*Trans Rights Matter* I posted the joke/riddle for fun, not as a comment on gender. Gender is not binary, it’s a gradient, tho some people may experience only two seemingly definite genders
He did though. He never said it explicitly, but described sex/gametes as bimodal or binary (but fuzzy at the edges) and clarified that this isn't even controversial. Nobody is arguing for a third type of gamete.
Why should we pretend that sex isn't bimodal because 0.018% of the population has genetic problems that make them intersex? It what other area of life would we preference the needs of 0.018% of the population over everyone else?
@@professorshadow470 *"Why should we pretend that sex isn't binary because 0.018% of the population has genetic problems that make them intersex?"* Because "everything is binary, unless it's not" isn't the definition of binary. It's the definition of bimodal. *"It what other area of life would we preference the needs of 0.018% of the population over everyone else?"* Where is anyone arguing for the treatment of LGTBQ-people "above everyone else?"
@@cy-one Letting trans men go into women's spaces is unacceptable and giving preference to a delusion over a woman's privacy. Fine, why should we pretend it isn't 99.98% bimodal?
@@cy-one Answer the question, pet. Why should we pretend that the bimodal for humans isn’t incredibly accurate and useful for making almost all decisions?
Why because he can’t tell the difference between the Types of organisms with their genus, species, and kinds? So he creates an infinity of gender labels to brainwash children into confusion?
@@Trackformers interesting take. Perhaps you'd like to define a fish without googling the precise, scientific definition? Because, I'm willing to bet you can tell me what you THINK a fish is, and it's probably wrong.
@@Trackformers It's not the concept that's the problem. It's that when you start trying to define it you'll find it's not a useful biological definition. It's like calling all flying things birds or all land creatures beasts, like the Bible does on occasion.
His entire strategy is to *not* nail anything to the wall. He just throws a whole bunch of factoids at the wall hoping something will stick. He's a great equivocator. He knows how to manipulate his audience into thinking he actually made a point.
Always amazing how these comments sections get inundated with NOT biologists who can be so astoundingly and confidently incorrect, yet refuse to call into the show if their position is supposedly so solid. Keep doing what you do Forrest, the world is in some dire need of real scientific education, unhampered by archaic religious ideas.
@@HYEOL and somehow you never discovered the fact that biology is messy, and resistant to simple categorisation. Perhaps you should check your textbooks again.
@@HYEOL Wow! And you can't understand how during development that epigenetic factors can influence gamete development? Not to mention various mutations and poly-ploidy and mono-ploidy. You've never studied these things? What school did you go to for your diploma?
Complexity has nothing to do with wether or not something is bimodal or binary. Determining wether a currently living organism is a chimp or a human would be binary, but providing a perfect definition of either based on current characteristics would be extremely difficult and complex. That doesn't mean that there is a bimodal distribution of humaness and chimpness among living organisms. The exception that Forrest mentions are mostly to deal with people who are either too young/old to have kids, people who are castrated, or people who've had developmental problems with their reproductive system. I don't really see the problem with recognizing non-functioning variants of a reproductive system. We can easily recognise the human blood circulatory system e a man who got cut in half even if the blood circulatory system no longer works, or parts of it are missing. Do we say that you no longer have a heart if it stops beating, or do we recognise it as the same type of organ that is malfunctioning? I think the strongest case he could make is that those with ovotestes should be considered hermaphrodites with both of the two sexes. The other cases don't prove anything in my opinion. As far as gender is concerned, most people use "gender" as polite way of saying "sex." In everyday usage people use the words to mean the same thing. Sure, there is also a different definition of gender which refers to masculine and feminine social standards, but that usage is more academic. If a random guy on the street says his gender is male he is obviously talking about his sex, not his social expression. If man and woman are defined by the academic social type of gender it means that being a woman is now defined by femininity rather than being female. Rather than "adult female human" you have "adult human who aligns with social femininity." At that point are butch lesbians actually men? Are tomboys actually boys? Are effeminate gay men actually just women? I certainly don't think this is how "man" and "woman" are currently used, even among trans rights activists.
He uses the fallacy of the beard a lot. You're trying to get people on the right to accept climate change, evolution and vaccines and then when it comes to explaining why sex is non-binary such a stream of nonsense comes out.
Sex being binary might be 99% accurate, which would be fine if we acknowledge the 1% being left out. 1% of 8 billion, is 80.000.000 people. That close to the population of Germany, Iran or Turkey. For the USA this would mean excluding 3,3 million people, so close to the population of Utah, Nervada or Iowa.
@@aidenmartin6674 oh. truth is the only thing that IS worth it. I admit that it isnt true in 0.017% . thats intersexual people. In which other case of evaluating would you demand the same principles of being so precise? none..
I suppose that people need to learn the difference between "bimodal" and "true dichotomy." Something that's heavily bimodal is not a true dichotomy, even if the bimodality is nigh-absolute. The issue is that people like to oversimplify reality, which includes forcing everything into strictly defined categories that still lack precise definitions.
@@darlalathan6143stop reaching. it's from having a mom and dad most of us.. and its gonna continue that way so not hard to see why people view it in a binary way. Without medical interventions.. mobody has 2 dads or moms.. so thats a man made thing.. not how things actually are. Yall make it so confusing for yourselves.. people who abide by mommy daddy rules are still more accurate than all these plot twists you want to inject. And im an atheist been one For decades.
@@darlalathan6143 Well, it's in human nature to oversimplify reality. I'd say that the dualist morality is a product of human nature, and that it reinforces human nature, as part of a feedback loop.
The reality is that humans are bimodal in 99.98% of cases. Would you like to have a conversation about how best to treat those individuals or would you like to argue that men should get to change clothes with my wife? Which one makes you sound more reasonable?
@@professorshadow470 A false dichotomous choice between two extremes would not make me sound reasonable, nor would making some major political assumptions regarding someone's point of view. Also, clothing choice is arbitrary. That's more a cultural thing. As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherently "masculine" or "feminine" to any particular article of clothing. It's more about sticking with what the dominant culture considers "appropriate." With regards to that, my point of view is a highly enlightened "why should I even care"? When it comes to personal liberty, I'm practically totally libertarian. Let people wear what they want to wear, as long as certain forms of clothing aren't an objective necessity.
Societal and cultural norms change. I welcome that change towards equality and fairness. Rights are yours, so long as you do not violate others rights.
@jam ww how so? I'm a trans woman, and i haven't been misgendered in person or on the phone in years. I am legally female on all of my documents. I've had bottom surgery. What public washroom should I go in? If you say the men's room, you're disconnected from reality.
@@meganmuellerou are male. Your cells are male. Just because you lobbied the government to get your documents changed does NOT make you female. If you're scared of sharing spaces with males, GET OVER IT. That's the advice you give us when we deal with you.
Remember that if someone is trying to define s-word or gender or whatever else in whatever way: They are merely stating that this is how they're choosing to define that word. The question is not whether this definition is "right" or "wrong", but rather how useful it is, what it's actually describing, how closely it matches how the word is commonly used or defined, who or what is being included or excluded in that definition, and what the consequences are of defining it in that way.
@@blacktigerpaw1 I believe they can be women simply by defining them that way - that is my point. I could do it that way yet another person could define 'woman' in a way that excludes them. So be it. Its all down to definition. Sometimes I am tall, sometimes I am not. Depends how u define tall.
@@ZambeziKid Transwomen are MALE. THAT IS THEIR SEX. You define womanhood based on lipstick and wigs. A set of regressive sex stereotypes. God, I despise you people. You know what a female is in your fucking pets. You mock Christians for believing in a Sky Fairy yet you cannot define what a woman is? Peak Atheism.
How many new terms and words would we need to describe every variation of sex hormones possible, and variations of X and Y chromosomes. Why is it unfair to just say there are male and female and in rare cases somewhere in between.
@@Huntermaro if you're referring to trans people, we don't simply identify as the opposite gender. We identify as the opposite gender, we make conscious and consistent effort to present as that gender in a social context, and we change the sex characteristics that form the basis of sex classification. If you don't believe me, look into how hormones affect the human body. If you accept intersex people, yet don't accept trans people, you are failing to see how trans people are effectively very similar to intersex people. For instance, I have more sex characteristics that fit into the female category. Is that "merely identifying as the opposite sex"?
IntersexGod, Regardless of whatever 'ignorance' you refer to, Forrest spews what I suspect is ideology-driven nonsense. --------- Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant. -------- No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories; 1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)! 2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual. NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex! Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them; 1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary. 2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'. ---------------------- All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
Is there a transcript of this video available somewhere? I stupidly got into a discussion with someone on IG that believes in the binary model (and the Bible) and I would like to inform them about the syndromes and statistics mentioned in this video, crediting them to their sources of course.
@jam ww you seem to have trouble with the difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis... that's the reason he said you should use a non-metric multidimensional scale. It's multidimensional to accomodate for the numerous qualitative variables such as phenotype, genes, chromosomes etc., then it is non--metric in the sense that those variables are not numerical per-se. They are usually assigned some kind of fixed numerical value if needed to plot "distances" between the clusters, but that's not always the case. With some qualitative variables it is possible to assign a quantitative approximation with a scale from 0 to 1, but that a whole other topic. If you're interested, there's plenty of books on Data Visualization, or some general Statistics book. I can suggest a few titles if you need, but they're kind of "advaced", you would need some basic knowledge on data analysis first (not much, like high-school level is sufficient probably) There's "Data Visualisation: A Handbook for Data Driven Design" by A. Kirk, i'm reading it right now (just started the first chapters) and it looks decent.
I'm a cis-het male and had no qualms with dating a trans womam a feelw years ago. She was the prettiest woman I've ever dated and I officiated her wedding because I was so happy that she found someone who loves her even more than I do! ❤
@@Englandforever555 1. You don't know what cis means. 2. Sexuality is more personality based than humans like to admit to themselves. Just because you are not attracted to someone immediately does not mean you won't be when you know their personality well enough for your subconscious to recognise them as what you are into. I think this is a major reason for sexuality confusion as humans often imagine stationary images to gauge their attraction, but that completely ignores their personality.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana cis is degrading and derogatory name invented by trans misogynists You either like men or women, you are either straight or gay.
Honestly, I feel like even if people correctly claimed "Sex is bimodal" instead of "Sex is binary" people would still be pissed off at the claim anyway.
"Honestly, I feel like even if people correctly claimed "Sex is bimodal" instead of "Sex is binary"" Ok, so you are claiming sex is bimodal, not binary. - Note that the binary means 2 sets of reproductive anatomies are used, and that each is defined by the presence and use of 2 main features; gonads and gametes. That is, the 2 reproductive systems defined into testis/ sperm and ovaries/ova. - Why is that not a binary, what is the basis of your bimodal claim?
@@Dr.Ian-Plect They are equivocating. They hear sex is binary and think of lgbtq+ instead of reproduction through two gametes. This used to be the channel of believe more true things than false things. The fallacies run deep here now.
@@Dr.Ian-PlectCan you explain what 'sex is bimodal' means. I often hear this argument but don't understand it clearly. Why do they say it is, and why isn't it?
@@Mel-wn9gb Happy to help. The 2 distributions in question are binary and bimodal. Binary 'Sex is binary' originates in biology (I'm a zoologist). Its definition refers to the fact that in sexually reproducing species, there are 2 reproductive systems used, as described in my earlier comment in this thread. There are only 2 reproductive systems, and so there is a strict binary, no other system has ever been discovered in these species. You have one or the other, or if you have an anomalous development leading to an incomplete/not fully functioning reproductive system, it is just that, not another system. So, the binary distribution of reproductive systems is one or the other, no variance around them. Bimodal The importance of me explaining as I did for the binary becomes relevant now. For several reasons (substantially ideology) some people claim DSDs (disorders of sex development), - also called 'intersex', a poor and misleading word - as sexes. These are a tiny proportion of variances from the normal presentation of the 2 sexes. As such, when plotted on a distribution graph, they form a bimodal plot. This means rather than a strict indication of 2 possibilities as for the binary, this shows as more like 2 bell curve distrubutions indicating a peak at the male and female positions, but with the profile of the graph clearly showing a spectrum of these other variables all around and between. I suggest you simply go to Google images and type in 'sex bimodal distribution'. Additionally, read this informative piece 'Debunking the Bimodal “Sex Spectrum” Graph' (look it up in a search engine, it's from ministryoftruth).
Forrest is wrong on this. I'm a medical scientist with 30 years of experience as a researcher (from lab bench to bedside). Sex is defined by gamete type, which can be seen in nearly all animal and plant species. Now gender is a different thing and I can accept that there are probably multiple different genders, because this is not a thing defined by physical biology.
@@laurasophia6100 "How do gametes develop? Is that what's there before not sex? And do people without gametes have no sex? Biology is more complex than your opinion." ------ As you'll know, I've addressed your agenda under another thread. - how gametes develop is irrelevant to them being the trait that defines sex - your next sentence needs elevated beyond 10 year old grammar - the third query I'll just repeat what I stated in the other thread; *the more complete definition of sex is 'having the sexual apparatus for, and producing 1 of 2 gamete types during the reproductive stage of the life of an organism'. not producing gametes outside this phase is normal, the apparatus is still there, ordinarily. And you point to not producing gametes within the phase, that's an anomaly of the individual. Their sex can still be diagnosed by the presence of gonads. But absent even these, secondary sex traits can be used as a reliable proxy.* - the complexity of biology 'quip' appears a point of obfuscation, shame on you
@@laurasophia6100 Sperm and eggs are gametes. Eggs or oocytes are actually present in females at birth. Sperm are continuously turned over in the male.
Sex is determined by the type of gametes your body is organized around producing. You don’t need to produce them. There is no third gamete type. For sex to be bimodal, a short male would be more male than a short man. Sex traits are bimodal, but sex is binary.
You caught that I did too. The dictionary which added a definition to woman to include transgender women has two complete distinct definitions of the term woman. 1. original definition “adult female” applies ONLY to those of a biological sex category (female) 2. added addition “An adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.” this would apply ONLY to transgender women who are not of the FEMALE SEX. Female is a biological sex category which wouldn’t apply to transgender women (males).
Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant. -------- No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories; 1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)! 2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual. NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex! Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them; 1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary. 2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'. ---------------------- All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
@@iamnotgroot3693 Yet you know exactly what sex is in dogs, and when they should get neutered. And the fact you think someone like Katy Montgomerie is a woman says a lot.
@iamnotgroot3693 Ironic you say this. Telling someone what they said "has no meaning" instead of offering a real counterpoint would constitute "barking".
The claim that we can't define females or males due to a lack of universal traits or a single biological sex trait is flawed. While not all individuals within a sex category may exhibit every characteristic, there are indeed defining features exclusive to each sex. The biological potential for childbearing is what defines the female sex, regardless of individual fertility. It's about the inherent capacity tied to female biology, not whether every female can or will give birth. This fundamental difference in reproductive roles is what primarily distinguishes females from males at a biological level.
Forrest fundamentally doesn’t understand sexes as evolutionary reproductive roles. He just views them as a tool to sort humans and that if he thinks something can’t be sorted, that means redefining sex, male, and female to fit everyone.
I got into this discussion with someone the other day and made a lot of progress by pretending I wasn't having it. I was writing a paper at the time and pretended I was asking a genuine question of the guy because he's currently taking zoology. I told him that I was doing a report on this species of salamander that has 48% of its population falling cleanly into male and 48% female and asked him if I should be okay saying they're only male and female presenting. He then went on a long rant about how we can't pretend data doesn't exist in science when describing a species while I just sat there and looked at him. I find it a lot easier to make the biology point when I remove the word human from the discussion. For some reason even the atheist anti-trans folk think humans are special cases.
Humans are not special cases at all and in science, it is difficult to prove anything at 100%. This said, whether with Salamanders or other species, if you have a 48% = 48% distribution it is fair to say that you have two groups with 4% exception. The problem with humans as opposed to other animals is them deciding which group they belong to. I personally identify as a kitchen sink of undisclosed color but once upon a time I was a Rubix Cube. Profound biological changes caused my mutation.
@@jgestiot except that's just it. There's no NEED to put them into groups. It serves no purpose. If we accept the reality of the bimodal distribution then we accept that anything not on the two extremes is somewhere in between. And that's fine.
All in all, we humans created the language, terminology and classifications. We can change them to fit how it evolves over time or when new information is presented. The nature of the universe is to change therefore there is no perpetual state of normality.
Basically, nature is just doing its thing, and humans try to understand it by creating categories for different stuffs that nature does. These categories can be accurate or inaccurate, but what matters is that we change our definitions based on new evidence, not try to make a definition and try to insist that nature is EXACTLY this way.
But he *appears* knowledgeable and informed. He has a degree and even holds up the text books he read! And he reels off so many random factoids, that may or may not have relevance, but *sound* reasonable. People fall for this shtick and he knows it.
I love how forest is so knowledgeable that when he argues with himself he makes better and more informed counter arguments against his own points than any bigot ever could
You are not a bigot for disagreeing, Connor. Second, there is a good reason why it has become political: there is a difference between what you feel compared to what can actually be demonstrated. It is also political because you have transwomen entering women's sports. I would ask Forrest: if you have XX chromosomes in every cell in your body (setting aside occasional XXY or XYY chromosomes), then are you likely to have female reproductive and anatomical characteristics. XY: male reproductive and anatomical characteristics. And it isn't Forrest, but there are activists conflating gender and sex, and you will notice MOSTLY males transitioning to female, rather than the other way around. In addition, you have enough things confusing kids, let alone telling them "if you are unhappy with your body, change it!" This IS occurring. We closed down an entire trust in the UK that was peddling surgery and puberty blockers to kids, without parental knowledge, called The Tavistock, for YEARS. Now it is being sued, severely, for medical negligence by multiple lawsuits. Applying a post modernist (which is what Forrest sounds like, but I may be wrong of course) outlook is not useful. There are things that can be objectively demonstrated. Of course you can find exceptions and outliers: but you do not define the whole on the few! Shall we, for example, AFFIRM annorexics when they say or feel : "I am much too obese, and need to lose more weight?" Shall we start doing that? Or perhaps be "body positive" to morbidly obese people who only want to hear good things instead of the reality of the risks of their lifestyle? I would like to see Forrest debate Dr Robert Winston: one of the world's foremost experts on genetics!
