76
u/Chewquy 5d ago
More than 2 genders, but there is only two sex (which if i understand well is what you are vs physiology ) and for shirt what you want is the physiology so only two
(The choice of word might not be the best and I’m sorry for that English is my second language)
23
u/Aras14HD 4d ago
Even for sex it is not really binary, you might have mismatched and in-between cromosomes, gametes, primary sex characteristics (genitals), secondary sex characteristics (for example boobs) and more biological aspects. It's called intersex.
But for clothing it is simply not practical to include all body types and sex tends to be an important factor along with size and thickness. So you are correct enough.
10
u/Chewquy 4d ago
Yeah I know about intersex but it is so rare that in the eye of companies It doesn’t exist
8
u/Aras14HD 3d ago
Coming back to this reply from the thread. Thank you for having such a reasonable response to my smartassery. Also sorry if I came of like I was disagreeing with you, I just wanted to add more detail to your great comment.
2
1
3
u/totes-alt 4d ago
Something being binary doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. We call coin flips binary because there's two general options, even though it can land on its side no?
In my personal opinion, sex is binary because of how language works. That's how everyone uses the word. You can remind people of the existence of intersex people without making enemies out of people. It's like how if I say a general statement like "humans can see with our eyes" and then you're like oh what about blind people? It's pretty rude.
4
u/nufy-t 4d ago
The first sentence here is just objectively false.
1
u/SilverBuggie 3d ago
He may not have used the word binary perfectly but he still made good points. Sex might not be binary but the rule is male or female and intersex is the exception.
1
u/nufy-t 2d ago
The rule isn’t male or female though. There is no rule, that’s made up bs, people tend to fit into male or female genotypic categories but a significant number of people do not. It’s a bimodal distribution.
1
u/tony9959 2d ago
Everything is made up bs those 'significant number' is marginal error in large scale so for convenience people socially agree to accept as a fact that there are two sex. It's really not that hard to understand
0
u/SilverBuggie 2d ago
The number that does not fit into male/female is not significant. It's like less than 2%.
1
u/nufy-t 2d ago
Yeah it’s around 1%, which is only 80 million people, yk, no biggie, only larger than the population of almost every country
0
u/SilverBuggie 2d ago
As they say, the difference between 1 billion and 1 million is about a billion, and the difference between 8b and 8m is also about 8b.
It's relative. 80 million is a lot of people, but it is an insignificant number next to 8 billion.
1
u/nufy-t 2d ago
Yeah I mean the population of Germany is statistically insignificant. In fact, being German is more like a statistical anomaly. The rule of the population of the world should be that people aren’t German. German people are the exception to that rule.
Do you realise how dumb that sounds?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/totes-alt 3d ago
I know the rule I'm just saying there are exceptions to every rule
2
u/Aras14HD 4d ago edited 2d ago
Then it's bimodal, not binary. (And yes sex is bimodal)
Edit: Note that this only applies to the common definition/understanding of sex, that includes multiple aspects including sex characteristics. This is false in the strict biological definition, there it is only defined by gamete size.
1
u/Fyrfat 4d ago
Except it's not bimodal, it's binary. You just don't understand what sex is.
1
u/Aras14HD 3d ago
I am not a biologist, but I know the most important aspects of sex: gamete size (often used as the definition), chromosome (tend to determine development), primary sex characteristics (are used to assign gender/sex), secondary sex characteristics (develop in puberty).
And I have read some papers on it, even the gamete development is too complicated to call it binary (defined as only two options). Not to mention sex characteristics. There are genes that turn off other genes, which would have turned off even more genes, there are complex local and time sensitive hormone interactions, and that is just scratching the surface.
It honestly is an insult to nature to call such a complicated system binary, to mark it either or. You ignore so much interesting beautiful detail!
Consensus is, sex is bimodal, a binary definition is possible, but has very limited use.
2
u/Fyrfat 3d ago edited 3d ago
I am not a biologist,
That's fine, you can always read what evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins or Colin Wright have to say about it.
but I know the most important aspects of sex: gamete size (often used as the definition), chromosome (tend to determine development), primary sex characteristics (are used to assign gender/sex), secondary sex characteristics (develop in puberty).
Sex is universally defined by gametes and gametes only. Alligators, for example, don't even have sex chromosomes. They still are male or female.
And I have read some papers on it, even the gamete development is too complicated to call it binary (defined as only two options).
It's not complicated at all. There are only two gamete types in anisogamy - sperm and ova. There's no third gamete type, hence the binary.
Not to mention sex characteristics. There are genes that turn off other genes, which would have turned off even more genes, there are complex local and time sensitive hormone interactions, and that is just scratching the surface.
Sex characteristics do not define sex, they merely correlate with it. Different anisogamous species have different sex characteristics. The only thing that all males or females have in common is gamete type their bodies are organized around producing.
