I’m not saying that all Catholics think this, but most do. also sorry if the seahorse is hard to see X—X

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 day ago

            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.