He didn't actually answer the question. Listen back to the clip. He gave a bunch of talking points, but no actual rebuttal. He did a Ben Shapiro gish gallop. Why are you impressed by that?
What's really funny is Forrest admonishing Christians for using dogma to justify their belief when he sits there talking about gender and using dogma to justify his own beliefs. With absolutely no sense of irony in sight.
If sex is binary what do you have to say about people who are born intersex? What do you have to say about seahorses that can switch between the sexes? What about people who are born with a penis but have an XX chromosome? As a non-bias biologist Forrest knows how unclear sex can be because he will verify that every question I asked you here has reality behind it. So no Forrest is not being dogmatic when he is saying what the reality of sex really is. You are just denying it to hold onto your outdated and ignorant beliefs and are projecting your refusal to see evidence against binary sex onto Forrest as a scientist.
@@cy-one and I mean no offense to people who suffer from gender disphoria or whatever that makes you feel that you don't belong to either of the two sexes. But just know that you are affected by a mental disorder and you should look for treatment if you feel bad. Look for profesional help, don't listen to politicians that only want your vote and money.
@@morpheus5302 *"But just know that you are affected by a mental disorder and you should look for treatment if you feel bad"* a) it's not classified as a mental disorder b) even if it would be classified as a mental disorder doesn't mean it _is_ one. c) while not universally true, there are neurological differences in brain chemistry _and activity_ in transgender people. And they usually align more with their identified gender. d) they _are_ "looking for treatment." It's just not one you think is the right one for them.
@@cy-one It is, and is called Gender Disphoria for trans people, I don't know if I'm using the proper technical term because my english is bad but i think you understand what I mean. That does not make them less than a person than you and me, but also, it does not mean they are what they feel they are. The treatment I think they should look for depends on the severity of their pain, I'm sure many of them can reconciliate with their biological sex and others will benefit from transitioning. What I'm pretty sure is that politicians and companies are already exploiting their suffering.
Isn't that the same troll who can't even explain how their moral system works, so constantly resorts to, "but atheism can't do X" arguments? They are SO dependent on atheism!
@@SphincterOfDoomyou would need so many new terms to describe every possible deviation in hormones and chromosomes caused by genetic disorders. The fact is as a biologist he should know that the exception is not the rule, we identify all plants and animals based on gamete production. Humans only have two types, just because a rare percentage are born with these conditions doesn’t make the premise “there are only two sexes false.” Just like someone being born with a limb doesn’t make the premise “humans have 4 limbs” false.
Reproduction in animals requires the two and only two gametes. That is what sex is binary conveys, unless you equivocate the terms, fallacy 1. Argument from authority would be fallacy 2. An argument could be made that cancel culture has allowed the equivocation into Campbell Biology, 12th edition. Forrest argued for fallacy 3 extensively. The univariate fallacy, everything doesn’t have to fit neatly in the box for the box to be valid. Fallacy 4 would be the moralistic fallacy. Forrest, it is ok that sex is binary. Again, sex is a synonym of reproduction in this context. Reproduction is binary and evolutionarily selected for. This used to be the channel of I want to know more true things than false things.
Well said. It's frustrating to see people take his shtick at face value. People have a right to accurate information and education, not disengenuous, ideologically driven garbage.
The whole idea that your sex and gender are purely determined by gamete production is such transparent nonsense. All it takes is an ounce of critical thinking and a willingness to skeptically question the claim itself, which these people notoriously lack. How is an OB/GYN supposed to use this criteria to determine sex on a birth certificate? What about people who live their whole lives without producing gametes? What about a person with a vagina and functional undescended testes? What about a person with a penis and gonads that produce eggs? What about those people who have both types of gonadal tissue? The answer is always the same. "That's the exception, not the rule." They don't actually care about building a model that best fits reality. They just want to latch onto whatever model they can find to rationalize their exclusion of specific minorities from mainstream society.
Well yes, they are a rare exception, using a gender binary in our vocabulary makes sense since it offers a way to easily categorize someone into one of two main categories with over 99% accuracy. That's very useful in a medical or criminal setting, when you need to identify someone's likely anatomy or if they match a suspect's description. How are they being excluded from mainstream society in the western world currently? How would they be excluded if we kept using the words "man" and "woman" as we currently do and have done for centuries?
So how many terms would we need to define every variation of sex hormones and XY chromosomes that a minute number of the population has due to rare medical conditions?
Is the premise “humans have four limbs” false? Because not all humans have limbs and you just said “that’s the exception not the rule”, is a dumb argument.
This is so beautiful the way he ends up the explanation saying: go get a text book on genetics and learn it. I wish all my teacher were the same enthusiastic. Now it made me want to study this subject
The claim sex is bimodal is not supported in literature. It should be noted (and corrected) that despite Forrest’s claims, Campell does not claim sex is not binary. It says that it “may” be “too simplistic” but this was in an *incorrect context* of referring to processes and development related to sex, not sex itself. It should also be noted that binary does not mean “two outcomes”, but “consisting of two”. For example a binary star system has two stars. A binary compound consists of two types of elements. The claim “sex is binary” is not “sex development has binary outcomes”. Sex is the the thing being described as binary, not “outcomes”. Unless “outcomes” refers to sexes, it’s a strawman argument. Likewise, even if we wanted to pretend binary meant “two outcomes”, the outcome for a sex is male or female. No matter how you put it, sex fits the definition of binary and there is no reason to deny this.
@@jerrylong6238 no, “not always binary” does not mean “fuzzy” or “spectrum”, that doesn’t even make sense. There are two sexes. By definition that is binary. By definition that is not fuzzy nor a spectrum. Forrest is an amateur that can’t even read an undergraduate biology book correctly.
😂😂😂 I have the new Campbell’s Biology, and it clearly states sex is binary. Sure they buried it in a lot of politically correct crap, but still… Also Hilton and Wright are two Ph.D.s while Forrest is still struggling…. Somehow he forgot to mention that…. It’s not chromosomes, hormones etc, it’s gametes. Also disorders are not used to define physiology, because they are the examples of things going wrong and as such usually do not have functions, hence we call them disorders and study them in medicine… It’s gametes, at least for the last2.5 million years of evolution it has been gametes… But no problem, ramble on…
"Menschen haben zwei Beine" oder "Menschen haben im Allgemeinen zwei Beine" ist richtig. "Alle Menschen haben zwei Beine" oder "Menschen haben nur zwei Beine" ist falsch. Hier geht's darum, dass Leute letzteres sagen. Was, wie gesagt, falsch ist.
This means the original statement is not 100% correct. The correct statement is "most humans have two legs." Exceptions don't make the rules, but they do shape the definitions.
It's even more simple than this because there's only 2 gametes and 2 sexes. Until humans magically begin to produce a 3rd gamete, they have no argument that has a leg to stand on.
My guess is that 'varium of continuation' is taken from an actual tweet of Claire Ainsworth. She tweeted ''No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.'
Intersex people are very rarely a 'third' sex. A lot if not most of them are male or female who had a disorder or deformity that affected sexual and anatomical development. That's not a new sex nor does it mean sex is bimodal/indefinable/vague/blah blah for the other 99% of us that don't have those issues. The whole infinite and indefinable sexes thing is a hot stinking pile of BS.
@@gamer1X12 Based on how biological sex forms the result is a bimodal distribution. Just because the majority fit within 2 categories does not mean only 2 categories exist. That is the binary BS.
Yes intersex people have variations of the only two sex chromosomes present in humans, X and Y. In biology, you wouldn’t say something is false about an organism simply because some individual’s within that group of organisms are the rare exception.
Sex is kind of a meaningless discussion anyway, since the far more important thing on people's minds these days is gender (i.e. regardless of your biological gender, you can have a very different outward expression, i.e. your gender). Biological sex only really comes in to play for when you're looking at health (relating to your sexual organs) or arguably sport (in which male-sex puberty can add distinct advantages) - but that's a whole other discussion!
@@nealjroberts4050 Irrelevant 😂 Sex is based on reproduction, wiseguy. Males produce small gametes and females produce large gametes. 2 gametes, and thus 2 sexes, exactly 2, and only 2. The only way there could be a 3rd is if humans magically begin to produce a 3rd gamete.
@Neal J Roberts Good grief ... Sex is irrelevant to reproduction? Really? It refers directly to the categories humans are divided into based on their reproduction capabilities in terms of gametes. It's 2023 for goodness sake. What does that even need to be asserted? It's the very definition of the word. Hence there are two. Any time you want to show a third sex that is neither male, nor female, that can still typically reproduce, go right ahead.
"I'm an accountant and this is non-architectural nonsense" Being an atheist doesn't make you in any way qualified to say what is and isn't science, just like being an accountant wouldn't make you qualified to comment on architecture, so why would you bring it up? You're just making yourself look silly. Never mind that the person in the video is an actual scientist.
OK, so you're an atheist. Are you a scientist? Are you in any way qualified to decide for everyone that the facts presented in this video are "unscientific nonsense"?
Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant. -------- No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories; 1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)! 2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual. NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex! Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them; 1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary. 2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'. ---------------------- All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
I breed plants some are female or herm (xx pollen producing) all are xx x xx but also Y system exists in the species. So there’s only two types of gametes in the system X or Y , but my XX herms exist with viable xx pollen. Humans have herms (that can and can’t reproduce), so the system is bimodal. Gamete reproduction doesn’t define sex phenotype or genotype. Gametes are only one of multiple sex markers. I have sterile herms sometimes but that doesn’t mean it isn’t herm. Anyway have a good day.
@@Foxesinthetrees7 The 'sex binary' refers to the presence of 2 reproductive systems in sexual species, it DOES NOT state that each system must be in distinct individuals. In most cases these are found in dimorphic individuals, those with the reproductive anatomy to produce large, immobile gametes, or ova, and those with the reproductive anatomy to produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm. No third system is known of. Herms are not a third sex, they don't utilise a third reproductive system, which is what is meant by 'sex binary'; the fact that there are just 2 reproductive systems within sexual species. They therefore don't constitute an alternative beyond the binary, and therefore not a bimodal distribution of sexes. *I stress again, even if one individual person has both reproductive systems fully functioning, that's just the 2 reproductive systems that form the binary system in one person, where is the third sex, the third reproductive system?* Your XX pollen-producing plants are just this, both reproductive systems present in one organism, that is, the binary present in one plant. This is *not* a third reproductive system. You seem unaware that herms exist in animals too, such as clown fish that are sequential herms; male, then later in life, female. Again, this is NOT against the binary, which only states there are 2 reproductive systems found in sexual species, NOT that each system must be contained in distinct organisms. Anyway have a good day.
@@arseni12345 The definition I gave is the one used in biology for about a century now. Those that disagree with it need to make their case. I _can_ show that the biological definition (not 'my') is superior, or rather, why it is used. It regards applicability; there is no other definition that applies to all sexual species and vascular plants. All these have 2 gametes types and the apparatus to produce them. Traits such as chromosomes; a) do not function during sexual reproduction (they only determine sex, not define it) b) do not follow the system in humans (XX, XY), there are several others c) far from all species in these groups have chromosomes at all ------------ Your comment has no merit, and I note you thumbed it up yourself.
@@arseni12345 You haven't a clue. The binary states there are 2 reproductive systems in sexual species, as detailed above. The inability of some to produce either gamete at all is of zero relevance. You continue mumbling through things sporadically and failed to engage my response properly. I have no time for you. Muted.
But is there any medication you would only give to one sex and not the other. And I don't mean prenatal, viagra or certain hormones. So when forrest talked about how, no matter how close you look, that you can blur then line between male and female, I instantly wondered if there was a medication that you would ONLY prescribe to a female or a male, no matter the circumstances
I think most of these arguments arise from a failure to understand the other's position. Language is descriptive and we use different words to mean different things. While i agree w what FV says, he doesnt cover the whole picture. There are genuine ways in which one can say sex is binary. An example - in sexual reproduction of humans, there are 2 functions/roles - that of the male and that of the female. So in this sense, sex can be described as binary.
Sex is based on reproduction so yeah it's clearly binary. Until a 3rd gamete and 3rd sex is magically discovered, there is no argument that has a leg to stand on.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Depends on which of the two developmental pathways they took in the womb, primarily. Sometimes, as in the case of AIS, they do *begin* down one path but ultimately go down another (resulting in female development). But yes, sometimes girls are born with a penis as a result of some defect in that process.
@Anon Ymous People born with intersex conditions are still male or female, it's literally the only 2 options for every mammal. Their sex can easily be determined by their chromosomes and or secondary sex characteristics. Stop grasping at straws. You all arguing about this is especially ridiculous because even if sex was not binary, it does not validate trans ideology, at all. It has nothing to do with physically normal males and females who merely "identify" as the opposite sex. You want to argue about facts when your beliefs are not even based in reality.
@Anon Ymous DSDs are *sex specific* , meaning some affect males and some affect females. "Xxy" or Klinefelter's Syndrome affects males. Isn't it interesting how Forrest always conveniently leaves out the fact that DSDs are sex specific? Very relevant to the Convo but he leaves out that fact because it makes his argument self defeating. He's grasping at straws and peddling sophistry.
Where is the science exactly? All I see is some guy arguing about the impossibility of absolute definitions which, ironically, would destroy the very basis of science since everything is uncertain
It’s so hamfisted. I 100% support trans rights but now they are saying insane things like “biological sex is a social construct.” It’s completely insane
I am a fellow atheist. I accept religious people's beliefs in the sense that I don't dismiss them as people and I believe they have value, but am steadfast in the fact that there is no God. I do take issue with people who try to push their religious belief in public spaces, and would be active in fighting any return to non secular laws and government. What I don't understand is how to reconcile that with legislation in my home country of Canada. We now have compelled speech laws surrounding pronoun use. I, as a free member of a secular social democracy, must use people's chosen pronoun. I must subscribe to other people's individual belief regarding their identity or face prosecution. I happily refer to people by their chosen pronoun, although I prefer to use people's preferred name, as I valued individual identity more than a set of group identities. That said, I don't agree that I, or anyone else, should be legally compelled to do so. As a son, a brother, and a partner to another, I believe that compelled speech laws are part of a societal construct that are now eroding biological women's spaces. I do not and will not accept that trans women and trans men are the same as bio women and men. They are not the same. I base it on the same principles as my atheism. You're welcome to believe something that isn't accurate, like God, flat earth, intelligent design, or that if you feel like a woman you are a woman. I refuse to be compelled to do so. These societal changes set a precedent for a post truth era where the truth is replaced by "my truth". We've seen it already influence public institutions like public school. I would be as upset if we taught religious based theories of evolution or creationism in school. Believe in yourself and who and what you are. I am there as an Ally because I choose to do so. But we have gone past the threshold by legislating personal identity as a rule of law. Do you agree that a government should have compelled speech laws and that gender identity should be taught to young children without parental consent? Thanks.
@@wddilly8488 And thats the best you can muster. Grasp at straws like ol forrest here. Appeal to sex specific dsds in an attempt to make it seem like trans ideology is factual when its not even based in reality. Lets see the mental gymnastics word games and pretend women have ballsacs lol 👍
Nothing. Secular humanism and human rights have always been a talking point. But as some parts of society make "accepting people" more and more an issue, talks about secular humanism and human rights come up more often. Simple.
@@lainiwakura1776 Please elaborate how you define "religion" then, cause you're definitely using the word in a different way than I've come to know it for several decades.
@@HYEOL yes comment section "experts" with nothing to prove the validity of their background disagrees. Plus for having an anime pfp. At least you chose a good one to like
One of my favorite things to do is take a screenshot of really attractive transgender male to female people from tinder. And I will go to my conservative anti-trans friends and I will say dude you have to see this gorgeous girl that I am hanging out with on tinder. I've never actually met a transgender from tinder but there have been numerous occasions where I have seen them and some of them you just wouldn't know. If they didn't let you know. And I will take a screenshot and I will say hey look at this girl I'm going on a date with and they will sit there and tell me how jealous they are and tell me how hot they are and I will let them sit there and say this stuff for a good 5 minutes before letting them know that that's actually a male-to-female transgender. I've done this literally dozens and dozens of times just so many different people and only one single time did they know it was a transgender and the only reason that he knew, is because I done it to him twice already. There's so much information coming out that if you honestly just look at it there's so much gray area to stuff like this
Yea thats the problem.. i dont want to be tricked into having relations with a guy no matter how much he looks like a chick. That deceptive spirit is what pisses people off man.
Years ago I was forwarded a video of a really attractive woman in a hot tub, long story short there was a surprise as the person stood up, so you really can’t judge a book by its cover.
What if I just stick to the thought that Chromosomes are what makes a sex, no if'sor but's about it. It would not be binary, but the binary would be what is generally taught, in the same way some people can have a different number of fingers than 10, but 10 fingers are still being taught, alongside the notions that specific cases override the general.
