The Scientific American published an op-ed claiming the definition of male and female is fluid. Ova and sperm don’t make a woman or a man, according to The Scientific American.
When The Scientific American rejects biology, you know you’re in trouble.
The point seems to be that the animal kingdom doesn’t limit itself, so we shouldn’t either.
“The bottom line is that while animal gametes can be described as binary (of two distinct kinds), the physiological systems, behaviors, and individuals that produce them are not. ,” author Augustin Fuentes wrote.
…
“So when someone states that “An organism’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) it has the function of producing” and argues that legal and social policy should be “rooted in properties of bodies,” they are not really talking about gametes and sex biology. They are arguing for a specific political, and discriminatory, definition of what is “natural” and “right” for humans based on a false representation of biology.”
…
“Given what we know about biology across animals and in humans, efforts to represent human sex as binary based solely on what gametes one produces are not about biology but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society.”
This is not science. It’s the twisting of science. We should be able to define a woman and a man. No one is saying that someone with gender dysphoria isn’t a “full human.”
Trust the science. A woman is whatever a person calling themselves a woman wants it to be, apparently. pic.twitter.com/zqmvKySqir
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) May 1, 2023
Fuentes is a Professor of Anthropology at Princeton. One of his books is Monogamy and Other Lies They Told You. He’s an iconoclast. Fuentes is overthinking the definition of male and female. It’s not that hard.
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
