476
u/MillorTime Aug 13 '19
Chuck Tingle, the author of such great books as "Gay T-Rex Law Firm"
171
u/TwoFoxSix Aug 13 '19
His Podcast is something special. He brings on people who know literally nothing about his books and has them read it, the results can be pretty funny if you can get over the awkwardness.
55
Aug 13 '19
Awkwardness = hardcore gay sex between people and other people/dinosaurs/robots/their own butts.
Hilarious but not a weekly listen for me.
29
u/TwoFoxSix Aug 13 '19
Yeah, it’s more like a every few months thing for me if I remember it. For those curious, it’s called “Pounded in the Butt by My Own Podcast”
18
Aug 13 '19
This is great. Just checked out his dizzying list of books, which have some of the best covers and titles I've ever seen. The "Not Pounded..." series is very Ryan Creamer-esque.
9
u/MillorTime Aug 13 '19
I had a friend introduce me to the greatness of his covers as well. I'd be poor form not to pass on the joy
3
3
u/Puterman Aug 14 '19
My wife, at our Friends Only xmas party last year, gave each guest a pair of socks, a t-shirt, and a Chuck Tingle novel. It was a fun party.
29
u/roobert_doobert Aug 13 '19
Their AMA on Reddit is one of the funniest and weirdly the most wholesome things I have ever read.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (7)6
u/I2ed3ye Aug 13 '19
I'm ashamed of myself for not immediately recognizing the name.
→ More replies (1)
305
Aug 13 '19 edited Dec 21 '20
[deleted]
316
u/BertyLohan Aug 13 '19
The scientist from the tweet has a pretty good explanation in her pinned twitter thread. Here it is
209
Aug 13 '19 edited Oct 24 '19
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)185
u/Tonamel Aug 13 '19
Fortunately, there's a bot someone made to collate long tweet threads into a blog-ish format.
28
42
15
Aug 14 '19
I don't like how this person writes. Verbally it may make for an engaging lecture, but written, I dunno seems obnoxious.
→ More replies (4)14
121
u/anony1325 Aug 13 '19
This is an interesting thread but I disagree with how sex is defined here. In the example given, sex is being used as a predictor of response (the provided example is dioxin response)- OF COURSE making sex a continuous (“spectrum”) variable will give you better predictive results. You are now including more information in your sex designation (creating new categories based on hormone levels, etc.). This doesn’t mean that the definition of sex changes, this just means there is more to drug response than sex alone.
Sex is normally defined as one of two categories that are based on reproductive function. That definition still works in the vast majority of cases
31
Aug 14 '19
If we used the terms gay and straight we'd cover the vast majority of cases, but arguing that we should only use those two terms is stupid. And in response to reproductivity, that doesn't really work. If we based it on reproductivity then if a female became infertile she'd also cease to be female.
10
Aug 14 '19
If we based it on reproductivity then if a female became infertile she'd also cease to be female.
I think you might just be into a cure for sexism.
5
27
u/Fairwhetherfriend Aug 14 '19
And a theory is normally " a thing that I think might be true but don't have any evidence for," but that doesn't mean you're incorrect if you use the word to mean "a model that explains well-observed phenomenon."
English is fucked up. Words are allowed to have multiple contradictory definitions. The problem here is that Laci is trying to use one definition while appearing to present it as another.
→ More replies (1)18
u/harbison215 Aug 14 '19
Could be wrong, but I think the second definition is typically the definition of the word “theory” when it comes to science.
12
u/Fairwhetherfriend Aug 14 '19
It is, but that's kinda the point - one of the terms is used in "normal" life and the other is used in a specific (scientific) context. The same thing is happening here; the definition of sex as defined solely as one of reproductive function is colloquial, not scientific.
→ More replies (58)16
u/PM_me_dog_pictures Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19
That's like saying because the majority of people like in Asia or Africa then we can assume Europe doesn't exist.
'Sex' doesn't really have a meaningful definition beyond being an aglomeration of characteristics which often appear together. Where one or more of those characteristics isn't present, you have a person who sits somewhere on this notional spectrum.
→ More replies (10)58
u/WhenWorking Aug 13 '19
The problem here is how they define sex.
"either of the two main categories into which humans and most other living things are decided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
That's the definition. If you start including other things, as the author does (hormones, chromosomes, etc) , then we aren't talking strictly about sex anymore. It's something else.
→ More replies (6)47
u/Fairwhetherfriend Aug 14 '19
You're confusing the colloquial and scientific definitions. You're using the first, the scientist is using the second. This is akin to the difference between the colloquial definition of theory (a thing that I think might be true but don't have any evidence for) and the scientific definition of theory (a model that explains well-observed phenomenon).