No, stick to what 'sex' has always been defined as! Here's my response to this flawed video; Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant. -------- No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories; 1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)! 2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual. NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex! Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them; 1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary. 2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'. ---------------------- All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
hes still arguing within a male-female centric model i dont know where ur trying to pull this third sex stuff from, also trying to justify it with reproduction in mind is not only kinda weird, we also went from like 500 million in the 1500s to like what now ... like 7 1/2 billion? do we rly need to pump out babies so bad we need to FORCE ppl to follow a model
also just because its a health condition doesnt magically disconnect it from the science, even within the specified guidelines of chromosomes and gametes there are exceptions that disprove its a strict binary and thats it. still confused about the third sex thing
Grasping at straws per usual. Its ridiculous because it does not even matter if sex is binary or not in regards to trans hoo-haa. It does not validate trans ideology, at all. Neither do DSDs. It has nothing to do with physically normal males and females who merely "identify" as the opposite sex. Grasping at straws to make it seem like trans ideology is factual when its literally not even based in reality and reality is completely irrelevant to it.
you should really consider going back to school... there's really nothing more i can tell you. The existance of trans people doesn't need to be "proved"; they exist, you can observe them, end of story. If you're looking for a biological/psychological/sociological (etc) explanation of how it works, there's plenty of resources out there, i'm sure you can manage to do a quick google scholar search and read some articles on the topic. You'll find out there's a lot you don't know in those fields😉
@@mactallica9293 Talking about Christianity is so last decade. Trans ideology is the new trendy nonsense religion. So much for being able to say all atheists are rational while there's some that believe men are women simply because they claim to feel like it despite having balls bigger than grandpa 🤣 but just like with Christians, you're free to play make believe
Can you provide a full citation for that “Campbell’s Biology” source? I’m having trouble finding anything with anything actually on point. Perhaps you could also provide the chapter number, if the table of contents isn’t explicitly clear?
Did you try doing a keyword search? Assuming you're using the digital version, anyway. I don't specialize in biology, so I don't know about Campbell's, but I know keywords are a godsend in the texts I DO use. :P
@@willthewhale8021 , I found a bunch of things called “Campbell Biology” and the like at online booksellers, but the tables of contents failed to convey that they contain anything directly on point. So I need a full citation to the book and material.
@@Steve-hu9gw citation would be good. Not particularly surprised that a table of contents isn't an exhaustive summary. I couldn't afford the whole book, there are references to gender on the following pages: 74, 112, 285, 347, 348, 349, 1019, 1170. best search I can manage from my database, as I'm not given access to the full text for copyright reasons. I also think this is from the 11th edition, so the page numbers might have shifted in the 12th.
I listen to a lot of Golden Age radio drama from the 1930s into the 1950s. I was astonished that in a mid 1940s episode of "Fibber McGee and Molly" the characters responded to a news item that biologists were reporting that the differences between men and women are not absolute but exist on a sliding scale. So the idea that sexual differences were always thought of as purely binary until only recently seems to be untrue. Biologists have been talking about this publicly for at least 80 years.
Research has shown that women may require lower doses of certain antidepressants compared to men due to differences in metabolism and drug response. This is because women tend to have higher plasma concentrations of these medications compared to men when given the same dose. Therefore, prescribing lower initial doses or adjusting dosages based on gender may be necessary to optimize the effectiveness and minimize potential side effects. so if doctor ask you: Should i treat you as woman since you are born als such or should i treat you as a man as your claimed gender is? What do you think , what would be prevailing answer in this case?
@@nealjroberts4050 no, because in germany for example laws are about to be implemented that would allow complete gender self-id, which could put doctors in a hard spot when determining the biological sex of a patient, since no paperwork would indicate the biological sex.
@@rusher2937 Don't your doctors check your patient history as required? As for the OP I'm wondering how common it is for transgender people to want the general public to be their doctors.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 dying does not equal dead, dead is when dying has come to an end. As a light bulb burns out it is dying, once the filament breaks, it is dead, no longer capable of letting current flow thru it.
@@bunnykiller a really good conversation on this is about those who are brain dead but are kept ‘alive’ with machines. How ‘alive’ do you have to be to be classed as alive
How about brain dead? Their body is still alive and functioning but the person can’t come back. Are they alive because their heart is beating or are they dead because the brain is dead?
The problem is that Forrest's argument simply demonstrates that the umbrella that includes male or female is bigger and fuzzier than we realize and is probably still expanding. But, until someone defines a third sex, there are still only two umbrellas. Intersex is not a third sex. Intersex people invariably identify as either male or female but they're a variation. Variations do not generate a new thing.
So when did sex become so “fizzy” that pregnancy, menstruation and the ability wouldn’t apply to ONLY some of the female SEX. The claim that we can't define females or males due to a lack of universal traits or a single biological sex trait is flawed. While not all individuals within a sex category may exhibit every characteristic, there are indeed defining features exclusive to each sex. The biological potential for childbearing is what defines the female sex, regardless of individual fertility. It's about the inherent capacity tied to female biology, not whether every female can or will give birth. This fundamental difference in reproductive roles is what primarily distinguishes females from males at a biological level.
@@mystic22g4 People with MRKH syndrome have YY chromosomes and ovaries so they generate hormones and experience puberty. However, they have no uterus so can't become pregnant and don't menstruate. The lack of periods is what usually leads to discovery of the condition. So there is no biological potential for childbearing.
@@Valicroix MRKH females have XX chromosomes, you stated YY perhaps this was a typo error. I failed to see your point on mentioning MRKH it’s not an intersex condition and is a congenital defect.
@@mystic22g4 Yes, you are correct, it was a typo. It should have been XX. An interesting Freudian slip. I mention it because these are females without a biological potential for childbearing.
Forgot I was subscribed. Boy this was terrible and boring. As an atheist myself, I don't see how this is supposed to help someone who is religious come to our side.
Christians made it a talking point. For me, my life-long non-belief has NOTHING to do with science, Evolution, or anything else. And NO Christian gets an education in science BEFORE becoming a Christian. It really does have nothing to do with it.
The only apparently infallible rule is that there are no infallible rules XD Just try to be happy and make other people be able to be happy. It's the only way to survive as a species.
Male: a plant or animal that produces small gametes... what if you don't produce gametes... well... Female: a plant or animal that produces larger gametes... what if you don't produce gametes... well Leg: a limb on which animals and humans walks and stands ... what if you can't walk... well Eye: pair of globular organs of sight in the head of humans and vertebrate animals... what if you are blind... well Heart: hollow organ that pumps blood... what if your heart doesn't pump blood any more... well If you are going to question a definition of something by bringing up defects in it's functioning, then why bother even defining anything that functions?
the thing is: you are referring to what's commonly called biological sex, but as Forrest said better than i probably can, there's genetic sex, phenotypic sex, hormonal sex and the list goes on... just beacuse we have oversimplified definitions that help us understand a complex world, it doesn't mean those definitions accurately describe the world.... it's a simplification process our brain operates almost automatically, the same goes with silhouettes, or the "percieved borders" of an object. Our brains "edit" the image to differentiate to things that wouldn't be differentiable in order to help us interpret what we see in a practical way. This obviously evolved to aid survival, not to be an accurate depiction of reality. Same goes with categorical thinking. Those are not "defects" as you like to call them, but rather those cases that are outside the simplifications we adopt to describe the world in an easier to communicate way. There's entire books on categorical thinking and such, so you can further study the topic in case you're interested. This is about as much as i'm able to explain in a short comment on youtube, but it should make clear why definitions are really not written in stone, as you'd like to imply. Let's take the case of your definition of "eyes", what about species that have more than one pair? What about species that have non-globular eyes? What about non-vertebrates with eyes? What about light receptors in many other species, are those not eyes? What about the many different types of cells that evolved in different species to do the same thing an eye does for us, but in entierly different ways? Are those eyes, even though they share no biological similarity to ours but their function?
@@riccardozanoni2531 Evolution's strategy for reproduction of the human species, is for a male sperm to fertilise a female ova. Females produce ova, males produce sperm. It's really that simple. You are confusing sex with markers of sex. Forrest believes the definition of sex in humans is problematic because some females don't produce ova and some males don't produce sperm. An eye is still an eye, even if does not bring sight to a person. Eye surgeons or coroners don't go into some philosophical tangent about the definition of the eye in relation to other species. They work in reality.
@@HYEOL So someone without an Y chromosome with a functional penis and testicles, capable of impregnating women and unable to bear children themselves, with high upper body strength and muscle mass, a beard and broad shoulders _without any medical intervention_ is a woman? Sure. And yes. These people exist. Super rarely, of course.
@@cy-one with what y chromozome could they impregnate woman with ? Biological sex is not always the same thing as secondary sex traits and genital development. Sometimes genitals develops somewhere between the two but it doesn't change one genetic code.
@@hexa1905 My example was the wrong way around (allergies have me being a little off today, my bad). Got my chromosomes confused. I was more thinking about someone _with_ an y-chromosome that looks like female, gets pregnant, carries the fetus to term and breastfeeds without any additional hormone treatment needed. They _have_ a y-chromosome. So they're a male then? I mean, I'd understand if someone would call them that based on that criteria, I just don't agree.
“Sex isn’t binary because there are rare exceptions in certain individuals.” Is the same as saying, “Humans don’t have four limbs because some humans are born without them.”
@@blaise6981 generally humans do have four limbs, and sometimes they don't. Sex is binary for the most part, but there are exceptions. Biological sex and gender are different, it's important not to conflate them. Gender is a spectrum.
@@kidslovesatan34We're not talking about 'gender', an ideological concept. We're talking about sex. The statement "sex is binary" means there are two sexes in humans. If your claim is that there are more than two please tell us what the additional sexes are.
@@Mel-wn9gb for the most part there are only two sexes but there are exceptions. Gender identity and biological sex are often conflated by the confused. Gender identity is a spectrum. You don't conflate them, do you?
@@Mel-wn9gb everyone agrees that sex is binary for the most part. That's not the argument, though. You can't legitimately conflate sex and gender because those are two separate and distinct things. Gender is a social construct and is a spectrum. You understand that, right?
You've been duped by nonsense. It's especially hysterical because it has absolutely nothing to do with trans ideology. It has nothing to do with physically normal males and females who merely "identify" as the opposite sex.
"If you take 8 billion people and try to say they are one of two _anything_ you're gonna be wrong." Challenge Accepted. They will have an odd or even number of years that they've been alive. There. I did it!
What does it _mean_ to be "MALE & FEMALE" respectively? Are we talking chromosomes? Gonads? Phenotype? Capacity to fertilize a human egg/bear children?
There are many edge cases when determining the life span: - When is the moment when life starts? - Flying across time zones on your birthday. - Feb 29 / leap year. - Traveling at relativistic speeds.
So many seem to miss the point of what Forrest said. The issue is that declaring that "biological sex is only ever a binary" is false when looked at scientifically. Key words being "only" and "binary". A binary means only 2 possible options/categories. If there are more than 2, no matter how rare, then it isn't a binary.
@@nealjroberts4050 "Already ahead of you kid. That's why I know about the existence of intersex and you apparently don't." - An inane, arrogant and childish comment that is further nonsense. Mentioning intersex further exposes your ignorance. And, I see you thumb up your own comments too, well done. ------- Are you going to continue in ignorance or are you willing to learn? The binary only has 2 options with zero examples of a third. If you apologise for this stupid nonsense and want to actually mature yourself, let me know.
@@nealjroberts4050 "Already ahead of you kid. That's why I know about the existence of intersex and you apparently don't." - An inane and childish comment that is further nonsense. Mentioning intersex further exposes your ignorance. And, I see you thumb up your own comments too, well done. ------- Are you going to continue in ignorance or are you willing to learn? The binary only has 2 options with zero examples of a third. If you apologise for this nonsense and want to actually mature yourself, let me know.
@@nealjroberts4050 "Already ahead of you kid. That's why I know about the existence of intersex and you apparently don't." - Mentioning intersex further exposes your ignorance. And, I see you thumb up your own comments too, well done. ------- Are you going to continue in ignorance or are you willing to learn? The binary only has 2 options with zero examples of a third. If you apologise for this nonsense and want to actually mature yourself, let me know.
Not all fish are cold-blooded (Opa/Moonfish), have gills (Lungfish) or lay eggs (Guppies, Platies, Mollies and Swordtails). Your definition fails - as was to be expected.
@@cy-onethat’s because “fish” is not a biological category like humans. Humans are the species Homo Sapien, there is no taxonomical class called “Fish.” So you my friend are the one is wrong
I'm all for it, but here's what's confusing. If what is determined to be male or female men or women is a gray area, which is fine, then how come when it comes to women's rights for patriarchy talk all the suddenly it's back to women this and Men that? People say the patriarchy is caused by men. What do you mean by men? I thought we just established that everything is gray and mixed up and hard to determine. How do we know that everyone who formed this so-called patriarchy identified as male or a man? And I'm for women's rights but if there's no such thing as women then why do we need specific rights for them? If a man can identify as a woman then he can just scoop up those same rights, and the push for women to specifically being taken care of is null and void now.
*"If what is determined to be male or female men or women is a gray area, which is fine, then how come when it comes to women's rights for patriarchy talk all the suddenly it's back to women this and Men that?"* To paraphrase Forest: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." It's _useful_ to group people into categories. It's _wrong_ to exclude people that don't fit into categories from existing. *"I thought we just established that everything is gray and mixed up and hard to determine."* Again. Because it's useful. There are societal issues. And some congregate around various positions. Let's take Nazis. Actual ones. I'm from Germany, so I'm allowed to invoke Godwin :P Are Nazis black and white? Full Nazi or no Nazi at all? No. There are infinite shades of gray between someone who's _very much not a Nazi_ and someone who would have Hitler swoon over him of how much of a picture perfect Nazi they are. Now, does it still make sense to talk about Nazis as Nazis, even if "someone being a Nazi" is a gray area? Yes. Because it's useful in general language. When more precise language is necessary, one can use more precise language. *"What do you mean by men?"* In that specific context? Cis men. *"How do we know that everyone who formed this so-called patriarchy identified as male or a man?"* Nobody claims that "everyone [...] identified as male or a man." It's fuzzy language. It's like saying "People in Germany are Germans." No, they're not. We have tourists, expats, immigrants, refugees and Bavarians. Not everyone here is German. Yet, because it's _useful in language_ we still call people from Germany Germans. Most of the time, at least ;) *"And I'm for women's rights but if there's no such thing as women [...]"* Your slope seems to be rather slippery if you slide from "Things aren't 100% binary" to "There's no distinction at all." You might want to get some shoes with a more grippy profile. *"[...] then why do we need specific rights for them?"* Most people do not want "specific rights for them." Just an equal application of laws, independent on someone having to DNA-test you or fondle your pants before deciding which laws apply to you and which don't.
@@cy-one thanks for your response it seems where the two type of people that can have a decent debate without it at least, immediately, turning into insult or something LOL. Here's a critical point. What is the point of words? It's to describe something. To describe something, it's naturally to differentiate it from something else. The words my wallet and the words your wallet mean two very different things, especially when it comes time for me to pay for my groceries. The difference between male and female it's probably going to mean something to you when you pick a mate. Even if you're bisexual their height might make a difference. Even if you don't care about their gender or height you might care about their religion or lack thereof. Follow me on this. When asked you might say I only want to date an atheist. But that sentence only works if there was a hardcore solid binary definition of what atheist memes. Or else someone who's a Christian can say give me a shot cuz even though I still go to church I'm kind of atheist. Or people can say an atheist doesn't mean you don't still worship God. Just using the term atheist as example, once you change what a word or term means and singles out, and what it does not mean and does not single out, the word loses meaning.
@@bakionigeri6414 It doesn't lose it's meaning. It _changes_ its meaning. Which happens _all the time_ in language. Atheist is a good example. Decades ago, the position the term "atheist" described _wasn't the same it is today._ Today, an atheist is someone who *_doesn't believe gods exist_* and _might, additionally, believe gods don't exist._ Some (mostly theistic) people _still_ hold to the old usage of the term and would consider the first half of what I said an agnostic. Whereas most modern atheists would consider themselves an agnostic atheist and think (when using precise language, not speaking colloquially) that just saying agnostic is like saying "moving" (and omitting the "car" that would follow that word in that example). Sex and gender is similar. To most - especially outside science, a few decades or a century ago, they meant the same. Now they don't. Word's changing is normal. The only confusion that happens is _while the term is changing._ Nowadays, nobody blinks an eye if I say "That movie was cool." Because that secondary meaning of "cool" is established by now. Pretty sure there were some weirded-out parents around when the term _was changing it's meaning._
@@bakionigeri6414 Adding trans women to the category of women does not suddenly mean all women stop existing or all that they were is somehow gone or less??!! A cis woman and a trans woman are both women, just in the same way a intersex person can be male or female or both. We're just trying to find more accurate ways of describing what's out there. Some women & men from birth can't have kids, the ultimate definition of their sex label, but we don't stop calling them male or female as it would be petty & cruel, besides they can still adopt. So why is this not acceptable behaviour & language for trans people? I'm that rare thing intersex and trans. A surgeon forced me to be male when I was a baby then as an adult I moved myself across to female. Binary thinking forced that surgeon to operate on me, it's not a just a word game. More inclusive language is a fairer system and in 2023 we really should be up to making it work. Sex based laws meant that women could always be treated different as historically they were, so we moved to the morally superior Equal Rights. Under this all start at the same point and differences have to be argued for, much fairer and has had unexpected beneficial outcomes such as maternal leave for husbands. The binary systems is ok in principle but not when it is enforced to the point of cruelty. Sorry I've gone on a bit but I kept quiet for to many years and watched the world go down a horrible rout once more. As a trans person I very much have a bullseye on me and I am no longer going to go into the darkness quietly.
It's not a claim. It's a fact. Yes, some animals are hermaphrodites or are combined but the base is still 2 sexes. The others are not completely separate from male and female in the same way male and females are.
You cannot state facts, when you can't even be bothered to crack a book. Common mushrooms have over 17,000 sexes. They have no genders, since they have no need for social constructs.
