Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Are There More Than Two Human Sexes? (A Response to SciShow)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 сер 2020
- SciShow's 'There Are More Than Two Human Sexes' uses DSDs to claim that sex is more complicated than male and female. Let's explore what they mean.
Transcripts, sources, and membership at:
www.theparadoxinstitute.com/p...
Sources:
[1] Green, H. (2019). There Are More Than Two Human Sexes. SciShow, UA-cam.
[2] National Health Service. (2019). Differences in sex development. NHS.
[3] Lehtonen, J., Parker, G. (2014). Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of two sexes. Molecular Human Reproduction, 20(12).
[4] Czaran, T., Hoekstra. R. (2004). Evolution of sexual asymmetry. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 4(34).
[5] Kimball, J. (2020). Sex chromosomes. LibreText.org.
[6] Gilbert, SF. (2000). Chromosomal sex determination in mammals. Developmental Biology, 6th edition. Sunderland (MA), Sinauer Associates.
[7] Kashimada, K., Koopman, P. (2010). Sry, the master switch in mammalian sex determination. Development, 137.
[8] NIH. (2020). Androgen insensitivity syndrome. Genetics Home Reference, National Library of Medicine.
[9] NIH. (2020). Swyer syndrome. Genetics Home Reference, National Library of Medicine.
[10] Anik, A., et al. (2013). 46,XX Male DSD: A Case Report. Journal of Clinical Research in Pediatric Endocrinology, 5(4).
[11] Dumic, M., et al. (2008). Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 93(1), 182-189.
[12] NIH. (2020). 21-hydroxylase deficiency. Genetics Home Reference, National Library of Medicine.
[13] NIH. (2020). Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome. Genetics Home Reference, National Library of Medicine.
[14] Wilson, G. (2013). Third sex redux. Intersex Human Rights Australia.
[15] Cox, P., Togashi, T. (2011). The Evolution of Anisogamy, A Fundamental Phenomenon Underlying Sexual Selection.
[16] Schmitt, D. (2017). Sex and Gender are Dials (Not Switches), Psychology Today.
The analysis in the video of Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is incorrect. Or rather the analysis is correct, ie that CAIS shows the independence of the SRY gene and androgen receptors, but the conclusion - that people with CAIS are female, is wrong.
People with CAIS have (internal) testes, not ovaries, because they have the SRY gene. That makes them male. Their testes produce testosterone (the other function of testes apart from sperm production) but since their other non SRY related genes produce non functional androgen receptors, their body plans, that is to say their body plans downstream from the gonads, develop as if they were female. Hence to all outward appearances, they look like females. Their secondary sexual characteristics are female, though in most cases there will be deviations fron normal female development, eg because of the partial anti-Mullerian effects of the testes. It should be noted that not all people with CAIS have the same genetic abnormality, and so the precise outcome of the Mullerian and Wolfian battle can vary in different cases. But in all cases, they're not female, because they have testes.
Their testes only produce immature sperm cells, non functional sperm.
For social purposes, it's perfectly reasonabe for people with CAIS to live as if they were females, indeed until they don't start menstruating in puberty there may be no suspicion that they are actually male. But for biological purposes, they're male.
You are going by just 1 characteristic not all the others. They have a fucking vagina therefore female, dude. There I'm making an argument equivalent to yours.
That's what I said too. Didn't find a good source for that though. Do you have one for me? Because since individuals with CAIS have testes they should be classified as male even if they phenotypically resemble women.
I love SciShow and Hank Green, but I remember when I saw that video months ago thinking that they screwed it by claiming that there are more than two sexes. The information mentioned in the video itself isn't incorrect, but the conclusion is. It's when trans activists use scientific studies regarding differences between male and female brains to claim that a trans person is trans because they have the brain of the opposite sex. I used to believe it myself, but after reading more papers and studies about this topic, I realised that there isn't really such a thing as a female brain or male brain, that these differences are not big or generalised enough to actually claim this, and that most of it is part of neuroplasticity: not something you are born with, but a matter of socialisation. The problem isn't the data, but the conclusions people make out of it.
Exactly!! And also the brain thing is irrelevant in terms of DEFINING us, men and women are defined by age, sex, and species, not our brain! Even when they bring up the “brain science” they are inadvertently proving that people are not defined by the brain, because how would one know what a man or woman brain is? In order to even make that connection you would have to FIRST define and categorize men and women on something entirely separate from the brain! So that actually disproves their point most of the time.
"...I realised that there isn't really such a thing as a female brain or male brain..."
There's decades of science showing that there are hardwired differences between male and female brains, that arise during prenatal development, and that are responsible for most of the differences between adult male and female social and sexual behaviour. As with other sex differences, whether you get the male or female version depends on whether there were high or low levels of androgenic hormones present when the critical development was taking place.
This discovery was first made in 1959 in experiments on guinea pigs, but has since been demonstrated in experiments in numerous other animal species (including Rhesus monkeys, one of the closest animal models to human beings), so there's really no doubt that it applies to human beings too. It's settled science, and it shows how far standards have fallen and the extent to which scientific institutions now kowtow to even the most antiscientific politically correct nonsense, that there are senior academics who continue to claim otherwise and who actually get published. It's as if creationism or Flat Earthism were being treated as serious scientific theories.
All the evidence (including brain scans and autopsies of trans individuals) points to transgender being the result of atypical sexually dimorphic brain development, either the result of some kind of genetic intersex condition (eg an XXY karyotype), or something happening during the pregnancy to disrupt the foetus's hormones (e.g. the mother was given hormones while pregnant or exposed to hormone mimicking chemicals).
@@hugheaston7598 It's true that the levels of sex hormones can have an impact on typical male and female characteristis, but that's not the same as literally having male or female brains. I do think that some aspects of behaviour are innate and not completely social, and that some behaviours could be naturally more typical for males or females, but still, most behaviours are learnt. We are cultural animals after all. If there truly were male and female brains, there would be less overlap between behaviours that both men and women show, and there would be way less feminine men or masculine women.
The studies about trans people's brains cannot be extrapolated to all trans people. There isn't enough data, and there are many things that could influence the results. When did these people transition? How they have been socialised? How old are they, and how old were they when they transitioned? How is their social environment like? To make a very general statement like "trans people's brains are more similar to the brains of the gender they identify as" we would need much more information. Also, I don't think this could be applied to all trans people. It's not the same someone who transitions later in life without having showed signs of dysphoria as someone who has felt dysphoric since childhood. Plus, having a brain with characteristis of the opposite sex doesn't mean to literally have a brain of the opposite sex. The brain is part of the body, having a female brain in a male body or viceversa doesn't make sense. Also, when trans people transition, they don't undergo brain scans. How do we know by sure that we can extrapolate the results of those studies to them? I've seen similar studies related to gay people instead of trans people. According to this, prenatal hormone levels in the womb could be related to homosexuality, so for example, a lesbian would have receive higher levels of testosterone than a heterosexual woman. This could explain why many gay men are more effeminate and many lesbians are more typically masculine, but that doesn't mean that an effeminate gay man has a female brain. I think that for trans people is something similar. Gender dysphoria is a obviously real, but I think that the reasons why it originates in the first place are not only biological, but also (and mostly) social: if they weren't restrictive gender roles and expectations in society, a trans person would still identify more with members of the opposite sex and they would be "more like them" , but they might not feel dysphoric about their body.
@@KarmaPolice42_28 The animal research clearly shows two distinct, non overlapping hardwired sets of behaviour, depending on whether they had male or female typical hormone levels during their prenatal development. In some of the experiments they produced what were effectively transgender animals (with the physical appearance of one sex but the behaviour of the opposite sex), just by manipulating hormone levels during prenatal development. The genitals undergo their development earlier than the most sensitive period for sex differences in the brain, so by just altering hormone levels at the appropriate time (e.g. with testosterone implants in female fetuses, or through surgical castration of male fetuses), you can produce animals with sex reversed brains, with very little effect on their physical appearance.
We know that the brain in human beings has a sex just as much as the animal brain does, because of an unfortunate episode in medical history. In the 1950s, a psychologist, Dr Money, decided that the human brain doesn't have a sex and people are born "gender neutral", learning whether to think and act like boys or girls based on how they are treated in early childhood.
Money's idea jibed with the thinking of left wing academics (who seem to hate the idea of hardwired differences between the sexes for some reason), and quickly became the universally accepted belief. For more than 30 years it became routine for doctors to reassign baby boys born with damaged or missing penises to female, using surgery to castrate them and give them female appearing genitals, with the parents told to raise the child as a girl, and medical intervention to provide female hormones to simulate a female puberty.
