GC: Evolution comes with change, biology is not infallible and immutable and can change, therefore sex is not immutable and can change?

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from self.GCdebatesQT

This tweet made me think: https://imgur.com/0qjPKyq

Evolution comes with change. And one day in evolution we might see no male or female anymore, which means biology is not unchanging and immutable. Would it mean sex is not immutable and unchanging then and can actually be changed?

Since biology is mutable and changing, and sex is biology or a part of biology, how come sex is immutable?

all 33 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 18 insightful - 4 fun18 insightful - 3 fun19 insightful - 4 fun -  (6 children)

Are you ever gonna tell us how babies are made? Is there a reason you continue to ignore this question?

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Sigh, is there a reason you feel like asking me that question is ever going to answer my questions? Answering my question with a question isn't going to help me.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I’m trying to understand so I can answer. sigh

You make these posts and there seems to be no logic behind them. How would we evolve if sex is a construct to begin with? How would we keep reproducing humans in order for anyone to exist to evolve without sex?

Sigh all you want but the fact is you never answer our questions, you just keep popping up with your own.

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

My question this time was not: "Is sex a social construct". It was: "Why isn't sex mutable when biology itself is mutable?".

Evolution exists, things change, which means biology does not stay the way it is, and changes over time. And since sex is biological or a part of the biology which changes, it means sex changes and is not immutable. At least that's what I get from this. GC says sex is immutable and can not change, so I want to know why you disagree with --> "Sex is mutable and can change, because evolution comes with change and biology is mutable and can change, and since sex is a part of biology, sex is mutable and can change"

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

And my point was, I needed your answer to my question in order to form my answer to the questions you keep asking. I’m trying to understand how humans even fit into the posts you make. How are we made and how would we be made in the future if sex isn’t real or has mutated? And wouldn’t we have to evolve naturally, so there’d be no trans at all, because we’d all just be flip flopping sex? What would cause this? Can we change back and forth? Would we all change, or just some of us? Why? It makes no sense.

And you haven’t shown us any proof of sex being mutable nor have you explained your post well, so I’m lost for an answer. Where did you get the idea that sex is mutable? Yes evolution exists and things change over many many many years- but humans have existed for millennia and somehow haven’t evolved past sex or into mutable sex, so what would occur to make this happen in the future?

GC is correct, sex is immutable and cannot change, currently. So how and why would this truth change in the future?

[–]adungitit 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Evolution exists, things change, which means biology does not stay the way it is, and changes over time.

So, if evolution changes stuff, does that mean I am a dog now? Or a burrito? Or a space shuttle? Does that mean I have 10 arms? Or 50 eyes? Biology is mutable, right?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually it would really help illustrate exactly what sex is and why it’s not changeable in a human.

When a mummy and a daddy make a baby, the daddy gives the mummy a gamete called a sperm. Mummy has an egg for her gamete and when the spent and egg make friends in mummy’s tummy, a baby happens.

Mummy is female because she is an adult human who developed a body that would, in good health and during her fertile years, produce eggs. Her body would not make a sperm even if she really wanted it to.

Daddy is a male because his body developed in a way that means he will in going health and during his fertile years, make sperm. His body would not make an egg under any circumstance.

If mummy or daddy get sick or old they will stop making gametes, but their bodies are still the same structurally and are still bodies that developed to produce one of two options.

If mummies and daddies in the future have gills, should mummy stop taking her lung medicine? No because the future gills aren’t relevant.

Should we define sex by something that might happen in the future? No because future sexlessness is not relevant.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Seriously? Why would a future hypothetical ever alter the current facts?

If humans could evolve gills would be stop working on medicine for lungs? Or is that a silly approach to something that might maybe happen one day in the far future? Nature is mutable, a persons cells are not unless they’re cancerous.

How many times are you ask to be told the same thing over and over again?

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

How many times are you ask to be told the same thing over and over again?

The previous questions were: "Is sex not real", today's question is: "Is sex not immutable because evolution comes with change and biology is not immutable?". They're different questions.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Biology is mutable. A human beings sex is not. That’s it. Sex does not become irrelevant today because it might not be relevant a million years from now.

No hypothetical tweet will ever give you the magic scenario that says sex is mutable.

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

But since biology is mutable and changing, when sex is basically biology or a part of biology, how come sex is not changing and is immutable?

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Because biology does not change in a week or a year or a human lifetime. Do you think the entire concept of biology being mutable means that anything biological is also mutable? What grade did you stop doing science?

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

I mean, if biology is mutable, then anything biological is mutable because biology itself changes. If you think that's not true, then please explain why you think that way.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Are you trying to miss the point here?

Biology is a wide range of natural processes. Evolution happening over hu dress of thousands of years does not mean that current biological systems can radically change. Jfc are you seriously even old enough to post here?

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Can you give examples of other biological things that have never changed and will never change in evolution, besides sex?

Jfc are you seriously even old enough to post here?

Yea, I'm 23.

[–]HouseplantWomen who disagree with QT are a different sex 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol. Ok. You wanna answer any other questions you’ve been asked or just keep trolling/missing the point on purpose.

Sex might change in the future, why should that change what is a very clear binary right now? Why should we define anything by a far future hypothetical instead of what currently exists?

Sex is not mutable in a humans lifetime. What about that is the part you aren’t understanding?

[–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

how come sex is not changing and is immutable?

How come female trans people taking testosterone never gain the ability to produce sperm? How come male trans people taking estrogen never gain the ability to menstruate? You would have to ask nature why nature made sex so immutable for humans as it's not GC who is causing sex to be immutable for humans.

[–]censorshipment 9 insightful - 7 fun9 insightful - 6 fun10 insightful - 7 fun -  (0 children)

Your questions are very embarrassing.