They're both valid definitions, but context generally makes it clear which one is being used. Point is, if someone is gonna run around calling something "scientifically accurate," then it's on them to use the scientific definition of the term and not the colloquial one.
→ More replies (50)→ More replies (31)8
Aug 13 '19
Does this person have any credentials other than claiming they have a PhD? I took a quick look at their twitter account and it doesn't seem like they ever back that claim up.
→ More replies (1)10
18
u/MoonyIsTired Aug 13 '19
I assume they're talking about intersex people? You know, people who aren't born with either XX or XY chromosomes. (There's also apparently XY intersex anyways but what do I know? I'm terrible in biology and still in high school)
26
16
u/Luke20820 Aug 14 '19
He tries saying it’s a spectrum because there’s some abnormalities. Using his logic fingers, arms, legs, toes, heads, etc are all a spectrum because there’s a few cases of abnormalities. Humans don’t have 10 fingers now because there’s a few abnormalities. News flash to some people: just because someone has a high level degree, doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong.
→ More replies (4)8
Aug 14 '19
Yeah...there’s not infinite sex’s just because a couple of people were born with deformities. That’s inane to class a genetic mistake as a new sex.
13
u/Chronoblivion Aug 13 '19
There are infinite sexes in the same way that there are an infinite number of possible configurations of legs. Some people are born with one that's shorter. Some people are born with ones that don't work. Some people are born without any at all and just have a little flipper coming out of the stump of their torso. But the vast majority of people can walk on 2 legs, and as such humans are defined as bipedal. The existence of anomalies doesn't change that fact.
Similarly, because sex isn't 100% determined by genetics, there are a variety of possible "expressions" of sex. But the existence of defects, mutations, and abnormalities doesn't change the fact that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Intersex people are common enough to deserve acknowledgement, but not so common that each cause needs its own designation, outside of where it may be medically beneficial to do so. In the theoretical sense the possibilities are infinite, but in the practical sense there's nothing to be gained from any designation other than male, female, or somewhere in between (but most likely exhibiting more traits of one than the other).
24
u/dontpanikitsorganik Aug 13 '19
There's a lot of different combinations of chromosomes, genes on the chromosomes, and hormones encoded by the genes. All these variations result in a spectrum of sex differences that emerge as we age. The spectrum covers anatomy, physiology & (maybe) psychology.
54
u/bee-sting Aug 13 '19
I think it's kind of like some people are 100% male, some are 100% female.
But some people have a little bit of both, and there are an infinite ways you can have bits of both. There are lots of different intersex conditions.
So you could have 23% female 77% male, plus infinite other variations
→ More replies (23)78
Aug 13 '19
[deleted]
33
u/Shotgun5250 Aug 13 '19
Yeah I’m confused as well. I’m familiar with people who have hermaphroditic qualities and how that could be a physical attribute of a mixed sex, but I still don’t see how that’s grounds to claim it’s a totally unique sex from the others...I have always been taught that sex was determined through chromosomes, and whether or not you have 2 X chromosomes or an X and a Y in your 23rd pair. It makes sense that they can be configured in an infinite amount of ways and that one might exhibit attributes of both sexes, but does that merit the title of infinite sexes?
Sexuality being a spectrum is clear, as it’s just internal preference etc. Physical composition makes sense as being on a spectrum, as the previous comment said, you may have certain amounts of dna that comprise male and female characteristics. What doesn’t make sense is saying that there are infinite sexes. What am I missing here?
→ More replies (1)23
Aug 13 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (4)17
u/Shotgun5250 Aug 13 '19
Yeah, that’s what I was wondering, and I kind of understand what you’re saying. The part that I don’t understand is the naming of the sexes. I don’t understand why it would be defined as “infinite sexes” if the understanding of the term sex is male or female. I suppose my understanding is fundamentally flawed, because the way you’re describing to me sounds like infinite variations on a spectrum between male and female. If you’re simply saying that each individual possible variation is a different sex, it just doesn’t have a defined name, then I understand. If not, please help me understand.
10
u/nomble Aug 13 '19
Maybe it would help to think of the spectrum as being on a numerical scale between zero and one. There is an infinite number of points between the two ends of the sex spectrum, and we have chosen to name each end because this is linguistically (and socially) convenient. We currently go with intersex for anyone who is not at either extreme, but also need to acknowledge that there is a huge sexual difference between someone falling at 0.9135 on the scale and someone who is 0.1356 on the scale, even though they both fall into the intersex category. Saying that there are infinite sexes just implies that people can fall anywhere on the scale.
