Leaderboard

Director Christopher Nolan shot his new biopic ‘Oppenheimer’ (2023) in 70mm Imax format, and the new film has been given a rare theatrical release in that format (the first since ‘Tenet’ in 2020). The Imax format film roll for this new 3 hour film is about 11 miles long, and weighs some 600lbs. The Imax engineers not only had to design a new enlarged platter system to carry this amount of film: they have also issued a software emulator for the long defunct PalmPilot m130 hand-held PDA - because back in the day in 2002 this was the platform for the custom PDA app most often used by Imax projectionists as their ideal tool to control the long-play Imax Quick Turn Reel Units. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/07/imax-emulates-palmpilot-software-to-power-oppenheimers-70-mm-release/

Even this article acknowledges that there are a lot of biologists who consider sex to be a spectrum. It’s right there in the abstract, where they appeal to the slippery slope. They are arguing, basically, that everybody else is wrong, despite the many details they admit to in the article. “For example, in 2015, Nature published an article entitled “Sex redefined,” stating that the concept of two sexes is too simplistic and that sex is actually a graded spectrum” But, hey, Nature is just some second- or third-rate journal.

l and social scientists are,rather than a binary trait. "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles Abstract Biomedical and social scientists are increasingly calling the biological sex into question, arguing that sex is a graded spectrum rather than a binary trait. Leading science journals have been adopting this relativist view, thereby opposing fundamental biological facts. While we fully endorse efforts to create a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse people, this does not require denying biological sex. On the contrary, the rejection of biological sex seems to be based on a lack of knowledge about evolution and it champions species chauvinism, inasmuch as it imposes human identity notions on millions of other species. We argue that the biological definition of the sexes remains central to recognising the diversity of life. Humans with their unique combination of biological sex and gender are different from non-human animals and plants in this respect. Denying the concept of biological sex, for whatever cause, ultimately erodes scientific progress and may open the flood gates to “alternative truths.”" Essentially, human sex is binary, with a very limited grey area. 99+%. Most with intersex traits are still XX or XY. I like the fact that you are citing a paper (I really appreciate it) and it is true that there are discussions on this area in the scientific community. I won't bemoan that this an essay, as this discussion likely has to be at least partially argued outside of a more data-driven discussion. Since the paper is still very fresh, there is not a lot of follow-up, but I will put in here one alternative view on it.: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v2.abstract The paper does provide a nice summary of the gamete-centric approach (apologies for the line counts). This is especially relavant as Goyman et al. argue about the scientific necessity of collapsing those terms. I.e. the base argument is not about what is "true" but what scientifically useful (an important distinction). A more philosophical/conceptional approach to this question can be found here: https://doi.org/10.1017/psa.2023.86 And an evolutionary view that questions the strong link between gamete dimorphism and and assumption of sexes can be seen here: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2023.04.013 While the latter is not necessarily a reject of binary biological sex definitions as such, it questions some of the basic tenets that make a binary definition useful for biological sciences. But again, to avoid any confusion, the discussion here (found JCM's link) is rooted in a gamete-focused definition of sex (i.e. not karyotype, sex chromosomes etc.), which is often used in science, but less in common parlance. Here the definition is base on the size of gametes produced by a group (e.g. small like sperm or large like an ovum). The papers I added discuss why even with this definition things are trickier than outlined in the essay. Also, the definition is centered around an evolutionary view (in terms of e.g. establishing and maintaining gamete dimorphism), sterile organisms are not present in this category. There is quite a bit to wade into scientifically, but it this actually shows that scientifically the distinction is not quite as trivial and straightforward as we have learned, especially when we want to find an universal (biological) system or model.

One cannot ignore the outliers because it's inconvenient to supporting binary positions. That would be tampering with the data and actively pursuing confirmation bias as a strategy.

This is circular reasoning. Most of us are one sex if you only have already limited the options to two. We’re back to biology-for-beginners, ignoring the more nuanced picture. “Sex refers to a set of factors that determine whether an individual is considered biologically female, male, or intersex. These factors include chromosomes, genes, internal and external sex organs, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts for females or facial hair for males).” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ If you limit it to chromosomes, you have two options that cover ~98%. If you include genes and hormones, etc, you have a spectrum.