Then in 1997 word got out that one of the first kids put through this treatment, David Reimer, had rejected the doctor-imposed female identity and reverted to living as male. Finally researchers did follow up studies of other similar cases, and found out that what had happened to David Reimer also happened to most of the other kids put through these surgeries. Most rejected the female identity as soon as they were old enough to assert themselves. In some of the studies I've seen, the failure rate appears to have approached 100 percent.
If there's no such thing as a male or female brain, how did these kids know they weren't really girls? They'd been operated on to give them genitals that appeared female, they'd been raised as girls, and often they'd been put on female hormones as well. None of it worked. A male identity nearly always reasserted itself.
@@hugheaston7598 The Reimer case is a terrible example to use as evidence of anything except an extreme case of abuse and sexual mutilation. Just reading the case is clear evidence of that. It doesn't prove anything regarding "transgender" or sex differentiation in any way. There is no hard scientific proof that brains are inherently sexed.
Seven and a half minutes is an awful long time to say "no".
Well Hank Green spent over 13 minutes to say "yes" and still ended up being wrong.
Seems like u have the attention span of a child
@Pakifag i’m transphobic boo
@@rodi8206 Wrong.
@@fohrum4757 he’s right. He never provided more than two sexes and none of his sources did
Thanks. No-one has yet shown evidence of a 'spegg', or 3rd gamete. No-one has proved it takes more than two humans to create offspring. Yet when I put this to a 'trans' advocate I was accused of 'harming others' & 'bigotry', i.e. 'no debate', just insults. One could arbitrarily pick any bodily variation, such as girls starting menstruation at different ages; some sailing through theirs while others have a hard time of it, & some women being more fertile than others - but it proves nothing; at the end of the day, they're all female. Proving no two humans are identical is an irrelevance. There are 2 sexes.
Thats the problems with sjws and activists, as soon as you prove them wrong and they have nothing to say, u are either invalidating their existence or not worth their time to debate 😂 really pathetic
@Josh the Art Critic maybe its to increase the chance of a fertile male and female.
? No one has proved anything in this video or these comments. How does a gamete determine the sexuality of physically male person that has active ovaries? It dosnt....
@@makeshift2105 the title of the video is are ther more than two sexes. That is litterally the topic of discussion...
@@makeshift2105 ah you dont have a dictionary. Let me assist.
sexes
Plural form of sex
sĕks
noun
Sexual activity, especially sexual intercourse.
The sexual urge or instinct as it manifests itself in behavior.
sexuality
sĕk″shoo͞-ăl′ĭ-tē
noun
The quality of being sexual, especially sexual orientation and behavior.
A manner of being sexual or engaging in sexual activity.
A sexual urge as it manifests itself in behavior == a manor of being sexual or engaging in sexual activity
Thanks. I was really confused by the chromosome arguments and didn't know whether XX males were males or females. Thank you for clarifying this and reexplaining what sex is.
SciShow is so obviously liberally biased. They overcomplicate and make up things to fit their world view.
I am studying biology and I find this very interesting. For some reason sexes and genders are a super polarized topic, but science is just science. While you are right that the reproductive functions isnt exactly debatable, there are a lot of complex medical conditions that are in what we could call a grey zone. Some people have male chromosomes but a female anatonomy. Some people have sex development disorders which makes their sex hard to determine. And also the different genotypes codes for slightly different traits. Some genes are only inheritable trough the X chromosome and some only trough the Y chromosome. So if you have XXY for example, it is at the very least an interesting person to study. Sex studies is one thing though. You can be both male and female (hermafrodite) but there is no such thing as a third biological sex. Genders on the other hand is a whole different topic.
These other karyotypes aren't other sexes though, and they are discrete data categories so they can't be put in a spectrum.
Strictly speaking there is no such thing as a 'male chromosome' or a 'female chromosome'.
Not only do chromosomes not have a sex (duh!), but the reality is that there is a sex determination mechanism for which the SRY gene functions in
a manner resembling a switch.
The absence or malfunction of the SRY gene /can/ result in female development even though the rest of the Y chromosome is present and might be intact. Hence the existence of 'XY females'.
Likewise a person can have two X chromosomes, but also have gained the SRY gene. That combination /can/result in male development by activating the male sex determination pathway. Hence the existence of 'XX males'.
Obviously that's far from being the whole story. But it does demonstrate that the Y chromosome could be viewed as a reduced subset of the X chromosome rather than a wholly independent and distinct one.
@@jnharton It is pretty complex for sure. Most people tend to pick one camp or the other. The debate is often very polarized and I dont think that is a good thing. The truth is that it is complicated and the answer can even vary depending on exactly what aspect we are discussing.
True hermaphroditism is non-existent in humans.
CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) results in external female characteristics, but the individual has testicles that are internal. This is rare, unfortunate, and generally not found until puberty, when the individual fails to have a period.
Sex and gender are synonymous. Gender is biologically based in the brain. There are distinct differences in the morphology of male and female brands. Examining MRI, brain scans via Hierarchical Sparse Representation Classifier (HSRC) ginger can be determined with 96.77% accuracy.
In testing this method, the sex/gender of the test subjects was known to 100% by those conducting the test. Those examining the MRI brain scans did not know the sex/gender of the subjects. 96.77% accuracy is excellent for any predictive system.
Gender is not a matter of opinion, feeling, choice, or ideology. Sex and gender are one and the same.
Parenthetically, there are no human hermaphrodites. While there are individuals who have both male and female reproductive organs, only one set functional; the individual either produces a small gamete and is male or produces the large gamete and is female.
The SciShow episode in question mention that a 74-year-old father of four had exploratory surgery for tumor that turned out to be a uterus and ovaries. But as he, indeed, did father for children, he is, indisputably, male.
It is repulsive that trans activist try to use the unfortunate circumstances of those with CAIS and DS D’s as propaganda for their ideology; they want to shove these people into the spot, like like exhibited in a freak show to to further the trans ideology. These unfortunate people with these conditions should be treated with respect and dignity.
Some people want to throw out any system of classification that doesn't cover everyone. But there will never be such a system, because an organism is too complex in its makeup,and development for every member of a group to fit neatly within. There are infinite number of ways that genes can malfunction, mutate, not appear at all, or otherwise throw something new at us that we have never seen. That doesn't mean classification is futile, just that we have to accept a degree of abstraction and uncertainty.
Or maybe just accept it is a spectrum
@@LenaFerrari if sex is a spectrum, then how can I become more male? I want to be as manly as possible! Do I need a larger penis, or more muscle, or thicker hair?
@@toweypat sex is binary, but in answer to your question: yes, yes and bald😂
@@LenaFerrari bruh, did you even watch the video. He literally disproves what you just said.
@Josh the Art Critic Or they don’t want to understand because…. Feelings?
Thank god someone has responded. Its a shame how this idea spreads like wildfire.
and why is this a shame for you??
@@krimmer66 Because its annoying seeing the stories and comments on social media espexially when its people you know.
The truth IS hard to stamp out. Thats why its important for liars to keep making videos like this. Bury the truth in a tide of lies and it helps stamp out the light.
The shame is imbeciles thinking they know what they're talking about when they try to defend the antiquated and disproven theories of "binaries" in any part of biology.
Yep
I used to use SciShow in school, it's sad to see Hank taken in by the woke Kool-Aod.
I just checked and DSDs appear to be around 1 in 5000 births. That might not seem like a lot, but that's still 1.4 million people! People often point to low prevalence rates as a reason to discount certain experiences, seemingly without realizing that even those small rates can be a very big group of people when you remember that the total population is 7 billion.
And since people have been pointing to it, designing things assuming that everyone has 2 legs measurably affects not just people with fewer than 2 legs, but also people who do have both legs. And those people with fewer than two legs could be around 1.5%, or around 100 million people, which is comparable to the number of people with other marginalized conditions. Usually, accommodating people with those conditions also provides measurable benefits even to people without them.
The DSD rate is more like about 2% of all births. And the reason science has to update its definition is that as long as those mutation are viable and fertile, i.e. able to survive and reproduce, then you can't simply "write them off" for the sake of having a less complex definition for the stupid masses.
And note that because of people with those conditions, you wouldn't describe humans as having a variable number of legs.
