Most biologists accept the facts and move on to more interesting things. He’s willing to write the “no duh” explainers. If you don’t like him, take your pick of people with other relevant credentials listed here that signed a statement affirming the same (in addition to the other link I posted to another well-respected biologist agreeing with him)
In mammals, there are two types of gamete and two classes of reproductive anatomy. The male sex class produces many small motile gametes – sperm – for transfer. The female sex class produces few large immobile gametes – ova – and gestates/delivers live young. […] Biological sex does not meet the defining criteria for a spectrum. […] Not one of these individuals represents an additional sex class.
Immaterial to the truth of it. Dislike 1 + 1 = 2 all you want, it’s still true.
That paper cites her seriously when it was apparently “ironic”. I didn’t say that paper quoted her about 5 sexes, but nowhere does it note that it was “ironic”.
depending on how you see things.
Biologists have observed that sex is binary. She’s free to “see things” however she wants, but mistaking the basic variations within the binary for a non-binary spectrum won’t get her taken seriously by biologists (or anyone)
It’s equally true to note that sex has been observed to be binary. You’re correct to note that they’re true for different reasons. If that is your only quibble, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the sex binary.
Most biologists accept the facts and move on to more interesting things. He’s willing to write the “no duh” explainers. If you don’t like him, take your pick of people with other relevant credentials listed here that signed a statement affirming the same (in addition to the other link I posted to another well-respected biologist agreeing with him)
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Immaterial to the truth of it. Dislike 1 + 1 = 2 all you want, it’s still true.
That paper cites her seriously when it was apparently “ironic”. I didn’t say that paper quoted her about 5 sexes, but nowhere does it note that it was “ironic”.
Biologists have observed that sex is binary. She’s free to “see things” however she wants, but mistaking the basic variations within the binary for a non-binary spectrum won’t get her taken seriously by biologists (or anyone)
Funny thing: 1 + 1 = 2 isn’t material, it’s derived of axioms. You don’t know what you’re talking about
It’s equally true to note that sex has been observed to be binary. You’re correct to note that they’re true for different reasons. If that is your only quibble, I appreciate your acknowledgement of the sex binary.