Radio 4: NatureBang discusses the science of sex

[nauticant]

On in 20 minutes:

Dragon Lizards and the Gender Spectrum

Sex is simple. Or so we're taught; animals can be male or female. But even the briefest glance at the animal kingdom tells us that this simply isn't true. Some creatures have only one sex; some have three; some have none at all. Some animals are two sexes at the same time; some flip flop between them when the time is right. When evolution came to solve the problem of procreation, she did it in a myriad of mind-blowing ways.

When it comes to humans, it's even more complicated - we have this thing called Gender, too. It's often defined as the social and cultural side of sex, distinct from the biological. But that's not the full story. Becky Ripley and Emily Knight travel back to the dawn of human culture, and into the tangled depths of our genetic code, to try and unravel why we are the way we are, and why it matters so much that we understand it all properly.

Featuring Professor Jenny Graves, geneticist at La Trobe University, and the writer and scholar Meg-John Barker.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000q3ks

*Harford!

As soon as I heard the trailer I knew this was going to be the BBC furthering its gender agenda. You can tell from the language in the opening sentences alone, where it is coming from: note the hierarchy: animals can be male or female and then we get evolution, a process, referred to as female, by these geniuses. Noted, thanks.

Heard only a short bit and was driven to distraction by that awful noise they kept playing over people speaking so turned it off. Why do they do that?

@SquishySquirmy

Even aside from the genderwang issues, this phrase jumped out:

"When evolution came to solve the problem of procreation, she did it in a myriad of mind-blowing ways."

That choice of language tells me that it will not be a rigorously scientific program!
(Evolution is a "she" now? References to Mother Nature I accept, because its so well established and wasn't a scientific concept to start with, but when did the theory of evolution become a personified force with it's own gender? And if we absolutely have to go down that woo cul de sac, then how do we even know how "Evolution" identifies? I suppose it could be "Evie" for short, which is a feminine name.)

Yes, exactly what struck me, Squishy. Anthropomorphism of scientific theories, now, it's all about the feelz.

Guff.

This reminds me of the bit about "Queer Woods" in a recent Dark Horse podcast.

This link goes straight to biologist Heather Heying trying to read out the "evidence" that "male and female are boxes that humans have constructed" without cracking up at 1:14.

(For context, full segment starts back at 1:04:30.)

I had to turn it off. Just too much crazy for Tuesday morning.
Repeating of the 1.7% intersex statistic. Nothing to do with trans, but insidious when they wheel it in to justify the sex is not binary stuff.
Here’s Colin Wrights article on the 1.7% - brilliant graph which says it all.
colinwright.substack.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red

The crap about eugenics is actually offensive.

Is Heather reading that from the comedy show, parks and recreation?

Did they mention red hair? Can I shout bingo?

The (stonewall umbrella) mushroom with 25076421 different sexes was a new one.

I actually found this programme entertainingly batshit.

This from Colin Wright's blog above:
This ideal female must also have labia minora and majora present, and a clitoris that ranges between 0.20 and 0.85 cm in length at birth.

Anyone got their measurement?

Did they say which genes influence gender?

Have they spoken to the nature progs about how mammalian reproduction is more complicated etc?

Because they're still seemingly going with the whole outdated male and female mate, baby. Thing. Terrible

Labia measurements?

Wtf.

I think meg John did a website with a friend and meg John said that outsies (clit/cock) are on a spectrum with most people lying somewhere in the middle :/

@childbearinghipsterF

I actually found this programme entertainingly batshit.

I have to say I liked the first bit where they focussed on animals. That was interesting and amazing.

But it went clownfish from there on.

I noticed an article in The Times saying we've dropped down the science league. I wonder why???????

One hopes the education establishment will start to realise that our students need to be employable. It's their duty to try and make that happen

I’m disappointed to hear trans-Northerners didn’t get a mention.