Great video. The gametes are very important aspect of the discussion. No one can produce both gametes at the same time and there is no third gamete. A third sex would have to reproduce in a way that breaks the male-female binary through a third gamete or something like human partenogenesis but that’s impossible.
First, there are rare cases of individual organisms that produce both gametes. Second, your comment and much of these debates confuse a species level process (i.e. reproduction via two sexes) with individual variation in the process. All sorts of variations occur. The generality at the species level of two sexes doesn't mean that all individuals must fall into one of two categories. It is a valid generalization that there are two sexes, because that is the evolved system, yet it is also true that it is not a true dichotomy without exceptions that can't be categorized.
@Harold Baize you lost me. Can you give a link to explain?
@@silvertube52"No human, as far as biologists are aware, has ever been able to produce both sperm and eggs, and successfully engage in sexual reproduction using both gametes. As a result, there are no hermaphroditic humans, even in cases of so called “true hermaphrodism” where an individual has both testicular and ovarian tissues."
If you have a source that says otherwise let me know.
@@EbonyPope There are people who simply do not produce gametes, of either type. For example, a physiological woman with XY chromosomes and undeveloped testes instead of ovaries. So the gamete argument is just a wee bit specious.
@ParadoxInstitute how do you respond to people who object to this saying some people never produce gametes because of genetic disorders and what not? Do they have no sex? Or am i misunderstanding your argument?
Sex is not just genitalia, everything in your body is built for either female or male system - breasts, bone structure, fat disposition, hormones, throat, even brain and genes, everything. Obviously it's not just A amount of hormones or B amount of hormones, and nothing in between, some women have more testosterone naturally than some men, but their bodies are still in majority built to be either female variant or male variant.
Som people are born with no legs, but that doesn’t make human a “non-walking” animal. We are not talking about individual when we do science. Exception proves the rules.
the exception to the rule does not change classification between either sex. there are plenty of systems you can view in a person and determine if its either male or female.
It’s obvious that when people claim “sex isn’t binary” they are stating that to justify that trans people as literally being what they identify as but that doesn’t follow logic! Even if sex wasn’t binary, the idea of claiming “ I identify as this therefore I am this” is not how reality works. There are more than two human races, but a person can not claim to be a race they are not simply by “identifying “ that they are that race! Great video 👌🏽
Yes, people claiming that sex is not binary usually want to treat science like their tool. They often also say that there is no such thing as 'biological sex' (just because there are intersex people!). Lots of transgender activists fight with terms like 'biological sex', 'natal sex'. They gain to replace that words with 'sex assumed at birth' or - I heard those versions in my country - 'sex given at birth', 'sex chosen at birth'. Doctors and nurses are portrayed as wizards and witches who can make the baby a boy or a girl.
Wiktoria Marta exactly!! The only time it would make sense that “sex is assigned or assumed at birth” would be when the person has an intersex condition! About 99% of humans have NORMAL reproductive biology so for those 99% of people sex is not “assigned” it is OBSERVED!!
@@briiibriiibooo Unfortunately, changing their minds would be hard because their personal feelings make them fight with facts. If you are a boy but you identify yourself as a girl, talking about your sex as something somebody assigned you lets you and other people ignore that your sex is an objective fact. This replacing words makes the society think of your sex as just a bad decision of a doctor.
Wiktoria Marta exactly!!
We use gender to argue trans people not sex😂
The name "women" implies that your the female sex. Like how the name "red" implies, you know, to the color red. You can't just say your a women but yet be a biological male, like how you can't just say your the color blue but yet be the color red. That is just confusion to society. Gender is not a social construct, it is more about being feminine or masculine because there is nothing wrong with being a feminine man, it just doesn't make you a women. Same with masculine women.
i cant believe adults even debate about this
How isn't gender a social construct when different things are labeled as feminine or masculine change throughout time such as pink being for boys and blue being for girls until the 1940's or women like Hannah Snell or Joan of Arc who were able to make male soilders believe they were women simply through a masculine appearance?
@@locochavo4560
Dude, genders are not stereotypes
There's called being feminine or masculine
Male and female and it's a biological fact
@@LavaCreeperPeople If gender is not a stereotype then how come people deem males to be less of a "man" if he does activities that are considered feminine or have feminine features and vice versa for women
@@locochavo4560 negative people
What I meant by gender is not a stereotype is that just because a man likes female things (which is totally okay) it doesn't mean he's a woman nor can be become one
@@LavaCreeperPeople I will agree that biologically trans women aren't women since they do not have large gametes , but socially if presented well enough, trans women can be classified as women simply through appearance alone. We rarely in our day to day based someone's gender on sex but rather on appearance and tone of voice. So if trans women want people to treat them like they are female, then they have to act stereotypically to a biogical women in terms of looking and sounding feminine which most trans women are good at
Hey, thanks for the great video!
I have one question though and would be really happy if you could answer it.
When I bring forward this argument about sex being binary because of only two different gametes, people often tell me that this definition of sex is arbitrary and I often have a hard time to go against this response because in most textbooks, biological sex is indeed defined by all these different components like chromosomes, hormones etc. and there is nowhere written that the fundamental defintion of sex is actually determined by gametes.
So could you give me one or a few credible resources that actually state that fundamentally, sex is defined by gametes? Is there any scientifc consensus about this?
I’ve been learning about all this stuff as well and this stuff keeps coming back to how we define sex , which is complicated and appears to be politically motivated, one thing I’m sure of is that it’s complicated and a clear answer like just gametes size seems simplistic.
@@samlaude2944 I don't see how it could be anything else. "Sex" refers to sexual reproduction in living organisms. The fundamental basis for how humans, as a dimorphic species, creates more of its own. That dimorphism begins with nature splitting us apart into which humans will be the small gamete producers and which will be the large gamete producers. Everything else arises from that fundamental dichotomy. So it IS the most central, solid definition of biological sex. It's literally why we have something called "sex" in the first place - so we can make more humans. And that depends on who's making which of the 2 gametes first and foremost.
Sorry, but the actual definition of sex does includes chromosomes, hormones, etc. If that's all you can find in textbooks, that's because that's the actual definition. I don't know where this guy found this "fundamental definition", but it's not a scientifical consensus. The closest thing we have from a consensus is the definition hank used on his video
@@samlaude2944 Well the definition for biological sex has changed overtime with new discoveries being made in biology but it still boils down to a binary system as explained in the video. Though we can't agree on a clear cut definition of sex we can agree sex is a binary and not a spectrum.
We no longer use allosomes XX or XY because they don't account for DSDs which are variations in the sex binary. But these rare DSDs present in 2-3% of the population do not constitute as a spectra of sex, because the vast majority fit into the binary and as the argument made by this video these DSDs typically present phenotypically as male or female sex. This video goes off on a tangent about how Scishow guy considers people with DSDs as not women or men which is a bit manipulative from a semiotic point of conceptualizing biological sex but I see the argument being made.
Of course the Scishow video goes off on a tangent about Gender dysphoria as well and the psychological underpinnings of gender vs sex, (and quite defensively) which is fine I get it trans people exist. But not every intersex person with a DSD is trans. Most want to live normal lives and fit into the gender binary that they feel they most belong to. The existence of transpeople kind of supports the theory of the gender binary too since most transition to male or female ergo the sex-based gender binary. I'd like to see research on why there are so many transwomen too in comparison to transmen this is purely a anecdotal thing but it would be great to find out why this is the case in my own anecdotal ass opinion.
Let’s put it this way:
In order for a physical Human to exist and even discover their genetic ‘difference’ or question their ‘identity’….
A sperm and an egg came together to create that Human.
Until there is another mechanism of reproduction demonstrated (in all the cases of intersex, etc., there are no cases of a third gamete or sperm/sperm, egg/egg reproduction) then this fundamental binary is the driving force behind the basic existence of Humanity.
There may not be any ‘sources’ you can refer to because many definitions have been amended to accommodate modern thinking about gender ‘identity’ as separate from the ability to actually continue the species.
Wow! I'm really impressed by how clearly this was explained. I did a search for "what is intersex" and the scishow video came up. I found it unconvincing, but terrifying at the same time because of how easily it could be used to manipulate people. I found THIS video when looking for a "response to scishow". I think the point about the definition of sex is so critical. In today's world it feels like very few people are left to name the scientific fact that sex is fundamentally inseparable from reproduction.
What if someone doesn't produce gametes? Do they not have a sex despite genital structure? Would that make a third sex category, the absence of sex?