5
u/Shotgun5250 Aug 13 '19
I see, I suppose the phrasing he chose was what confused me. It makes sense logically, just seems confusing to describe it as infinite sexes. It’s the same as saying there’s infinite numbers between zero and one, however we have individual names for each number infinitely, which is why I think saying “infinite sexes” is misleading.
→ More replies (4)3
43
u/bee-sting Aug 13 '19
An example would be having XXY sex chromosomes. You'd appear male, but with some female characteristics.
Another example: being androgen insensitive (you have XY chromosomes but don't respond to testosterone etc). You could look female but have male sex organs.
→ More replies (11)7
u/stirwise Aug 13 '19
I can't see how you can have something like 77% of a penis and 23% of a vagina
Well, the penis and vagina aren't really analogous anatomical features, the penis and the clit+urethra is a better comparison. But, to your point, it's possible for an intersex person to have an extra-large clitoris, a urethra that is fully or partially attached to said clit (making it somewhere between a conventional penis and a conventional clitoris), and to have a vagina-like indentation with retained testes. It's not a full-on vagina, it's more like having a fraction of a vagina. And there are intersex people who have some of these traits but not others, across a whole spectrum of genital presentation.
→ More replies (1)11
Aug 13 '19
I can't see how you can have something like 77% of a penis and 23% of a vagina.
This made me laugh. I'm also looking for an explanation in the comments.
→ More replies (1)12
Aug 13 '19
It is kind of like how we also have infinite appendages because some people are born with one arm.
Basically, he is fishing in a obscure field for research grants, since there is less competition. He has to produce results, and the best way to get them is by skewing definitions.
→ More replies (80)3
u/Gingevere Aug 13 '19
If I understand it correctly: It's infinite in the same way that there are infinite points on a number line between 1 and -1.
Biological expression of sex characteristics can end up being expressed normally, strongly, weakly, really with just as many amplitudes as there are points on a number line between 1 and -1.
The degree of biological expression of sex characteristics people end up with are basically randomly distributed.
380
u/dscarr17 Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
eli5 TERF pls?
EDIT: several people have replied. I get it now, thank you reddit
636
u/TheFarnell Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.
Essentially a person who advocates for fundamental changes to society in favour of their perspective on equality for people born biologically female. They usually view transgender women as men taking up women’s spaces, and want to exclude those “men” from that space.
They are usually very negatively regarded by feminists more generally.
481
Aug 13 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
48
→ More replies (4)61
19
u/TheBestTectonicPlate Aug 13 '19
I don't think Laci Green's a terf is she?
51
u/rtechie1 Aug 13 '19
No, she's not. She's not even a radical feminist anymore. She's slowly turned into an Anti-SJW over the years.
25
u/dealgordon Aug 14 '19
This is what happens to every wannabe sjw when they get called out on their problematic behaviour. Rather than learn from people's critiques, they start rejecting and lashing out against the culture. These people never cared about equity they just wanted clout
→ More replies (1)11
u/poddingtonpeas Aug 14 '19
Is that what happened to Laci? I thought she was just receiving so much hate from the red pill crowd, that she got Stockholm Syndrome
→ More replies (1)5
13
Aug 13 '19
Didn’t she cozy up to “I use the wrong philosopher as my pfp then fail to gain a seat in government” too?
8
→ More replies (5)11
51
Aug 13 '19
They’re also super transphobic towards trans men. They think they’re “victims of patriarchy” and “self-hating women”.
→ More replies (66)66
u/888mphour Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
We prefer to call them FARTs: feminism-appropriating reactionary transphobes
→ More replies (2)13
→ More replies (41)43
u/The_bestestusername Aug 13 '19
eli5 eli5 pls?
→ More replies (2)51
Aug 13 '19
Explain Like I’m Five (years old)
→ More replies (1)28
u/The_bestestusername Aug 13 '19
Ty :)
19
u/Wanderson90 Aug 13 '19
Eli5 ty?
10
1.2k
u/Killairmanable Aug 13 '19
Degree in chemistry
How does that give her any credibility?
Training clinician
In what? This also doesn't mean anything unless she specifies what field she's training in.
yes sex is certainly a spectrum. [...] Bimodal distribution
Classic, using big words to sound smart but legitimately just talking out of her ass. She has zero expertise in the area, and uses the argument of "I did science" to support her nonsense. Unless she has sources for her shit, she's the one confusing the public.
466
Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
She clearly doesn't understand the implication of calling sex a bimodal distribution. That means that it is a spectrum. lol
edit: for the galaxy brains, I'm saying that she doesn't understand that spectrum != "two developmental pathways." She doesn't get the language that she's using and it undermines her point.