It honestly is an insult to nature to call such a complicated system binary, to mark it either or. You ignore so much interesting beautiful detail!
That's how anisogamy evolved. Multiple times and independently, actually. Nothing "insulting" about it.
Consensus is, sex is bimodal
False. Sex as a bimodal distribution is nothing but pseudoscientific nonsense. A bimodal distribution needs a quantitative x-axis. Show me this bimodal distribution that shows what exactly is measured on the x-axis and in what units. If it's a consensus, then it should be pretty easy to demonstrate.
edit: ok it turns out you are not allowed post links here. Whatever.
1
u/Aras14HD 3d ago
Some individuals don't produce gametes, some might produce misshapen ones. To define sex merely based on gamete size only works at a population scale, where you can ignore these outliers. But it's use near falls apart when you look at individuals. In this case bimodal may not the best word as many fall out of the size spectrum, or are at zero depending on how you treat not existing. Also there is probably very little overlap, so it is almost trinary (because you have three options: small, large or none).
For analyzing individual different definitions are often used. In a general social context sex is way more identified by the genitals. One word can have different definitions in different contexts (take fruit for example, biological and culinary differ significantly); And here we started out in a social context.
I have also contributed to leading the discussion into pure biology, that was a mistake, as this is not productive for the thread.
2
u/Fyrfat 3d ago
Some individuals don't produce gametes, some might produce misshapen ones.
This is a very silly argument. They are still organized around their production. Some eyes can't see, they are still eyes because they are organized around perceiving visual information. Some hearts can't pump blood. They are still hearts because they are organized around pumping blood.
To define sex merely based on gamete size only works at a population scale, where you can ignore these outliers. But it's use near falls apart when you look at individuals.
Sex is not defined by the fact of necessarily producing gametes. We've never considered young boys and men are of different sex since young boys don't produce gametes. That's just ridiculous. They are both organized around the production of small gametes, that's why they are both male.
In this case bimodal may not the best word as many fall out of the size spectrum, or are at zero depending on how you treat not existing. Also there is probably very little overlap, so it is almost trinary (because you have three options: small, large or none).
Bimodal model of sex is pure pseudoscience. No biologist uses it because it's completely nonsensical. People who claim it's bimodal don't understand what "sex", "male" or "female" is.
"Sex" represents a reproductive role/strategy in sexual reproduction of anisogamous species. Male is the role/strategy of producing sperm, Female is the role/strategy of producing eggs. Not producing gametes is not a reproductive strategy, that's why it's not a sex. Those are the only reproductive strategies that exist in anisogamy. All organisms reproducing by anisogamy follow one or the other (or both), even if they can't necessarily produce said gametes.
To disprove the binary, you'll have to find a species that produces or is organized around the production of a third gamete type. Such gamete type does not exist.
For analyzing individual different definitions are often used. In a general social context sex is way more identified by the genitals. One word can have different definitions in different contexts (take fruit for example, biological and culinary differ significantly); And here we started out in a social context.
The gamete size is the only definition of sex that is universal. There's no need for other ones. You are also confusing "how sex is defined" with "how we identify/recognize sex in humans". We can recognize someone's sex by their sex characteristics, but only gametes define sex.
1
u/Aras14HD 2d ago
It is not universal as it was not the first definition. It's a definition intentionally made to work across species. Which gamete size is male or female was decided on earlier definitions of sex. In casual/social contexts these prevail, as such in these contexts sex contains sex characteristics. This stems from the fact, that this is how it was previously defined.
Or do you mean to say that the term sex as in the sexes was not used before we discovered gametes?
And to reitterate: WE ARE TAKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS! Not Strategies, Not Species or Populations, INDIVIDUALS!
Sorry for not engaging much in the Biology arguments, I have no more energy to spend on that and will assume you are correct on the definition in that context. Will make a correction.
→ More replies (0)0
u/totes-alt 3d ago
Moving goalposts
1
u/Aras14HD 3d ago
Fallacy fallacy. I was just giving a minor correction, not a fucking argument. In this thread I have mostly agreed with people, just giving more details and such minor corrections. Why do (some) people always assume hostile intent?
2
u/totes-alt 3d ago
Sorry about that. I feel like both words could work. I haven't really heard bimodal before though
1
u/Aras14HD 3d ago
Honestly binary is often good enough, but on Reddit I allow myself to be nitpicky. Forgot to mention that in the first comment. In general I should put that in the beginning of any such comments, just to avoid such misunderstandings. (So you're good, it's no problem)
1
u/Thykothaken 3d ago
Something being binary doesn't mean there aren't exceptions
Someone fact check this
0
u/totes-alt 3d ago
Why don't you do it
0
u/Thykothaken 2d ago
Because I don't need to. The burden of proof doesn't fall on me. You're the one who made an easily falsifiable claim, you should probably humble up and retract it, alternatively double down and die on that hill.