Beginning with the title, Green's video is misleading. Someone may watch it and come away with the idea that there are more than two sexes, even a spectrum of sexes, in nature. There are not. The order of nature has determined two sexes: XX and XY. Whenever this order is disrupted, it is due to a genetic malfunction. As the narrator calls it, a "mutation." A mutation is not part of the set order of things; it is, instead, an anomaly, or, as the narrator says, a "syndrome." A syndrome is not a good thing. It is not a third sex or a part of a "spectrum" of sexes. It is a genetic mistake, a genetic error, a mutation, and, as the narrator says, a recognized "syndrome." As the narrator says, these genetic mutations are harmful and require "medical care." > Someone may watch this video and conclude that, because they identify as something other than their sex, they probably are a "third sex" or a sex that is one part of a natural spectrum of sexes. But that would be a bad bet because the natural, undisturbed order is XX and XY. In any case, before people begin to assume anything, genetic studies need to be conducted on LGBTQ people to determine if genetic mutation is relevant to their self-conception.
I noticed that Zack took the CAIS example from the 'organised around the production of ova' side. Should have come from the other side surely, having an active SRY gene?
That was my question too. Don't CAIS people phenotypically present as female and usually live as such but also usually have internal testes? That would make them male.
This video was a wasted opportunity.
1. Zach makes the same presentation error as Sci-Show by neglecting to use real-time citations--e.g. by displaying the index number of the source on-screen as he makes the relevant claim. Sources are useless if it's not clear which sources are intended to support which claims.
2. He doesn't apply his own definition of sex consistently. People with CAIS are often capable of producing sperm, but never capable of producing ova. Therefore, his claim and his graphic from 1:48 to 1:55, along with claims made elsewhere in the video, plainly imply that people with CAIS are male. Nevertheless, he classifies them as female (4:15).
3. He leans on invalid, identity politics rhetoric to shame people into joining his side. (This criticism is more applicable to some of his other videos, but he does this to a minor extent at 6:43.) It is not necessarily an insult to say that a given person is neither male nor female. Whether it's an insult depends entirely upon whether the speaker believes _a priori_ that being neither male nor female is a bad thing to be. It's clear that SciShow was trying to portray those conditions as being normal to the point of being mundane, rather than as something that justifies bullying or discrimination against people who have them.
You're either intellectually dishonest, or stupid. I suppose if Zach said humans have 2 legs, you would say he thinks humans with 2 legs aren't really human.
@@cleigh3796 -- I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion at all. What are your specific objections to specific points in my comment?
@@mvmlego1212 I'm not here to try and reason with you, I'm just here to insult you.
@@cleigh3796 -- Well, that's a waste of your time and everybody else's. Ironically, though, your engagement under my original comment is causing its visibility to be boosted. Keep typing all the insults you want, but I won't be reading them.
I disagree with you but the guy that replied to u is a degenerate
Very well made video. Although, the anti-trans group in the comments is really annoying. Human biology and psychology are still very much in the process of studying, so things aren't set in stone. There being only two sexes doesn't prove anything about gender, because there are still a lot of factors that haven't been studied yet. If you all are truly about facts, you should learn more and jump to conclusions less.
Look up MIT and Stanford University research, as well cambridge university. The studies have shown, no gay gene exists, Period.
Yeah we have to remember that biological sex is not the same as gender, and that trans people are still people who don't deserve to be bullied for who they are.
yeah but the debate was about whether there are only two sexes or more. It has been proved beyond doubt that there are only two. Gender is a whole other ambiguous topic whatsoever. So no one is talking about gender anyway.
This channel really is a gem! Defining the sexes based on gametes makes so much sense.
I'm curious about your opinion of sex-change therapy/surgery, in particular whether you think it is possible to change one's biological sex
No, one cannot change sex. Fact.
You can change your secondary sex characteristics through surgery and hormones to closer resemble the opposite sex in anatomy and physiology. But no, you cannot change your sex, which relates to the development path you went down, the reproductive system you develop, and the sex chromosomes in your cells (all of which form in the womb).
Thus, you can change sex-related traits, but not sex, and that's okay. We should separate one's legal sex from one's biological sex. We can recognize both.
@@ParadoxInstitute That makes sense! Thx for the response :)
@@ParadoxInstitute Are you deleting comments? And if so why?
Or are you shilling the idea of legal sex and actual sex for some reason? - - as if we dont have enough people funded to do that.
So, for some research and statistical purposes it makes sense to sort only by gametes, but the point is that the gametes are not at all the only thing that defines how a person is, so it does not make sense that society still in so many ways is divided in two based on gametes.
The actual occurrence of intersex lies at 0,018 precent. How exactly does a binary not reflect the reality of most people? Also there is no such thing as a true hermaphrodite in humans. There is no third sex.
Thank you. Im a huge fan of scishow for dumbing things down. But I still could not understand that episode. This video helped explain things much more clearly.
While this video argues overall that gametes determine sex finally, for some conditions this video seems to argue that phenotype determines sex finally (CAIS for example).
Isn't the fundamental distinction chromosomes, from which differences in gametes etc then proceed?
I think his argument there was that the body is built towards building the gametes, even if it doesn't possess them. It's the same kind of point for if a man isn't producing sperm for whatever reason, we'd still call them a male
Chromosomes are more fundamental yes, but I think even more fundamental than chromosomes are mammal evolution and reproductive set-up, e.g. the evolutionary pressure which created the chromosomal differences. Dimorphism in mammals lines up well with gametes so people seem content with just using gametes. Although I wish there was a stronger definition there
@Paradox Institute what about simultaneous hermaphroditism? Are there intersex humans that have this condition and can produce both large and small gametes? And if so, where do they fall in the binary, male or female?
@@amalie407 I didn’t think there was. But I hear a lot of people say there has been recent cases or studies that have found it etc. unfortunately I wasn’t able to find any.
No, you can't have both systems fully developed.
No. There are no cases of true hermaphroditism in humans.
That was the last SciShow video I ever watched. I won’t abide political ideology that masquerades as scientific information.
the other way around, science that denies your worldviews is suddenly political
@@dontspikemydrink9382 Your comment is irrelevant, as the video is not science but rather pseudoscience. The presenter did not and can not establish his premise (there being more than two sexes) because it is in contradiction to biology.
@@denvan3143 You cannbelieve that but facts over feelings. Sex is not binary, despite what this video may state
@@dontspikemydrink9382 sex is binary. Biology defines the male as producing the smaller gamete, the mreps (spelled backward because of auto censoring) and the female produces the larger gamete, or egg. When mreps and egg unite fertilization takes place and an embryo develops. There is no third gamete. There is a male reproductive set and a female productive set, there is no third reproductive set. The species is binary. In 1.5% of humans there is Deformity of Sexual Development (DSD) in which the reproductive set does not develop normally. This does not equate to a third sex. It is not personal opinion, worldview, feelings or politics, it is biology.
@@denvan3143 you don't need another gamete to have another sex. This also doesn't have anything to do with politics
People with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome develop testicles within an phenotypically female genitalia yet you put them on the female side. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to put them on the male side because they develop testicles which is the structure for the male gamate.
That's what I thought too. I asked him but he didn't answer yet.
Technically male, can be considered female socially for all intents and purposes.
Honest question, so what sex is this woman? I really want to understand this. It seems that biologically (according to your argument) she's male as she has testes, no ovary, but she has all the secondary sex characteristics of a woman and unless she talked to you explicitly about her internal physiology (as she does in this TED talk) society (including you and I) would assume that she is female and treat her appropriately.
If I'm correct in understanding your argument in this video, you would insist that she is in fact male. Is that correct?
ua-cam.com/video/stUl_OapUso/v-deo.html
@Josh the Art Critic Why do you think Paradox doesn't want to say that Emily Quinn is male? According to the video Paradox posted she is, so why would Paradox not want to say that?
To be clear, she classes herself as intersex, as do the medical community, but she also clearly presents as female and will be treated by society as female.
@Josh the Art Critic so what's the problem with her identifying as intersex and being viewed by society as a woman?
Women and girls with CAIS have a complete female phenotype. Because of this, they are observed at birth as females, raised as females, and identify as female throughout life. This is why, in the video, we recognize them as females. Some identify as 'intersex,' like Emily Quinn, which is totally fine. We are not making the argument, and never have, that individuals with CAIS are phenotypic males and should be treated as such. They're phenotypic females.
