Did you read this piece in good faith? I don’t see the authors having the blind spot you claim they have.
They made their case for a gametic definition of sex by explaining how the other definitions you’ve proposed are downstream of it. Along the way, they also explained how the gametic definition provides a certain generality that explains a lot of phenomena, both within and across species. As such, it seems they did make a solid case for the gametic definition of sex. Given that the definitions you favor are subsumed under theirs, why should they acknowledge yours?
While I acknowledge that the definitions you proposed could be useful in other areas of biology in an operational sense, that doesn’t make them the right definitions for describing and explaining what’s true about reality. This is akin to classical mechanics—it’s wrong, but the fact that it’s a good approximation of reality for many engineering use cases means it’s still useful. Again, wrong or incomplete as an explanation for aspects of reality, but still useful for the task at hand. The authors are evolutionary biologists, they care about the definition that best describes and explains a certain aspect of reality. A developmental biologist or a doctor might use your definitions because they’re good enough approximations that simplify the task at hand.
Furthermore, what makes you think they wouldn’t change their mind about the number of sexes if you were able to present the existence of a third gamete? Their definition permits that. In fact, they were explicit in stating that nature doesn’t have to stick with two discrete gametes, but that’s what we’ve ended up with. They don’t take this result for granted either, citing both observations and mathematical models to explain why we end up with two gametes. Why there are two gametes, no more, no less, is an open question. They explicitly quoted Ronald Fisher on this. That alone should tell you evolutionary biologists don’t take the binary for granted, which makes your accusation that they’re biased by “common sense” rather suspect.
You go on to grant that their definition could account for a hermaphrodite as a third sex, then accuse them of bias for their supposed unwillingness to do so. You also fault them for failing to account for sterility. All of this stems from your failure to understand the gametic definition of sex. If you did, three things should be apparent. First, the existence of a third gamete doesn’t imply that such an organism is a hermaphrodite. Second, a hermaphrodite fits well into their definition, being an organism with the floor-plan to produce both gametes. Third, the gametic definition is concerned with which floor-plan(s) an organism is instantiated with, not whether they can actually produce the corresponding gametes. Accusations should come only after a sincere effort to understand the other side. The ones you’ve made suggest a poor understanding of their points, not flaws in the points themselves. You accused them of being ideologues, but your misunderstanding here makes me question what’s actually going on; is the article too challenging for you, or are you the ideologue acting in bad faith?
Out of respect, I’m inclined to think you’re acting in bad faith here, and your subsequent accusations follow the same pattern. As such, rather than engaging further, I hope my comment helps signal to others that your response is woefully unreliable and that they should read the article directly instead.
For the race-essentialist practices described by the original poster, Yascha Mounk's "The Identity Trap," published in 2023, and interviews with Coleman Hughes regarding his college experience at Columbia are insightful resources.
To delve into the philosophical roots that lead to the type of absurd reasoning mentioned by the original poster, "Cynical Theories" by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, released in 2020, is recommended. Despite Lindsay's more recent radical stance, the book provides a critical exploration of these theories. It is also heavy on citations.
For the kind of misconduct in higher education described by the original poster, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) or the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) serve as reliable references. There's no lack of explicit anti-semitism on campus.
The discussion around "woke" culture is often muddled by attempts to obscure its existence, framing it as merely an extreme right-wing concern. For those who genuinely want a quick way to challenge their priors regarding "woke" being some kind of "right-wing" thing, you should give this short piece[0] a read. Does it comport with your notion of "right-wing"? If not, you should start questioning those who use "right-wing" as a boogeymen to convince you that there isn't a radical ideology who've created newspeak for their brand of racism, sexism, whatever-ism.
I'm not sure how conservative funding makes FIRE less credible.
To make my point, first, I'm not sure whether the Wikipedia article you are quoting is misrepresenting the demographic of FIRE's donors (i.e. by omitting left-leaning ones). I'm not going to adjudicate that, so let's assume that FIRE's donors are mostly conservative.