@@apjapki lol squeamishness? Don't tell me how I may or may not feel about something. You disagree and instead of making an actual argument against what I'm saying you tried to insult me. You've automatically lost the argument.
@@apjapki social norms do not change your DNA. Social norms do not change a rabbit's DNA. Stop making assumptions about what I'm saying and respond to what I actually said
@@nealjroberts4050 Chopping off the penises and breasts of children isn’t circumcision. I want to know the method for determining who should transition and who will want their genitals later in life. The fact that you confused removing a penis and removing the foreskin makes me think you aren’t really equipped for this discussion. Best to leave it to the grown ups then if you can’t make an intelligent contribution.
Are you claiming that noone would want their foreskin later in life? I'm only responding to your OP. If you meant something different you should say sio
@@nealjroberts4050 What is the method for ensuring that a child will not want his foreskin later in life. It’s literally the same conversation. Either you are opposed to gentian mutilation of children or you aren’t. Which are you, Neal? There are people who lament the loss of their foreskin and are angry that they didn’t consent. Now imagine if the whole dick was gone and you could have sex at all.
@@professorshadow470 This is why "sex change" surgery for the underage aren't done willynilly and require psychologist intervention. Unless you want to count the amount of surgery done to the intersex following birth? Can't have it both ways "professor"!
It's incorrect to say there are _only_ two sexes. Saying "there are two sexes" is fine. It's simplistic and vague enough to be open to still work when one takes a closer look. Saying "there are only two sexes" lacks that flexibility and is just plain wrong. It's like saying "normally, people are one of two sexes" is correct. Saying "people are always one of two sexes" is just wrong, again.
@@Mavuika_Gyaru Some snakes are born with two heads, this doesn't mean that snakes don't have a head. I agree it's bimodal but there are still two different sexes. Maybe this is a trigger for you but keep your insults to yourself, I am not spreading hate.
male, female, neither.... there ya go we now have a name for this. But here is a question that needs an answer... if youre both, can you have sex with your self and when you give birth is it a clone of your self??
This is an actual possibility (though they technically wouldn't be a clone - they'd have different DNA to the parent). I have read a paper, a case study, about a person who produces both sperm and ova and was thus technically capable of impregnating themself. It hadn't happened, but was technically possible.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 how would the DNA be different when both sets of DNA came from one "parent". There are plants/flowers that can self pollanate and the seeds are exact duplicates of the original plant genetically, a clone.
@@bunnykiller nope, they aren't. In plants, this is even more extreme than in diploid humans, because they are often tetraploid, hexaploid or some have even higher numbers of chromosome copies than that. I'll explain: You have 2 copies of every gene (excluding those on the sex chromosomes is you are male). For a given gene, let's call them A and B. When gametes are formed, they get only one copy (being that they are "haploid"). As such, taking two gametes produced by one person, the possible combinations are: AA, AB, BA & BB. Being that AB & BA are the same, then there are 3 possible resulting combinations on the offspring, with AB (being the same as the parent) occurring 50% of the time, and AA & BB (being DIFFERENT to the parent) occurring the other 50%. Now consider that humans have 20,000 to 25,000 genes, spread across 23 pairs of chromosomes, with this mixing able to occur with ANY gene where the parent has different copies, it is statistically insignificant unlikely that the offspring will be a "clone" (having identical genes) of the parent (not even considering that mutations also occur, and so does some shuffling of the locations of genes). Because plants have SO MANY extra copies of chromosomes (and hence genes), the number of combinations is exponentially greater, making the offspring even more different than in diploid humans.
@jam ww And humans that are the result of two fertilized eggs? One fertilized XY and the other fertilized XX? No matter how rare it is, it doed happen. And thus shows your absolute statement to be false.
There are abnormalities, so what? As a whole, our species is a binary species. It's not controversial to say humans have 10 fingers. You aren't being bigoted either. You aren't being a digit-phobe because there are people with fewer and more fingers. You can create accommodations for the people that don't meet the definition of either category of sex and that would be the humane thing to do. Also, people that don't meet one or the other sex are not inferior or less important to society because just because we are a binary species. (assuming, people are bigoted because they don't hold your view is lazy thinking) To deny that there are differences between the sexes is wrong because they absolutely exist. Sex and gender as he means it are definitely connected. There are physical and personality traits that you can map to each sex as a whole. Where you can even make predictions within the group (not the individual because we are so diverse when it comes to physical abilities and our personalities.) There is nothing wrong with that. I honestly don't get this recent obsession with this issue. I do think it's being used as a political wedge to further divide us.
But will you support legislation that will force ALL gloves to only ever be made with 5 "fingers" per "hand"? Well sure there are differences, i didn't hear anyone say otherwise. On the other hand, there's no absolute connection like you claim. There are traits that you *_generally_* can map between the categories, but what happens when the predictions that you made turn out to be wrong? As for the "obsession"... i think it's about health-care. Sure, there might be larger issues with health-care overall, but this is still an important aspect of it.
@@irrelevant_noob Your side's argument is incoherent. You are saying there are a million genders but there is no difference and you can switch between them with a thought. You are the ones then saying that all gloves should have 5 fingers because there are no differences between the sexes. You want the definitions to be what a person feels and not based on anything else. I support no men in woman's sports because generally, they are bigger, stronger, and faster than women. Men are more than just testosterone. You are stealing scholarships and destroying women's sports. It's not a coincidence that all records are falling to trans women. You are getting women raped and pregnant in jail. You are allowing women to feel unsafe and threatened in women's bathrooms. There are many other institutions that are being destroyed as well. You are confusing gender roles and the development of children. You are allowing for permanent damage by allowing kids to transition before they can know what they want and studies show that a majority will change their minds before adulthood. Your side is saying there is no difference that sex and gender are social constructs. That is demonstrably not true. Your side is way in the wrong here. This isn't the same fight as gay rights or other civil rights issues and the equality argument is just not true. We are a binary species. Your side's argument is incoherent.
I agree with Richard Dawkins. This movement is politically motivated and is silly. Yeah nature is what nature is and not everyone or every thing fits in a box but we have norms and facts. Women have babies if they are healthy and not normal, men can not. Men do not have periods or can have children. I don’t why atheists would step into this politically charged debate.
Because it's also a religiously charged debate. Additionally, the examples you brought up only work: a) on averages and b) if one disregards the existence of gender
@@sideboob6851 you are an idiot xD While people, largely religious ones, don't take time to learn biology - we need to talk about biology even on atheist media. Especially when genocide is on the rise
Did you watch the video at all? There is no consistent criteria to clearly divide 8B people into women and non-women. "All models are flawed, but some are useful." Saying that a female is a person [choose: producing large gametes / with XX chromosome / self-ID / wearing a skirt] is useful in some situations, but not others.
Great show guys! We need more Atheist Shows on TV and everywhere, I live in Philly, Pa. and unfortunately too many of us here are timid, but not the church nuts.
Can anyone explain why sex is treated differently than other human characteristics? Some humans are born with less/more than 10 fingers…. Do we say that humans “usually” have 10 fingers? Of course not…. So why do we treat sex like there’s anything other than 2 categories with very rare differentiations?
The "very rare differentiations" are at least as common as red hair and green eyes... So not that rare. Further, people aren't declaring that ALL humans have 10 fingers, that this is the only possibility. LOTS of people, however, are declaring that there are ONLY 2 sexes, and that no other option existed. 👈 That's the difference.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 is there a single person on the planet who denies the existence of intersex people? I reject your premise entirely. People think that exceptions (that still only have characteristics of each side of the binary…..) do not disprove a binary. Just as a human born with 11 fingers doesn’t disprove the rule that humans have 10 fingers. Obviously anyone with a brain knows these rules have exceptions, people have eyes and can see that not everyone fits every rule
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 and it gets much murkier when you start talking about people changing genders/sex or whatever. This now becomes a personal choice with very little to no evidence/proof needed. This is pretty scary considering how many gullible people there are in the world, especially young people. There is no other rule in regards to human biology that becomes a personal choice in this way. Would the people who support these ideas also support trans racial people?
@@ryanolson2308 further, a person born with 11 fingers disproves the rule "ALL humans have 10 fingers" - which is analogously what people are doing when they say that "Sex is binary", (being that "binary" means that there are NO exceptions).
There are 10 kinds of people : those who understand binary numbers and those who don’t
010011000110111101101100
Okay but what about the other 1000?
@@RyanSaysJif 😜
*Trans Rights Matter*
I posted the joke/riddle for fun, not as a comment on gender. Gender is not binary, it’s a gradient, tho some people may experience only two seemingly definite genders
yes, GENDER is not binary but SEX is. @@scienceexplains302
He didn’t answer the question. Are there more than two gametes or are there only two?
He did though. He never said it explicitly, but described sex/gametes as bimodal or binary (but fuzzy at the edges) and clarified that this isn't even controversial. Nobody is arguing for a third type of gamete.
@@MasamiPhoenixThen sex is binary.
@@lindseyroy1629 it's bimodal. He went over how complicated it is in the video.
The whole "sex is binary" argument is essentially "I remember my 6th grade biology class, and that is the sum total of all knowledge ever"
Yup.
Why should we pretend that sex isn't bimodal because 0.018% of the population has genetic problems that make them intersex? It what other area of life would we preference the needs of 0.018% of the population over everyone else?
@@professorshadow470 *"Why should we pretend that sex isn't binary because 0.018% of the population has genetic problems that make them intersex?"*
Because "everything is binary, unless it's not" isn't the definition of binary. It's the definition of bimodal.
*"It what other area of life would we preference the needs of 0.018% of the population over everyone else?"*
Where is anyone arguing for the treatment of LGTBQ-people "above everyone else?"
@@cy-one Letting trans men go into women's spaces is unacceptable and giving preference to a delusion over a woman's privacy.
Fine, why should we pretend it isn't 99.98% bimodal?
@@cy-one Answer the question, pet. Why should we pretend that the bimodal for humans isn’t incredibly accurate and useful for making almost all decisions?
There are people who don't like acknowledging the messiness of reality, but them not liking it doesn't change reality.
And there are some people that is a mess who doesnt accept reality.
@@barryvanwyk7467 And some people don't have a grasp of English grammar 🙄
@@amtlpaul They clearly didn't listen in science class; should we expect them to have in any other? 😂
@@barryvanwyk7467 Do tell, who are these people of whom you speak?
@@barryvanwyk7467 yeah like you. work on your english.
As a science educator, I can't even begin to explain just HOW GOOD Forrest is as a science communicator. Seriously... Wow.
Why because he can’t tell the difference between the Types of organisms with their genus, species, and kinds? So he creates an infinity of gender labels to brainwash children into confusion?
Yeahh.. "Tell me what a fish is.. i dare you. You can't!"
If the concept of a fish is unfathomable for him, I'd argue the opposite.
Embarrasing.
@@Trackformers interesting take. Perhaps you'd like to define a fish without googling the precise, scientific definition? Because, I'm willing to bet you can tell me what you THINK a fish is, and it's probably wrong.
@@Trackformers It's not the concept that's the problem. It's that when you start trying to define it you'll find it's not a useful biological definition.
It's like calling all flying things birds or all land creatures beasts, like the Bible does on occasion.
@@trustmeimaphysiologist A Seagull knows what a fish is without scientific definitions. Atheists have forgotten about reality.
"Man is not a plucked chicken" is the greatest line that I feel isn't being appreciated enough
I am excited about it
"Ecce homo!"
Shout-out to Diogenes of Sinope in da house!!!
@@claudiaxander isn’t “ecce” Latin?
Featherless bipeds rise up!
@@TheSucram729 Yes!, couldn't find a Latin to koine greek translator, but i like the mirroring with the new testament, so i think its an inside joke!
Forest: "I will ramble all day".
Me: "and I will listen for about the same amount of time"
Doesn’t mean what he says is true
@@quincyjones5676hell of a lot more likely than anything you say on the subject being accurate.
@@denverarnold6210 DSDs are not separate sexes and he is not a biologist. Get off his dick.
@@jamww3509 define bimodal for me. Also, biological science just wouldn't work if evolution weren't true.
Forrest really is top notch, i can see him becoming one of the best public speakers out there. He really does nail it to the wall.
He can't even argue against a female developmental biologist. That's how weaselly he is.
@@blacktigerpaw1 err ok, do you have link I'd like to see how that conversation went for myself.
His entire strategy is to *not* nail anything to the wall. He just throws a whole bunch of factoids at the wall hoping something will stick. He's a great equivocator. He knows how to manipulate his audience into thinking he actually made a point.
Yeah, he could literally nail Jello to the wall.
@@Mel-wn9gb You are full of s**t. Forrest hit the nail square on the head.
Always amazing how these comments sections get inundated with NOT biologists who can be so astoundingly and confidently incorrect, yet refuse to call into the show if their position is supposedly so solid. Keep doing what you do Forrest, the world is in some dire need of real scientific education, unhampered by archaic religious ideas.
I studied 5 years biology in university to be proven wrong today. Thank goodness for RUclips
@@HYEOL and somehow you never discovered the fact that biology is messy, and resistant to simple categorisation. Perhaps you should check your textbooks again.
@@HYEOLIn that five years, you never studied developmental biology or genetics?
@@queuecee advanced module developmental biology and masters thesis human genetics.
@@HYEOL Wow! And you can't understand how during development that epigenetic factors can influence gamete development? Not to mention various mutations and poly-ploidy and mono-ploidy.
You've never studied these things? What school did you go to for your diploma?
Complexity has nothing to do with wether or not something is bimodal or binary. Determining wether a currently living organism is a chimp or a human would be binary, but providing a perfect definition of either based on current characteristics would be extremely difficult and complex. That doesn't mean that there is a bimodal distribution of humaness and chimpness among living organisms. The exception that Forrest mentions are mostly to deal with people who are either too young/old to have kids, people who are castrated, or people who've had developmental problems with their reproductive system. I don't really see the problem with recognizing non-functioning variants of a reproductive system. We can easily recognise the human blood circulatory system e a man who got cut in half even if the blood circulatory system no longer works, or parts of it are missing. Do we say that you no longer have a heart if it stops beating, or do we recognise it as the same type of organ that is malfunctioning? I think the strongest case he could make is that those with ovotestes should be considered hermaphrodites with both of the two sexes. The other cases don't prove anything in my opinion.
As far as gender is concerned, most people use "gender" as polite way of saying "sex." In everyday usage people use the words to mean the same thing. Sure, there is also a different definition of gender which refers to masculine and feminine social standards, but that usage is more academic. If a random guy on the street says his gender is male he is obviously talking about his sex, not his social expression. If man and woman are defined by the academic social type of gender it means that being a woman is now defined by femininity rather than being female. Rather than "adult female human" you have "adult human who aligns with social femininity." At that point are butch lesbians actually men? Are tomboys actually boys? Are effeminate gay men actually just women? I certainly don't think this is how "man" and "woman" are currently used, even among trans rights activists.
He uses the fallacy of the beard a lot. You're trying to get people on the right to accept climate change, evolution and vaccines and then when it comes to explaining why sex is non-binary such a stream of nonsense comes out.
Sex being binary might be 99% accurate, which would be fine if we acknowledge the 1% being left out.
1% of 8 billion, is 80.000.000 people. That close to the population of Germany, Iran or Turkey.
For the USA this would mean excluding 3,3 million people, so close to the population of Utah, Nervada or Iowa.
its worth the price
@@ZeljkoMikulec are you advocating for genocide?
@@ZeljkoMikulec sex being binary is also not the the truth. The truth should be the thing that is ‘worth it’.
@@aidenmartin6674 oh. truth is the only thing that IS worth it.
I admit that it isnt true in 0.017% .
thats intersexual people.
In which other case of evaluating would you demand the same principles of being so precise?
none..
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 are you pedofile?
why would you put words in my mouth like that?
I suppose that people need to learn the difference between "bimodal" and "true dichotomy."
Something that's heavily bimodal is not a true dichotomy, even if the bimodality is nigh-absolute. The issue is that people like to oversimplify reality, which includes forcing everything into strictly defined categories that still lack precise definitions.
That comes from believing in a religion with dualist morality.
@@darlalathan6143stop reaching. it's from having a mom and dad most of us.. and its gonna continue that way so not hard to see why people view it in a binary way. Without medical interventions.. mobody has 2 dads or moms.. so thats a man made thing.. not how things actually are. Yall make it so confusing for yourselves.. people who abide by mommy daddy rules are still more accurate than all these plot twists you want to inject. And im an atheist been one For decades.
@@darlalathan6143
Well, it's in human nature to oversimplify reality. I'd say that the dualist morality is a product of human nature, and that it reinforces human nature, as part of a feedback loop.
The reality is that humans are bimodal in 99.98% of cases. Would you like to have a conversation about how best to treat those individuals or would you like to argue that men should get to change clothes with my wife? Which one makes you sound more reasonable?
@@professorshadow470
A false dichotomous choice between two extremes would not make me sound reasonable, nor would making some major political assumptions regarding someone's point of view.
Also, clothing choice is arbitrary. That's more a cultural thing. As far as I can tell, there's nothing inherently "masculine" or "feminine" to any particular article of clothing. It's more about sticking with what the dominant culture considers "appropriate."
With regards to that, my point of view is a highly enlightened "why should I even care"? When it comes to personal liberty, I'm practically totally libertarian. Let people wear what they want to wear, as long as certain forms of clothing aren't an objective necessity.
Societal and cultural norms change.
I welcome that change towards equality and fairness. Rights are yours, so long as you do not violate others rights.
Same.
@jam ww how so? I'm a trans woman, and i haven't been misgendered in person or on the phone in years. I am legally female on all of my documents. I've had bottom surgery. What public washroom should I go in? If you say the men's room, you're disconnected from reality.