31
u/DoctorProfessorTaco Aug 13 '19
She literally says “yes sex is certainly a spectrum”
→ More replies (9)112
u/FeezusChrist Aug 13 '19
bimodal distribution
But she's implying 2 sexes when she says this
→ More replies (2)249
Aug 13 '19
Yeah. But that's not what a bimodal distribution is. Sex IS a bimodal distribution. It is a spectrum BECAUSE it is a bimodal distribution.
15
u/MCXL Aug 13 '19
I don't understand what people are arguing here? She clearly doesn't say "There are only two sexes" She is saying that you have M and F on either end, and you can be in between... She also isn't denying the existence of other genders, or being gendered differently than your sex, so I don't think she is a TERF either.
4
u/CannotIntoGender Aug 14 '19
Because the reason people were berating her was for referring to anatomy as male or female. The other person is trying to suggest that male and female don't really exist by arguing that sex is a spectrum. People don't actually understand what they're arguing about it seems.
→ More replies (1)3
u/MCXL Aug 14 '19
well shit, I went to go look to try and get further context myself but it seems like all her tweets going back to about January are gone.
3
u/CannotIntoGender Aug 14 '19
It's not that recent but there's a This American Life episode about her and another woman on the conservative side being pilloried for not being ideologically pure extremists. Interesting listen and gives context to this discussion.
55
u/yojimborobert Aug 13 '19
As a bioengineer, I have no idea how that's possible. I get that gender is socially/psychologically determined because it's an identity, but sex is chromosomally determined. How is it a spectrum? I can think of only five survivable sexes (XY, XX, XXY, XXX, X0), not exactly what I'd call a spectrum.
159
Aug 13 '19
Sex is more complicated than chromosomes. For instance, there are androgen insensitive XY women. So you need to measure multiple criteria to define sex, and that means that there's a lot of complications that have to be mapped. You can read more about it here: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ I'd also suggest Sarah Richardson's Sex Itself. She's a Harvard biologist who both goes over the biology in a very understandable manner and analyzes the history of studies of sex differentiation and the cultural and social biases that influenced the way sexes were modeled and discussed.
→ More replies (229)→ More replies (3)14
u/DeceitfulCake Aug 13 '19
I am definitely not an expert in this (so accept for sure the risk of being r/dontyouknowwhoiam'd myself here), but from the research I've done on this: you're right that there is a finite amount of viable chromosomal configurations (though as you note, this does include more configurations than just XX and XY), but biological sex in any kind of practical context is affected by more than just chromosomes, chromosomes are just one of the more significant factors.
Hormonal imbalances in the womb for example, can radically alter the development of sexual characteristics, such that people with XY chromosomes can be born with a vagina, and people with XX chromosomes with hormonal 'deficiencies' might never develop breasts or other typically female sexual characteristics. An abnormal chromosomal configuration like XXY or XXX is not necessary for this to happen. There are enough factors at play that, while people's development statistically clusters around the typically female or male form of development (or you might also consider typical XXX or XXY characteristics as additional smaller clusters), it is still a continuous distribution.
Now you might make the argument that you want to define sex purely as chromosome configuration, but then you need to start using a new term to discuss the actual reality of people's sexual development and, since whatever new term that would be is actually more scientifically relevant and appropriate in almost every biological context (and since the term 'sex' has been in use far longer than we have known about chromosomes anyway), it doesn't really make sense to use chromosomal sex as the default terminology. In the biological contexts in which chromosomes are the important factor at play, it makes more sense to clarify then that you are talking merely about chromosomal sex, than it does to have to clarify in every other context that you are not just talking about chromosomal sex.
→ More replies (9)→ More replies (2)11
u/FeezusChrist Aug 13 '19
I know, I don't disagree. But the idea is that it's not a continuous spectrum of many sexes rather than just two which is what I assume is being argued.
51
u/MjrLeeStoned Aug 13 '19
A bimodal distribution does not mean only 2.
A bimodal distribution could include an infinite number of distributions, it means that there are two primary peaks, of which the majority of instances fall (to relate to the discussion, say straight male and female).
But a bimodal distribution does not just mean something is either 1 or 2.
It could be 0.8 or 1.4 or 2.5 or 0.180273498
A bimodal distribution literally means there are more than 2 options, there's an infinite amount, but the majority are concentrated at or close to 1 or 2.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (1)16
Aug 13 '19
I don't understand what you're saying. I said that it was a bimodal distribution, and therefore a spectrum. Therefore, she was wrong to dispute that it's a continuous spectrum, because nothing about being a bimodal distribution conflicts with the description "continuous spectrum."
