World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Now define "biological female".
Right? Is this phenotypic or genotypic?
phenowhazzle?
Is it the DNA or T and A?
DNA or TNA he says, that's gold! 😂
Total Nucleic Acid (mixed DNA and RNA extracted from a sample together)
"Annoying outgrowth around the pussy"
It is vague, but it does rule out "man in a dress and wig". I mean men in dresses and wigs is great and all. They are free to do what they want. They just aren't women, and I will never call them such.
Please form a single file line for the government sanctioned genitalia check. Each one of you could be a man in a dress and wig and it's super important to me to know which.
It's not only vague, it's completely wrong. You can't over-rule biology with court rulings, and biology doesn't care what the concept of "male" and "female" means to humans.
It’s not vague at all. There are 2 biological sexes, male and female. The term “woman” now, once again, only applies to one of the sexes - female.
Not really sure what your last bit means. Biology created the 2 separate and distinct sexes. This is the court saying that the word we created to describe one of those 2 sexes is ONLY applicable to that one sex.
Nope. It's far more complicated than just two sexes, and the more it is studied, the more complicated it turns out to be. The notion of two distinct sexes is purely a human construct and real life is not like that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0HJkr1jj4&pp=ygUYYmlvbG9naWNhbCBzZXggZXhwbGFpbmVk
100000% incorrect.
Name a third sex. Name a third sex that exists in any creature on earth. There has been nothing learned that has added any complication to sex since sex was “discovered”.
Large and small gamete production. Distinct sexes.
X and Y chromosomes. Distinct sexes.
What are some of these things that you think have complicated biological sex? How many sexes do you think there are?
Your link is about DSDs, and says that their existence means that “sex is a spectrum”. That’s completely wrong. Every DSD is a genetic defect that either affects a male or a female. You might be a male with an extra X chromosome that caused some birth defects like an underdeveloped penis and internal testes - but you’re still a male, one of the 2 sexes.
Saying DSDs existence means sex is a spectrum is like saying that because some people are born with birth defects where they only have 1 leg, that the number of legs that human beings have is a spectrum, or that because someone was born with 12 fingers it means that humans don’t have 10 fingers, but their number of fingers is on a spectrum.
You can see how obviously wrong and silly that is, can’t you?
You can rant and rave about it and call me names, but you can't change reality, no matter how much you hate it. Nature and biology simply does not care what you think.
Fungi are an example of organisms that don't just have two sexes. Sorry to break it to you. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mating_in_fungi
You didn’t just use fungi to try to prove that there are more than 2 sexes, did you? Surely not….lol
What is the name of a sex other than male and female?
Oh the irony. You’re literally denying science and biology because you want to believe that men can be women whenever they want to just by saying they’re women.
As you said, nature and biology do not care what you think. Nature and biology created 2 sexes and 2 only.
Also I didn’t once “call you names”, not sure where you got that from……
Also dismissing posts that disagree with you as “ranting and raving” despite having no resemblance at all to ranting and raving is a terrible and amateur debating/discussing/arguing stunt.
Fungi. Fungi have complicated biological sex and a Schizophyllum commune has around 23,000 sexes. You asked. I answered. Since you just dismiss any facts you don't like there's no point talking to you. As I said, you can believe what you want, but that doesn't change reality. Try doing some reading rather than assuming you know everything and making a fool of yourself with your uninformed over-confidence.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/why-this-fungus-has-over-20-000-sexes
So your entire argument is “fungi”? So, so much wrong with that lol.
Saying that fungi even have a sex is dumb. Fungi “mate” by their cells just fusing together when they touch another fungi. It doesn’t have a “sex”, doesn’t have a “gender”.
The biggest issue with your “fungi” point, however, is that fungi aren’t human beings. They’re not even animals. How they reproduce, or even how many “sexes” (if you insist that’s what it is in fungus) they have has zero effect on species that do only have 2 sexes. It’s like saying that because plants can photosynthesise sunlight, humans can too.
I am only too happy and willing to listen to “facts” that I don’t “like”, and I’ll happily have a back and forth and explain my reasons why I disagree - like I have in every post so far. You’re not presenting facts though. You’re using a completely different species as your example, while completely misunderstanding what you’re presenting.
Unless you can name (and produce scientific/biological evidence of) a third sex in human beings (or even animals if you want), one that produces a third type of gamete, one that has chromosomes other than a combination of X and Y, then you’re wrong and have been severely mislead and duped.