@@meganmuellerou are male. Your cells are male. Just because you lobbied the government to get your documents changed does NOT make you female.
If you're scared of sharing spaces with males, GET OVER IT. That's the advice you give us when we deal with you.
But biology doesn't, not for 100s millions of years. There are two sexes.
"Can you define a man?"
"A miserable little pile of secrets!"
But enough talk. Have at you!!
Take your meds bud. GL
@@yourfinalhiringagency3890 It's a quote from a video game dude 😂 Troll somewhere else.
@@thestraydog must have been a fantastic game u ogre
@@thestraydogHow are transwomen women?
Remember that if someone is trying to define s-word or gender or whatever else in whatever way:
They are merely stating that this is how they're choosing to define that word.
The question is not whether this definition is "right" or "wrong", but rather how useful it is, what it's actually describing, how closely it matches how the word is commonly used or defined, who or what is being included or excluded in that definition, and what the consequences are of defining it in that way.
Thats exactly it. This is why we constantly see ppl talking past each - lack of appreciation of just what the other person is trying to say.
@@ZambeziKidthen how are transwomen women if you can't define that term?
@@blacktigerpaw1 I believe they can be women simply by defining them that way - that is my point. I could do it that way yet another person could define 'woman' in a way that excludes them. So be it. Its all down to definition. Sometimes I am tall, sometimes I am not. Depends how u define tall.
@@ZambeziKid Transwomen are MALE.
THAT IS THEIR SEX.
You define womanhood based on lipstick and wigs. A set of regressive sex stereotypes. God, I despise you people. You know what a female is in your fucking pets.
You mock Christians for believing in a Sky Fairy yet you cannot define what a woman is? Peak Atheism.
How many new terms and words would we need to describe every variation of sex hormones possible, and variations of X and Y chromosomes. Why is it unfair to just say there are male and female and in rare cases somewhere in between.
As an intersex person, I love seeing the face of people as I shatter their ignorant viewpoint on sex and gender 😅😂 they literally look so confused. 😊
To be fair you are the exception, you don’t necessarily prove the rule.
What does it have to do with physically normal males and females who merely "identify" as the opposite sex?
@@Huntermaro if you're referring to trans people, we don't simply identify as the opposite gender. We identify as the opposite gender, we make conscious and consistent effort to present as that gender in a social context, and we change the sex characteristics that form the basis of sex classification. If you don't believe me, look into how hormones affect the human body.
If you accept intersex people, yet don't accept trans people, you are failing to see how trans people are effectively very similar to intersex people. For instance, I have more sex characteristics that fit into the female category. Is that "merely identifying as the opposite sex"?
@@singalexsong the map is not the territory.
IntersexGod, Regardless of whatever 'ignorance' you refer to, Forrest spews what I suspect is ideology-driven nonsense.
---------
Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant.
--------
No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories;
1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)!
2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual.
NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex!
Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them;
1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary.
2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'.
----------------------
All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
Is there a transcript of this video available somewhere? I stupidly got into a discussion with someone on IG that believes in the binary model (and the Bible) and I would like to inform them about the syndromes and statistics mentioned in this video, crediting them to their sources of course.
If you go to the description, any video that has auto-generated captions has a "show transcript" option. You can search and everything 👍
He is correct, but its just sad that you get owned in a discussion with a christian of all people.
Fascinating how gender atheists want to own those stupid Christians while not even knowing sex determination in humans. You gotta love it.
I put all the variables on a graph.
Steps unclear.
Got picture of a cat.
I see this as an absolute win!
@jam ww and i'm sure you've made some sort of experiment or statistical analysis to prove your point... no?
@jam ww you seem to have trouble with the difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis... that's the reason he said you should use a non-metric multidimensional scale. It's multidimensional to accomodate for the numerous qualitative variables such as phenotype, genes, chromosomes etc., then it is non--metric in the sense that those variables are not numerical per-se. They are usually assigned some kind of fixed numerical value if needed to plot "distances" between the clusters, but that's not always the case. With some qualitative variables it is possible to assign a quantitative approximation with a scale from 0 to 1, but that a whole other topic. If you're interested, there's plenty of books on Data Visualization, or some general Statistics book. I can suggest a few titles if you need, but they're kind of "advaced", you would need some basic knowledge on data analysis first (not much, like high-school level is sufficient probably)
There's "Data Visualisation: A Handbook for Data Driven Design" by A. Kirk, i'm reading it right now (just started the first chapters) and it looks decent.
To be fair, I have no idea what kind of chromosomes I have.
Most people don't
That’s why using that as a metric is stupid.
@Joe dirty71 you know some people have both right? So even your definition isn't binary.
To be fair I don't care what chromosomes I have.
@Joe dirty71 any deviation in a binary system means it's not a binary system. Cling to your outdated argument all you want.
Praise to Jim for egging Forrest on!
I'm a cis-het male and had no qualms with dating a trans womam a feelw years ago. She was the prettiest woman I've ever dated and I officiated her wedding because I was so happy that she found someone who loves her even more than I do! ❤
Weirdo.
@@damonkenny7818 hatemonger
You are not cis just a gay man.
@@Englandforever555 1. You don't know what cis means.
2. Sexuality is more personality based than humans like to admit to themselves. Just because you are not attracted to someone immediately does not mean you won't be when you know their personality well enough for your subconscious to recognise them as what you are into.
I think this is a major reason for sexuality confusion as humans often imagine stationary images to gauge their attraction, but that completely ignores their personality.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana cis is degrading and derogatory name invented by trans misogynists
You either like men or women, you are either straight or gay.
Honestly, I feel like even if people correctly claimed "Sex is bimodal" instead of "Sex is binary" people would still be pissed off at the claim anyway.
"Honestly, I feel like even if people correctly claimed "Sex is bimodal" instead of "Sex is binary""
Ok, so you are claiming sex is bimodal, not binary.
- Note that the binary means 2 sets of reproductive anatomies are used, and that each is defined by the presence and use of 2 main features; gonads and gametes. That is, the 2 reproductive systems defined into testis/ sperm and ovaries/ova.
- Why is that not a binary, what is the basis of your bimodal claim?
No response? Your bimodal claim remains unsubstantiated.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect
They are equivocating. They hear sex is binary and think of lgbtq+ instead of reproduction through two gametes.
This used to be the channel of believe more true things than false things. The fallacies run deep here now.
@@Dr.Ian-PlectCan you explain what 'sex is bimodal' means. I often hear this argument but don't understand it clearly. Why do they say it is, and why isn't it?
@@Mel-wn9gb Happy to help.
The 2 distributions in question are binary and bimodal.
Binary
'Sex is binary' originates in biology (I'm a zoologist). Its definition refers to the fact that in sexually reproducing species, there are 2 reproductive systems used, as described in my earlier comment in this thread. There are only 2 reproductive systems, and so there is a strict binary, no other system has ever been discovered in these species. You have one or the other, or if you have an anomalous development leading to an incomplete/not fully functioning reproductive system, it is just that, not another system. So, the binary distribution of reproductive systems is one or the other, no variance around them.
Bimodal
The importance of me explaining as I did for the binary becomes relevant now. For several reasons (substantially ideology) some people claim DSDs (disorders of sex development), - also called 'intersex', a poor and misleading word - as sexes. These are a tiny proportion of variances from the normal presentation of the 2 sexes. As such, when plotted on a distribution graph, they form a bimodal plot. This means rather than a strict indication of 2 possibilities as for the binary, this shows as more like 2 bell curve distrubutions indicating a peak at the male and female positions, but with the profile of the graph clearly showing a spectrum of these other variables all around and between.
I suggest you simply go to Google images and type in 'sex bimodal distribution'. Additionally, read this informative piece 'Debunking the Bimodal “Sex Spectrum” Graph' (look it up in a search engine, it's from ministryoftruth).
Forrest is wrong on this. I'm a medical scientist with 30 years of experience as a researcher (from lab bench to bedside). Sex is defined by gamete type, which can be seen in nearly all animal and plant species. Now gender is a different thing and I can accept that there are probably multiple different genders, because this is not a thing defined by physical biology.
Forgot to add. There are only two gamete types.
How do gametes develop? Is that what's there before not sex? And do people without gametes have no sex? Biology is more complex than your opinion.
@@laurasophia6100 "How do gametes develop? Is that what's there before not sex? And do people without gametes have no sex? Biology is more complex than your opinion."
------
As you'll know, I've addressed your agenda under another thread.
- how gametes develop is irrelevant to them being the trait that defines sex
- your next sentence needs elevated beyond 10 year old grammar
- the third query I'll just repeat what I stated in the other thread;
*the more complete definition of sex is 'having the sexual apparatus for, and producing 1 of 2 gamete types during the reproductive stage of the life of an organism'.
not producing gametes outside this phase is normal, the apparatus is still there, ordinarily. And you point to not producing gametes within the phase, that's an anomaly of the individual. Their sex can still be diagnosed by the presence of gonads. But absent even these, secondary sex traits can be used as a reliable proxy.*
- the complexity of biology 'quip' appears a point of obfuscation, shame on you
Given that not every individual produces gametes then it can't be used as the sole criterion for biological sex.
@@laurasophia6100 Sperm and eggs are gametes. Eggs or oocytes are actually present in females at birth. Sperm are continuously turned over in the male.
Sex is determined by the type of gametes your body is organized around producing. You don’t need to produce them. There is no third gamete type.
For sex to be bimodal, a short male would be more male than a short man. Sex traits are bimodal, but sex is binary.
Aah, simple facts and logic. Nice to see.
Forrest didn't answer the question. This is a bait and switch where he spoke about gender instead of sex. Intersex is not a third sex.
You caught that I did too. The dictionary which added a definition to woman to include transgender women has two complete distinct definitions of the term woman. 1. original definition “adult female” applies ONLY to those of a biological sex category (female)
2. added addition “An adult who lives and identifies as female though they may have been said to have a different sex at birth.” this would apply ONLY to transgender women who are not of the FEMALE SEX.
Female is a biological sex category which wouldn’t apply to transgender women (males).
I would watch a video of any length, of Forrest rambling about all the different ways sex markers can develop for as long as he want.
Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant.
--------
No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories;
1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)!
2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual.
NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex!
Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them;
1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary.
2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'.
----------------------
All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
@@Dr.IanPlect you speak as the dog barks. With no purpose and without end.
@@iamnotgroot3693 You reply with a clueless, poor attitude, muted.
@@iamnotgroot3693 Yet you know exactly what sex is in dogs, and when they should get neutered.
And the fact you think someone like Katy Montgomerie is a woman says a lot.
@iamnotgroot3693 Ironic you say this. Telling someone what they said "has no meaning" instead of offering a real counterpoint would constitute "barking".
The claim that we can't define females or males due to a lack of universal traits or a single biological sex trait is flawed. While not all individuals within a sex category may exhibit every characteristic, there are indeed defining features exclusive to each sex.
The biological potential for childbearing is what defines the female sex, regardless of individual fertility. It's about the inherent capacity tied to female biology, not whether every female can or will give birth. This fundamental difference in reproductive roles is what primarily distinguishes females from males at a biological level.
Forrest fundamentally doesn’t understand sexes as evolutionary reproductive roles. He just views them as a tool to sort humans and that if he thinks something can’t be sorted, that means redefining sex, male, and female to fit everyone.
I got into this discussion with someone the other day and made a lot of progress by pretending I wasn't having it.
I was writing a paper at the time and pretended I was asking a genuine question of the guy because he's currently taking zoology.
I told him that I was doing a report on this species of salamander that has 48% of its population falling cleanly into male and 48% female and asked him if I should be okay saying they're only male and female presenting.
He then went on a long rant about how we can't pretend data doesn't exist in science when describing a species while I just sat there and looked at him.
I find it a lot easier to make the biology point when I remove the word human from the discussion. For some reason even the atheist anti-trans folk think humans are special cases.
Humans are not special cases at all and in science, it is difficult to prove anything at 100%. This said, whether with Salamanders or other species, if you have a 48% = 48% distribution it is fair to say that you have two groups with 4% exception. The problem with humans as opposed to other animals is them deciding which group they belong to. I personally identify as a kitchen sink of undisclosed color but once upon a time I was a Rubix Cube. Profound biological changes caused my mutation.
probably because what you are spewing isn't true and certainly not scientific.
@@lloyds7828 sorry what are your qualifications again?
@@jgestiot except that's just it. There's no NEED to put them into groups. It serves no purpose. If we accept the reality of the bimodal distribution then we accept that anything not on the two extremes is somewhere in between. And that's fine.
@@lloyds7828 oh wait, you don't believe in evolution. Sorry man, you live in a fantasy. I can literally show you evolution in real time.
All in all, we humans created the language, terminology and classifications. We can change them to fit how it evolves over time or when new information is presented. The nature of the universe is to change therefore there is no perpetual state of normality.
And reality is messy.
Species is another concept that doesn't fit reality perfectly.
Basically, nature is just doing its thing, and humans try to understand it by creating categories for different stuffs that nature does. These categories can be accurate or inaccurate, but what matters is that we change our definitions based on new evidence, not try to make a definition and try to insist that nature is EXACTLY this way.
You would think, but there is no concrete evidence for that. 🤷
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana No evidence that there's no perpetual standard of normal?
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Sorry, I don't understand the context. We don't have concrete evidence for what exactly?
Always love me some Forrest and Jim action
Jesus Christ. Sex is based on gamete production. There are only two gametes sex is binary.
I used to really like this guy but this dude is speaking pure ideology, not science. With his whole specious rant, he never actually made an argument.
But he *appears* knowledgeable and informed. He has a degree and even holds up the text books he read! And he reels off so many random factoids, that may or may not have relevance, but *sound* reasonable. People fall for this shtick and he knows it.
I love how forest is so knowledgeable that when he argues with himself he makes better and more informed counter arguments against his own points than any bigot ever could
Comes with the territory of being a scientist.
As a scientist (or scientifically minded person) you try to prove yourself _wrong,_ not right.
You are not a bigot for disagreeing, Connor. Second, there is a good reason why it has become political: there is a difference between what you feel compared to what can actually be demonstrated. It is also political because you have transwomen entering women's sports. I would ask Forrest: if you have XX chromosomes in every cell in your body (setting aside occasional XXY or XYY chromosomes), then are you likely to have female reproductive and anatomical characteristics. XY: male reproductive and anatomical characteristics. And it isn't Forrest, but there are activists conflating gender and sex, and you will notice MOSTLY males transitioning to female, rather than the other way around. In addition, you have enough things confusing kids, let alone telling them "if you are unhappy with your body, change it!" This IS occurring. We closed down an entire trust in the UK that was peddling surgery and puberty blockers to kids, without parental knowledge, called The Tavistock, for YEARS. Now it is being sued, severely, for medical negligence by multiple lawsuits. Applying a post modernist (which is what Forrest sounds like, but I may be wrong of course) outlook is not useful. There are things that can be objectively demonstrated. Of course you can find exceptions and outliers: but you do not define the whole on the few! Shall we, for example, AFFIRM annorexics when they say or feel : "I am much too obese, and need to lose more weight?" Shall we start doing that? Or perhaps be "body positive" to morbidly obese people who only want to hear good things instead of the reality of the risks of their lifestyle? I would like to see Forrest debate Dr Robert Winston: one of the world's foremost experts on genetics!
He didn't actually answer the question. Listen back to the clip. He gave a bunch of talking points, but no actual rebuttal. He did a Ben Shapiro gish gallop. Why are you impressed by that?
@@n0w3lly90 "and you will notice MOSTLY males transitioning to female, rather than the other way around"
I am interested in the relevance of this.
@@cy-one he's not even a scientist. He's a science teacher.
What's really funny is Forrest admonishing Christians for using dogma to justify their belief when he sits there talking about gender and using dogma to justify his own beliefs. With absolutely no sense of irony in sight.
If sex is binary what do you have to say about people who are born intersex? What do you have to say about seahorses that can switch between the sexes? What about people who are born with a penis but have an XX chromosome? As a non-bias biologist Forrest knows how unclear sex can be because he will verify that every question I asked you here has reality behind it.
So no Forrest is not being dogmatic when he is saying what the reality of sex really is. You are just denying it to hold onto your outdated and ignorant beliefs and are projecting your refusal to see evidence against binary sex onto Forrest as a scientist.
Gender is a made up thing
Exactly the point, yes.
@@cy-one and I mean no offense to people who suffer from gender disphoria or whatever that makes you feel that you don't belong to either of the two sexes. But just know that you are affected by a mental disorder and you should look for treatment if you feel bad. Look for profesional help, don't listen to politicians that only want your vote and money.
@@morpheus5302 *"But just know that you are affected by a mental disorder and you should look for treatment if you feel bad"*
a) it's not classified as a mental disorder
b) even if it would be classified as a mental disorder doesn't mean it _is_ one.
c) while not universally true, there are neurological differences in brain chemistry _and activity_ in transgender people. And they usually align more with their identified gender.
d) they _are_ "looking for treatment." It's just not one you think is the right one for them.
@@cy-one It is, and is called Gender Disphoria for trans people, I don't know if I'm using the proper technical term because my english is bad but i think you understand what I mean. That does not make them less than a person than you and me, but also, it does not mean they are what they feel they are. The treatment I think they should look for depends on the severity of their pain, I'm sure many of them can reconciliate with their biological sex and others will benefit from transitioning. What I'm pretty sure is that politicians and companies are already exploiting their suffering.
@@cy-one if so then trans gender designations are meaningless
The troll Edith, also known as Jim, goes "not in front of the children!" with the idea that gender is not binary! 😂😆 😂 🤣
Isn't that the same troll who can't even explain how their moral system works, so constantly resorts to, "but atheism can't do X" arguments? They are SO dependent on atheism!