Then, does having conservative donors imply that FIRE supports conservative causes under the guise of free speech? To adjudicate this, we have to ask (1) why does FIRE have mostly conservative donors (2) assess their track record with respect to the cases they've taken up.
For (1), one could argue that major cultural institutions in the US lean left (i.e. universities, academic and professional societies, major newspaper outlets, big tech, etc.) and that has led to the silencing of conservative views. This is evident in attempts such as comment, which tries to nullify the credibility of FIRE through guilt by association, as opposed to any actual criticism of substance. Your attempt also highlights the fact that conservatives have a negative reputation within a large circle of people, large enough for you to have the expectation that people would write FIRE off if you portrayed them as being conservative (sans any argument of substance). In light of this, is it really a surprise then that FIRE attracts conservative donors, whose views can be written off on the basis of their political stance? As for their relationship with TPUSA, why not read that for yourself [0]?
As for (2), the same Wikipedia article you quote also mentions FIRE's defence of Nikole Hannah-Jones, a figure who is prominent on the left. Furthermore, the link that this Hacker News discussion is created for also mentions FIRE's opposition to DeSantis' "Stop WOKE" act, of which DeSantis is a prominent figure on the right. In light of this (and their non-partisan past track record, which is publicly available), is it really fair to write FIRE off by associating them with conservatives?
With that, I make my case that even if FIRE's donors are largely conservative, that information does not reliably inform about the nature of FIRE's work and reputation. More broadly, I want to call out your employment of guilt by association; how is FIRE's current president's appearance in a 2007 documentary made by a conservative filmmaker a problem? Lukianoff is a self-described liberal democrat, and trying to portray him as a conservative just so you can discredit him and his organization is nothing short of a spectacular display of intellectual depravity, a masterclass in writing off your opponents without an iota of substance; surely you can do better than that?
I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I'm not the "activist" you accused me of being, or the conspiracy theorist/covert "right winger" you're trying to paint me as. I clarify my position here [0].
>Saying that nobody can disagree with you unless they are mentally unwell, and then calling someone who disagreed with you an example of "what's wrong with the US" is very odd behavior. It doesn't seem like the way someone operating in good faith would behave.
I don't see how I acted in bad faith. However, it appears that your comment is an odd interpretation of the additional remarks I added to my original comment. Perhaps my command of english isn't as good as I thought (I'm not in the anglosphere), or perhaps, you're the one acting in bad faith and giving a convoluted take on my remarks. Regardless, allow me to clarify; "Feggal" replied to my original comment, accusing me of being a "transphobe" and claims that he's going to tattle to Dang for my alleged transgressions. The additional remark I added to my original comment was meant to extend the original points I made about how a particular group of ideologically motivated people are contaminating the conversation, and how "Feggal"'s ad-hominem reply is an example of that. I hope this clarifies things.
Lastly, I'm not interested in entertaining any more ad-hominem attacks. For anyone reading this thread, allow me to point you to this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[1], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet. You figure out the discrepancy in claims between the BMJ and that of the medical associations and activist organisations in the US, and decide which of the both is the conspiratorial one.
I don't appreciate your ad-hominem attacks. I spent two years outside of the US witnessing the idiocy of Trump, and another three witnessing the idiocy and regressiveness of the "progressives". As such, I don't take sides in your politics; both your left and right are a disaster to me.
I am not an activist, but I do care about causes that most on the left would empathise with, which is ironic given that gender-affirming care is one heralded by the "progressives" on the left. To the best of my ability, my commitment is to reason, which is something the right clearly lacked during (and after) the Trump administration, and something the left has been lacking for quite some time now.
This much should establish that I'm not some garden-variety "right-winger". Now that signalling my "creds" is out of the way (and it should never have mattered anyway), I think I have a unique perspective as an outsider. Because I have no commitment to US' abysmal politics and since I am not in the anglosphere, I'm not immersed in the local narratives that are happening on the ground. This lets me compare (much fairly) the US and UK + EU's approach to gender-affirming care, and how it's reported. So perhaps while I'm not an unbiased observer as you would put it (I have an opinion on this matter), I do think I've a much better view of what's going on than someone in a country who's narratives are dominated by their political extremes.
