I’m not saying that all Catholics think this, but most do. also sorry if the seahorse is hard to see X—X
wooooooooooooooooooo over 300 lets go
I’m not saying that all Catholics think this, but most do. also sorry if the seahorse is hard to see X—X
wooooooooooooooooooo over 300 lets go
Ok, yes. That’s where I believe the binary is false.
You have red, you have blue, and then there’s a bunch of egde cases. To me that’s not the end of the story. I believe purple exists.
Do you have a particular edge case in mind? One that’s commonly brought up is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome, but that doesn’t fall outside the sex binary. Having a bit of nonfunctional tissue doesn’t affect one’s sex.
Colors aren’t a great analogy either, because in anisogamous species, gametes are strictly binary. There’s sperm and ova, with 0 overlap and 0 other options. “Purple gametes” just don’t exist.
This also isn’t my opinion, this is the accepted definition in the field of biology.
Not anymore, no.
Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic | Scientific American https://share.google/T8SeIlF6VVw1nWogD
From the author of that paper:
https://xcancel.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680
That last quote reads as “Red and blue. Don’t need a word for purple.”
But we do need a word for purple.
This is an English and categorization problem.
A better analogy for the author’s clarification would be “Red and blue, each with a continuum of variation in hue”. There’s still no purple, just different shades of red and different shades of blue. I don’t really have more to add beyond pointing out that this is the author of the paper directly clarifying that point.
You’re free to invent whatever categories you find useful of course. But biologists will continue to recognize human sex as binary, because that is a useful description of the reality they encounter.