How can there be 'male' or 'female' when humans share at least 80%-90% of their genes with each other? If race is a social construct and is not real because humans share most if not all of their genes with each other, how can biological sex be real and not be a social construct?

bobbobbybob · 2020-11-07T00:20:21+00:00

lol.

We share lots of our genetics with bananas, too :D

SnowAssMan · 2020-11-10T12:09:58+00:00

Humans share 99% of their DNA with chimps, so how can there be "human" & "chimp"?

How can 2% of carbon in the atmosphere have any substantial effect on climate?

How can 6 minutes without oxygen cause brain damage or even be fatal if it's such a short amount of time?

This line of argument posits that a small amount of something can only have a small effect.

Of course race is a social construct. For instance, Americans use 'white' & 'caucasian' interchangeably. In the past "white" used to only apply to North-Western Europeans, now it applies to all Europeans. Caucasian officially applies to Europeans, Northern Africans, Middle Eastern people, even Indian people. It was invented before we knew about genomes. As far as our colloquial understanding of race goes it's a social construct, however the fact that forensics can determine the ethnicity of the body they are examining illustrates that there is a science to it too.

There is really no reason to distinguish between people based on ethnicity, because it tells us almost nothing about the person. There are far more substantial differences between the classes, despite class having no biological underpinnings. Class has a cultural component. Sex also has a cultural component called gender. Transgender individuals claim that their "gender" is mismatched with their sex. This is an entirely different definition of 'gender'. Transgender people mean 'preferred sex' or 'self-ID' when they say "gender". Their gender identity is the culture they were inculcated with by their parents.

Ironically, everyone, including transgender people, has a sex-congruent gender identity. Every male infant is socialised male & not socialised female, this results in gendered behavioural patterns that are sex congruent

e.g. men outnumber women in media representation, high positions & crime. This behaviour is not biologically determined, but biology was the catalyst. If trans-womxyn's gender identity wasn't male & trans-men's not female then trans-womxyn wouldn't outnumber trans-men in media representation, high positions & crime.

Likewise 2-3x the number of the female sex, regardless of how they identify, attempt suicide, compared to the male sex, regardless of how they identify.

I haven't even gone into the differences between the sexes. Sex differences are the reason for separate prisons, gynaecology, separate sports – they wouldn't exist without sex differences. That's why your comparison with race is a false equivalence.

Trans-womxyn's gender identity is male. You can't undermine both sex differences & gender differences, which are significant & measurable, while trying to argue that there are material differences between trans-womxyn & men, when said "differences" are trivial, indefinable, inconsequential & therefore irrelevant.

There is no justification to distinguish between trans-womxyn & men, & no reason to group trans-womxyn with women. No amount of attempts at superficial mimicry can change that, & neither can any amount of zombified chanting.

Comatoast · 2020-11-06T23:51:59+00:00

https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-does-the-fact-that-w/

We share dna at extremely high percentages with other animals. We aren't cows because of this. We aren't cats because of this. We aren't chimpanzees because of this. We're humans that have not only different biological characteristics that can generally be relied on to determine our sex, but we also have different hormone systems, different reproductive organs that are internal and NOT outwardly observable, and ovum and sperm that keep the sexes different.

reluctant_commenter · 2020-11-08T16:30:09+00:00

I'm not a guy, so not sure if I should be commenting here... but it looks like your post on the other sub was actually removed, possibly for trolling?

But, in case you are serious...

If race is not real and is a social construct because we share most of our genes, if not all of our genes, with each other, then how can biological sex be real and not be a social construct when we share most if not all of our genes with each other?

This is faulty logic.

Fact: humans share over 99% of DNA with each other
Fact: there are few meaningful group differences between a) racial demographic groups but there are MANY meaningful differences between b) sexes/genders.

Just because something is true for one set of demographic groups (race), that is not necessarily true for another set of demographic groups (sex). (You would have had to prove a link between those two in order for this quoted argument to mean absolutely anything.) Yes there is a handful of interesting health differences between racial groups, but that doesn't say anything about sex group differences. You can't just map your assumptions about race onto sex.

Now, what do we know about sex?

Sex is differentiated by the type of gamete a person is theoretically able to produce (and thus, reproductive systems).

That's it. Full stop. Sometimes a person is unable to sexually reproduce because of circumstances inhibiting their ability to do so-- we don't say that a male wearing a condom is not male, for example, or that a woman rendered infertile by the effects of having Turner's syndrome (one X chromosome) is not female. Those people still have a set of reproductive organs, even if they are not functioning the same as everyone else's. (If you want to see an interesting case of a woman who doesn't have a vagina-- but is still a woman who has ovaries and uterus-- https://www.livescience.com/amp/60162-born-without-vagina-mrkh-syndrome.html )

This is an observable, objective group differences between sexes, that you see OVER AND OVER with every single person on this planet. And in the vast, vast majority of cases, there are a bunch of corresponding health, physiology and external appearance differences that go along with it. Do you not think that the fact that some humans have uteruses and others don't, is not a "real thing" and is a social construct? Because that's what the word "sex" is used to observe. A fact.

Finally:

We share at least 80%-90% of our genes with each other ---> race is a social construct and is not real

We share at least 80%-90% of our genes with each other ---> biological sex is a social construct and is not real ...

Okay, this is just straight-up laughable.

First, neither of these are "equations" as you said (you have defined no equalities). You have a claim/premise in each one-- a "fact" about DNA-- but your conclusion drawn from the premise is invalid. There is a name for this type of mistake in Logic 101 course, I suppose I'll google it.
Your fact itself is wrong, humans share way more than 90% of their DNA with each other.

By your own logic, this is also true:

"We share at least 80%-90% of our genes with each other ---> age is a social construct and is not real"

Do you think age is not a real thing?

Just because humans share DNA, does NOT mean that humans are homogeneous and that there are no subgroups within humans.

And-- humans have to reproduce somehow. We do not reproduce asexually. Because of that fact, we have two sexes.

edit: typo

Skipdip · 2020-11-07T03:59:17+00:00

Get out of your head and into reality. There are two sexes. The sexes are dictated by if you have a vagina or a penis. The vagina makes the egg and grows the baby, the penis fertilizes the egg.

It’s amazing how gender ideology can confuse our brain to literally question the most basic obvious thing.

By the way, it takes 0.2 seconds to know someone’s sex. And you never forget it.

Archie · 2020-11-20T02:24:25+00:00

Do you have some biology background? I think it could be very insightful for you to find a genetics 101 class as the subject seems to interest you.

To answer your post, only a few genes expressed differently make a world of difference. Most of our DNA is common with other close species, let alone with other members of the same one.

GenderCriticalGuys

MODERATORS