Unfortunately I mean well. Sometimes people need to hear things they don’t really want to hear. I’m sick of seeing people that should know better spout off unscientific nonsense because it makes them feel good. There’s too much of that on Lemmy
Are you then going to answer my question and tell me what size gamete a body without either ovaries, uterus, and vagina, but a vulva, is “organised” around? Or are you going to shift the goalposts further? First it was “size of gametes”, now its “organised around a size” and I still don’t know what that even means.
Apologies if I’ve missed it, I still have a backlog of messages to go through. My best guess at interpreting your question that you mean something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency, in which a male has internal testes and is often incorrectly assigned female at birth due to ambiguous external genitalia. Is there another specific DSD you’re thinking of?
Their bodies are still organized around the production of one or the other of two gamete sizes. For example, the structures around the gonads would probably be used in diagnosis:
My point is that those are some of the secondary structures you’d examine in the case of missing gonads. Nobody is born with a body plan that just has no concept of producing gametes. That’s the point of saying “organized around”.
So it’s not the size of gametes but some secondary structures vaguely involved in the development of structures that are involved in the production of gametes. Did I get that right?
You’re trying to find a gotcha where there is none. I’m telling you that your question is incoherent.
The sex of an organism is defined as the size of the gametes it is organized around producing. That’s it. The secondary structures just tell you what that’s likely to be, because they’re correlated with it.
You’re trying to posit a “spherical cow”, a theoretical construct that doesn’t exist. A body won’t just “not have gonads”. You’re talking about magically poofing someone’s gonads out of existence. It’s the same as asking “Oh yeah, well if I was a rectangle, what sex would I be?”
I’m explaining the more reasonable and coherent case of “Assume you can’t examine the gonads of a body. How can you fairly reliably determine their sex by looking at secondary structures”? Note that it’s “fairly reliably” here because it’s entirely the gonads that define sex (pre-emptively, yes it’s gamete size, no I’m not changing the definition, but gonads are what produce gametes, stop trying to misread plain language for gotchas). If you restrict yourself from looking at gonads then you’re limiting yourself to correlates
No that’s not what I mean. People can be born without ovaries, uterus, vagina (but have a vulva). People can also be born without testes (but have a scrotum and penis). They do not possess these organs, they are nowhere in their bodies. That’s what I was talking about in the very beginning.
Unfortunately I mean well. Sometimes people need to hear things they don’t really want to hear. I’m sick of seeing people that should know better spout off unscientific nonsense because it makes them feel good. There’s too much of that on Lemmy
No you don’t. You’re lying through your teeth as a multitude of people explain how counting works to you. Stop it.
Sorry, I wish you could believe that science accuracy is important. It’s disappointing that you don’t, but them’s the breaks
I wish you could stop trolling. It’s disappointing that you don’t.
I wish it were as easy as “I’m just trolling”, but Lemmy deserves better than lazy misinformation in their memes. I’m calling it out.
It is that easy. You can’t even keep your shitty inaccurate definition consistent. Just stop.
I don’t think you understand what definitions are in play, sadly.
And you don’t understand shit.
What would convince you that you were wrong? What foundations are your world view built on that might need some re-examining?
Are you then going to answer my question and tell me what size gamete a body without either ovaries, uterus, and vagina, but a vulva, is “organised” around? Or are you going to shift the goalposts further? First it was “size of gametes”, now its “organised around a size” and I still don’t know what that even means.
Apologies if I’ve missed it, I still have a backlog of messages to go through. My best guess at interpreting your question that you mean something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency, in which a male has internal testes and is often incorrectly assigned female at birth due to ambiguous external genitalia. Is there another specific DSD you’re thinking of?
Let me rephrase that: people without ovaries, uterus, vagina or testes. Nowhere in their bodies. They have a vulva or a penis plus scrotum.
Their bodies are still organized around the production of one or the other of two gamete sizes. For example, the structures around the gonads would probably be used in diagnosis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramesonephric_duct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesonephric_duct
There’s nothing about the production of gametes in there.
My point is that those are some of the secondary structures you’d examine in the case of missing gonads. Nobody is born with a body plan that just has no concept of producing gametes. That’s the point of saying “organized around”.
So it’s not the size of gametes but some secondary structures vaguely involved in the development of structures that are involved in the production of gametes. Did I get that right?
You’re trying to find a gotcha where there is none. I’m telling you that your question is incoherent.
The sex of an organism is defined as the size of the gametes it is organized around producing. That’s it. The secondary structures just tell you what that’s likely to be, because they’re correlated with it.
You’re trying to posit a “spherical cow”, a theoretical construct that doesn’t exist. A body won’t just “not have gonads”. You’re talking about magically poofing someone’s gonads out of existence. It’s the same as asking “Oh yeah, well if I was a rectangle, what sex would I be?”
I’m explaining the more reasonable and coherent case of “Assume you can’t examine the gonads of a body. How can you fairly reliably determine their sex by looking at secondary structures”? Note that it’s “fairly reliably” here because it’s entirely the gonads that define sex (pre-emptively, yes it’s gamete size, no I’m not changing the definition, but gonads are what produce gametes, stop trying to misread plain language for gotchas). If you restrict yourself from looking at gonads then you’re limiting yourself to correlates
No that’s not what I mean. People can be born without ovaries, uterus, vagina (but have a vulva). People can also be born without testes (but have a scrotum and penis). They do not possess these organs, they are nowhere in their bodies. That’s what I was talking about in the very beginning.