[eozoon]

Think of it as men = "people with y chromosome" varible setting, or a "People with y chromosome (hereinafter referred to as men)" in a contract.

The scientifically accurate way to describe the subject of the article is "people with y chromosome" but that is clunky to repeat so they want to designate a shorthand for it, while acknowledging that without proper definition the shorthand would be vague and not accurate description.

I'd think defining your terms clearly is perfectly suitable for a scientific journal.

[NhanH]

Defining unusual term is perfectly suitable for scientific journal. Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing), and if you have to define it, you might as well define the term “define”.

In the context of this paper, no one is gonna ask “what do you mean by men” if you remove that disclaimer. Sure, another paper that discuss some social issues with men might have to clarify whether it is the y-chromosome men or all men, but this isn’t the case here

[RoyalHenOil]

>Men == people with y chromosome is something that has been used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing)

The pattern of sexual inheritance in humans was only discovered in the 1920s, and the link between sexual inheritance and the X and Y chromosomes was not discovered until 1959. (Before that, sex was identified based on secondary sex characteristics, which do not perfectly adhere to the XX/XY inheritance system.)

Scientific research journals date back only to the 1600s, and they did not develop the rigorous standards we expect today until the 1800s.

[bitcurious]

Medical writings have been ascribing disease to bad airs, humors, gods, and curses, head shape, and all kinds of junk for thousands of years, yet somehow we evolved past that, no?

[mjg59]

The correlation between Y chromosomes and sexual characteristics wasn't discovered until the early 20th century, so no. For the vast majority of human existence, the term "Men" has been used without reference to any underlying genetic status.

[NhanH]

Sure, we didn’t know the relation, but the y-chromosome didn’t spring to existence the moment we discovered it. The point is that whatever we wanted to use the word to describe was clear.

[mjg59]

...and was not defined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. Using genetics to define sex is (by historical standards) extremely new.

[Affric]

It still isn't defined by the presence of absence of the Y chromosome. Some animals have sex defined by incubation temperature; there are animal species with inbuilt hermaphroditism and dioecious plants; male birds are WW, female birds are WZ. Biologically sex is defined by gamete size. It's a construct used to link together behaviours in many different species that are derived from a variety of mechanisms.

My understanding is that in humans that meiosis (production of gamete) begins in females whilst they're embryos whereas in males it only begins at the onset of sexual maturity. I would be interested to know if this is the same in other species because my working theory is that male meiosis is the fuel of evolution because there are more mutations in the male germ line cells. The female gametes having differentiated earlier and undergoing fewer replications provide a working original template as opposed to the male gamete's likelier deleterious replications. One small set of large well provisioned gametes likely to work, many large sets of likely mutated gametes hopefully with some useful mutations amongst the bad ones which can be rooted out by selection.

The fundamental existence of sex is interesting and its implementation is pretty complex. 99.9% of references to it in the "trans debate" are reductionist misrepresentations. Either of mystifying complexity making its existence meaningless or as if an authoritative revelation from an omniscient, omnipotent being.

And it now infects every discussion that we have about sex in humans. It's made sex, one of the most fundamentally interesting (and considering the success of its possessors) facets of life on Earth, torturous to discuss because it has become about the limits of society's ability to limit freedom of conscience, individuals rights to identify, and the right of the individual to self identify. It's narrow, myopic, fundamentally boring in the context of biology.

EDIT: for the record I agree with you in spirit. The rant was my thoughts following on from my minor point of information.

[haldujai]

To be clear this isn't a research paper, it is a PR news summary designed to be accessible.

[Affric]

> used for thousands of year (in the context of scientific writing)

The Middle English word was "mannen" and in old english "mann" meant roughly the same as we mean with "human" now, i.e. without respect to sex.

I don't think the paragraph will be looked back on as anything except a sign of troubled political times (rather than communicating anything of use with regards to the information in the article) but what you've written is incorrect.

[NhanH]

I don’t mean the exact term “men”, just the generic word that is used to describe the concept of men.

[Affric]

Seems like you're redefining the term right now to better suit your argument.