@@ParadoxInstitute your answer makes absolutely no sense though. The crux of this video is that there are only two biological sexes and all intersex people can be categorised into one of these two sexes specifically and strictly according to the gametes that their bodies are arranged to produce. You are directly contradicting yourself with this answer as in the video you clearly claim that women and intersex people such as Emily must be male as they have testes, not ovaries, therefore their reproductive systems are arranged around the production of sperm (male gametes, in your parlance) not ova. By your own reckoning in this video, that clearly makes them male. On your terms Emily Quinn is a male (ie small-gamete producing) woman.
Why are you now contradicting this?
@@howtohelp9309 You are right, persons with CAIS produce (immature) sperm cells. wikipedia: "Immature sperm cells in the testes do not mature past an early stage, as sensitivity to androgens is required in order for spermatogenesis to complete" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
Persons with CAIS are MEN!
Very interesting indeed. So we need to shift the focus of diversity of several sexes to the diversity within the two sexes that exist.
It's funny how sci show tried to say there were more than two it was stupid people started to say there were more than two sexes dye to people say males are xy and females are xx which they are but they thought that this meant if someone was xxx they would be a new sex even know the more specific explanation would be if you have a y even if you lack an x your male or even if you have 3 x chromosomes or billions of them that one y would still make you male and if your a female with more than two x chromosomes or only one you would still be female it's just a matter of weather you have or don't have a y chromosome
Well, but there are people who develop both or neither gamete. So, where do they fall
Can you provide an example of someone who has developed both or neither gamete?
Idk why yall wanna classify people with disabilities as apart of the standard, some people are born with webbed feet, 3 legs, 6 fingers etc.. so based off of those examples should we describe humans as having up to 6 fingers or up to 3 legs or may or may not have webbed feet?? Just a political fallacy, and as a result kids these days are identifying as voldemort to be “special” smh im losing hope.
@@alliii835 Because those people with "disabilities" exist? Voldemort doesn't exist. This concludes the fucking lesson.
if they could develop both, they could self replicate you know. yeah, find me that. or no, wait, people who do produce an alternative gameter its so deformed and inmature its sterile. nature prevails, its binary or doesn´t work
I only saw that scishow video recently (almost two years after it's been posted) and I was infuriated with all these omissions. I love learning new things but that video was purely biased. Thank you for showing the world how things really are and for calming my nerves. I'm subbing your channel right now. I can't go on with misinformation like the other video.
Sounds like the bias is coming from you, actually.
So perhaps instead of defining sex as simply being *a* spectrum, it'd be better defined as a *dimorphic* spectrum.
If gametes is what determines sex, what about people that dont produce any?
So Green's right that XX doesn't mean the individual will appear as a girl or even necessarily female, but he's wrong that this means there are more than 2 sexes. There are XX males and XY females among other chromosomal findings, though not necessarily with complete gamete production.
So glad I found this. I'm kinda tired of explaining the errors in other peoples thinking or overthinking.
This video really explains it perfectly without making everything sound complicated. And it really supports what I was thinking. I also don't know what to think about "trans sexuals" right now as there is also something people are overthinking, over complicating all the time.
the mere existence of calfs with two heads shows that the number of heads in calfs is on a spectrum.
ok, this clarified things for me quite well - thank you
THIS VIDEO IS SO GOOD THANK YOU FOR EXISTING 🧡🙏🏻
In other words, "THE OTHER VIDEO MADE ME NERVOUS THAT THERE ACTUALLY IS A SPECTRUM, AND THAT WOULD LIMIT MY JUSTIFICATIONS TO BE HOMOPHOBIC, BUT THIS VIDEO, WHICH I DON'T UNDERSTAND OR EVEN REVIEWED/VERIFIED SPEAKS TO ME AND ALLOWS ME TO CONTINUE BEING HOMOPHOBIC"
@@Elpodcastblanco Can you explain to me, why the acknowledgment of the existence of the two sexes makes me a homophobe?? By the way, I’m a homosexual myself…. And homosexual = same sex attracted. 🏳️🌈
This is honestly really fascinating to watch. Can I ask a purely academic question? (Well, actually two?)
If the difference between male and female is just that, just to do with gametantia, does that make a gender reassignment surgery more similar to a cosmetic surgery which changes a part of your body from one thing to the other?
Secondly, if someone is completely infertile, we run into all the same problems that are mentioned in SciShow's episode (being the differences between sex organs and how those differ from genetics, etc. etc.) So my question is, how would we determine gender in that situation?
Thanks in advance for helping out! It's hard to know what questions to ask and where, you know?
Edit : spelling
Those were my questions after watching too. That be interesting to listen to.
Being infertile or not, the body still works in base of a ovum system or sperm system. an infertile man its that, an infertile. man.
Gender is a linguistic term. Sex is a biological category. Many behaviors are described by sex tendancy and have cultural roles built around these traits.
Gender roles are different in different cultures and even in the same cultures over time and when those cultures are faced with different environmental challenges.
For example, before WW1 and WW2 most women were home makers and may have earned supplementary income to their families doing home maker or child rearing, caregiving work, while most men were the primary bread winners for their families. During the wars many urban women took full time employment in factories while rural women took over all the work of running the farms, often all in addition to their regular work as housekeepers and caregivers. This did not make those women men, just because they took on roles previously held mainly by men.
How a person of a particular sex behaves, what role they fulfill in their family and what natural interests they have is related to their sex but not defined by it in all ways. This seems to be what many mean when talking about gender expression.
Male and female are sexes and do not change with culture.
Masculine and Feminine are linguistic concepts and can apply to men and women as well as to furniture and other objects, as is seen in different languages.
There is much more to it than that but this is my limited understanding. I am open to learning more.
Infertility is irrelevent; We ALL have infertile stages in our development, but that doesn't change our sex.
Even people who have disorders, injuries or diseases that mean they NEVER become fertile- They still either have anatomy GEARED TOWARDS production (successful, or not) of small, mobile gametes/sperm- So "males". Or anatomy GEARED TOWARDS production of large gametes/ova- So "females".
Infertility is like Intersex conditions- One of the standard, red herrings used ro try to muddy the waters for political reasons. And both are 100% irrelevant to transgenderism,, which is a 100% EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE-FREE IDEOLOGY, unlike infertility and Intersex conditions, which are both 100% EVIDENCE-BASED physiological issues.
Comparing the two, is like comparing apples to Siberian short-form poetry. Not even the same KIND of things.
Gender is determined by one's gender identity. The individual identifies their own gender. Gender identity is an aspect of biological sex which in the rare case of trans people can contradict it.
Thanks for this clear explanation. I've been 'debating' the science recently and this is incredibly concise and useful. Cheers!
This is true, BUT. Secondary sex characteristics are still important in the fact that they're extra body parts involved in the person's medical life, and I don't see why they shouldn't be taken into account; being not totally one or the other doesn't make you any less of your gender or any less of a person, or whatever. It's a perfectly valid thing to take into account in a practical definition of sex, and which would create a spectrum. Scishow's title was misleading but the ultimate point of the video remains true.
The entire reproductive system and phenotype should indeed be taken into account. This includes karyotype, hormone production/reception, internal and external genitalia, and gonadal tissue.
@Josh the Art Critic Yeah, they cited a person who later clarified that they still believe there are two sexes, lol.
People can't seem to understand that there can be variations within the sex binary. It's concerning when these people act like they speak on behalf of scientists.
@Josh the Art Critic that IS the medical definition, though. I don't get why you're saying it's false... Because you don't like it? Look up the literature
@@LenaFerrari
Let’s do a thought experiment, shall we:
Let’s take a Team of Humans and send them to a brand new (uninhabited) planet:
- Trans men and women who have had complete gender reassignment, and
- Intersex people (of some of the genetic variations presented in both of these videos) without viable gametes.
Let’s go visit them in 100 years - OOPS!
There is no one to speak of 🤷🏽♀️
This does not invalidate the experiences of people who don’t fit into the generalized categories of ‘Male/Man’ and ‘Female/Woman.’ We need to stop equating arguing in favor of the non-negotiables of human biology with invalidating the Humanity of people who don’t fit nicely into prescribed categories.
That is NOT what most people who defer to the basic process of continuing the human species are arguing for. Yes, there are some people who do, but again, it’s like re-writing textbooks to reflect the exceptions as the norm when we conflate the fundamentals of biology with the erasure of certain groups of valid Human Beings.