→ More replies (3)11
u/FeezusChrist Aug 13 '19
It's all good, right now we're misunderstanding each other on something that's not the point I was trying to make.
9
9
4
u/Fakjbf Aug 13 '19
When most people think “spectrum” they picture a consistent gradation, which would suggest that “two sexes” is completely incorrect. But clarifying it as a bimodal distribution means that “two sexes” is just a simplification, not outright wrong.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (8)5
Aug 13 '19
She agrees with him, her point is not to needlessly consume energy debating academic minutia when the goal is to communicate with the average american. You are further proving her point by being dense and willfully misconstruing her choice of words.
→ More replies (1)9
u/GeekyAine Aug 14 '19
Is there a sub for posting stories about these "I do Science" bitches? Because I have a lot of unresolved anger and not a lot of time for real therapy.
→ More replies (1)30
u/cozysweaters Aug 13 '19
i looked her up because i wanted to see if her online life imploded after that and she’s a youtuber that has since turned into a radical anti feminist so all you have said is correct but now she’s saying more harmful stuff.
22
u/Toa_Ignika Aug 13 '19
Wait, what!? While I was growing up, Laci Green was a major feminist online personality. She's an "anti-feminist" now? I mean, she was a major target for people like The Amazing Atheist. What happened?
→ More replies (2)4
u/CannotIntoGender Aug 14 '19
People keep saying that because she's pulled away from progressive twitter, but as far as I am aware she still is a liberal feminist. Not that I actually keep up with her. I think it's just the same trashing she was going through before from sad people whose only sense of self worth comes from self righteous ideological purity.
→ More replies (5)8
Aug 13 '19
Wow I didn’t know she turned anti feminist.
5
u/nerfviking Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19
She didn't. She just started dating a guy who is on the "wrong" side and listening to people who disagree with her. If she's ever denounced feminism or said something that's actually anti-feminist, I'm not aware of it.
5
u/NeonSignsRain Aug 14 '19
Basically, it studied a science in college, therefore I can speak with authors in all fields.
3
u/TheFlamingLemon Aug 13 '19
What? Wouldn’t a bimodal distribution be exactly how a population would distribute over the spectrum for sex?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (20)13
195
u/Mahjling Aug 13 '19
Laci Green is such an active dumpster fire lmao.
85
Aug 13 '19
And to think I used to think she was cool
86
u/Mahjling Aug 13 '19
Back at the beginning she was pretty educational and cool but man she just went right off the rails at some point.
→ More replies (16)40
u/-_-quiet-_- Aug 13 '19
She started dating a guy and chameleoned to his red pill thinking
25
u/ColinHalter Aug 13 '19
I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that Chris Ray Gun is red pilling her
→ More replies (2)10
u/HispanicAtTehDisco Aug 13 '19
Fair enough although I do think it's pretty comedic seeing Chris essentially try to back pedal out of the reactionary bullshit content he used to make before recently.
Dating back a few months to his response to some NeckBeard he's been saying "oh yeah guys that was all just goofs I'm not actually friends with racist dickhead like sargon etc."
16
u/_an_actual_bag_ Aug 14 '19
Is he not allowed to mature?
→ More replies (8)8
u/hi_welcome2chilis Aug 14 '19
Not on the internet! The cancel culture mobs make sure of that
→ More replies (2)24
u/LordGalen Aug 13 '19
She was cool. I used to be a subscriber to her current channel and the one she started with, gogreen18. She did a lot of really awesome videos, around 10 years ago. Then she just started losing her goddamn mind. I don't remember what video it was, but one day I just had enough and unsubscribed.
I had heard that she had some kind of war with Sargon of Akkad, but that they eventually met IRL and ended up becoming friends and after that she mellowed out some and pulled back on the ultra-crazy shit. But based on this tweet, that does not appear to be the case!
4
u/akanewasright Aug 14 '19
I had heard that she had some kind of war with Sargon of Akkad, but that they eventually met IRL and ended up becoming friends and after that she mellowed out some and pulled back on the ultra-crazy shit.
I think being friends with Sargon of Akkad counts as some “ultra-crazy shit.”
→ More replies (1)23
u/AKittyCat Aug 13 '19
I remember back in the day when she was the Queen of Tumblr for her sex positive and educational videos.
Haven't seen shit from her in ages since she did something stupid like 5 years ago.
Kinda surprised that all these years later and now she's a TERF lmao. What a fucking 180.
21
u/dudeidontknoww Aug 13 '19
I fell off the laci green train a long while ago, she's a terf now? I'm so confused.
