You said that Agustín Fuentes, in their Scientific American article, wrote that the author "...admits that sex is a biological binary". This is not true. The article points out, rather eloquently, that it is NOT binary: "This reality of sex biology is well summarized by a group of biologists who recently wrote: 'Reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex.'” This is to say that mammalian sex is not "strictly binary". If you are interested in diving into the nuance, Steven Novella wrote a great blog on this subject: "Here is Why Human Sex is Not Binary", which you can read here: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/a-discussion-about-biological-sex/. Novella's point is that very little in biology is as simple as strictly black or white, on or off, male or female.
Here are the elements of the Fuentes article that still imply the sex is a binary, but, as I say, challenge its utility "for failing to explain everything about the behavior of sexed individuals."
"While most animal species fall into the “two types of gametes produced by two versions of the reproductive tract” model, many don’t. Some worms produce both...." Both what, the kinds that come in two types?
"Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other, and some switch back and forth throughout their lives." Here again, even to make the point we have to rely on the duality of the two types.
"Among our fellow mammals, which are less freewheeling because of the twin constraints of lactation and live birth, there are varied connections between gametes and body fat, body size, muscles, metabolism, brain function and much more..." So this admits there are the two types, but that they don't explain all of the differences between the sexed individuals. Who said they needed to?
Same thing here: "While sperm and ova matter, they are not the entirety of biology and don’t tell us all we need to know about sex, especially human sex."
And even here, it's explicitly conceded that biological sex differences are real *and* that they matter, just that they don't matter as much as some might think: "Let me be clear: I am not arguing that differences in sex biology do not matter. They do...."
Here again: "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."
The evidence presented in this article shows there is no sex binary only if you assume that a binary would be where one basic differences directly and perfectly accounts for every single other difference among the organisms that possess those differences. Nothing in reality works that way, if it's true there are no binaries in anything. But then the concept "binary" has no meaning and, saying it's not a "binary" is like saying it's not a "blahblahblah." That's why the argument in this piece is a straw man.
Why does the Ayn Rand Institute—why did Ayn Rand—say “religious thinking” in order to convey the concept “stubborn bad thinking”?
They aren’t the same thing. If you know how to look, you can find some non-religious stubborn bad thinking very close to home.
Thank you for your work.
You said that Agustín Fuentes, in their Scientific American article, wrote that the author "...admits that sex is a biological binary". This is not true. The article points out, rather eloquently, that it is NOT binary: "This reality of sex biology is well summarized by a group of biologists who recently wrote: 'Reliance on strict binary categories of sex fails to accurately capture the diverse and nuanced nature of sex.'” This is to say that mammalian sex is not "strictly binary". If you are interested in diving into the nuance, Steven Novella wrote a great blog on this subject: "Here is Why Human Sex is Not Binary", which you can read here: https://theness.com/neurologicablog/a-discussion-about-biological-sex/. Novella's point is that very little in biology is as simple as strictly black or white, on or off, male or female.
Here are the elements of the Fuentes article that still imply the sex is a binary, but, as I say, challenge its utility "for failing to explain everything about the behavior of sexed individuals."
"While most animal species fall into the “two types of gametes produced by two versions of the reproductive tract” model, many don’t. Some worms produce both...." Both what, the kinds that come in two types?
"Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other, and some switch back and forth throughout their lives." Here again, even to make the point we have to rely on the duality of the two types.
"Among our fellow mammals, which are less freewheeling because of the twin constraints of lactation and live birth, there are varied connections between gametes and body fat, body size, muscles, metabolism, brain function and much more..." So this admits there are the two types, but that they don't explain all of the differences between the sexed individuals. Who said they needed to?
Same thing here: "While sperm and ova matter, they are not the entirety of biology and don’t tell us all we need to know about sex, especially human sex."
And even here, it's explicitly conceded that biological sex differences are real *and* that they matter, just that they don't matter as much as some might think: "Let me be clear: I am not arguing that differences in sex biology do not matter. They do...."
Here again: "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."
The evidence presented in this article shows there is no sex binary only if you assume that a binary would be where one basic differences directly and perfectly accounts for every single other difference among the organisms that possess those differences. Nothing in reality works that way, if it's true there are no binaries in anything. But then the concept "binary" has no meaning and, saying it's not a "binary" is like saying it's not a "blahblahblah." That's why the argument in this piece is a straw man.