He has cheese pizza on his computer.
hmm i see, strongly bimodal but not binary
Comment fits pfp.
Also yes :D
Bimodal means you've measured it. What is the metric used then?
@@SphincterOfDoomyou would need so many new terms to describe every possible deviation in hormones and chromosomes caused by genetic disorders. The fact is as a biologist he should know that the exception is not the rule, we identify all plants and animals based on gamete production. Humans only have two types, just because a rare percentage are born with these conditions doesn’t make the premise “there are only two sexes false.” Just like someone being born with a limb doesn’t make the premise “humans have 4 limbs” false.
Reproduction in animals requires the two and only two gametes. That is what sex is binary conveys, unless you equivocate the terms, fallacy 1.
Argument from authority would be fallacy 2. An argument could be made that cancel culture has allowed the equivocation into Campbell Biology, 12th edition.
Forrest argued for fallacy 3 extensively. The univariate fallacy, everything doesn’t have to fit neatly in the box for the box to be valid.
Fallacy 4 would be the moralistic fallacy. Forrest, it is ok that sex is binary. Again, sex is a synonym of reproduction in this context. Reproduction is binary and evolutionarily selected for.
This used to be the channel of I want to know more true things than false things.
Well said. It's frustrating to see people take his shtick at face value. People have a right to accurate information and education, not disengenuous, ideologically driven garbage.
The whole idea that your sex and gender are purely determined by gamete production is such transparent nonsense. All it takes is an ounce of critical thinking and a willingness to skeptically question the claim itself, which these people notoriously lack.
How is an OB/GYN supposed to use this criteria to determine sex on a birth certificate? What about people who live their whole lives without producing gametes? What about a person with a vagina and functional undescended testes? What about a person with a penis and gonads that produce eggs? What about those people who have both types of gonadal tissue?
The answer is always the same. "That's the exception, not the rule." They don't actually care about building a model that best fits reality. They just want to latch onto whatever model they can find to rationalize their exclusion of specific minorities from mainstream society.
Well yes, they are a rare exception, using a gender binary in our vocabulary makes sense since it offers a way to easily categorize someone into one of two main categories with over 99% accuracy. That's very useful in a medical or criminal setting, when you need to identify someone's likely anatomy or if they match a suspect's description.
How are they being excluded from mainstream society in the western world currently? How would they be excluded if we kept using the words "man" and "woman" as we currently do and have done for centuries?
Sorry. You are wrong. Professional biologists define sex by gamete type because it makes sense of the biology we observe (like evolution).
What does biological sex have to do with gender? Every single person yes including those with a DSD still fall under the binary.
So how many terms would we need to define every variation of sex hormones and XY chromosomes that a minute number of the population has due to rare medical conditions?
Is the premise “humans have four limbs” false? Because not all humans have limbs and you just said “that’s the exception not the rule”, is a dumb argument.
This is so beautiful the way he ends up the explanation saying: go get a text book on genetics and learn it. I wish all my teacher were the same enthusiastic. Now it made me want to study this subject
Learn about anisogamy, then.
The claim sex is bimodal is not supported in literature. It should be noted (and corrected) that despite Forrest’s claims, Campell does not claim sex is not binary. It says that it “may” be “too simplistic” but this was in an *incorrect context* of referring to processes and development related to sex, not sex itself.
It should also be noted that binary does not mean “two outcomes”, but “consisting of two”. For example a binary star system has two stars. A binary compound consists of two types of elements. The claim “sex is binary” is not “sex development has binary outcomes”. Sex is the the thing being described as binary, not “outcomes”. Unless “outcomes” refers to sexes, it’s a strawman argument. Likewise, even if we wanted to pretend binary meant “two outcomes”, the outcome for a sex is male or female.
No matter how you put it, sex fits the definition of binary and there is no reason to deny this.
Sex also fits the definition of fuzzy or a spectrum. Because it is not always binary, correct? It is sometime binary.
@@jerrylong6238 not at all.
Sex is sex fits binary by definition. It does not fit spectrum or anything else…
It is always binary.
@@jerrylong6238 no, “not always binary” does not mean “fuzzy” or “spectrum”, that doesn’t even make sense. There are two sexes. By definition that is binary. By definition that is not fuzzy nor a spectrum.
Forrest is an amateur that can’t even read an undergraduate biology book correctly.
@@DerpMcDerp-gb3ssHe is a brilliant science communicator currently working on a masters. He is a working biologist, that's his day job.
@@DerpMcDerp-gb3ss You keep confusing sex and gender. The first is binary the second is a spectrum.
Sex is like how many numbers between 0 and 1 ( *INCLUDING* decimals-all of them)
Except that there aren’t infinite sexes, there are two. Nominal variables don’t work that way, sorry.
Science deniers in the comments pretend that this is something new for the show lol. Didn't watch the last few years of content obviously
It's like how there's a comment every week by people just surprised at the show announcing pronouns.
@@queuecee Oh haha yeah that's also very weird xD
@@Soapy-chan_old can you remember the last time you saw one of them mention transmen, or how they are disadvantaged in sport?
😂😂😂 I have the new Campbell’s Biology, and it clearly states sex is binary. Sure they buried it in a lot of politically correct crap, but still…
Also Hilton and Wright are two Ph.D.s while Forrest is still struggling…. Somehow he forgot to mention that….
It’s not chromosomes, hormones etc, it’s gametes. Also disorders are not used to define physiology, because they are the examples of things going wrong and as such usually do not have functions, hence we call them disorders and study them in medicine…
It’s gametes, at least for the last2.5 million years of evolution it has been gametes…
But no problem, ramble on…
The irony how the atheists reason like religious people on this subject.
@@doleo_metalit’s insane to me. Simply because of political ideology
"Humans have two legs" is a correct statement, even though some people have only one or no legs.
Exeptions don't make the rules.
Just because we have labels doesn't mean they're universally applicable. You're always going to find something that doesn't fit under them.
"Menschen haben zwei Beine" oder "Menschen haben im Allgemeinen zwei Beine" ist richtig.
"Alle Menschen haben zwei Beine" oder "Menschen haben nur zwei Beine" ist falsch.
Hier geht's darum, dass Leute letzteres sagen. Was, wie gesagt, falsch ist.
This means the original statement is not 100% correct. The correct statement is "most humans have two legs."
Exceptions don't make the rules, but they do shape the definitions.
It's even more simple than this because there's only 2 gametes and 2 sexes. Until humans magically begin to produce a 3rd gamete, they have no argument that has a leg to stand on.
@@Huntermaro so what about people who don't produce gametes, due to defect, or inury or age? Are they neither male nor female?
A 'varium of continuation'... Forrest what the hell 🤣
9:57
My guess is that 'varium of continuation' is taken from an actual tweet of Claire Ainsworth. She tweeted ''No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.'
I read the title and immediately said “No, because intersex people exist.” This isn’t controversial lol
And intersex people are not the only exception.
Intersex people are very rarely a 'third' sex. A lot if not most of them are male or female who had a disorder or deformity that affected sexual and anatomical development. That's not a new sex nor does it mean sex is bimodal/indefinable/vague/blah blah for the other 99% of us that don't have those issues. The whole infinite and indefinable sexes thing is a hot stinking pile of BS.
@@gamer1X12 Based on how biological sex forms the result is a bimodal distribution. Just because the majority fit within 2 categories does not mean only 2 categories exist. That is the binary BS.
Intersex people don't produce gametes other than the 2 everyone else does.
Yes intersex people have variations of the only two sex chromosomes present in humans, X and Y. In biology, you wouldn’t say something is false about an organism simply because some individual’s within that group of organisms are the rare exception.
Sex is kind of a meaningless discussion anyway, since the far more important thing on people's minds these days is gender (i.e. regardless of your biological gender, you can have a very different outward expression, i.e. your gender). Biological sex only really comes in to play for when you're looking at health (relating to your sexual organs) or arguably sport (in which male-sex puberty can add distinct advantages) - but that's a whole other discussion!
Back in my day we called men who acted like women fruit cakes. There’s already plenty of terms to describe how you express
So, other than male and female, what is another sex in humans which can mate with male or female to procreate?
Irrelevant to other sexes existing.
@@nealjroberts4050 Irrelevant 😂 Sex is based on reproduction, wiseguy. Males produce small gametes and females produce large gametes. 2 gametes, and thus 2 sexes, exactly 2, and only 2. The only way there could be a 3rd is if humans magically begin to produce a 3rd gamete.
Exactly...
@Neal J Roberts Good grief ... Sex is irrelevant to reproduction? Really? It refers directly to the categories humans are divided into based on their reproduction capabilities in terms of gametes. It's 2023 for goodness sake. What does that even need to be asserted?
It's the very definition of the word. Hence there are two. Any time you want to show a third sex that is neither male, nor female, that can still typically reproduce, go right ahead.
@@Rekaert I notice you had to add the qualifier "can still reproduce" in there😂
Sex is binary with some anomalies occurring.
And those anomalies are irrelevant, they don't change the binary.
Any arguments supporting your claim?
@@laurasophia6100 Can you state what you take the sex binary to mean?
If there are more than two parts it's not a binary.
@@nealjroberts4050 And there aren't.
I'm an atheist and this is unscientific nonsense. It's a religion for these people.
So you don't believe the irrefutable scientific fact that there are people who aren't XX women or XY men?
Call and prove Forrest wrong then
"I'm an accountant and this is non-architectural nonsense"
Being an atheist doesn't make you in any way qualified to say what is and isn't science, just like being an accountant wouldn't make you qualified to comment on architecture, so why would you bring it up? You're just making yourself look silly.
Never mind that the person in the video is an actual scientist.
OK, so you're an atheist. Are you a scientist? Are you in any way qualified to decide for everyone that the facts presented in this video are "unscientific nonsense"?
@@PeterLGଈ yes, the idea that someone can “choose” their sex because they have gender dysphoria is unscientific nonsense.
Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant.
--------
No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories;
1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)!
2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual.
NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex!
Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them;
1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary.
2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'.
----------------------
All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
I breed plants some are female or herm (xx pollen producing) all are xx x xx but also Y system exists in the species. So there’s only two types of gametes in the system X or Y , but my XX herms exist with viable xx pollen. Humans have herms (that can and can’t reproduce), so the system is bimodal. Gamete reproduction doesn’t define sex phenotype or genotype. Gametes are only one of multiple sex markers. I have sterile herms sometimes but that doesn’t mean it isn’t herm. Anyway have a good day.
@@Foxesinthetrees7 The 'sex binary' refers to the presence of 2 reproductive systems in sexual species, it DOES NOT state that each system must be in distinct individuals. In most cases these are found in dimorphic individuals, those with the reproductive anatomy to produce large, immobile gametes, or ova, and those with the reproductive anatomy to produce small, mobile gametes, or sperm. No third system is known of.
Herms are not a third sex, they don't utilise a third reproductive system, which is what is meant by 'sex binary'; the fact that there are just 2 reproductive systems within sexual species. They therefore don't constitute an alternative beyond the binary, and therefore not a bimodal distribution of sexes.
*I stress again, even if one individual person has both reproductive systems fully functioning, that's just the 2 reproductive systems that form the binary system in one person, where is the third sex, the third reproductive system?* Your XX pollen-producing plants are just this, both reproductive systems present in one organism, that is, the binary present in one plant. This is *not* a third reproductive system.
You seem unaware that herms exist in animals too, such as clown fish that are sequential herms; male, then later in life, female. Again, this is NOT against the binary, which only states there are 2 reproductive systems found in sexual species, NOT that each system must be contained in distinct organisms.
Anyway have a good day.
@@arseni12345 The definition I gave is the one used in biology for about a century now. Those that disagree with it need to make their case.
I _can_ show that the biological definition (not 'my') is superior, or rather, why it is used. It regards applicability; there is no other definition that applies to all sexual species and vascular plants. All these have 2 gametes types and the apparatus to produce them.
Traits such as chromosomes;
a) do not function during sexual reproduction (they only determine sex, not define it)
b) do not follow the system in humans (XX, XY), there are several others
c) far from all species in these groups have chromosomes at all
------------
Your comment has no merit, and I note you thumbed it up yourself.
@@arseni12345 You haven't a clue.
The binary states there are 2 reproductive systems in sexual species, as detailed above. The inability of some to produce either gamete at all is of zero relevance.
You continue mumbling through things sporadically and failed to engage my response properly.
I have no time for you. Muted.
But is there any medication you would only give to one sex and not the other. And I don't mean prenatal, viagra or certain hormones. So when forrest talked about how, no matter how close you look, that you can blur then line between male and female, I instantly wondered if there was a medication that you would ONLY prescribe to a female or a male, no matter the circumstances
I think most of these arguments arise from a failure to understand the other's position. Language is descriptive and we use different words to mean different things.
While i agree w what FV says, he doesnt cover the whole picture. There are genuine ways in which one can say sex is binary. An example - in sexual reproduction of humans, there are 2 functions/roles - that of the male and that of the female. So in this sense, sex can be described as binary.
Sex is based on reproduction so yeah it's clearly binary. Until a 3rd gamete and 3rd sex is magically discovered, there is no argument that has a leg to stand on.
@@Huntermaro Exactly.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Depends on which of the two developmental pathways they took in the womb, primarily. Sometimes, as in the case of AIS, they do *begin* down one path but ultimately go down another (resulting in female development).
But yes, sometimes girls are born with a penis as a result of some defect in that process.
@Anon Ymous People born with intersex conditions are still male or female, it's literally the only 2 options for every mammal. Their sex can easily be determined by their chromosomes and or secondary sex characteristics. Stop grasping at straws.
You all arguing about this is especially ridiculous because even if sex was not binary, it does not validate trans ideology, at all. It has nothing to do with physically normal males and females who merely "identify" as the opposite sex. You want to argue about facts when your beliefs are not even based in reality.
@Anon Ymous DSDs are *sex specific* , meaning some affect males and some affect females. "Xxy" or Klinefelter's Syndrome affects males. Isn't it interesting how Forrest always conveniently leaves out the fact that DSDs are sex specific? Very relevant to the Convo but he leaves out that fact because it makes his argument self defeating. He's grasping at straws and peddling sophistry.
Where is the science exactly? All I see is some guy arguing about the impossibility of absolute definitions which, ironically, would destroy the very basis of science since everything is uncertain
It’s so hamfisted. I 100% support trans rights but now they are saying insane things like “biological sex is a social construct.” It’s completely insane
Sanity is a spectrum. Sex is not.
I had a male calico cat that was very likely XXY. His name was Johan. He was awesome.
I read recently that only one in every 3000 calico cats is male!
@@renejean2523 He was my rare sweetie.
@@TheSarahNerdoh wow, guess sex isn't binary because of a DSD
And? They were still male. Klinefelter's individuals are still just male.
Percentage of those medically curious people tho
Don't be silly AE. There are 2 sexes.
They literally just explained how it isn’t. Did you even listen?
Common mushrooms have over 17,000 sexes. They have no genders, since they have no need for social constructs.
@@hesosol8997 Of course he did not listen. He's too proud of his own stubborn ignorance.
@@hesosol8997 Aberrations are not a new sex.
@@DrumWild LMAO that's rich coming from someone using politics as a surrogate religion.
I am a fellow atheist. I accept religious people's beliefs in the sense that I don't dismiss them as people and I believe they have value, but am steadfast in the fact that there is no God. I do take issue with people who try to push their religious belief in public spaces, and would be active in fighting any return to non secular laws and government.
What I don't understand is how to reconcile that with legislation in my home country of Canada. We now have compelled speech laws surrounding pronoun use. I, as a free member of a secular social democracy, must use people's chosen pronoun. I must subscribe to other people's individual belief regarding their identity or face prosecution. I happily refer to people by their chosen pronoun, although I prefer to use people's preferred name, as I valued individual identity more than a set of group identities.
That said, I don't agree that I, or anyone else, should be legally compelled to do so. As a son, a brother, and a partner to another, I believe that compelled speech laws are part of a societal construct that are now eroding biological women's spaces. I do not and will not accept that trans women and trans men are the same as bio women and men. They are not the same. I base it on the same principles as my atheism. You're welcome to believe something that isn't accurate, like God, flat earth, intelligent design, or that if you feel like a woman you are a woman. I refuse to be compelled to do so.
These societal changes set a precedent for a post truth era where the truth is replaced by "my truth". We've seen it already influence public institutions like public school. I would be as upset if we taught religious based theories of evolution or creationism in school.
Believe in yourself and who and what you are. I am there as an Ally because I choose to do so. But we have gone past the threshold by legislating personal identity as a rule of law.
Do you agree that a government should have compelled speech laws and that gender identity should be taught to young children without parental consent?
Thanks.
Quite rational. A shame this channel is pushing the same type of hoohaa it stood against.
@@Huntermaronah you just don’t like it when YOUR ignorance is called out
@@wddilly8488 And thats the best you can muster. Grasp at straws like ol forrest here. Appeal to sex specific dsds in an attempt to make it seem like trans ideology is factual when its not even based in reality. Lets see the mental gymnastics word games and pretend women have ballsacs lol 👍
Thank you for defending women's spaces.
What happened to this channel?
Mayor post modernism infection. Most atheists can't resist it without religion. I hope me an atheist never catches it.
It’s going woke .. which is new religion
Nothing. Secular humanism and human rights have always been a talking point.
But as some parts of society make "accepting people" more and more an issue, talks about secular humanism and human rights come up more often.
Simple.
@@cy-one Sounds like religion to me.
@@lainiwakura1776 Please elaborate how you define "religion" then, cause you're definitely using the word in a different way than I've come to know it for several decades.
Great segment. I'm non-binary and (very likely. I fit the profile but can't afford confirmation) XXY so I'll be rewatching and taking notes.
So you’re female.