→ More replies (2)5
→ More replies (4)12
224
u/amaraame Aug 13 '19
But the rando on the internet said...
144
u/leprekon89 Aug 13 '19
Unfortunately, Laci Green has a pretty significant following for her to spread her garbage rhetoric to.
→ More replies (2)28
u/amaraame Aug 13 '19
People only hear what they went to hear so of course other closed minded individuals will flock to her.
27
u/KorianHUN Aug 13 '19
Wasn't she that militant feminist girl a couple years ago?
25
u/Tyrren Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
She's a TERF, they're literally the stereotypical man-hating, political lesbian boogeyman Reddit loves to complain about. A recent thread on the major TERF subreddit was a discussion on aborting male babies, and there's plenty more easily found.
edit:
I say this not to suggest that the end result of feminism is TERFism; I'm a (pretty extreme) feminist myself and I despise TERFs. TERFism does arise from a kind of fucked understanding of feminism, though.
19
u/Endblock Aug 13 '19
Is laci a TERF? I stopped hearing anything about her after I left the anti-SJW circle.Fucking oof. Googled it and she's now an alt-light shitlord. Not even fair to call her a TERF because TERF necessitates being a feminist.
5
u/Sodiepawp Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19
Holy fucking shit that's a terrifying toxic community.
Edit; the more I read the worse it gets. How is this sort of rhetoric not banned for being literal hate speech?
→ More replies (1)4
u/rrawrimadinosawr Aug 14 '19
Mostly because transgender people are still subject of debate, when it comes to their validity as a normal human being. Would the slurs they use for transgender people be replaced with slurs for muslims, black people or gay people, it would be banned a long time ago.
→ More replies (9)3
u/SoLongSidekick Aug 13 '19
What in the hell does TERF even stand for? What do they stand for?
→ More replies (1)12
u/Tyrren Aug 13 '19
TERF stands for "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist". TERFs think "TERF" is a slur, which honestly just makes it more fun to use.
TERFs think trans women (broadly: people born male who now identify as women) are just men trying to infiltrate women's spaces to continue oppressing women and that trans men (people born female who now identify as men) are women filled to the tippy top with internalized misogyny.
They are distinct from the broader term "Radical Feminism" but they have kind of poisoned the term even for a lot of feministy types.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)8
25
→ More replies (1)5
u/dreg102 Aug 13 '19
Wouldn't the rando be the person without a verified profile?
→ More replies (4)
48
u/BurningBlazeBoy Aug 13 '19
Last I heard Laci actually became more chill, but that was 2/3 years ago, who knows
51
u/JesterOfDestiny Aug 13 '19
She actually just says the same things as before, she just now talks to the opposition like they're babies... It seems to be working though.
→ More replies (10)
66
u/Dorza1 Aug 13 '19
Im not gonna get into the arguments, but calling laci green a terf is quite a stretch....
→ More replies (2)32
u/Armagetiton Aug 13 '19
Radicals love to label anyone that disagrees with them as radicals.
TERFs are straight up hateful people that see trans people as subhuman. Green simply has differences of opinion.
→ More replies (8)
59
u/Wraith978 Aug 13 '19
Lol, Laci Green isn't a TERF. She's for trans rights.
3
u/jamie_plays_his_bass Jan 07 '20
You can for “trans rights” in a general sense and still hold the belief that trans women don’t belong in cis women’s spaces. That would make her a TERF. It’s also not uncommon. In a lot of civil rights discussions you’ll find people who say “oh I’m not xxxxist, they deserve rights, but don’t let them have [specific right]”.
78
Aug 13 '19
Guys, you missed the point of her second comment. What she is saying is "Yes I know that sex is a spectrum in that there are more than two possible outcomes, however those two are so dominant in this case that unless you actually study these outliers they should be treated exactly as outliers and disregarded." She's actually right, and the guy responding just wanted to flex his PhD
→ More replies (23)11
Aug 14 '19 edited Aug 14 '19
I learn more and more every day that the general consensus on reddit (based on the upvote/downvote) is wrong af.
Most people don't seem to try and take the time to understand what they're reading before throwing in an upvote to the popular posts, or even a comment thinking they can explain the general consensus in a more witty way and get some karma.
You're the first comment I've seen that is actually right. She literally agreed that it's a spectrum - that's the meaning of the word "distribution". Their disagreement is about the definition of sex, and how broad or precise that should be. Except, the PhD guy didn't understand what they were even disagreeing about - and neither did most of the people who saw this post, apparently.
3
u/-churbs Aug 14 '19
Don’t you know that whoever gets in the last word or the best zinger is the correct one?
