this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
1112 points (97.7% liked)
Science Memes
17415 readers
1844 users here now
Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
- Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
- Keep it rooted (on topic).
- No spam.
- Infographics welcome, get schooled.
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
Research Committee
Other Mander Communities
Science and Research
Biology and Life Sciences
- !abiogenesis@mander.xyz
- !animal-behavior@mander.xyz
- !anthropology@mander.xyz
- !arachnology@mander.xyz
- !balconygardening@slrpnk.net
- !biodiversity@mander.xyz
- !biology@mander.xyz
- !biophysics@mander.xyz
- !botany@mander.xyz
- !ecology@mander.xyz
- !entomology@mander.xyz
- !fermentation@mander.xyz
- !herpetology@mander.xyz
- !houseplants@mander.xyz
- !medicine@mander.xyz
- !microscopy@mander.xyz
- !mycology@mander.xyz
- !nudibranchs@mander.xyz
- !nutrition@mander.xyz
- !palaeoecology@mander.xyz
- !palaeontology@mander.xyz
- !photosynthesis@mander.xyz
- !plantid@mander.xyz
- !plants@mander.xyz
- !reptiles and amphibians@mander.xyz
Physical Sciences
- !astronomy@mander.xyz
- !chemistry@mander.xyz
- !earthscience@mander.xyz
- !geography@mander.xyz
- !geospatial@mander.xyz
- !nuclear@mander.xyz
- !physics@mander.xyz
- !quantum-computing@mander.xyz
- !spectroscopy@mander.xyz
Humanities and Social Sciences
Practical and Applied Sciences
- !exercise-and sports-science@mander.xyz
- !gardening@mander.xyz
- !self sufficiency@mander.xyz
- !soilscience@slrpnk.net
- !terrariums@mander.xyz
- !timelapse@mander.xyz
Memes
Miscellaneous
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
XO, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, and others have been recorded in humans. In addition there is Swyer syndrome, Chappell syndrome, and mosaicism in which the gonadal phenotype doesn't match the genotype. There are also events during fertilization which can cause an XX zygote to gain the SRY gene from the father. The SRY gene is what initiates male gonad development.
Sex is not binary just because there are two types of sex chromosomes. They can occur in multiple combinations and result in a spectrum of characteristics. Many of those combinations result in infertility, because they result in a loss of reproductive organs and/or indeterminate genitalia
I prefer a simpler view... leave people the fuck alone as long as they aren't harming anybody.
but aren't those fairly uncommon? I don't think he means mutations or syndromes. I think he means the majority of humans.
Uncommon like all those other elements in the universe?
huh? no, uncommon in terms of human biology. this isn't some political statement against those who have mutations or uncommon chromosome combos.
they exist. they're real. they're just not the majority. and that's ok. they don't have to be.
I'm not sure what that has to do with elements on the periodic table.
Exactly. Just like all of the other non-hydrogen and non-helium atoms in the universe.
I have no idea why I'm getting downvoted then. nor the other commenter.
I think people are quite confused when he is literally just talking about basic biology. no negative connotations whatsoever.
if real actual facts are now being downvoted I have very little hope for humanity.
I think the issue is that saying “sex is indeed binary” despite the presence of anomalies/mutations (no matter how uncommon) is in direct contradiction to the chemistry analogy being presented.
If you’re going to stand firm that “sex is indeed binary” you’re (in the context of this thread) also saying “chemical elements are binary just with some quirky occasional variations out there”
Which might statistically be the case across the entire universe… but also highly oversimplifies the wonders of the natural world. And maybe it’s pedantic but, binary can’t be simultaneously interpreted as both “exactly two states” and “well, mostly two states”. You gotta pick one, at which point the former is more correct.
So no I don’t think there’s negative connotation either just… a lack of connecting the dots with the analogy in the meme.
How do you differentiate this from the meme?
Like the elements in the meme? How do you differentiate this from the meme?
This post is explicitly about a meme comparing gender to elements.
I am pretty sure you getting downvoted because it looks like you either forgot or are ignoring the post you are commenting on.
Sex is binary, because there are two sizes of gametes. Sex is determined in humans by chromosomes (and is rather messy, as you note). Sex is defined by gamete size, because it's the only common factor across so many different species. Some animals have their sex determined by the temperature while they're developing instead of chromosomes, but we can still differentiate between males and females by gamete size.
Dawg this isn't even true. What was the publishing date of the last biology book you read? I think you need to update your knowledge. The current scientific and academic consensus is that neither sex nor gender are binary.
You unfortunately have a grossly distorted view of what the scientific consensus is. There's a few extremists pushing for silly things, but no, sex is binary. Sex phenotypes aren't binary, but those aren't how sex is defined
What's in this for you? Why is it so important for you to believe that sex is binary, to try and convince everyone in this thread that sex is binary? How does this narrow-minded, oversimplified view that ignores modern biology serve you? And, maybe most curiously, why do you think "there's a few extremists pushing for silly things?" What silly things? What kinds of extremists? Let's go down this fucking rabbit hole together my dude.
