Natural history museum vagina talk "biological sex is a spectrum"

[CheeryTreeBlossom]

FFS. The natural history museum was doing a talk today on FB/YouTube about vaginas, which I thought could be quite interesting as it's quite well documented that female anatomy has had a lot less research than male. I thought they would touch upon this sort of thing.
Instead about 5 minutes in "biological sex is a spectrum" and penises and vaginas occur regardless. Almost like they are randomly assigned Some waffle about defining female for this circumstance as recieving gametes but honestly couldn't watch anymore.

Variation within a set doesn't make the two distinct sets a bloody spectrum. I actually was planning on visiting the museum with the reopening but now wondering if all the exhibits will be full of this nonsense. The talk was about all mammals not human focused so avoiding the whole sex Vs gender wouldn't have been a problem.

Surely as both a scientific institution and a government funded organisation it shouldn't be peddling this Twitter rubbish?

Are you sure it was the Natural History museum and not the Vagina Museum?

That does sound pretty terrible and fairly inexcusable if it was about animals not humans. Only the most extremist TRAs get exercised about the misgendering of animals.

"biological sex is a spectrum" and penises and vaginas occur regardless.

I'm not a professional scientist, but I would suggest the failure of reality to conform to your model indicates a possible problem with the model.

twitter.com/NHM_London/status/1404770499591237643

Definitely the NHM in London, and some may not be aware that they aren't just a display museum but also do scientific research there. But male and female are just confusing concepts in a spectrum...

They have form. There was some similar nonsense on their twitter a while back, I've just been looking for the thread from here at the time but can't find it.

Pride a couple of years ago.
Queer parrots.

twitter.com/nhm_london/status/1140263163247636480?lang=en

The best comment on their FB post is the one about female hyenas and how their high testosterone means that women with high testosterone should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I genuinely can't tell if they're being ironic or not.

Really sad (and absolutely f....ing furious) to hear this, all the evidence in that magnificent place and they can produce such twaddle. Shame on them.

Just seen that comment, but there is no plan to test female athletes' testosterone levels is there?

I presume they actually mean males but they have spent so long convincing themselves TWAW that somehow they believe they are just females with high testosterone and it's natural variation?

This is why I take issue with this unscientific crap, people start taking "secondary sexual characteristics occur on a spectrum" to mean binary sex is a spectrum and actually male and female mean nothing.

It was almost like a little prayer to avoid the wrath of the woke gods at the start, then the talk carries on referring to binary sex with small motile gametes and large immotile gametes (in relation to vaginas).

Not a sperg or spegg in sight.

Hyenas are the new clownfish...

We visited NHM a couple of years ago and found it a bit disappointing. There were only a couple of rooms with actual specimens on display everything else was just what I would call 'interactive text books'. The mineral room (which contained actual specimens in old fashioned cabinets) was the most popular room. It seemed to have dumbed down in order to try and be accessible to the masses. In light of this it doesn't surprise me they have moved from science to pseudoscience. And much easier to do when no actual evidence on display any more.

@ItsAllGoingToBeFine

The best comment on their FB post is the one about female hyenas and how their high testosterone means that women with high testosterone should be allowed to compete in women's sports. I genuinely can't tell if they're being ironic or not.

that’s madness if they were genuine

I don't understand how biological sex is a spectrum. I get it that secondary sexual characteristics are sort of on a spectrum - big boobs/little boobs; hairy and smoother people but surely biological sex is large gametes/vagina/female or small gametes/penis (with a very small number of people with a difference in sexual development disorder). The presenters got anxious and mangled their words. Am I missing something with my A Level Biology c1988?

I don't understand how biological sex is a spectrum

That's because it's not

@NecessaryScene

"biological sex is a spectrum" and penises and vaginas occur regardless.

I'm not a professional scientist, but I would suggest the failure of reality to conform to your model indicates a possible problem with the model.

Haha. I love the idea that a model that fails to conform to reality means a possible problem with the model.

It's been a trying day, so I am grateful for the laugh.

I don't understand how biological sex is a spectrum

I don't think (or I hope) they were making remotely the point we fear they were. There is huge variety in how gametes transfer across the animal kingdom. You can get male insects with vaginas and female ones with penises, for example. Even some mamals don't have vaginas per se.

I think she was talking about a spectrum of different reproductive structures between very different animals, not the Genderist nonsense.