@@quincyjones5676 No.
LMAO.
Procreation is binary. Sex is a lot more than just reproduction.
No it’s not. Biologist determine the sex of all other species by the gametes they produce. Secondary sex characteristics are not relevant
any person with education on biology beyond a third grade level accepts gender and sex are more complicated than made out to be by reactionaries.
@@DeviantDork You really just wake up today and aspired to say the dumbest shit, huh?
I wrote my master's thesis in human genetics and I disagree
Oh, so is anything beyond third grade biology just reference John Money. quite the regression in science
@@PhillipJohnsonphiljo Who TF is John Money and why would I care about him?
@@HYEOL yes comment section "experts" with nothing to prove the validity of their background disagrees. Plus for having an anime pfp. At least you chose a good one to like
A fish is any organism of a species of the fish clade.
Are both tuna and sharks "fish"?
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 Yep
There isn't a fish clade. That's the problem.
@@nealjroberts4050 Sure there is. It just includes some things that aren't obviously fish, or not fish at all by some other definition
@@ExsoLam There's the olfactores clade but not a fish clade.
One of my favorite things to do is take a screenshot of really attractive transgender male to female people from tinder. And I will go to my conservative anti-trans friends and I will say dude you have to see this gorgeous girl that I am hanging out with on tinder. I've never actually met a transgender from tinder but there have been numerous occasions where I have seen them and some of them you just wouldn't know. If they didn't let you know. And I will take a screenshot and I will say hey look at this girl I'm going on a date with and they will sit there and tell me how jealous they are and tell me how hot they are and I will let them sit there and say this stuff for a good 5 minutes before letting them know that that's actually a male-to-female transgender. I've done this literally dozens and dozens of times just so many different people and only one single time did they know it was a transgender and the only reason that he knew, is because I done it to him twice already. There's so much information coming out that if you honestly just look at it there's so much gray area to stuff like this
Yea thats the problem.. i dont want to be tricked into having relations with a guy no matter how much he looks like a chick. That deceptive spirit is what pisses people off man.
Years ago I was forwarded a video of a really attractive woman in a hot tub, long story short there was a surprise as the person stood up, so you really can’t judge a book by its cover.
So you are tricking people? Why is the trans community obsessed with tricking and fooling people?
@@zulubeatsprince Your issue is with dishonest people.
Wanna know something? Dishonest people exist everywhere.
@@jamww3509 Cool, nobody says it does.
What if I just stick to the thought that Chromosomes are what makes a sex, no if'sor but's about it.
It would not be binary, but the binary would be what is generally taught, in the same way some people can have a different number of fingers than 10, but 10 fingers are still being taught, alongside the notions that specific cases override the general.
No, stick to what 'sex' has always been defined as! Here's my response to this flawed video;
Sexual reproduction is the most common strategy in animals, us a part of it. Sex IS a binary in humans and is defined by PRIMARY sex traits, namely; having the sexual organs for, and producing 1 of 2 gametes, ova or sperm. SECONDARY sex traits are all other traits that further differentiate male and female; breasts, genitalia, physical size, strength etc. Secondary sex traits DO NOT form part of the definition of sex and therefore its binary nature, a point that renders many of Forrest's examples irrelevant.
--------
No, Forrest, your 'what about xy and z' list of 'exceptions' are a mix of 2 categories;
1. Deviations from a system that ordinarily produces a binary outcome of primary sexual traits and secondary sexual traits. Note; by deviations I don't mean 'a deviation that breaks the binary', I mean variations away from the norm, just as someone born missing a limb doesn't invalidate 'humans are tetrapods' (4 limbed animals)!
2. A normal phase of the system throughout its life within the individual.
NOTHING you state within your 'what about' ramble violates 'sex is a binary', for NONE of your examples constitute a third sex!
Here's an example you gave from each of my categories and the trivial dismissal of them;
1. An intersex anomaly such as ambiguous genitalia. This is a secondary sexual trait presentation and therefore ALREADY outside how sex is defined in the first place! On these grounds alone it doesn't invalidate the binary.
2. 'Don't make gametes', well in regard to how this fits into 2. above (rather than 'at all, throughout life); guess what? The system varies throughout the life of the individual, typically a period at the start and end without gamete production. But even in a person that never produces the gamete of their sex, that doesn't invalidate the binary, the overwhelmingly most expressed condition of gamete production. It comes down to something gone awry, not a 'third way'.
----------------------
All of Forrest's examples are as above, nothing he bleated out constitutes a valid argument against the binary definition and normal manifestation of sex, nor is any of his ramblings a 'third way'.
hes still arguing within a male-female centric model i dont know where ur trying to pull this third sex stuff from, also trying to justify it with reproduction in mind is not only kinda weird, we also went from like 500 million in the 1500s to like what now ... like 7 1/2 billion? do we rly need to pump out babies so bad we need to FORCE ppl to follow a model
also just because its a health condition doesnt magically disconnect it from the science, even within the specified guidelines of chromosomes and gametes there are exceptions that disprove its a strict binary and thats it. still confused about the third sex thing
Grasping at straws per usual.
Its ridiculous because it does not even matter if sex is binary or not in regards to trans hoo-haa. It does not validate trans ideology, at all. Neither do DSDs. It has nothing to do with physically normal males and females who merely "identify" as the opposite sex.
Grasping at straws to make it seem like trans ideology is factual when its literally not even based in reality and reality is completely irrelevant to it.
you should really consider going back to school... there's really nothing more i can tell you. The existance of trans people doesn't need to be "proved"; they exist, you can observe them, end of story. If you're looking for a biological/psychological/sociological (etc) explanation of how it works, there's plenty of resources out there, i'm sure you can manage to do a quick google scholar search and read some articles on the topic. You'll find out there's a lot you don't know in those fields😉
1 straight year off all your comments talking about woke or Trans.
Just complete your transformation Maria
@@mactallica9293 Talking about Christianity is so last decade. Trans ideology is the new trendy nonsense religion. So much for being able to say all atheists are rational while there's some that believe men are women simply because they claim to feel like it despite having balls bigger than grandpa 🤣 but just like with Christians, you're free to play make believe
Can you provide a full citation for that “Campbell’s Biology” source? I’m having trouble finding anything with anything actually on point. Perhaps you could also provide the chapter number, if the table of contents isn’t explicitly clear?
Did you try doing a keyword search? Assuming you're using the digital version, anyway. I don't specialize in biology, so I don't know about Campbell's, but I know keywords are a godsend in the texts I DO use. :P
@@willthewhale8021 , I found a bunch of things called “Campbell Biology” and the like at online booksellers, but the tables of contents failed to convey that they contain anything directly on point. So I need a full citation to the book and material.
@@Steve-hu9gw citation would be good. Not particularly surprised that a table of contents isn't an exhaustive summary.
I couldn't afford the whole book, there are references to gender on the following pages:
74, 112, 285, 347, 348, 349, 1019, 1170.
best search I can manage from my database, as I'm not given access to the full text for copyright reasons.
I also think this is from the 11th edition, so the page numbers might have shifted in the 12th.
I listen to a lot of Golden Age radio drama from the 1930s into the 1950s. I was astonished that in a mid 1940s episode of "Fibber McGee and Molly" the characters responded to a news item that biologists were reporting that the differences between men and women are not absolute but exist on a sliding scale. So the idea that sexual differences were always thought of as purely binary until only recently seems to be untrue. Biologists have been talking about this publicly for at least 80 years.
Huge difference between where people are born into, and where people want to be.
DSDs aren't separate sexes.
There's no debate. Sex is bimodal . Conservatives just deny reality
There is no debate when the scientific consensus is still the opposite, ballsy claim
@@HYEOLwhat claim? I'm just stating the facts. Sex is bimodal. That's a fact. Cry about it, you religious monkey
@@HYEOL ballsy claim that the scientific consensus is the opposite.
Common mushrooms have over 17,000 sexes. They have no genders, since they have no need for social constructs.
@@DeviantDorkTry harder though
Some trans humans clearly have the personality of the other sex. So... what are we supposed to call them?
That's... personality.
@@siim605 The personality of the other biological sex...
By what makes them feel human?
Research has shown that women may require lower doses of certain antidepressants compared to men due to differences in metabolism and drug response. This is because women tend to have higher plasma concentrations of these medications compared to men when given the same dose. Therefore, prescribing lower initial doses or adjusting dosages based on gender may be necessary to optimize the effectiveness and minimize potential side effects.
so if doctor ask you:
Should i treat you as woman since you are born als such or should i treat you as a man as your claimed gender is?
What do you think , what would be prevailing answer in this case?
Does the application of gender change someone's basic biochemistry?
@@nealjroberts4050you mean the transition of genders? I would assume that it wouldn't significantly change your vascular system.
@@rusher2937 And do you therefore understand the ridiculousness of the OP's question?
@@nealjroberts4050 no, because in germany for example laws are about to be implemented that would allow complete gender self-id, which could put doctors in a hard spot when determining the biological sex of a patient, since no paperwork would indicate the biological sex.
@@rusher2937 Don't your doctors check your patient history as required?
As for the OP I'm wondering how common it is for transgender people to want the general public to be their doctors.
Humans are 1 of 2 things.... alive or dead
Ironically, that's not true either. 🤣
Death is a process, not a moment, so while in the process of dying, you are some of both.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 dying does not equal dead, dead is when dying has come to an end. As a light bulb burns out it is dying, once the filament breaks, it is dead, no longer capable of letting current flow thru it.
@@bunnykiller nope. Parts of the person are "dead" but other parts are "alive", so what is the whole person? Alive or dead?
@@bunnykiller a really good conversation on this is about those who are brain dead but are kept ‘alive’ with machines. How ‘alive’ do you have to be to be classed as alive
How about brain dead? Their body is still alive and functioning but the person can’t come back. Are they alive because their heart is beating or are they dead because the brain is dead?
The problem is that Forrest's argument simply demonstrates that the umbrella that includes male or female is bigger and fuzzier than we realize and is probably still expanding. But, until someone defines a third sex, there are still only two umbrellas. Intersex is not a third sex. Intersex people invariably identify as either male or female but they're a variation. Variations do not generate a new thing.
So when did sex become so “fizzy” that pregnancy, menstruation and the ability wouldn’t apply to ONLY some of the female SEX. The claim that we can't define females or males due to a lack of universal traits or a single biological sex trait is flawed. While not all individuals within a sex category may exhibit every characteristic, there are indeed defining features exclusive to each sex.
The biological potential for childbearing is what defines the female sex, regardless of individual fertility. It's about the inherent capacity tied to female biology, not whether every female can or will give birth. This fundamental difference in reproductive roles is what primarily distinguishes females from males at a biological level.
@@mystic22g4 People with MRKH syndrome have YY chromosomes and ovaries so they generate hormones and experience puberty.
However, they have no uterus so can't become pregnant and don't menstruate. The lack of periods is what usually leads to discovery of the condition.
So there is no biological potential for childbearing.
@@Valicroix MRKH females have XX chromosomes, you stated YY perhaps this was a typo error. I failed to see your point on mentioning MRKH it’s not an intersex condition and is a congenital defect.
@@mystic22g4 Yes, you are correct, it was a typo. It should have been XX. An interesting Freudian slip.
I mention it because these are females without a biological potential for childbearing.
@@ValicroixI think you should do some research… they are clearly female and have functional ovaries… some actually can get pregnant
Forgot I was subscribed. Boy this was terrible and boring. As an atheist myself, I don't see how this is supposed to help someone who is religious come to our side.
Literally going to do the opposite
Christians made it a talking point. For me, my life-long non-belief has NOTHING to do with science, Evolution, or anything else. And NO Christian gets an education in science BEFORE becoming a Christian.
It really does have nothing to do with it.
Pretty weird atheist who cares about proselytizing.
I just accept and support scientific facts.
@@DrumWild No they didn't.
@@WiIza_ so we should deny science to cater to religious zealots?
The only apparently infallible rule is that there are no infallible rules XD
Just try to be happy and make other people be able to be happy. It's the only way to survive as a species.
Male: a plant or animal that produces small gametes... what if you don't produce gametes... well...
Female: a plant or animal that produces larger gametes... what if you don't produce gametes... well
Leg: a limb on which animals and humans walks and stands ... what if you can't walk... well
Eye: pair of globular organs of sight in the head of humans and vertebrate animals... what if you are blind... well
Heart: hollow organ that pumps blood... what if your heart doesn't pump blood any more... well
If you are going to question a definition of something by bringing up defects in it's functioning, then why bother even defining anything that functions?
the thing is: you are referring to what's commonly called biological sex, but as Forrest said better than i probably can, there's genetic sex, phenotypic sex, hormonal sex and the list goes on... just beacuse we have oversimplified definitions that help us understand a complex world, it doesn't mean those definitions accurately describe the world.... it's a simplification process our brain operates almost automatically, the same goes with silhouettes, or the "percieved borders" of an object. Our brains "edit" the image to differentiate to things that wouldn't be differentiable in order to help us interpret what we see in a practical way. This obviously evolved to aid survival, not to be an accurate depiction of reality. Same goes with categorical thinking.
Those are not "defects" as you like to call them, but rather those cases that are outside the simplifications we adopt to describe the world in an easier to communicate way.
There's entire books on categorical thinking and such, so you can further study the topic in case you're interested. This is about as much as i'm able to explain in a short comment on youtube, but it should make clear why definitions are really not written in stone, as you'd like to imply.
Let's take the case of your definition of "eyes", what about species that have more than one pair? What about species that have non-globular eyes? What about non-vertebrates with eyes? What about light receptors in many other species, are those not eyes? What about the many different types of cells that evolved in different species to do the same thing an eye does for us, but in entierly different ways? Are those eyes, even though they share no biological similarity to ours but their function?
@@riccardozanoni2531 Evolution's strategy for reproduction of the human species, is for a male sperm to fertilise a female ova. Females produce ova, males produce sperm. It's really that simple. You are confusing sex with markers of sex. Forrest believes the definition of sex in humans is problematic because some females don't produce ova and some males don't produce sperm. An eye is still an eye, even if does not bring sight to a person. Eye surgeons or coroners don't go into some philosophical tangent about the definition of the eye in relation to other species. They work in reality.
@@riccardozanoni2531there are entire papers on the two sexes in humans but let's listen to frog eyed Forrest on how evolution is wrong.
Sooooo... sex is binary.
Bimodal.
Y chromosome or no Y chromosome. There are obviously invinite options
@@HYEOL So someone without an Y chromosome with a functional penis and testicles, capable of impregnating women and unable to bear children themselves, with high upper body strength and muscle mass, a beard and broad shoulders _without any medical intervention_ is a woman?
Sure.
And yes. These people exist. Super rarely, of course.
@@cy-one with what y chromozome could they impregnate woman with ?
Biological sex is not always the same thing as secondary sex traits and genital development.
Sometimes genitals develops somewhere between the two but it doesn't change one genetic code.
@@hexa1905 My example was the wrong way around (allergies have me being a little off today, my bad). Got my chromosomes confused.
I was more thinking about someone _with_ an y-chromosome that looks like female, gets pregnant, carries the fetus to term and breastfeeds without any additional hormone treatment needed.
They _have_ a y-chromosome. So they're a male then? I mean, I'd understand if someone would call them that based on that criteria, I just don't agree.
Nevermind that "binary sex" crap. I want that clock on the shelf back there.
Yes, there is no third gamete, paradox institute made a whole debunking on all Forrest’s claims some months ago
It’s such a hamfisted attempt to somehow tie human sex with trans rights. Be trans I don’t care leave science alone
Oh wow, a self described "unschooled" person allegedly debunked a biologist with an advanced degree. heh.
@@matthewgordon3281 He's not a biologist though
Oh wow the Atheist Experience is woke. What a dissapointment
And you’ve outed yourself as an ignorant bigot, just as biased as the Christians you probably think you’re so much better than.
“Sex isn’t binary because there are rare exceptions in certain individuals.” Is the same as saying, “Humans don’t have four limbs because some humans are born without them.”
@@blaise6981 generally humans do have four limbs, and sometimes they don't. Sex is binary for the most part, but there are exceptions. Biological sex and gender are different, it's important not to conflate them. Gender is a spectrum.
@@kidslovesatan34We're not talking about 'gender', an ideological concept. We're talking about sex. The statement "sex is binary" means there are two sexes in humans. If your claim is that there are more than two please tell us what the additional sexes are.
@@Mel-wn9gb for the most part there are only two sexes but there are exceptions. Gender identity and biological sex are often conflated by the confused. Gender identity is a spectrum. You don't conflate them, do you?
@@Mel-wn9gb everyone agrees that sex is binary for the most part. That's not the argument, though. You can't legitimately conflate sex and gender because those are two separate and distinct things. Gender is a social construct and is a spectrum. You understand that, right?
Like religion, sex just shouldn't be political. It truly is a spectrum and should be treated as live and let live. Protect kids is my only beef
Gay, Trans, Cis and Straight kids all deserve protection and compassion.
You've been duped by nonsense. It's especially hysterical because it has absolutely nothing to do with trans ideology. It has nothing to do with physically normal males and females who merely "identify" as the opposite sex.
"If you take 8 billion people and try to say they are one of two _anything_ you're gonna be wrong." Challenge Accepted.
They will have an odd or even number of years that they've been alive. There. I did it!
The person has cells with an Y chromosome in their body or they don't
Decimals? And do you count the first year as 0 like in the US or as 1 like in China?
Checkmate. ;)
What does it _mean_ to be "MALE & FEMALE" respectively?
Are we talking chromosomes? Gonads? Phenotype? Capacity to fertilize a human egg/bear children?
There are many edge cases when determining the life span:
- When is the moment when life starts?
- Flying across time zones on your birthday.
- Feb 29 / leap year.