Fungi aren’t human beings. Even the idea that fungi can have a “gender identity” or a biological sex is absurd.
https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/63/4/922/7176054
There's a sonic boom coming from those goalposts because they are moving so fast. You asked for an example of something in nature having more than 2 sexes because you originally said that there are only 2 sexes in the natural world.
But anyway, let's change your requirement and make the definition of sex being only applicable to organisms that only produce one set of gametes.
By that definition, there are people who do not have a sex because their body produces both types. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
But wait! It's a disorder, so it doesn't count, right? Ask yourself why it is a disorder. The reason is that humans have decided that there are only two sexes. It's circular reasoning. There are two sexes, so when someone comes along who is neither or both, they don't count because they should be one or the other. Why should they be one or the other? Because there are two sexes. And round and round we go. It's faulty logic.
Nature produces people who by your own definition are neither male or female. It is you who decided there are exactly two sexes. Nature doesn't care about definitions that humans apply to try to shoehorn things into categories, it just does its own thing.
Many women have their uterus and/or ovaries removed before or during child bearing years due to complications, cancer, etc. So, I'm sure you would change this to say born with to define it. I will say this: not all women are born with this equipment, but are XY on the genotype. I won't even go into the complexities of the genetic side of the house....
right, "born with".
not sure I understand what you're saying in the second half, could you elaborate?
edit: i think i see what you meant. most women are XX, maybe that was a typo. chromosomes are strongly correlated with sex but are not what determines it. that's why i didn't mention chromosomes. you're right, not all women are born with a uterus, or with ovaries that actually produce eggs. but from a biological standpoint, we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning.
XX/XY was typo, yes.
again "not always" is the answer to your last note"
we can determine which gametes (egg or sperm) that would be produced, were it the case that everything was functioning.- there are individuals born with both sex organs. My point is that this is all exceeding complex and any simple answer is being used to drive another narrative than science.when you say "both sex organs", I'd like to clarify that there has never been a recorded case of a human h*rmaphrodite. (NOTE: this is not only an offensive term (when used on humans, as opposed to say, frogs), but also an inaccurate term! just a fun fact for the readers...) to elaborate: there has never been a recorded case of someone who successfully produces both eggs and sperm (whereas some other animals do). while you are correct that sometimes you may be born with organs that resemble both testes and ovaries, there will only be one that functions, or one that is closer to functioning (one is more dominant). sometimes neither function.
ps - I don't have a narrative. I just love science! biology is neat. and this is all totally separate from gender identity.
What about true hermaphrodite? That's a term for a specific type of intersex that has both sex organs fused together. And develop secondary sex characteristics during puberty.
No problem - good call-out and you're correct as far as I'm aware.
There are only two reasonable definitions. One is: born with genitalia that look female (i.e. female on birth certificate). The other is “identifies as”. Both of these could be important in different contexts.
Your definition has the downside that the government would have to check your medical records to determine gender. That is an insane breach of the medical records.
No? You've just invalidated your own original argument by acknowledging you would add the "born with" despite the fact that I said there are women who were NOT born with the
reproductive apparatus organized to support production of the large gamete (ova).In other words, your own argument is not self-supporting. So I don't feel I need to elaborate further than the point here is that OP is saying "define biological female" is defeatingly complex and requires assumptions to even proceed, and even then any answer doesn't land in the "definitive" answer you probably want.
can you clarify what they are not born with? I want to make sure we're on the same page, and discussing the same specifics. women can still produce ova without a uterus. women can still have a system that supports the production of ova if they have ovaries that don't function for whatever reason.
There is a fairly broad spectrum of answers to this. My point was that there is no neat/definitive answer based strictly on production of OVA, external genetalia, Uterous, ovaries, hormonal levels, hair manifestation on the body, etc. I'm not sure what value there is in discussing specifics. If people add "it's my opinion" to a comment, then that's fine - it's an opinion. But when it's pushed as "everyone agrees" or "scientific basis" it gets into very loaded territory.
