https://xcancel.com/SwipeWright/status/2089569032995283402
After reading this new essay in The Conversation (left), I am convinced these people are either stupid or consciously deceptive. There are no other explanations. Ignorance is no longer possible.
Their entire argument is: "The traits of males and females has some overlap."
And? Show me one person who has claimed otherwise.
Nobody ever engages with the actual arguments people like me are making when we claim "sex is binary." I've made my case countless times in excruciating detail in major news outlets, massive podcasts, and leading academic journals. So have others.
My scholarly article "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes" (right) has now been viewed over 73K times. Anyone paying even a little bit of attention knows it exists and what it argues. It directly addresses and debunks the "multidimensional" model forwarded in the new essay.
Yet these activist scientists refuse to engage with any of the actual substance. They just keep arguing against strawmen.
They are of course free to write up a scholarly rebuttal in the same journal I published my paper. I'd even agree to a series of exchanges in a popular outlet. Or a live dialectic via Zoom or in person.
It's 2026 and we're winning the argument and shaping public policy. At some point (i.e., now) these people will need to engage with the substance of my arguments or slowly wither away to irrelevancy.
There are many avenues available to them if they actually want to engage. My DMs are open. Top journals and major news outlets are increasingly willing to publish the exchange. Many large podcasts will gladly host the debate.
Yet they invariably choose to write and speak only to audiences that already agree with them. It's pathetic.
They're completely out of excuses.
5 Comments
echo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 1d
It's because the 'actual arguments' are fucking stupid and trolling. Fuck off.
Oryx_404@lemmy.today · -2 pts · 1d
This feels true, regardless of the rest. These arguments probably need to be addressed head-on.
EDIT: I should clarify, I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it's not really in question
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/26/americans-have-grown-more-supportive-of-restrictions-for-trans-people-in-recent-years/
Not saying they've got a point but if someone is shaping public policy, no matter how dumb, you can't ignore them. Like RFK pushing the circumcision autism thing.
okwhateverdude@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 1d
lol
This dudes rantings are the moral equivalent of:
zomg debate me! This is so mega important! Legitimize my book report opinion by publishing against it! Hate cites count! People like me are being oppressed! REEEEE
ChairmanMeow@programming.dev · 3 pts · 1d
I mean tying sex to gametes immediately falls apart when you consider people who are born sterile; they produce neither and are thus sexless or something?
Ultimately they're not arguing what others are arguing. The "conservative" argument was always that there's only two sexes, and everything else (eg secondary characteristics, gender etc...) should comply with it. But biology is messy, so that's just not universally true. One "camp" decided to stretch the definition of sex (creating a spectrum), the other narrowed it to ever smaller definitions, to the point where perhaps it's not even that useful anymore for many purposes. Nothing necessarily wrong with being a puritan when it comes to these definitions, but it's arguing a discussion that's not being argued.
Oryx_404@lemmy.today · 1 pts · 1d
The article he's talking about has a section about DSDs that I think also covers what his response would be to sterility
I think you're right that people are talking past each other on this. Biologists use gametes because they care about defining sex in a meaningful way when talking about both humans and crabs. We don't care about crabs using the bathroom though.