this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
1420 points (97.7% liked)
Science Memes
17432 readers
2531 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
This is the context that I was referring to. I'm not "now" openly conceding anything. I haven't "honed in" on anything over the years, whatever talking points other people used several years ago are irrelevant. You're trying to lump me in with other people so that you can hate me. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I'll say it at least once more. Chromosomal variation is messy, but it's messy within the sex binary. I'm not "now conceding" that, I've never said anything else.
It's easy to throw words around. Your point is invalid because you're talking about how sex came to be. That's all fine and dandy, but irrelevant. What's relevant to the discussion is the way it is today. If you want to talk about the development of sex, then the fact that there is such a strong pressure towards binary sex across so many different species should be telling. Other animals have completely different ways of sex determination and reproduction, and yet the sex binary exists virtually everywhere. Why is it so favored?
It's convenient that you have a biologist friend. Ask them why real biologists are saying (to quote again, in case you missed it from my last message):
Apologies for the confusion, I am not accusing you personally of participating in the previous wave of transphobic remarks
I am explaining to you that you are the result of their talking points. Quite literally. Similar to how widespread homophobia evolved into more focussed transphobia in recent times as homosexuality became obviously less acceptable. (All of the exact same talking points that used to apply to gay people now are used for trans people (they’re violent, they’re going after your kids, etc.))
So when I say “you now concede”, this is not to imply that your point of view has per se personally changed, but rather to highlight the absurdity of the history of your point (absolutist biological binaries) in the context from which it came.
What was once immutably “literally the field of biology” (XX & XY) was in the course of this modern conversation openly conceded, only for you to use the same incorrect logic to assert a new so called immutable truth. It is the latest in a long chain of “immutable truths” that have been disproven.
If you incorrectly believe you are not a part of that chain, it is because you don’t realize your “truth” was not delivered to you by scientists, but by transphobes. Biologists were confused and surprised when this new discourse took off.
bzzzzzt wrong! This is the type of stuff I’m talking about lol. You see “evolutionary biologists” (and I assume skip over half the other words I say? Baffling) and you assume we are discussing the distant past. Evolution hasn’t stopped. Literally the first sentence of my original post cements the reality that people are born today which defy your “UNBREAKABLE LAWS OF BIOLOGY”, yet are categorized incorrectly. By you. Because you have no idea what you’re talking about
Literally go look at the meme again lol. Your perspective is totally backwards. You’re asking the wrong questions. It’s like saying the ocean only contains water. We show you the fish and you say “Irrelevant; fish are mostly made of water.”
It’s nonsensical. To its core. I hope one day you grow capable of turning back from the path you now walk.
p.s. here’s what real biologists are saying, btw. It’s the complete opposite of what you’re saying. Found that very interesting. Have fun cherry picking!
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37156506/
I encourage you to read this peer-reviewed follow-up from a biologist to that paper, which points out why it's wrong (in the section "The Multilevel Sex Model"):
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
As that paper also points out, this is not a new definition. It references that definition from 1888. Biology has always used this definition of sex, and XX/XY being involved in the definition is simply a common misunderstanding, not the latest in a long chain of anything. Trying to paint this as new or transphobia is simply wrong.
You should ask your biologist friends why people today aren't being born with a third gamete type. I'll be honest, that's just a bizarre claim. Where are you sourcing that from? I'll explain why it's wrong if you give a link. Also, as I've said before, none of these claims are mine. I'm simply stating what the scientific consensus is.
The meme is incorrectly trying to say "sex is only mostly a binary". That is flat out wrong according to scientific consensus. Again, if you don't like that, take it up with the experts. Publish a paper pointing out why these statements from a biologist are incorrect and become rich and famous (or at least famous):
Most humiliating trash I’ve ever read, thank you! A ridiculous and indecipherable attempt at science. He randomly states nonsense circular reasoning without citation, and he also frequently cites random non-scientific opinion fluff articles from transphobes. How bizarre.
Ah, and wouldn’t you know it. The author is an explicitly transphobic right wing podcaster, who prattles on endlessly about the “social contagion” of “transgenderism” and cries like a little baby about how he has been “unfairly” excluded from the broader scientific community.
In conclusion - because you may need this spelled out for you - a single error ridden opinion piece by a discredited loser does not invalidate the overwhelming consensus of experts. By literal whining self proclamation his views are unrepresentative of the consensus of experts.
My intuition was obviously correct all along, but thank you for proving definitively that your views amount to nothing more than 100% science themed transphobic propaganda.
Literally the meta analysis I already linked. The consensus of experts is that gametes are bimodal. You should try listening to scientists if you care so much about science lol
I'm sorry, what? You've fundamentally misread that meta analysis if you think it posits a third gamete type. Just what?
Did you misread this bit? "Whereas some of these traits do typically have a bimodal distribution (some chromosomes, gametes)". That's not positing a third gamete type or saying that gametes aren't binary. A binary distribution is a subset of the set of bimodal distributions. They use the term bimodal in reference to chromosomes, and it's technically correct when applied to gametes, but does not imply thar gametes aren't binary. The paper even acknowledges binary gametes elsewhere.
If you're this wrong about a paper that you think supports your point, I don't think it's worth examining your take on other papers. Suffice it to say, for anyone else reading this, don't take the other commenter's word for it. The paper I linked is a good read.
It’s comedic actually, your “literally all of biology” is exposed as being an indefensible fringe whack job, and you hand wave it away without further comment. I guess this was always the road you were destined to take, as with all pseudo-intellectual hucksters who are incapable of providing receipts
As for your continued inflexible adamance that there are perfectly binary biological absolutes, you are almost too dense to believe lol. They even have a graph that explains it for you. I can appreciate the low effort nature of how you are trying to save face with ctrl+f, but at some point scientific integrity demands you actually sit down to understand a topic, rather than just draw transphobic constellations over individual sentences
Since we are apparently moving now to our closing arguments by addressing our readers, against all odds, we have ended up in agreement. I also encourage readers to go check out the drivel you posted for themselves. The morons seeking a safe space in their little right wing echo chamber will be thrilled to hear their beliefs uncritically asserted at them, and anyone with a brain will be equally amused at how badly the author humiliates himself both in the paper and elsewhere online.
I’m glad we were able to conclude things so amicably, enjoy your holiday weekend (if you happen to be an American)!
Not all articles that are peer-reviewed and given a doi are credible. Peer reviewers are directly contacted by the editor(s) of a journal, this can introduce bias. That journal, its current and past editor, and the sources of the opinion article have all been advised of bias.
I already had them tagged as "Richard Dawkins lover", had to laugh when the article they posted had Dawkins as a source almost immediately.
My tag for them is “Biologist Whisperer”, I like yours better tho lmao. I can only imagine the context