Edit: BTW, I'm not accusing you of presenting it as scientific fact. Just trying to cut through to a common ground understanding that anyone can have an opinion on this, but once it's "legal" it becomes exceedingly murky to define outside of opinion.
you have been very respectful, and i mean this with respect as well: do you think it is possible that there is a scientific answer to this, and perhaps you don't know enough to confirm or deny it?
this is really only a debate when it comes to humans, because it is not emotionally charged at all when we speak of the sex of a dog for example. it is reasonable to say that approximately half of dogs produce sperm, and those are the males. the other half produce eggs and are females.
there isn't really a debate there, no one claims that "dogs with long hair are female" or anything stupid like that...
in every animal, sex is determined by what gamete their body is set up to produce. this is just what the scientific method has shown, really. i say this with no hate or love in my heart either way. if science is able to show otherwise, then i shall follow it there. it is not my opinion, and it is not what i want to be true. it is just an observable thing
Is there a scientific answer to this? I believe the answer is only a "qualified" answer. Like I mentioned - any 100% answer cannot be correct. Even "common sense" answers of "I know what a biological woman is" are wrong in several circumstances. I'm not a researcher, only a layperson with a decent amount of of biochem and related coursework under my belt. I get the subtle comment about me not knowing enough to confirm or deny it. I'll say sure to that one. I'm not an expert.
I question why there's a debate at all. There are really only 2 "platforms" of concern apparently from all political discourse I've read: 1) Bathroom usage and 2) Sports. I would like to change your comment
this is just what the scientific method has shownto add my own part that you yourself captured:in approximately half of the population(statisticians will forgive me for "half" when it's a variant ratio over time of women to men (I think 105% of men born to women born).But let's take that half the population and pull a number out of the hat to say 99.99% of all people born have an obvious sex assignable at birth (via whatever means). OK, but that leaves 1 in 10,000 as the outlier to which the UK is now attempting to apply a law. Something close to ~370K babies are born daily. That's 37 people per day world-wide and my ballpark percentage is egregiously conservative. 13,500 people in this ambigous state world-wide per year.
These are people, they have rights and deserve to live life. They should have access to toilets and education. It's certainly expected in Western societies - you would expect NO LESS for the 99.99% who are clearly identifyable by external/internal/microscopic means. So ultimately all of this is just used to marginalized an already tiny population of people before we even consider gender role, brain phenotypes, hormone production / lack of production, etc. I think it's fair to say "some people are born different, many of them don't realize what is "different" until they reach puberty and start to notice "hey, I'm not like the other girls/boys", perhaps even coming to terms with a stark realization that terrifies them "well shit, I guess I'm trans". If you think that Trans people make certain Cis people feel uncomfortable, put yourself in the Trans person's shoes! I doubt any one comes to that internal understanding lightly.
The ONLY reason to treat trans people or even "debate" what sex they are (without them getting any say in that!) is to marginalize them. The VAST VAST majority of humanity does not fall into this situation, and I'd argue are almost to exclusion not impacted by it personally. The notion may make them feel uncomfortable. Perhaps even physically concerned in some cases. But what's to debate? That a trans woman should not use a female bathroom stall? Lesbians walk girls locker rooms the world over - should they not be able to go to the bathroom with other "biological" women? By the way, even that is easily solveable with lockable individual/family toilets/showers
So, I guess after this long diatribe (and thanks for sticking with me here) I would say, it's almost completely irrelevent what science "shows" here as any "definitive" answer requires assumptions or exclusion of a small portion of the population to be definitive and the only purpose of the "debate" is to shunt an already fragile population into further inhumanity.
By the way, if science somehow today immeidately said X criteria is definitively a biological female, to what end would that information be any more useful than our passionless view of dogs or other animals? The answer? To exlude anyone not X. It's the inevitable and only conclusion.
Ninja edit: "answer" to "conclusion" in last sentence
Beautifully put. This is an excellent summary of the situation.
Fair. I think my point was related to what makes sense in any reasonable social setting, not what is the exact biological definition which appears to be more of a scientific question.
Just to be clear on this, in my opinion anyone born with a vagina who wants to identify as a woman, should be treated as such. That’s if you have grown up thinking you were a woman, such an identity cannot be taken away.
Opinion is a whole other ballgame. Glad to support it as an opinion. And logically that's where this law is going to reside... not in any science. I suppose, upon reflection, that is my underlying message.
I agree that both could be useful in different contexts. I'm only speaking of biological sex in my definition, which is different from gender. in ~99.9% of cases, doctors can tell from observation at birth what someone's sex is, and it is noted on the birth certificate. (to clarify, do you consider the birth certificate to be a medical record?). I do support the amending of birth certificates if the doctors observed incorrectly. I don't think think any other medical records would have to be shared with the government, but (beside the point: ) you should assume they always are anyway. but doctors could never "check medical records to determine gender" anyway, as gender and sex are not the same.
Just to be clear, such a change to the birth certificate should NEVER happen if the person involved does not agree with it. It would 100 percent violate the Hippocratic Oath, as it can be very harmful.