A new letter in @ScienceMagazine deploys the Univariate Fallacy to obfuscate around the nature of biological sex:
"No one trait determines whether a person is male or female, and no person’s sex can be meaningfully prescribed by any single variable."
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
"No one trait determines whether a person is male or female, and no person’s sex can be meaningfully prescribed by any single variable."
science.org/doi/10.1126/sc…
To highlight the problem with a statement like this, note that it is also true that no *single* trait determines whether an organism is a human or a chimpanzee, or a dog or a cat. Yet humans and chimps and dogs and cats are unambiguously distinct, and we don't pretend otherwise.
They also claim that "sex is a context-dependent summary of a multidimensional variable space."
Sorry, no. The sex of an individual is based on their reproductive anatomy and is determined by the type of gamete this anatomy is organized around, through development, to produce.
Sorry, no. The sex of an individual is based on their reproductive anatomy and is determined by the type of gamete this anatomy is organized around, through development, to produce.
A person's sex is completely unambiguous >99.98% of the time. They're trying to confuse you.
For more on the Univariate Fallacy and how it is used to fool you on a multitude of issues, take a look at my thread below. I think you'll find it illuminating.
For more on the Univariate Fallacy and how it is used to fool you on a multitude of issues, take a look at my thread below. I think you'll find it illuminating.
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1124406797916409856?s=20
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
