*sees the usual alt-rights suspects who have already posted in this thread*
Careful, you can get modded for that.American Fox said:
Well, is your argument the requirement of a male sex and a female sex, or heterosexuality? Sure, we may still need both sexes currently, but heterosexually we can survive without.Zontar said:
And... ? Why does that make reproduction inherently heterosexual? And how does that make the statement "Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality" anti-science?Zontar said:
Because it's the only combination that works, meaning non-heterosexual couples are reliant on someone else being involved either for adoption or to assist in an artificial means of doing so. It doesn't "just happen" as I've seen more and more of as of late, but given how I've also seen people unironically state that biology is a social construct and that objective reality doesn't exist, or that there's more then one form of reality, that isn't surprising.BreakfastMan said:
So? You are just repeating the same point. How do we get from "reproduction is an act that requires a man and a women" to "reproduction is an inherently heterosexual act"? And how does that make the statement "Reproduction happens without the help of heterosexuality" anti-science?Zontar said:
No. Gender is a sociological concept, which roughly breaks down to "which sex (if any) you identify with". Sex is the biological concept of which set of genitals you were born with. If you want to accuse someone of being anti scientific it is a good idea to make sure you understand the science in play.inu-kun said:
Not anymore. Rats with two "mothers" [http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/2004/04/23/fatherless.php] have been born. So, you are wrong. Does that mean that you are the anti-science person now, since you don't know what actually happens in the field?Zontar said:
Having two X chromosomes or an X chromosome and Y chromosome generally causes the development of female or male sexual characteristics. This doesn't always happen though. The development of female or male sexual characteristics generally causes changes in the brain that, in broad terms, decide what gender one identifies as. (Obviously, it's more complicated than that and nobody actually understands it fully) Again, this doesn't always happen. In idealised, theoretical terms, there should be a direct causative relationship between your DNA and your gender. In the real world, with a population of billions for things to go wrong in, the relationship is significantly less reliable to the point where it's not really a helpful idea to work with.inu-kun said:
It does not, all it hints at is that there's more to biological sex than an XX and XY chromosome divide. Which is true. Look, what really matters is this; sex and gender aren't the same thing. The Ancient Greeks for instance knew male and female sexes and probably inter-sex as well, but defined genders as "passive" and "active."inu-kun said:
