest.

"Sex, for example, is also about bonding, social relationships, power, and dominance. Think about this – what percentage of the time that humans have sex is the express purpose reproduction?"

To be fair, men's contribution to reproduction is pretty much limited to sex. Maybe he just can'f fathom that there is more to it.

DeanElderberry · 10/11/2025 13:18

I don't know about -phobic, but that seems excessively anti homosexuality, considering it some kind of aberration rather than a normal and usual expression of human sexual attraction..