It's just so funny seeing you acknowledge all over the place that all these other characteristics of sex are not binary, except for gametes (which in reality, also aren't binary), and that just happens to be the thing you're pinning your definition of sex to. Like, the pieces are all there and it just looks like you're refusing to put them all together.
It's not what I believe. I'm just the messenger, sorry but you are disagreeing with the scientific and academic consensus. I wish I didn't have to do this and people didn't post a bunch of nonsense on Lemmy, but here we are.
People really need to know when their worldview is based on falsehoods, and this is one of those times. As an example, you might have heard of the concept of "5 sexes", but it turns out that the source of that claim was someone who certainly knows better being "tongue-in-cheek" and "ironic":
She's also the source of the "intersex is as common as redheads" claim, and that's also completely wrong and she should know better. That is a silly thing and she's one of the extremists pushing such silly things.
I don't know how to better explain it to you, but yes, sex characteristics are not necessarily binary, but sex is (and yes, gametes are binary). You're refusing to acknowledge the scientific consensus, and that's really disappointing.
Hmmm, an interesting assertion, one that would be all the more interesting were it not for the open letter sent to the president, signed by ~3500 scientists, saying sex isn't binary. Weird.
You wanna know what else is weird? This whole "gametes determine sex" thing is something Donald Trump says, and used as the "scientific basis" for one of his incredibly transphobic executive orders. An order that basically makes it illegal to be trans. The order that that letter I linked, the one signed by 3500 scientists, was a direct response to.
No, what's disappointing is that you've spent the better part of your day parroting and defending right-wing pseudoscience, then have the gall to tell others that they're refusing to acknowledge scientific consensus.
The idea you're so vehemently "just being the messenger" for originated over a hundred years ago dude. The science has changed since then. We've learned more. It's time for you to catch up.
I'm... not sure you actually read your link. It quotes the open letter, and then points out that it's scientifically inaccurate, and that the people that sent it should know better. It also contains this quote, which is my whole damn point. Real biologists saying this shit:
Why is Lemmy so focused on being wrong here?
by quoting noted transphobe, Richard Dawkins lmao.
Why are you so focused on spreading transphobic rhetoric?
Why do you think he's a transphobe? Because he's a biologist saying that sex is real?
He's also simply one of the vast majority saying this. If you think acknowledging scientific truth is transphobic, that's entirely on you. Why do you think those are at odds?
I think Richard Dawkins is a transphobe because he frequently makes public anti-trans statements and conflates gender and sex in a way that is weaponized against trans people.
Jesus dude this is just boring now. Claiming your outdated view is "scientific truth" hasn't worked all day, maybe find a new slant.
I find it interesting how reliable of a tell it is that someone has just given up on any sort of real argument when they start deploying rhetorics like "boring" or the like. Very similar to "It's 2025!" or "I'm just tired y'all".
Scientific truth doesn't care how boring you find it. That is the current scientific consensus, regardless of your opinion on it. Just like 1+1=2 doesn't care if you hate it with a passion. It's still true, and will continue to be so after you realize your error.
Take your pick of other relevent scientists to believe if you want, though I have my doubts about Dawkins being "anti trans". This thread is an exemplar of how badly people want to conflate being pro-science with being anti-trans, for very silly reasons.
It doesn't matter what arguments I give you, you're dug in. That's what's boring - every new angle anyone tries with you just gets the same old tired "my science is correct and infallible, yours is wrong" response. "Arguments" like that are boring. 🤷
That’s a ridiculous definition conjured up by people trying to claim there’s only two sexes. It has effectively no practical use considering gametes on their own are useless for reproduction without an entire system of hardware surrounding them. Plus it guarantees at least three sexes - people who don’t produce gametes at all.
You're kind of shooting the messenger here. It's literally how sex is defined and used in biology, I'm just letting you know.
Not producing gametes doesn't confuse things. Nobody is born with a body organized around producing a third gamete size, or no gamete size.
You say that because you incorrectly categorize genetic variations as a failed attempt at one of two binary options. It’s circular reasoning. You’re looking for a binary to sort things into, so regardless of the underlying truth, you sort everything into it.
Like all smoking gun “binary” sex characteristics transphobes have honed in on over the years, we’re only talking about it because they arrived there from working backwards towards it. Just a few years ago all of these same talking points were “biological truth” regarding chromosomes (which you now openly concede are not reliable sex determinants)
A thorough investigation of gametes reveals that like everything else in biology that’s paired off, it’s bipolar in nature rather than binary (strongly gathered up into two categories but with outliers and exceptions).
