You are willfully refusing to go look at the research done, and the reasons for the reversal in position by those countries. Until you have actually bothered to look at the reports and the studies, you're making baseless assumptions.
If I had meant that, I would have said that. What I actually said was that sexing is only possible most of the time. Which is both what I meant, and what nearly any anthropologist would tell you, as it also happens to be true.I am not sure what to make of this post. It's certainly not true, whatever it is. No one has ever been expelled from a conference for sexing a skeleton, that's a routine part of the job. I did it routinely when I was working CRM in my younger days. But any experienced forensic anthropologist will quickly correct you on two points:Funny how anthropologists have never really had difficulty distinguishing an adult male skeleton from an adult female skeleton... at least not until gender studies decided to infuse itself into everyfucking thing, and now actual experienced anthropologists get ousted from presenting at conferences when they want to talk about identifying the sex of human remains.Wait... are you saying anthropology is a "degree irrelevant to the subject" of human evolution and biology? What would be relevant, Bullshit Political Spin Studies?
Judging by the inxomprehensible babble that is the rest of your post, I guess any degree at all is suspect. For the record, I'm not a sp---, but I have no animosity toward those who are on the spectrum, they are often a darn sight more rational minded than us normies.
Scholarly panel defending biological sexes canceled over 'transphobia' concerns
The panelists, one of whom is a lesbian, expressed their disappointment and fired back with a letter to event organizers, calling the decision 'egregious.'abc3340.com
If the pelvis is destroyed and many of the fragments are missing, perhaps. Or if the skeleton is of a young child, sure. But for adults? Are you actually claiming that anthropologists just have a horrible time telling what sex a skeleton is, and it's really just a "best guess"?
The modern notion of biological sex is barely more than a century old. Of the two, it is most certainly the newcomer. Whereas people had cultural and religious notions about "womanhood" and "masculinity" and "boyishness" and "male and female He hath made them" and all the rest for thousands of years before anything as concrete as a chromosome was ever discovered. Nor was there such a thing as forensic anthropology when your precious gender ideology was inchoate. But as soon as we started to unravel the osteological markers of sex at all, it was immediately recognized that there are occasional indeterminate cases, for reasons that have nothing at all to do with the usually unknowable factor of gender. Your continued, belligerent confusion of sex and gender continue to obfuscate the conversation unnecessarily.
So... you're dismissing your own argument? No one else has said anything of the sort.
Because you keep insisting that your strictly binary ideology of gender is identicial with the scientific consensus on sex, indeed that your personal beliefs are somehow the scientific consensus on sex, despite not resembling that consensus in the slightest.
Yep, for millions and millions of years, it's been totally just random chance that any mammals have managed to successfully reproduce. It's totally been a complete and utter mystery as to which members of any given species are the ones that gestate the babies, and which are the ones that inseminate the gestators.
I don't subscribe to a binary concept of gender; and I reject gender ideology in its entirety. So you're completely wrong.
Except it isn't. It's the SRY gene that is involved in particular, and it is no more than "involved". The outcome can as much be an effect of something else triggering certain events, or by something causing the initial chain reaction started by the SRY to arrest.
I have bolded the section is in which you do so, for clarity. You are unable to distinguish between your gender assumptions and what you believe biological sex to be, and imagine that "evolutionary biologists" back you up on this despite the fact that you are making claims most evolutionary biologists would not endorse.
Yes, Jarhyn, I'm quite aware of the SRY gene's role, and have talked about it repeatedly. The SRY gene is located on the Y chromosome, except in cases of genetic mutation that cause it to be translocated onto the X. Its the activation of the SRY gene that causes the bi-potential fetal reproductive tract to diverge down either a mullerian or a wolffian pathway.
What do you think evolutionary biologists use as the definition of sex?
Clearly not enough because instead of using all those additional words and discussing SRY, you did not do any of those things.
So, your "is" is already a fail then, because you failed to actually say it correctly.
A definition that isn't exclusionary to exceptions, but which is instead inclusive. We have some discussing of selection pressures in evolutionary biology specifically to "non-reproduction".
Intact skeletons are not the norm, and accuracy of sex determinations is extremely difficult to confirm. At the CRM lab I used to work for, we were able to put forward a confident sex determination for around 70% of the remains we examined. If we'd had "perfect", laboratory model-like specimens to work with every time, the proportion would have been rather different, likely more like 95%-99%. Some populations are easier to sex than others, and it matters what you have at hand, with pelvic remains being the most reliably diagnostic. But it's not as easy as you are thinking to confirm whether laboratory estimations of sex are accurate in any case. Accurate by what metric? We have greater or lesser degrees of confidence in such estimations, but only in a certain very specific cases - such as the when the taphonomic markers of pregnancy are present- can our guesses be confirmed with 100% certainty, even if we feel considerable confidence in those estimations.
It's unecessary to go through seventeen pages of super-specificity every single time in order to discuss something that everyone - except you apparently - already understands. Especially when I have previously gone through that specificity multiple times.
Genetic transcription errors are errors. Mutations are mutations. Deleterious somatic conditions aren't "behaviors".
Selection pressures that drive toward non-reproducing members of the species do not actually change the nature of sex within that species. You're still male, even if you are no longer intact. I'm still female, even though I did not have kids and am fast approaching menopause.
There is no single answer to this question, as not all evolutionary biologists agree to a single definition of biological sex. This isn't the Vatican, there are no doctrines.
You put a lot of words into this, and most of them are based around situations in which you DO NOT have an intact human skeleton.
Can you provide a definition at all?
No, it is absolutely necessary when discussing precisely whether things "are" or simply "are somewhat like", in a technical discussion of what sex is.
Gonads can in fact be non-strict binary. They are more like the A and B of blood types, and some people do produce both for various reasons.
I'll counter with:
There are only two types of gametes in anisogamous species; there are only two types of gonads and each type of gonad produces one or the other gamete.