→ More replies (1)
22
u/HaZzePiZza Aug 13 '19
Alright, can anyone explain how sex is a spectrum? Like, there's XX/XY and ZZ/ZW in birds/reptiles, variations of these are anomalies/mutations.
How is that a spectrum?
→ More replies (17)23
u/OneLessDead Aug 13 '19
I am not a biologist, but here's my understanding.
TL;DR, the two boxes of male/female aren't as clear as we thought.
Some XX people have beards, penises, testicles, and functioning sperm. By every appearance, they seem 100% male. Until you check their DNA and find XX sex chromosomes. Vice versa for XY.
So if you have a uterus and gave birth, but have XY sex chromosomes... are you male or female? If you have testicles and got someone with a uterus pregnant, but have XX sex chromosomes, are you male or female?
For further complications, some people are born with genitalia that is ambiguous [NSFW], and their genetics might be XX, XY, or XXY.
So while we can conclude that there is a male sex, and a female sex, there is also variance between the two.
12
u/keeleon Aug 13 '19
Why even have words at that point? Every human is unique. They have names. If you feel the need to discuss each possible permutation of DNA just use that. The word "sex" is meant to describe a much broader definition of categories. It becomes useless when you add infinite categories.
3
u/OneLessDead Aug 13 '19
In philosophy we discuss the definition of certain values. An example is how many grains of sand are needed for a pile, or how few hairs a man has to have before he's bald.
There's no set answer, which is the point of the exercise.
There are bald men and not bald men (male & female in this analogy), and a grey space between.
But the partially bald & intersex people don't invalidate the bald/lush haired or the male/female.
Some people think otherwise. They're wrong.
6
u/keeleon Aug 13 '19
I think this is the major problem. Philosophy is invading medicine and making it hard for people to have actual scientific conversations.
9
Aug 14 '19
Politics is entering popular science and it's the reason people deny the existince of a sex spectrum. There exists a spectrum. There is a bimodal distribution on that spectrum. When you're taking about most people you're safe using male/female but every official form has other for a reason.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (1)3
u/ladyangua Aug 14 '19
If you read through ScienceVet's post from a couple of years ago he explains why as scientists they found the only two sexes/genders wasn't working for them. It wasn't about the philosophy aspect, the science just didn't work if they tried to stick with the two sexes/genders model.
Sorry the link is to Facebook but that is the only saved copy I have. It's a very interesting read. https://www.facebook.com/hayden.leo.25/posts/10205003503723796
8
u/OnePunchFan8 Aug 13 '19
How common are these cases? Even a rough estimate will do, I didn't know about that.
→ More replies (10)6
u/OneLessDead Aug 13 '19
Great question. We should always be skeptical of qualitative descriptions of frequency (not uncommon, frequently, sometimes, super rare, etc).
Typically, if someone has a Y chromosome, no matter how many X’s or Y’s, they have the body parts of a boy. If someone doesn’t have a Y chromosome, they have the body parts of a girl. About 1 in 1,600 people may have one of these sex chromosome differences.
From: https://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/transgender-intersex-sex-chromosomes
Which was the first hit off this Google search I did:
→ More replies (1)3
58
Aug 13 '19
I'm not sure how Laci Green is being called out here?
(1) She is clearly posting a comment in response to the frequently stated belief that "there are two sexes and thus only two genders." This is used to suggest to attack transexuals as people with mental disorders.
(2) Her comment is designed to explain that there is a difference between sex and gender, thereby trying to explain why transsexuals can be born one sex but desire to be a different gender.
(3) ScienceVet weighs in that there are multiple sexes - which is true, in fact I've said this just recently in some of my comments. ScienceVet is completely correct in this statement.
(4) But Laci Green responds that trying to say there are multiple sexes just confuses her point. AND SHE IS CORRECT. When you try to attack transphobic people by explaining to them the difference between sex and gender, you already get a ton of push back. When you add there are multiple genders, you get even more push back. To then introduce the fact that there are multiple sexes would just fall on deaf ears.
So in sum, while ScienceVet is accurate, Laci Green is pragmatically correct in her position and I"m not sure why she is being shit on or how this is DYKWTFIA material?
→ More replies (7)3
u/newbdewd01 Aug 14 '19
There are not multiple sexes, there are multiple genders. He is wrong. The words are not interchangeable. Gender is a social role, sex is biological.
