The Capture of Nature (the scientific journal)

submitted by anonymale from quackometer.net

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]moody_ape 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

gorillas know sex, cats know sex, even flies know sex. they might not have a linguistic concept of sex, but they know very well which one they can mate with. i cannot understand how people can be so willingly blind to biology. just because humans classify and label things doesn't mean such things are always sujective, vague or devoided of material reality.

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

It's money.

A lot of these formerly respected science or science - ish publications have been bought or bribed by Trans, Inc. including Nature, Scientific American and National Geographic.

As I said in another thread, that leaves people who used to respect them, like me, not trusting anything they put out. COVID kills more men than women and that has fuck all to do with the patient's gender identity. How can I trust an article on COVID from NATURE if it will not define sex in terms of biology?

[–]anonymale[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Contains a handy reference to specious sex-isn't-binary arguments:

  • Say you are going to give the ‘old fashioned’ defintion of sex but actually set up a straw man. Instead of discussing how biologists define the sex of an organism in terms of the evolved development path it follows with respect to either gamete type (male or female), claim sex is a set of ‘sex characteristics’ like genitals, breasts and things like facial hair. Stick to humans.

  • Note how sex characteristics vary enormously between individuals and many overlap between what we call sexes. There is no clear dividing line, for example, in bone morphology in humans for example. Therefore, there is no clear div[id]ing [sic] line between the sexes.

  • Set up another false straw man of how kary[o]types [sic] are synonymous with sexes — that is XX/XY are defining of female and male rather than being one type of sex determining mechanism. Note how sex chromosomal aneuploidies mean sex cannot be binary. This is false and conflates atypical chromosome numbers with sexes.

  • Come to the conclusion that sex is too vague, subjective and unreliable a concept to classify humans. Suggest, as Claire Ainsworth adds in her article payload, that we just ‘ask people’. That is their ‘identity’ is the only thing we can rely on.

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

Come to the conclusion that sex is too vague, subjective and unreliable a concept to classify humans. Suggest, as Claire Ainsworth adds in her article payload, that we just ‘ask people’. That is their ‘identity’ is the only thing we can rely on.

I guarantee you that if I pull my pants down there won't be any question of how to classify me.

That's true of 99.9% of the population. And even post-op TIMs don't exactly look natural. I mean, sheesh, I'm a gay guy and even I can tell that those things TIMs call vaginas don't look right.

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

I'm sorry, I know this is serious stuff, but I just can't stop laughing about the name of one of the people quoted here as trying to erase sex in favour of gender identity. They are called Vilain. Vilain.

Nomen est omen, even while lacking the second L.