Exceptions Exist! And I believe they serve a purpose …. just not the biological purpose of continuing the species.
It simply demonstrates WHY the other ‘sexes’ don’t really count: unless there is a sperm that meets with an egg (SO FAR) there is no Human Species to ask how it identifies 😶
@@benevolentconcepts the medical definition of sex has literally nothing to do with who is capable of reproducing with who, though. So I don't get your point. I've never denied anything that you said, it's just not relevant
What are the « others » in your 3rd argument, than, if they are not male nor female ? Another sex?
Intersex i think, yeah the medical condition
this is really interesting. thanks for explaining.
Came here because a dudes arguing with me online about people not having gametes which prove sex is on a spectrum…. Sometimes you just need a reminder that indeed a square is not a circle.
Very insightful, thanks
Ah… ignoring hermaphroditism are we… ? And brain chemistry… Or the fact that it’s an ongoing, life long developmental process… 😂😂😂
Not to mention social conditioning and gender… SMH. Just … wow.😢 The lengths people will go to in order to hang onto their distorted world view…
I find your “response” intentionally limited and highly misleading.
me wearing a turtle outfit and slowly crawling doesn't make me a turtle, same applies to them
Spoken like a true fucking moron who has nothing of value to contribute.
Gender identity and claiming you're a different species are not the same thing though
I love the Sci Show videos and the host. But the one time I thought that they were not presenting something that was scientifically accurate was the "More than two sexes" video. It shows the way in which trans ideology has been moving into the the hard sciences and made normally responsible scientist fall to the gender extremist. I still watch Sci show BTW
incoming lgtb mob
Broadly agree, but... You wouldn't need a new form of gamete for a new sex. A population that had fully functional male and female organs, and which maintained that over several generations, would classify as a new sex, since it would no longer fit your 'one or the other' dynamic. 'Both' fits neither category and thus would be a new one.
Very well done, very clear explanation. The sex chromosomes determine which of the two developmental pathways, male or female a foetus develops down. Hence they determine sex, it's that easy and people with DSDs are male and female people with a condition (genetic, endocrine etc) that affects their reproductive system. I think though it is time to push these people to prove their assertion that follows on from this - that there is such thing as gender identity. This rewriting of biology is all to serve that as there is no basis for a biological basis to the claim.
The claim that those conditions create a 'sex spectrum' and that they are 'new sexes' seems a very dehumanising claim because it suggests that DSDs form something more like a whole other species and may even fall out of the class of mammals (these people having no problem with male and female animals existing). The key definition of species is "a group of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding" so if they are whole new sexes, this suggests they must be something else entirely to the rest of humans. That's a very unpleasant thing to suggest about people, many of whom may have health challenges due to their condition, would they say that about others with endocrine or other genetic conditions?
Lol, that was a ride. "if they're not male or female, they may not even be a mammal". Do you hear yourself?
@@LenaFerrari Try reading for comprehension.
It also might help to watch the video for context.
@Josh the Art Critic YES,YES! THAT IS SO TRUE. it's all about being well educated.
and this is why people are loosing trust in science like shown in videos of scishow
Spiritually speaking, sexual wisdom can also begin with a fundamental understanding of the cyclical nature of reality (God).
Represented by the snake in many creation myths, the living cycle has a trinity of a beginning (head), a middle and end (tail). As above so below, the sexes were created in the image of God's cyclical nature where Mother is the head and opening to all beginnings and Father holds the tail to all endings (through which the sowing of seeds allow for the next great matriarchal rebirth).The joining of the two (symbolized by the Ouroborus or the marriage ring) is the sacred union needed in assuring the creation and continuation of new life cycles. To speak of the present day God as "Our Father" is simply an admission to our collective positioning within the bigger cycle.
As all mothers have direct experience with the creator quality of birthing, so is the direct experience of rebirthing the divinity within (baptism) belong to that which is spiritually matriarchal. (John 3, verse 3-8).
Sekhmet statues (ancient Egyptian) carry most of their weight in symbolic memory of what was a mother culture dedicated to the direct experience of baptism. As the leg shaped hairlocks extend from maternal breasts to the womb of rebirth, the lioness's head proportions are such that they highlight the bust of a second animal figure. The Lioness's ears as eyes and eyes as nose (nostrils) brings to life the figure of a reptile. 'Neath the halo headress of the solar egg, the lioness's egg fertilization process being internal (Set) and the reptile's egg fertilization process being external (Setting), such being key components to the safety of entering the trans-egoic or "born again" state. The life threatening fear associated with the predatory nature of a lion and/or crocodile encounter are reflective of the intense ego death experiences associated with the transpersonal awakening process.
In spiritually matriarchal times, illumination could be seen as wearing the false beard (ancient Egyptian funerary "ego" death mask) as the high state of cyclical self knowing; high awareness of both our upper matriarchal half and our lower (later) patriarchal half (compared with a mini lower body replica, an "as above so below" tail end beard extension); in full recognition of her civilizational Underworld, her inevitable cyclical destiny. The male pharaoh wears his beard tapered in reverse, indicating a pointing upwards towards the patriarchal head, divine representative of God's tail end cycle.
Mary Magdalene's anointing and wiping of Jesus's feet with her hair can then be seen as head to tail (toe) imagery as she descends her matriarchal head to his patriarchal feet, thus reenacting the high understanding of the divine cyclical process. (John 12:3)
To carry the Ankh (now the female symbol ♀️) was perhaps to symbolically carry that upper and lower understanding. As the upper matriarchal womb symbolised the fertile birthing of civilization, below, the now Christian cross is carried to place emphasis on the lower (later) "End Times" Father principle of the great cycle.
Lord Ganesha, the elephant headed Hindu diety, displays a cyclical head to trunk symbolism and points to the Mother head of his matriarchal elephant society. Ganesha (like the elephant) wears God's cyclical nature on his face.
A whole temple was dedicated to the ancient Egyptian goddess Hathor, who is the matriarchal "Uterus" personified. ua-cam.com/video/J0m0zJSEFK0/v-deo.html
"See all women as mothers, serve them as your mother. When you see the entire world as the mother, the ego falls away. See everything as Mother and you will know God." - Neem Karoli Baba
Grass is a type of plant with narrow leaves growing from the base. A common kind of grass is used to cover the ground in places such as lawns and parks. Grass is usually the color green. Grasses are monocotyledon herbaceous plants.
The grasses include the "grass" of the family Poaceae. This family is also called Gramineae. The family also include some of the sedges (Cyperaceae) and the rushes (Juncaceae).[1] These three families are not closely related but all of them belong to clades in the order Poales. They are similar adaptations to a common life-style.
we should just say humans have 60 sexes to be kind and enlightened.. some people don't produce gametes so, we should see them as another sex.
Excellent explanation but I think that the people with complete androgen insensitive syndrome or swyer syndrome are still male because they have XY chromosomes and their problem could be solved with early molecular treatment.
I just watched the video referenced and thought, “hmmm, I don’t know about that”. 🤔
I’m glad I watched this video b/c it confirmed my suspicion. Great job. 👍🏼
I watched Mr. Geen's video with interest. But I got a slightly different takeaway. I'd earlier seen a documentary on Discovery TV before they went reality. It was about children being born that a team of pediatricians took a week to Guess at its sex. On occasion, they performed genital surgery hoping that a child that young could not have a sexual orientation. They report that as these children reached sexual maturity some demanded to be returned to the other sex. This lead them to believe that sexual orientation actually isn't under direct DNA control. Some of these kids were described as Psuedo-hermaphroditic. They were sterile and produced no gametes. He wasn't suggesting that they forming a new sex. But more like they could choose their own orientation despite their anatomy or DNA.
There is something else going on here and I think that THIS is a real problem with how we designate sex.
Good article though, thanks.
This seems to pertain more to the question of ‘identity’ than it does to biology, and specifically reproduction.
I feel for the humans who are born with traits that doctors and parents scramble to ‘correct’ - it must be quite a journey to find Self under such extreme conditions.
But the fact is that it takes a sperm and an egg to create a Human. So far ….. maybe we are on the verge of an unprecedented change in human reproduction!
But until that day, reality remains that Every Human - even the intersex ones who have traumatic experiences of being surgically ‘assigned’ a binary sex - were created by 1 sperm and 1 egg.
That fertilized egg can grow up to ‘identify’ however they please (I’m all for it!) …. but they could not exist if a sperm and an egg hadn’t come together in the first place.
