[lovich]

The person I was responding to was talking about gender, but if you want to talk about biology then

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex#Prevalence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXYY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXYY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XXXXY_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy_X

I assume you will be one of the advocates for my nobel prize

edit: I'm sorry you specifically mentioned gametes, we can talk about diploids and haploids if you wish and how our bodies are such complicated machines that any sort of error that can occur in our growth is guaranteed to at scale

[EnergyAmy]

XXY/etc are all variations within a sex. The above poster is correct to point out that sex is defined entirely by the gamete size that one's body is organized around producing in anisogamous species like humans, and is binary.

Intersex is a misleading term, the better term is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorders_of_sex_development. There are male DSDs and female DSDs. Even in the case of ovotestes, you'll have one gamete produced, and the other tissue will be nonfunctional.

[lovich]

And yet, the original person I was responding to spoke about gender.

If you are going to step into this argument, please do not move the goalposts

edit: I've triggered the HN censor bot, so editing to apologize to EnergyAmy, they are correct on their point. I am still going to throw back at brigandish that they moved the goalposts

[EnergyAmy]

I'm responding specifically to your comment in regards to "but if you want to talk about biology then" followed by a list of biological variations that don't dispute the sex binary. The goalposts are exactly where you've left them.

[brigandish]

Not only have you undermined your claim to a Nobel award by showing a spurious understanding of biology, you wrote, quite sarcastically "it is impossible for humanity to discover new information that updates our world model". Well then, we will all await your discovery of that 3rd gamete, or some theory so innovative that it tips this well studied, well understood, uncontested (by any valid competitor) model to the wayside and humanity can revel in this new information, the better model of reality that you promise.

While you're at it, you could tell us all what the scientific discovery was that made gender separate from sex, who found it and when, and what the defining difference is. Did they win a Nobel for that?

I request that in any reply, you refrain from spamming me with Wikipedia links to articles you don't understand and probably haven't read.

[lovich]

I was being sarcastic, the thread started about gender and you moved it to gametes. Gender is a social construct as we can observe by the fact that what gender _is_ isn't consistent across cultures.

[brigandish]

I keep addressing your points and you keep moaning about other people. Since sex and gender are not different until you are able to provide some reason that they are beyond bare assertion then gametes are relevant.

> you could tell us all what the scientific discovery was that made gender separate from sex, who found it and when, and what the defining difference is. Did they win a Nobel for that?

Take your time, but please avoid making me restate what I've written along with the obvious implications simply because you find it all too inconvenient to address.

[lovich]

> I keep addressing your points…

No you did not.

> Since sex and gender are not different until you are able to provide some reason that they are beyond bare assertion then gametes are relevant.

Sex is a parameter of biology, gender is a parameter of social constructs.

You are also having bare assertions that they are the same. Gametes are not relevant. You are unable to discern between different values.

Also stop bringing up the Nobel prize like it matters for the conversation. You are the one who interjected it into the conversation.

Edit: added after the post. To make sure I am not speaking to a bot, can you tell me who the first person in this thread was that mentioned the word “gamete”

[brigandish]

> To make sure I am not speaking to a bot

Do grow up.

> Sex is a parameter of biology, gender is a parameter of social constructs.

So you assert, but until you can show the moment that gender was shown to be different from sex beyond bare assertion then I'm not willing to accept your assertion. Do you see how that works?

> Gametes are not relevant.

They are relevant to sex determination and hence gender, see previous paragraph for why.

That's all your points, if they can be called that, addressed.

> Also stop bringing up the Nobel prize like it matters for the conversation.

You'll need to provide something that can be competitive for it to have any impact <shrug>. I won't hold my breath.

[lovich]

> > To make sure I am not speaking to a bot

> Do grow up.

When I quote a fragment of someone else’s sentence I usually add an ellipses(…) to show that there’s more context and not imply a full statement, but you do you

Since you dropped the part about me asking you to state how the thread started, I am assuming this is at least a person dropping a prompt into ChatGPT and regurgitating it without editing.

Have a good day

[pelheit]

I've yet to see a definition of gender that isn't based on restrictive and harmful sex stereotypes, or is circular and empty. It's not a helpful concept.