- Traveling at relativistic speeds.
@@RogerWazup007 integers
So many seem to miss the point of what Forrest said.
The issue is that declaring that "biological sex is only ever a binary" is false when looked at scientifically. Key words being "only" and "binary".
A binary means only 2 possible options/categories.
If there are more than 2, no matter how rare, then it isn't a binary.
Nonsense. Reply if you want to learn.
@@Dr.Ian-Plect Already ahead of you kid. That's why I know about the existence of intersex and you apparently don't.
@@nealjroberts4050 "Already ahead of you kid. That's why I know about the existence of intersex and you apparently don't."
- An inane, arrogant and childish comment that is further nonsense. Mentioning intersex further exposes your ignorance.
And, I see you thumb up your own comments too, well done.
-------
Are you going to continue in ignorance or are you willing to learn? The binary only has 2 options with zero examples of a third.
If you apologise for this stupid nonsense and want to actually mature yourself, let me know.
@@nealjroberts4050 "Already ahead of you kid. That's why I know about the existence of intersex and you apparently don't."
- An inane and childish comment that is further nonsense. Mentioning intersex further exposes your ignorance.
And, I see you thumb up your own comments too, well done.
-------
Are you going to continue in ignorance or are you willing to learn? The binary only has 2 options with zero examples of a third.
If you apologise for this nonsense and want to actually mature yourself, let me know.
@@nealjroberts4050 "Already ahead of you kid. That's why I know about the existence of intersex and you apparently don't."
- Mentioning intersex further exposes your ignorance.
And, I see you thumb up your own comments too, well done.
-------
Are you going to continue in ignorance or are you willing to learn? The binary only has 2 options with zero examples of a third.
If you apologise for this nonsense and want to actually mature yourself, let me know.
I could listen to Forrest talk about biology for hours.
Not all fish are cold-blooded (Opa/Moonfish), have gills (Lungfish) or lay eggs (Guppies, Platies, Mollies and Swordtails).
Your definition fails - as was to be expected.
@@cy-onethat’s because “fish” is not a biological category like humans. Humans are the species Homo Sapien, there is no taxonomical class called “Fish.” So you my friend are the one is wrong
@@blaise6981 Can you see the message I was responding to?
I’m still waiting for science to find Forrest’s lips.
The armchair scientist and doctor economies are alive and well in the comment section.
What's your view on the topic?
A RUclipsr who just makes stuff up is alive and well on this channel.
I'm all for it, but here's what's confusing. If what is determined to be male or female men or women is a gray area, which is fine, then how come when it comes to women's rights for patriarchy talk all the suddenly it's back to women this and Men that? People say the patriarchy is caused by men. What do you mean by men? I thought we just established that everything is gray and mixed up and hard to determine. How do we know that everyone who formed this so-called patriarchy identified as male or a man? And I'm for women's rights but if there's no such thing as women then why do we need specific rights for them? If a man can identify as a woman then he can just scoop up those same rights, and the push for women to specifically being taken care of is null and void now.
*"If what is determined to be male or female men or women is a gray area, which is fine, then how come when it comes to women's rights for patriarchy talk all the suddenly it's back to women this and Men that?"*
To paraphrase Forest: "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
It's _useful_ to group people into categories.
It's _wrong_ to exclude people that don't fit into categories from existing.
*"I thought we just established that everything is gray and mixed up and hard to determine."*
Again. Because it's useful.
There are societal issues. And some congregate around various positions.
Let's take Nazis. Actual ones. I'm from Germany, so I'm allowed to invoke Godwin :P
Are Nazis black and white? Full Nazi or no Nazi at all? No. There are infinite shades of gray between someone who's _very much not a Nazi_ and someone who would have Hitler swoon over him of how much of a picture perfect Nazi they are.
Now, does it still make sense to talk about Nazis as Nazis, even if "someone being a Nazi" is a gray area?
Yes.
Because it's useful in general language.
When more precise language is necessary, one can use more precise language.
*"What do you mean by men?"*
In that specific context?
Cis men.
*"How do we know that everyone who formed this so-called patriarchy identified as male or a man?"*
Nobody claims that "everyone [...] identified as male or a man."
It's fuzzy language. It's like saying "People in Germany are Germans."
No, they're not. We have tourists, expats, immigrants, refugees and Bavarians. Not everyone here is German.
Yet, because it's _useful in language_ we still call people from Germany Germans. Most of the time, at least ;)
*"And I'm for women's rights but if there's no such thing as women [...]"*
Your slope seems to be rather slippery if you slide from "Things aren't 100% binary" to "There's no distinction at all."
You might want to get some shoes with a more grippy profile.
*"[...] then why do we need specific rights for them?"*
Most people do not want "specific rights for them."
Just an equal application of laws, independent on someone having to DNA-test you or fondle your pants before deciding which laws apply to you and which don't.
@@cy-one thanks for your response it seems where the two type of people that can have a decent debate without it at least, immediately, turning into insult or something LOL. Here's a critical point. What is the point of words? It's to describe something. To describe something, it's naturally to differentiate it from something else. The words my wallet and the words your wallet mean two very different things, especially when it comes time for me to pay for my groceries. The difference between male and female it's probably going to mean something to you when you pick a mate. Even if you're bisexual their height might make a difference. Even if you don't care about their gender or height you might care about their religion or lack thereof. Follow me on this. When asked you might say I only want to date an atheist. But that sentence only works if there was a hardcore solid binary definition of what atheist memes. Or else someone who's a Christian can say give me a shot cuz even though I still go to church I'm kind of atheist. Or people can say an atheist doesn't mean you don't still worship God. Just using the term atheist as example, once you change what a word or term means and singles out, and what it does not mean and does not single out, the word loses meaning.
@@bakionigeri6414 It doesn't lose it's meaning. It _changes_ its meaning. Which happens _all the time_ in language.
Atheist is a good example.
Decades ago, the position the term "atheist" described _wasn't the same it is today._
Today, an atheist is someone who *_doesn't believe gods exist_* and _might, additionally, believe gods don't exist._
Some (mostly theistic) people _still_ hold to the old usage of the term and would consider the first half of what I said an agnostic.
Whereas most modern atheists would consider themselves an agnostic atheist and think (when using precise language, not speaking colloquially) that just saying agnostic is like saying "moving" (and omitting the "car" that would follow that word in that example).
Sex and gender is similar. To most - especially outside science, a few decades or a century ago, they meant the same. Now they don't.
Word's changing is normal.
The only confusion that happens is _while the term is changing._
Nowadays, nobody blinks an eye if I say "That movie was cool." Because that secondary meaning of "cool" is established by now.
Pretty sure there were some weirded-out parents around when the term _was changing it's meaning._
@@bakionigeri6414 Adding trans women to the category of women does not suddenly mean all women stop existing or all that they were is somehow gone or less??!!
A cis woman and a trans woman are both women, just in the same way a intersex person can be male or female or both. We're just trying to find more accurate ways of describing what's out there.
Some women & men from birth can't have kids, the ultimate definition of their sex label, but we don't stop calling them male or female as it would be petty & cruel, besides they can still adopt. So why is this not acceptable behaviour & language for trans people?
I'm that rare thing intersex and trans. A surgeon forced me to be male when I was a baby then as an adult I moved myself across to female. Binary thinking forced that surgeon to operate on me, it's not a just a word game.
More inclusive language is a fairer system and in 2023 we really should be up to making it work.
Sex based laws meant that women could always be treated different as historically they were, so we moved to the morally superior Equal Rights. Under this all start at the same point and differences have to be argued for, much fairer and has had unexpected beneficial outcomes such as maternal leave for husbands.
The binary systems is ok in principle but not when it is enforced to the point of cruelty.
Sorry I've gone on a bit but I kept quiet for to many years and watched the world go down a horrible rout once more. As a trans person I very much have a bullseye on me and I am no longer going to go into the darkness quietly.
@@cy-one I love your well thought out replies
It's getting more and more difficult to take this channel seriously, science has nothing to do with how you feel
It's not a claim. It's a fact. Yes, some animals are hermaphrodites or are combined but the base is still 2 sexes. The others are not completely separate from male and female in the same way male and females are.
You cannot state facts, when you can't even be bothered to crack a book.
Common mushrooms have over 17,000 sexes. They have no genders, since they have no need for social constructs.
You say something is the base because it's a social norm. You want to leave it out of the model because of squeamishness. Science doesn't do that.
@@apjapki lol squeamishness? Don't tell me how I may or may not feel about something.
You disagree and instead of making an actual argument against what I'm saying you tried to insult me. You've automatically lost the argument.
@@apjapki social norms do not change your DNA. Social norms do not change a rabbit's DNA. Stop making assumptions about what I'm saying and respond to what I actually said
@@firebreathingmoonbeam3961 how do you define male and female? Specifically using genetics as part of the definition.
What is the method for ensuring that you don’t chop off body parts that a child may want later in life? No one will engage with that question. Why?
Is this a discussion about circumcision?
@@nealjroberts4050 Chopping off the penises and breasts of children isn’t circumcision. I want to know the method for determining who should transition and who will want their genitals later in life.
The fact that you confused removing a penis and removing the foreskin makes me think you aren’t really equipped for this discussion. Best to leave it to the grown ups then if you can’t make an intelligent contribution.
Are you claiming that noone would want their foreskin later in life?
I'm only responding to your OP. If you meant something different you should say sio
@@nealjroberts4050 What is the method for ensuring that a child will not want his foreskin later in life. It’s literally the same conversation. Either you are opposed to gentian mutilation of children or you aren’t. Which are you, Neal?
There are people who lament the loss of their foreskin and are angry that they didn’t consent. Now imagine if the whole dick was gone and you could have sex at all.
@@professorshadow470 This is why "sex change" surgery for the underage aren't done willynilly and require psychologist intervention. Unless you want to count the amount of surgery done to the intersex following birth? Can't have it both ways "professor"!
There are two sexes in nature. Granted there caveats for aberrations but it's not incorrect to say there are two sexes.
It's incorrect to say there are _only_ two sexes.
Saying "there are two sexes" is fine. It's simplistic and vague enough to be open to still work when one takes a closer look.
Saying "there are only two sexes" lacks that flexibility and is just plain wrong.
It's like saying "normally, people are one of two sexes" is correct. Saying "people are always one of two sexes" is just wrong, again.
Nope, sex is bimodal and the host has given many examples of that fool
Common mushrooms can have over 17,000 sexes. Mushrooms exist in nature.
@@Mavuika_Gyaru Some snakes are born with two heads, this doesn't mean that snakes don't have a head. I agree it's bimodal but there are still two different sexes. Maybe this is a trigger for you but keep your insults to yourself, I am not spreading hate.
Did you even listen 😮
male, female, neither.... there ya go we now have a name for this. But here is a question that needs an answer... if youre both, can you have sex with your self and when you give birth is it a clone of your self??
This is an actual possibility (though they technically wouldn't be a clone - they'd have different DNA to the parent). I have read a paper, a case study, about a person who produces both sperm and ova and was thus technically capable of impregnating themself. It hadn't happened, but was technically possible.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 how would the DNA be different when both sets of DNA came from one "parent". There are plants/flowers that can self pollanate and the seeds are exact duplicates of the original plant genetically, a clone.
@@bunnykiller nope, they aren't. In plants, this is even more extreme than in diploid humans, because they are often tetraploid, hexaploid or some have even higher numbers of chromosome copies than that.
I'll explain: You have 2 copies of every gene (excluding those on the sex chromosomes is you are male). For a given gene, let's call them A and B. When gametes are formed, they get only one copy (being that they are "haploid"). As such, taking two gametes produced by one person, the possible combinations are: AA, AB, BA & BB. Being that AB & BA are the same, then there are 3 possible resulting combinations on the offspring, with AB (being the same as the parent) occurring 50% of the time, and AA & BB (being DIFFERENT to the parent) occurring the other 50%.
Now consider that humans have 20,000 to 25,000 genes, spread across 23 pairs of chromosomes, with this mixing able to occur with ANY gene where the parent has different copies, it is statistically insignificant unlikely that the offspring will be a "clone" (having identical genes) of the parent (not even considering that mutations also occur, and so does some shuffling of the locations of genes).
Because plants have SO MANY extra copies of chromosomes (and hence genes), the number of combinations is exponentially greater, making the offspring even more different than in diploid humans.
Look for the short story, All You Zombies.
It is a cute Science Fiction story.
@jam ww
And humans that are the result of two fertilized eggs? One fertilized XY and the other fertilized XX?
No matter how rare it is, it doed happen. And thus shows your absolute statement to be false.
There are abnormalities, so what? As a whole, our species is a binary species.
It's not controversial to say humans have 10 fingers. You aren't being bigoted either. You aren't being a digit-phobe because there are people with fewer and more fingers.
You can create accommodations for the people that don't meet the definition of either category of sex and that would be the humane thing to do. Also, people that don't meet one or the other sex are not inferior or less important to society because just because we are a binary species. (assuming, people are bigoted because they don't hold your view is lazy thinking)
To deny that there are differences between the sexes is wrong because they absolutely exist. Sex and gender as he means it are definitely connected. There are physical and personality traits that you can map to each sex as a whole. Where you can even make predictions within the group (not the individual because we are so diverse when it comes to physical abilities and our personalities.) There is nothing wrong with that. I honestly don't get this recent obsession with this issue. I do think it's being used as a political wedge to further divide us.
As there are more than 2 categories of biological sex it cannot be binary.
But will you support legislation that will force ALL gloves to only ever be made with 5 "fingers" per "hand"?
Well sure there are differences, i didn't hear anyone say otherwise. On the other hand, there's no absolute connection like you claim. There are traits that you *_generally_* can map between the categories, but what happens when the predictions that you made turn out to be wrong?
As for the "obsession"... i think it's about health-care. Sure, there might be larger issues with health-care overall, but this is still an important aspect of it.
@@irrelevant_noob Your side's argument is incoherent. You are saying there are a million genders but there is no difference and you can switch between them with a thought. You are the ones then saying that all gloves should have 5 fingers because there are no differences between the sexes. You want the definitions to be what a person feels and not based on anything else.
I support no men in woman's sports because generally, they are bigger, stronger, and faster than women. Men are more than just testosterone. You are stealing scholarships and destroying women's sports. It's not a coincidence that all records are falling to trans women. You are getting women raped and pregnant in jail. You are allowing women to feel unsafe and threatened in women's bathrooms. There are many other institutions that are being destroyed as well.
You are confusing gender roles and the development of children. You are allowing for permanent damage by allowing kids to transition before they can know what they want and studies show that a majority will change their minds before adulthood.
Your side is saying there is no difference that sex and gender are social constructs. That is demonstrably not true. Your side is way in the wrong here. This isn't the same fight as gay rights or other civil rights issues and the equality argument is just not true. We are a binary species. Your side's argument is incoherent.
I agree with Richard Dawkins. This movement is politically motivated and is silly. Yeah nature is what nature is and not everyone or every thing fits in a box but we have norms and facts. Women have babies if they are healthy and not normal, men can not. Men do not have periods or can have children. I don’t why atheists would step into this politically charged debate.
Because it's also a religiously charged debate.
Additionally, the examples you brought up only work:
a) on averages and
b) if one disregards the existence of gender
@@sideboob6851 you are an idiot xD While people, largely religious ones, don't take time to learn biology - we need to talk about biology even on atheist media. Especially when genocide is on the rise
Did you watch the video at all? There is no consistent criteria to clearly divide 8B people into women and non-women. "All models are flawed, but some are useful."
Saying that a female is a person [choose: producing large gametes / with XX chromosome / self-ID / wearing a skirt] is useful in some situations, but not others.
*females have babies and periods*
Women can be anything.
@@chipmanly1359 so someone who's gone through menopause is no longer a woman, got it.
Can you choose your sex?
Great show guys! We need more Atheist Shows on TV and everywhere, I live in Philly, Pa. and unfortunately too many of us here are timid, but not the church nuts.
Why? That's like wanting more meth dealers in high schools, or more sewage in our swimming pools.
@@EdithBromfeld We don't agree on your analogies being applicable here.
@@cy-one Who cares if you don't agree? You have no point.
@@EdithBromfeld Which isn't an issue as I wasn't trying to make one.
You, on the other hand, intended to make a point but failed.
@@EdithBromfeld because we're in favor of education and critical thinking.
Can anyone explain why sex is treated differently than other human characteristics? Some humans are born with less/more than 10 fingers…. Do we say that humans “usually” have 10 fingers? Of course not…. So why do we treat sex like there’s anything other than 2 categories with very rare differentiations?
The "very rare differentiations" are at least as common as red hair and green eyes... So not that rare.
Further, people aren't declaring that ALL humans have 10 fingers, that this is the only possibility. LOTS of people, however, are declaring that there are ONLY 2 sexes, and that no other option existed. 👈 That's the difference.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 is there a single person on the planet who denies the existence of intersex people? I reject your premise entirely. People think that exceptions (that still only have characteristics of each side of the binary…..) do not disprove a binary. Just as a human born with 11 fingers doesn’t disprove the rule that humans have 10 fingers. Obviously anyone with a brain knows these rules have exceptions, people have eyes and can see that not everyone fits every rule
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 and it gets much murkier when you start talking about people changing genders/sex or whatever. This now becomes a personal choice with very little to no evidence/proof needed. This is pretty scary considering how many gullible people there are in the world, especially young people. There is no other rule in regards to human biology that becomes a personal choice in this way. Would the people who support these ideas also support trans racial people?
@@ryanolson2308 yes. There are LITERALLY DOZENS in this comments section alone.
@@ryanolson2308 further, a person born with 11 fingers disproves the rule "ALL humans have 10 fingers" - which is analogously what people are doing when they say that "Sex is binary", (being that "binary" means that there are NO exceptions).