Are there any exceptions? Please! Point me to a situation where two eggs or two sperm produced a New Human! Or where a third type of gamete was observed. I want to know if this exists!! Educate me!!! Please!! I haven’t found any documentation of such a phenomenon🙏✨
Many of the varieties of chromosome/hormone and even genital presentation are not viable as reproductive ‘sexes.’ They cannot produce a new human.
This is not the same as saying that those people don’t exist. Of course they do! This is not the same as saying that these people should not be treated with respect, or that they don’t deserve to feel like valid human beings. That is not what this conversation is about!
I would say that this is one thing that this particular video did not mention: some of the chromosomal variations being labeled as ‘male’ and ‘female’ based on gametes will not actually be able to reproduce.
If ‘Intersex’ Humans were (somehow) the First Humans …. they also would have been the
‘Last Humans,’ because they could not have created New Humans to continue the species.
Those ‘First Humans’ could have identified as ‘Man’ or ‘Woman’ all they want, but if their sperm and egg could not combine to create a New Human, the classification of their ‘Sex’ or ‘gender’ would be irrelevant - the species would cease to exist!
The ‘something else going on’ in regards to identification is really nothing new: across the globe there are examples of third ‘genders’ (but not a third reproductively viable ‘Sex’) who are accepted to varying degrees by the broader culture in which they exist.
It’s no less a ‘mystery’ what leads to identity, but these are really two separate conversations:
- What is a valid gender Identity
vs
- How does the Human Species continue itself via Sexual Reproduction.
You're using the word orientation wrong. You meant to say sexual identification which describes to which sex these children saw themselves belonging to. Orientation means which sex they are attracted to. These are two different things. What you meant was their innate sexual identity prevailed instead of what doctors tried to make them.
ILY
Perhaps and animation video of the developmental process could shed more light towards the truth.
Just 2
I would want to translate your videoes into Polish. ^^
Nie Ty jedna
@@corvus9490 Niestety on nie włączył opcji pozwalającej widzom na tłumaczenie filmików, z której chętnie bym skorzystała.
@@wiktoriafrompoland2453 Yee, szkoda, bo coraz więcej osób używa pojęć typu "spektrum płci", albo zasłania się ludźmi interseksualnymi jako argumentami.
@@corvus9490 Właśnie. Nie wspominając o tym, że dotarło to również do naszego kraju wraz z aferą dotyczącą Margota.
Buhahahhahaha. Its not a spectrum it just shows the variations that can happen between two binaries. You are literally describing a spectrum
Thanks Jack, that was brilliant.
Out of infinite possible DNA structures, all living things on Earth have the same single structure... therefore, all living things on Earth are from one single living source. Some scientists believe that all life on Earth began from the development of an organism such as a simple sponge. LIFE IS SIMPLY COMPLEX. I like the brain-mapping conducted from the Cleveland Clinic.
This is so refreshing. That original video was so intentionally misleading and only distorted the reality of human reproduction.
If this gentleman was my professor, I just might fail his subject so I could take it again. 😍😍😍
Sci show defines? so this is not proven? which means this only a theory.....
oh my gawdddd u just sad that thers more then to ganders oh this is assulting me tak this down or i wil ban u from youtube my dad owns it and he wil ban u!!!1111!11!11!!!!!1!!
lmao
Look at the bones there’s only two pelvis’s
Like different types of pelvis only 2
Don'tSpikeMyDrink
“And we came to realise that there are more than two sexes” No, there are not more than two sexes. If you elieve there are more than two sexes present the evidence.
A lot of evidence was presented in hank's video. Go watch it. You just need to keep in mind that sex is NOT based directly on gametes, it is based on a lot of stuff (like hank says). Source: medical literature. Just look it up. Pick up a book. I promise you'll find out that it's basically a consensus that sex is what hank defines on his video
@@LenaFerrari I have watched this video numerous times as well as others on the same and related subjects, I have read about the subject going back decades.
The video addresses chromosomes, hormones, gonads and genitals. But it omits gametes. The human body develops around the production of either the small gamete (sperm) or the large gamete (ova). The two gametes combine for reproduction. There is no third gamete, there is no third reproductive structure, there is no third sex.
The consensus of biologist is and has been for a very long time that there are two sexes.
@@LenaFerrari FYI: I have read between one and two books a week every week for 30 years; that is more than two thousand books. When you have read one thousand books get back to me.
@@denvan3143 who said 3 sexes? The argument is that sex is a spectrum, because it's based on a handful of things (the actual scientific definition, not this made up one) that don't always correlate
@@denvan3143 I don't need to read a thousand random books, just a few relevant ones
All these yelping seals in the comments praising this video on biology that comes from an architecture graduate is proof of the epistemic crisis were facing.
@@jamww3509 And you can debunk the essential oil peddlers who make claims about health improvements.
Or we could just realize that an appeal to false authority is fallacious.
If his citations are from the group of experts who disagree with his conclusion what is there to debunk?
@@jamww3509 Making claims about topics in field you have no expertise in is equivalent to the essential oil industry though, try to keep up.
Wow no way, he works with 3 people who also go against the consensus consistently while having no published peer reviewed papers on the topic? And they're activists? Amazing.
Hey I've got a couple of geologists who say the earth is 6000 years old, should I listen to them instead of the vast majority of other geologists who disagree?
Sex is a category created by humans bud, it's there to take information and organize it in such a way that we get more information out then we put in. The only way to arrive at the conclusion this video comes to is to ignore the parts of reality that don't fit into their narrative which is the exact opposite of what we do with categorization. Nature doesn't work in binaries, humans do.
@@user-bp7tn9zo4t OK show me don't tell me
Yes! There are only Two Human sexes... End of discussion... now move on!
Okay, so since I came here from a discussion about this, I disagree on the basis of your definition. "In many species, a whole suite of secondary sexual traits exist, but the fundamental definition of sex is rooted in gametes, and the question of the origin of the two sexes is then equal to the question of why do gametes come in two different sizes" as compared to my straight from google definition. "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions." SInce you're's is based around gametes, should we wait until people produce gametes. In otherwords, you get assigned a sex when you finally have your first period, or get your first erection, and if neither of those happen, then what, do you not have a sex? Wouldn't the lack of sex become a third sex in that case? Lot of questions that I'm now bringing up if we are gonna base sex around the ability to produce gametes.
It's not JUST about gametes, it's about having your body built to either produce sperm or ovulate. Even if you are infertile, you still have a body made to do one or the other, while infertility is a separate issue. You can never produce both, and there is never a case of there not being a single trace of any reproductory elements in organism. Not even mentioning lack of third gamete.
@@WwZa7 Quoting him again "the fundamental definition of sex is rooted in gametes, and the question of the origin of the two sexes is then equal to the question of why do gametes come in two different sizes" so no it is based around gametes. If the fundamental definition of sex is rooted in gametes, then nothing else should matter.
@@valerieprice1393 It is fundamental, so maybe he meant that it is the basis of sex, but didn't mention that it is not everything. If he meant that gametes are the only thing that defines male or female, his definition is wrong. Infertility does not make one have no sex at all.
I asked my friend about it who knows way more at biology than me, and he said that he wouldn't actually consider infertile people as any sex at all, but I disagree with that. From what I saw, almost all definitions of sex talk about disposition of characteristics focused around certain gamete, not about just gamete.
@@WwZa7 If that was the case, where sex is based around the disposition of characteristics around that specific gamete then breasts wouldn't need to be developed. It doesn't help create an egg in any shape or form, it's there to help produce nutrients after the baby is born. Since we seem to base breasts off of sex, it's useful to consider that.
As an integrative physiology major, who also probably knows about biology a little more than you at least, (I don't know about your friend, I think I'm below him in it though) I agree with your friend, infertile people would be not any sex at all as using gametes as your fundamental basis of sex means they don't have any sex cause they can't produce gametes.
@@valerieprice1393 Well yes, breasts do not really make one female or male from the get go, at least not biologically, same for general face shape, facial hair it's just that some characteristics generally go along with female or male sex that we got used to them.
My friend studies biology and goes for doctor, I didn't asked if she has some major or not, especially that we are polish, and naming is different here. I think. Tho I don't think it matters that much, definition of sex seems to be quite clear. Hence why I disagree with my friend, I don't think it's just about gametes
This leaves the now ever critical question: what the fuck is gender, and why is it fake?
Great video! Keep up the good work!