[–]loveSloaneDebate King 11 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

I’m confused- is sex a construct, or is it mutable? And how do the hermaphrodites you brought up previously fit into all of this? What is it that you actually believe?

[–]kwallio 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're never going to reply, they don't actually believe in anything.

[–]slushpilot 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

How does every single person you have ever met even exist?

How were you born?

Don't these material people—and your own existence—somehow disprove your theory that sex is just some arbitrary idea?

[–]SnowAssMan 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If chickens, as a species, are the descendants of dinosaurs, then an individual male can "evolve" via self-identification into a female individual? Are chickens & dinosaurs indistinguishable to you?

Non-sequitur. There is no logic here. You might as well ask: since molten rock exists, how can you say I can't squeeze blood from a stone?

[–]ntr4ctrAdult Male with gender dysphoria 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

It takes tens of thousands of years for evolutionary change to occur. It doesn't affect organisms on an individual level.

I don't see how this is relevant.

[–]Britishbulldog 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Evolution: the advantageous (or neutral) alterations that occur in an organism due to DNA mutations over millions of years. An organism doesn’t wake up one day with a radical change in its genome. With regards to sex, humans (and most higher organisms) reproduce sexually. This is to mix the DNA of two people, which at the population level gives higher genetic variation than an organism that reproduces asexually. Higher genetic variation means an organism is more capable of adapting to environmental changes. Sex is crucial to this- sex evolved to do this very function. Humans won’t evolve to not have sexes anymore. Further to that, genes unrelated to sex are stored on the X chromosome, such as clotting factor VIII (this is why haemophilia almost always affects males). The X chromosome contains 5% of the whole genome, so it would take a mass translocation to get rid of the chromosome. This would involve genes and non-protein coding genetic elements (promotors, enhancers, suppressor regions) to also translocate. This fusing of chromosomes only happens in cancer cells (specifically where cellular mechanisms preventing this have failed).

Your point on cancer is interesting (mainly because I’ve done oncology at uni and it is depressing as heck but also incredibly interesting). Almost all types of cancer occur after reproductive age. Evolution is basically the adaptation of the genome to selective pressures over millions of years. Organisms adapt to reproduce, any changes affecting life past are reproductive age have no evolutionary benefit. A theoretical mutation X that prevents all cancers (this is actually impossible as cancers are highly diverse) would not affect who reproduces and who dies before this point enough to increase the frequency of mutation X. The obvious exception to this is childhood cancer but these are almost always due to an existing mutation, either inherited or a mutation in the gametes, and fortunately it is not common enough to have an evolutionary consequence at the population level with respect to mutation X.

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Thank you! I got another question. Since evolution comes with change, how come over all these millions of years there hasn't been a single organism that produced a third gamete, therefore no third sex ever existed and will ever exist? Why only 2 sexes? And not 3 or more sexes in all organisms, humans included? I learned from you why there are 2 sexes instead of no sexes at all, but I can't understand why only 2 sexes and not more than 2 sexes?

[–]Britishbulldog 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I’m not completely sure tbh but I’ve got a few thoughts. Humans are diploid. That means we have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each pair contains different alleles of the same genes (except the sex chromosomes). Meiosis the process by which a gamete is made. Gametes are haploid (1 set of 23 chromosomes), so when 2 fuse, you’re back to 2 x 23 chromosomes. So the number of sets halves to then double back to the ‘correct’ amount. This couldn’t work with 3x23 (you can’t split a chromosome).

The maths would work if we were tetraploid (4 x 23), but there is a practical aspect. Reproduction in mammals is almost always penis (supplies male gamete) in vagina (supplies female gamete)- the gametes actually come from other parts of the sex organs but for simplicity it can be assumed as above. How the heck four gametes from four individuals would come together in such a way I’ve no idea.

Interestingly there are organisms that don’t have 2 sets of chromosomes. The only organisms with 3 sets are sterile crop cultivars as they are incapable of meiosis. Asexually reproducing organisms often have one set. There are organisms with 4 or 6 sets but these are always plants, often specific cultivars. Some sugar cane plants have twelve sets.

[–]Not_a_celebrity[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is very interesting to me. Do organisms that are tetraploid, and more, have a third sex, a third gamete, or are they always sterile?

[–]Britishbulldog 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Triploid are always sterile or asexual. They lack different sex-determining genes. The one example of a tetraploid animal I found (Australian burrowing toad) still only has two sexes, so I’m not 100% sure how that works.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

If you're really curious about why there are only 2 sexes, I suggest you read this review that tries to answer that exact question.

[–]BiologyIsReal 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

When GC say that human sex is immutable, we mean individuals can't change their own sex. If you were born a male, you are always going to be a male, and likewise for females. This does not deny the existence of things like mutations, cancer or evolution. Anyways, evolution doesn't happen overnight, rather it happens over the course of millions of years.

[–]comradeconradical 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Do your questions actually tie in to the topic of this sub, or are you just interested in evolutionary biology across different species?

I fail to see the relevance of your questions in the debate of GC and QT ideologies. Could you maybe clarify your views and how your multitude of hypotheticals has any bearing on this subject?

[–]kwallio 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

mutable mutable mutable mutable I think you just discovered the word mutable

[–]strictly 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There has never been even one case of a female trans person taking testosterone impregnating anyone, fertile female trans people only have the female reproductive ability to get pregnant so evolution evidently hasn’t changed their sex as they remain female.

There has never been even one case of a male trans person taking estrogen getting pregnant, fertile male trans people only have the male reproductive ability to impregnate so evolution evidently hasn’t changed their sex as they remain male.

No human has ever changed their sex and even if we hypothetically said evolution could change the sex of humans such change would take millions of years so sex would still be immutable of all currently living humans.