Even ignoring gamete manifestation in all other species, which there is no reason to do other than to try and make a transphobic point, just among humans genetic variation occurs somewhat regularly. This is the basic principle that makes evolution possible, and it’s why other species have such insane gamete setups such that that gamete size cannot be used universally to determine sex.
Ah but I forget we’re still just talking humans. Evolutionary scientists reveal that the simple reason intermediate gamete sizes do not proliferate in our species is because they have historically been outcompeted. This fact could not be true if there were no bodies born with a third gamete type
An additional issue with this whole train of thought is the baseless presumption that normal biological variation precludes someone who was “supposed to be female” from producing the small gamete. It’s literally the meme we’re looking at in the OP: where the vast majority fits neatly into two categories, but if you were to try to work backwards from there and say everything must fit into those categories, you will have deprived yourself of even the most fundamental biological truths that describe our universe, and on a personal note, you will have deprived yourself of what makes biology beautiful.
Biology doesn't give special consideration for humans. We're simply animals like the rest of the animal kingdom. Within the animal kingdom there are absolutely species with more than two sexes including more than two gamete sizes.
You're probably confusing sex with mating types. Sex is binary because there's exactly two gamete sizes, eggs and sperm. Other species have gametes that are the same size, but those are called mating types and work very differently than sex.
Nope. There are animals with more than two gamete sizes. Egg and sperm are not sizes.
What animals are those?
Arctic foxes and fruit flies. And before responding, be sure to educate yourself on the difference between what constitutes size and "egg and sperm". Those are entirely different concepts.
You're confusing sex and Polymorphism. Those aren't different sexes
You're confusing size and type. You can have two types with more than two sizes of a thing.
That’s not true, there are definitely people both without any sex organs whose body “organization” has no concept of producing any gametes. There are people who are able to produce both gametes. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALA does not make these people magically disappear. You cannot argue “well part of their body organization is invalid because of reasons”.
This is classic Dunning-Kruger shit where just because you learned a little about gametes you think you’re an expert, but there’s a huge world of exceptions out there.
What exactly do you mean by "has no concept"? I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about.
I know you’re just here for the argument, and I’ve wasted enough time on this already. The “gamete size” simplification is Trumpist propaganda and not based in actual rigorous science.
Actual biologists agree that bodies without sex organs don’t fit into the binary definition
Hormone expression (in addition to gamete size) is also a critical factor that scientists use to define sex
Determining “organization” in cases of “physical anomaly” via chromosomes is unreliable
1.3% of people are born intersex, and “intersex” represents an entire continuum
Educate yourself.
You seem like you should know better. From the first link:
It confuses sex phenotypes with sex, which is a basic error. That's not how sex is defined, it's defined entirely by gamete size because no other definition makes sense.
Intersex is a confusing term, because you will either have a male or female DSD
Your other links are talking about variations within a sex. You also misunderstand how sex is determined vs how it is defined.
I’m done with this conversation now because you’re being willfully ignorant (as expected). One quote talking about characteristics is out of context for this discussion. There is a wealth of other context here that you are intentionally ignoring, specifically the many parts showing that scientists do not all agree with a reductionist definition only considering gametes. Your claim that no other definition makes sense is absolute bullshit in the scientific community and you should be ashamed for pretending it’s the only definition out there.
I provided several examples of chromosome combinations that result in people who produce no gametes. You've said in several comments that no one is born with a body plan that doesnt produce gametes, and that is incorrect. I'm a biology major, and I'm in a developmental biology class right now There are several points in development that can cause a failure to develop a sexual phenotype.
I don't know why you're saying it's a hard line that biologists have drawn, when science is about being able to adjust our understanding of the world when we are presented with new information
Edit: The body plan that you are talking about is a result of several things ranging from transcription factors to hormones working together, not just chromosomes alone. A break at any point can result in a body that isn't "organized" (whatever you think you mean by that I don't know) to produce gametes. I feel like you're trying to play "gotcha!" throughout these comments and have no true understanding of biology. I recommend that you try going back to school
I didn't say that nobody is born with a body that doesn't produce gametes. I said nobody is born with a body organized around producing no gametes. Ask your professor about the difference.
So people who produce no gametes, their bodies are unorganized?
This is how I'm going to refer to myself from now on. "My name is FoxyFerengi. I have no pronouns because my body is unorganized."
You so clever! How many numbers I have write with binary? Is two, no? Why fucking computer use binary if only two numbers?
Sarcasm works better if you respond coherently. You doing math with gametes?
Sir is doing biology without brain. Is much cleverer trick.
You should redirect this energy into learning about how your model of the world is incomplete. You'd benefit much more from that.
Ya sir, I incpmplete with too much genders, too much elements in periodic. You complete with two of each. Clever sir. Complete sir.