Wait tho are you saying gametes choose your sex cause that would be inaccurate it depends on your dna your chromosomes your biology that's what chooses it for a new gamete you would also need not just a new chromosome pattern but a whole new sex chromosome entirely
Scientific understanding of brain anatomy and physiology suggests that the concept of a strictly "female brain" or "male brain" is not as simple as a precise binary division. Rather, brains tend to exhibit a pattern of anatomical and physiological characteristics that can be associated with femininity or masculinity, without a clear-cut separation.
Research indicates that certain brain structures and functions tend to show variations that align with gender identity. However, these differences exist on a spectrum, with considerable overlap between individuals of different genders. It is essential to recognize that the brain is a complex organ influenced by a combination of genetic, hormonal, environmental, and social factors.
Studies have identified some general patterns in brain organization and connectivity that can be correlated with femininity or masculinity. For example, certain areas of the brain may exhibit differences in size or activity levels, and specific neural circuits might show variations. However, it's important to note that these patterns are not absolute, and individuals can possess a mix of characteristics that do not adhere strictly to traditional gender stereotypes.
It is crucial to avoid simplifying the complexity of gender identity and brain structure by reducing it to a rigid dichotomy. Embracing the understanding that gender-related brain differences exist on a continuum helps us appreciate the diversity of human experiences and challenges the notion of a sharp dividing line between male and female brains.
Finally this is wat my hypothesis has always been about it proves that.
Yes in order for a human to be created it needs X and Y but it's development into a human is a complex and uncontrollable road where no one knows what's the end of the road
All these genetic conditions are so rare that they don't matter in the big picture, and we certainy don't need to go change society because of them. Sex is still binary, and the exception confirms the rule.
Great video brother!
So, then... someone is born physiologically female, but has internal testes instead of ovaries. Those testes, however, do not produce sperm. So... zero gametes of any kind. And has breasts and a vagina, despite xy chromosomes. How would you characterize a gameteless individual?
Yes, she identifies as female, as that's how she was raised. Her DNA says she is male. If her DNA were found at a crime scene, they would be looking for a phisiologically male suspect.
Your show sounds like you're trying to ensure everyone fits into your preconceived round or square holes despite all the evidence you cite to the contrary, in order to meet your calcified ideas of what "should" be.
so males are spaceships, and females are planets?
If that's their self-expressed identity, who's to question them? ;)
@@Sairfecht What is the difference between identity and gender?
@@Sairfecht A person's "identity" is irrelevant if it clashes with physical reality.
All you have proven is that your definition inherently limits the classification to two kinds of people but SciShow's definition does not.
Scishow doesn’t provide a definition
You missed a point with your definition of sex. While you can probably say that human fertilization is binary because there are only two types of gametes, human sex is a different story. A person's sex is a characteristic of the entire individual, and which aspects fall into its definition is never objective but a construct. Humans can decide which traits determine sex based on e.g. which traits are used for assigning sex at birth, or whether they produce sperm or ova.
So neither definition is objectively correct, but I believe most people use a definition which includes visible traits such as genitals or other key factors that influence a person's sexual development like chromosomes and hormones. Defining sex as "producing sperm or ova" reduces humans' purpose of sex traits exclusively to reproduction, while in reality it's completely up to every individual how they want to use their sex traits, inlcuding ways that don't aim at reproducing (e.g. sex for fun). You're gonna have to accept that your definition isn't objectively correct and that for all people using Hank Green's definition, humans' sex does't exist in only two distinct states but can be a combination or variation of several factors if they think it through.
Yeah, plus the medical definition is what hank said (seriously, look up the literature. I've got no idea where this guy found his definition, but that's certainly not the scientific concensus)
"You missed a point with your definition of sex. While you can probably say that human fertilization is binary because there are only two types of gametes, human sex is a different story. A person's sex is a characteristic of the entire individual, and which aspects fall into its definition is never objective but a construct. Humans can decide which traits determine sex based on e.g"
Ythis is the argument the left use for GENDER not SEX, sex its a scientific term to begin with. so dumb
finally, gender was but a linguistic term back then, even to this day its questioned what it means.
No man or woman
Okay I'm still so confused at what binary and gender fluid is supposed to mean cuz it's my understanding that you're either born with a penis a vagina or sometimes both but if you have both one is more predominant than the other one I guess so I'm confused even more so now because this doesn't address how we get a different gender identity when you're only born with one or two options and sometimes both options it's not like somebody's got nothing between their legs there's something there and it's usually one of the other possibly both but beyond that like what is it what is gender fluid and non-binary what is that supposed to even mean beyond the sexual components on the outside cuz that's what I'm confused about
People can be male or female but don't want to identify as a man or a woman, or some want to identify as both genders, or the opposite gender. Gender and sex aren't the same thing.
YES!!
I saw the Scishow video. I'm not a biologist and quite honestly, alot of it went over my head. But I do understand reason. It seems in the Scishow video, he was arguing that certain birth defects or mutations are different sexes on a Spectrum. It didn't make sense to me. Males produce sperm and females produce eggs ie two sexes.
RARE is a relative point of differentiation. First of all, 2% or 150 million people are about an order of magnitude more than the total number of Jewish people, so should we discount them as a category as well? And that is just the number of DSD who are strongly identifiable, and not any of the hundreds of other types of spectrum-defined characteristics.
So what?
It’s not 2% and it’s not a sex.
You claim that Gonads should define someone's sex, yet consider CAIS as females despite them having testes.
You used a different definition right there, phenotype (genitals, to be precise). A contraddiction in regards to your other video in which you claimed that Genitals only matter in case of mixed gonads (both ovarian and testicular tissues mixed together).
You can't answer "I used Gametes, not Gonads" because CAIS don't produce Eggs either. So they are not female from your Gonad or Gamete classification, yet you consider them Females, despite their Gonad being 100% male, and chromosomes too.
You didn’t actually watch it, did you? Socially for all intents and purposes CAIS is considered female. If you don’t think so, that’s fine but that doesn’t make sex not binary
I have XYY.
Paradox Institute: Okay smarty. What do you call it when a person has male, AND female equipment down there? What sex is that called?
That's impossible, humans can't be hemaphrodites. They've already done an excellent video on this.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 Listen. I have an acquaintance that has both genitals, therefore it is not impossible. People need to get their head out of the sand. Don't know, because don't want to know. Don't want to accept it. We have been in the showers together (in the spa) and I have saw for myself.
@@cimbakahn how can you have both a vagina and a penis? They're two completely different sex organs and function in completely different ways.
@@nataliekhanyola5669 I have no idea. You would have to take that up with the creative forces of nature.
I agree 100%! I also have an acquaintance that has both genitals.
No
What if science was able to make humans have both reproductive system. Which means having the two sets of gamets. Would that classify as a third sexe?
no because thats not gonna happen
Yeah but that raises a lot of moral questions . I don't think we have the right to make decisions for unborn children which effects them in ways which aren't necessarily benefitial for health
they would self reproduce. and no, humans do not do that.
We'd be living down in Rapture with Splicers if that was possible.
This video argues that it is impossible that sex is _one_ spectrum because sex is _two_ spectrums. In attempting to disprove the existence of a spectrum, the video strengthens the argument for using a spectrum model to describe sex in humans.
So your idea of a reasonable classification for sex involves a magic arbitrary line in the middle where people magically switch from being men and women?
I like how you made the green and red a solid color instead of a gradient to try and make it look less absurd😂
Couldn't even get the term right. Male and female, not men and women. Infants, boys/girls, are not men and women, but they are either male or female.
Uh, how is it arbitrary and who has changed sexes?
@@DerpMcDerp-gb3ss When I say change sexes, what I mean is by following the logic of the diagram, there’s a point right in the middle, where the sexes intersect, where a person basically exists in a flux state of simultaneously being a man and a woman. That’s the entire reason the original diagram,using a gradient as opposed to a solid change between green and pink, makes more sense.
@@mcmatthew7898 but that’s not their logic? Yikes
@@DerpMcDerp-gb3ss No, which is why I specified following the logic of the diagram, try to keep up.
Their logic of classification using based on ovaries vs based on sperm doesn’t work either. There are women who have XY chromosomes and do not develop ovaries, are those people actually not women?
Nice.
good vid
The graphics are really pretty, but crazy distracting
Doesn't change the fact that when I came out the flaps I was male and nothing about science is changing that. Be like saying oh I have had enough of being male and I want out of my body. Well good luck with that.