While your intent was to be dismissive, your example does little more than further refute your own position on this topic. You’ve been falsely claiming that sex as a hard binary trait and that counter examples should all be ignored, while others are accurately stating that it exists along a spectrum. Well, you know what else exists along a spectrum? Color, including individual colors like Red which is defined as having a wavelength anywhere in the range of 620nm to 750nm. To make it plain, your stance in this thread is akin to arguing that “only 647nm is red, and no other wavelengths! Not even 648nm or 646nm!! Why? Because I said so. So there! Nanner nanner boo boo. Stick your head in doo doo.”

...and to the bottom of the barrel we arrive.

Alternatively, it could be A. "I want to be regarded as a woman" B. "Fine.”

I'll take that as a no, then. As far as I'm concerned, a "woman" is an adult human of the female sex. Other people seem to be arguing that a woman is an adult human of the female gender. I don't agree with that, because it means I can change from man to woman, just by self-identifying as a woman. That doesn't match the reality that I observe. I have one friend who had gender reassignment surgery, and the rest of the treatment. What was the purpose of all of those drastic steps? To enable him to present as a woman. What steps were taken to do that? They were surgery on the genitalia and various hormone treatment, all designed to match the traits that a 'typical woman' is born with. So transgender women themselves have a very clear idea of what constitutes a "woman" and they go to pretty extreme lengths to match it. The main bone of contention is whether the resulting individual IS a woman, or is more LIKE a woman. Just as Richard Dawkins said, it's a question of semantics. That's why I asked you what you mean by "woman".

This feels too easy. No, I don’t favor detrimental drug treatments. I do, however, favor regimens designed in partnership with parents and doctors to support trans individuals in more healthily realizing their true selves in a more wholistic and empathetic manner. As to whether or not that treatment confers some competitive advantage depends entirely IMO on 1) the nature, frequency, and intensity of the treatment, and 2) in the specific sport and the nature of the class/division being sought within that sport (i.e. the details matter here and I prefer avoiding broad all encompassing generalizations).

No doubt, you seem singularly opposed to a gender you don't understand; BTW thanks for the neg, it brought a genuine smile to my face... OK, so let me get this straight, you're a man that intuitively knows what women are thinking and your conclusion is, they're afraid of men... Come on Reg "what did the Roman's, ever, do for us?"???

The 1-2% who actually understand the topic; but thanks for trying...

If a person wants to be identified as a woman then we need to know by what definition do they mean a "woman"? If that person is free to define a woman by personal choice then what does this mean in terms of identity? How are we to reconcile this ambiguity so that we are all clear on what a woman or man is? If sex is non binary and gender is non binary but labels and categories are then what are we to do? In sporting events (since this thread was about this, and being in the biology section as pointed out to me just now. There is clearly a difference in the majority between men and women. there is also one major difference that separates men and women. Women are evolved to have the mechanism to grow offspring, and give birth men are not. By this definition does a man wanting to become a woman mean they want those mechanisms? The men that go to the extremes of having surgery to change their genitalia are striving for something. They obviously have a clear definition of what a woman is, what the differences are...they have some definition that goes along with the general consensus of what the differences are between a man and a woman. They want to be labelled as a woman but we are told that the definition of what a woman is is fluid? Then you have those people who prefer to be identified as "other". Fine, identify as you so wish, but in life where there are categories in place to protect rights so how do we reconcile the additional identity profiles with the majority identity profiles such that all are included and all rights go unaffected? Interestingly I was reading somewhere recently that prior to around 2017 ish the definition of a transgender woman was a man who wants to identify as and feel like a woman. Then there was a shift where the definition took a slightly differing aspect, the definition became - a transgender woman is a real woman. To understand what this means logically we need to define what a "real woman" is. Now we are told a woman is what ever you define it as, its just a label. A. "I want to be a woman" B. "Fine, what is a woman?" A. "What ever I chose it to be" B. "OK, but my definition of a woman is a person of female sex" A. "That's not what a woman is, a woman is a gender label, and sex is non binary" B. "OK, explain to me your definition of a woman, a female, and a person who was evolved to have the mechanism to give birth?" A. "My definition of a woman is what ever I chose it to be" B. "OK, so you want to be identified as a woman, what does this mean to you, what do you mean by gender label?" I think there is much confusion and too much unnecessary complexity which has no positive impact on society and/or the people affected.

C. "Go ahead, take the gold medal for weightlifting. And sprinting. And swimming. And . . . . . . . etc. Who wanted womens sport anyway?