So here you are, making a bunch of accusations about me which you can't even bother to back up. To counter that, here's something of substance; for those who think there are no credible claims to the contrary, you can check out this investigative feature by the British Medical Journal (BMJ)[0], one of the most reputable journals in medicine alongside The Lancet.
Puberty blockers are claimed to be non-permanent. However, that can't be verified at present [0]. In light of that, such a claim being made in the first place is definitely medical malpractice of some sorts.
Also, I do not think medical sources from America are reliable for this topic. The UK and the EU have moved away from gender-affirming care and designated it an experimental treatment. Medical and psychological associations in the US have been captured by such activists and are pushing false rhetoric such as "the science is settled" and "we have medical consensus" (note the misrepresentation here; consensus does not imply evidence-based).
US have a problem where radical activists have captured many influential cultural institutions. Anyone who disagree is automatically designated a "right-winger", "conservative", "white supremacist", "oppressor", "racist", "sexist", "homophobe", "transphobe", etc. This should be obvious to anyone looking from outside the anglo-sphere. For things to get to the point where US can't even recognise what a medical scandal is is frankly appalling, especially when their counterparts in Europe is able to do so.
They made their case for a gametic definition of sex by explaining how the other definitions you’ve proposed are downstream of it. Along the way, they also explained how the gametic definition provides a certain generality that explains a lot of phenomena, both within and across species. As such, it seems they did make a solid case for the gametic definition of sex. Given that the definitions you favor are subsumed under theirs, why should they acknowledge yours?
While I acknowledge that the definitions you proposed could be useful in other areas of biology in an operational sense, that doesn’t make them the right definitions for describing and explaining what’s true about reality. This is akin to classical mechanics—it’s wrong, but the fact that it’s a good approximation of reality for many engineering use cases means it’s still useful. Again, wrong or incomplete as an explanation for aspects of reality, but still useful for the task at hand. The authors are evolutionary biologists, they care about the definition that best describes and explains a certain aspect of reality. A developmental biologist or a doctor might use your definitions because they’re good enough approximations that simplify the task at hand.
Furthermore, what makes you think they wouldn’t change their mind about the number of sexes if you were able to present the existence of a third gamete? Their definition permits that. In fact, they were explicit in stating that nature doesn’t have to stick with two discrete gametes, but that’s what we’ve ended up with. They don’t take this result for granted either, citing both observations and mathematical models to explain why we end up with two gametes. Why there are two gametes, no more, no less, is an open question. They explicitly quoted Ronald Fisher on this. That alone should tell you evolutionary biologists don’t take the binary for granted, which makes your accusation that they’re biased by “common sense” rather suspect.
You go on to grant that their definition could account for a hermaphrodite as a third sex, then accuse them of bias for their supposed unwillingness to do so. You also fault them for failing to account for sterility. All of this stems from your failure to understand the gametic definition of sex. If you did, three things should be apparent. First, the existence of a third gamete doesn’t imply that such an organism is a hermaphrodite. Second, a hermaphrodite fits well into their definition, being an organism with the floor-plan to produce both gametes. Third, the gametic definition is concerned with which floor-plan(s) an organism is instantiated with, not whether they can actually produce the corresponding gametes. Accusations should come only after a sincere effort to understand the other side. The ones you’ve made suggest a poor understanding of their points, not flaws in the points themselves. You accused them of being ideologues, but your misunderstanding here makes me question what’s actually going on; is the article too challenging for you, or are you the ideologue acting in bad faith?
Out of respect, I’m inclined to think you’re acting in bad faith here, and your subsequent accusations follow the same pattern. As such, rather than engaging further, I hope my comment helps signal to others that your response is woefully unreliable and that they should read the article directly instead.