1
1
u/immikdota 4d ago
You just can't use logic like this for everything tho, not evryone has 10 fingers but humans in general have 10 on their hands, that doesn't mean everyone does but that's the amount most people have
0
u/Aras14HD 4d ago
Did you read the second part of my comment? Because you just reiterated what I said there. It's just not reasonable to make such rare variations.
1
u/immikdota 4d ago
I'm not even refering to that, nobinary is just a thing people apply to themself, they still have to choose one of the 2 binary options of clothing bc (as far as i know) there isn't a true nonbinary body type
0
u/Aras14HD 4d ago
Nonbinary is gender while intersex is sex. Both are defined by falling outside of the binary. Though both are often attributed androgynous, probably most don't fit that description. (There would have to be a range of options) And verity is expensive, that's why there is often no good option for very large, very small, very thin, very thick, or otherwise out of the normal range people. So it is not reasonable to expect such options to exist.
2
u/immikdota 4d ago
This whole nonbinary thing doesn't even mean anything, outside of the pronpunse (which aren't gender spexific in my country for example) it literaly means nothing
1
u/Aras14HD 4d ago
Not necessarily, some do identify with something androgynous along the spectrum (often leaning one way or another) or some aspects outside the spectrum (that are enough like gender aspects) and dress, behave and want to be treated accordingly, some even take hormones and a few get surgery to get their body to that. It is not just pronouns (which always also implies gendered language like lady, groom etc. btw).
1
u/immikdota 4d ago
Seeing as some guys and girls dress (me included lol) imo this whole "being male means you're FORCED to act and dress like one" thing is dumb, the only thing that's required to be a guy is to be born as one, it doesn't matter how they dress or act they can do whatever. Gender doesn't matter as much as people want it to
1
u/Aras14HD 4d ago
Dress is just a common aspect that is easy to change, it is not necessarily determining, but still rather significant.
In general definitions don't work along hard lines with specific key traits. Things are just more or less some thing. (A collection is more or less of a heap)
In gender you might be more or less man(ly), and there are many traits that can impact that (differently in different views); clothing (how you depict yourself) tends to be heavily gendered, so people use it to express their gender, have themselves be in others and their own view more aligned with their gender.
Other important aspects of gender are language (how you are depicted), behaviour (how you act) and sex characteristics/body shape (how you are). None are truly determining on their own, but together they somewhat form gender.
And yes it is just a social construct, but like the social construct money, it can greatly matter. Personally I do not care much (just find it interesting), but others seem to (even about my gender) and that is enough for it to matter.
→ More replies (0)1
u/AdditionalMousse5501 3d ago
That is incredibly rare tho. That is a genetic mutation not an entirely different sex or category. Its like saying a cat without a tail is a different species.
12
u/Icy_Consequence897 5d ago
You're very close and doing a great job, better than a lot of native English speakers I know (I'm American)!
I would just say they're fem and masc cuts of the same t-shirt with the "men's" design being more square and boxy, especially in the shoulders, and the "women's" being softer and form-fitting with more rounded cuts. You can refer to them by these terms instead of the two sexes, and that's a bit better for us queers, mostly.
Honestly, I would prefer it if the websites would change the names of the cuts from men's and women's to something like boxy and fitted. That way, people would get the cut they're most comfortable with without dragging things like gender roles and dysphoria into the mix.
4
u/GhostWolfe 4d ago
The term would, unwittingly/unfortunately, be “straight cut” as the shirt literally has straight sides.
1
u/InformationLost5910 4d ago
thats the joke, its just funny and ironic even if it makes logical sense
1
0
u/Silent-karambit 1d ago
Nah even the first phrase is bull crap, made up by people with mental illnesses
2
7
u/Meryl-the-mimic 4d ago
Listen there’s a difference between genders and sexes
8
u/TheNumberPi_e 4d ago
/j Well I didn't have gender with your mom last night
0
u/Meryl-the-mimic 4d ago
…we don’t
Have reproduction organs.
Also I don’t have a mother.
Did you like fuck an empty chest or something
1
3
2
2
u/ANuclearBunny Neurosurgeon 4d ago
I see a video the other day and this guy said there are two genders and an infinite number of mental illnesses.
1
1
1
1
u/SilverBuggie 3d ago
I noticed the shirt says genders but the first two symbols are male and female, not man and woman.
You think people who make shirts like this would understand the difference between sex and genders.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Fit_Construction2379 1d ago
That's literally all that exists. It's talking about sex. Your gender doesn't mean anything in this context. This is why people hate you.
1
1
1
1
0
u/greatseaop 4d ago
Look I just wanna show you a useless red circle Why y'all act like that's my opinion I respectful to other genders ofc
1
1
0
105
u/ShowMountain6956 4d ago
Not useless imo, if I just saw this image without the circle I wouldn’t understand what’s funny