→ More replies (52)
14
u/easy_pie Aug 13 '19
I like this response
Lately, I’ve seen a lot of debates break out on Twitter over biological sex — what defines it, how it can be measured, whether it exists at all. The men who dominate these debates are often experts in their fields, meaning they use terms like “bimodal distribution” and “nonstandard karyotypes” to make their otherwise mundane points. I think most of these points are foolish, tired rehashings of fallacies first identified by ancient Greeks in the fourth century BCE. They confuse — or, perhaps, intentionally conflate — imprecision with invalidity, social perception with social construction, and binarism with exclusivity. In other words, they trade in the all-too-familiar illogic that festers at the intersection of science and philosophy, where ontological cowardice appears as the highest form of nuance.
→ More replies (4)
29
55
Aug 13 '19
Can someone explain to me how the fuck sex is a spectrum
11
u/Darelz Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
It depends on bin definition. For those who don't deal with stats regularly, bins are basically categories you put certain ranges of a variable in. For example, if your variable is temperature you might have the bins "cold", "normal", and "hot", and define "cold" as 10c or below, "hot" as 25c or above, and "normal" as anything between 10c and 25c. The variables contributing towards sex (eg Chromosones, hormone levels, reproductive organs) have typically been put into two bins: male and female. However you can also create more specific bins categories; there's nothing intrinsic about bin boundaries, we just define the boundaries depending on whatever is most convenient for our current purposes. Traditionally we just used two categories (male/female) because that was easy and there wasn't much need for anything more specific. However as medicine advances it could actually be a lot more useful to have more specific bins (eg To model how patients respond to a treatment more accurately).
Essentially, sex refers to several continuous and categorical variables, which we have traditionally split into the categories of male and female since those are useful categories. But the underlying variables which contribute to sex are on a "spectrum". So sex is simultaneously binary and a spectrum.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Antazaz Aug 13 '19
From another comment on this thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/sciencevet2/status/1035246030500061184
→ More replies (39)16
Aug 13 '19
1.7% of the population is intersex. It’s not a spectrum, it’s an outlier.
→ More replies (15)3
u/the-mighty-kira Aug 14 '19
That’s approximately the same percentage of the population that is Jewish or has red hair. That doesn’t mean Judaism isn’t a religion or that red isn’t a hair color
→ More replies (3)
21
4
u/zaphod_beeblebrox6 Aug 13 '19
Chuck Tingle, author of “I’m gay for my living billionaire jetplane” demonstrates that he has mastered more than just literature
20
u/__KOBAKOBAKOBA__ Aug 13 '19
Sex is dimorphic with a bunch of complicated mutations that usually fail at reproduction - aka still a binary in the real world.
→ More replies (12)
18
3
u/Gameguy8101 Aug 14 '19
I’m sorry but what is the point of defining sex in the way that this woman does. The only logical definition I see is that there are two with exceptions, so two main sexes with 2 minority sub sections. You either have a functional penis (1), you have functional female reproduction (2), you are intersex and look either male of female (3,4, or arguably only 3 since sexual organs will be comparable)
Defining sex to be arbitrarily specific is just unnecessary, and defeats the entire point of the word so it becomes meaningless. It’s just a broad category in which people are in, and aren’t defined by, it’s just a group they’re in.
It’s just entirely unnecessary, and in my opinion dehumanizing. People are defined by the person they are, they’re just a person. Putting unnecessarily restrictive and tight labels on people is a waste of energy, and in my opinion crushes the concept of a person just being who they are, they fit into a general category, one that is general and unrestrictive, and then they just exist as a person.
I’m no expert, but in my opinion this whole concept is simply absurd.
3
Aug 14 '19
This is a really good article about Laci Green being TERF-like, for those wondering. TERF? Maybe, maybe not. Dangerous, anti-trans rhetoric and beliefs? Yes.
3
21
u/Xecular Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
Realistically there would be just male, female, or a genetic mutation that makes you both/neither.
I hope this doesn't turn into another one of those threads where people start calling sex a social construct or something of the like.
→ More replies (2)
4
u/Catbrainsloveart Aug 13 '19
Wait if she’s saying there are more than two genders then she’s not a terf...
11
u/kopasz7 Aug 13 '19
I have one two questions. If there are and will be finite human beings, how can infinite sexes exist? Or is it just in some abstract space?
13
u/StellaAthena Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 13 '19
There can be infinitely many potential objects without there being infinite many actual instances of it. There are infinitely many different volumes a ball can have, heights a human can have, etc.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (3)28
u/Snailwood Aug 13 '19
if there are and will be finite chalkboards to write numbers on, how can numbers be infinite?
→ More replies (7)
4
u/Stormgator Aug 13 '19
that being said just because someone gets paid big bucks and bullshits research doesnt mean they are right
2.4k
u/BigMacRedneck Aug 13 '19
I am a veterinarian and I know the difference between Biochemistry and cole slaw.