The model could change if a third gamete type evolved, but that’s not a caveat worth mentioning. Maybe we’d get a sperg! Or a spegg!
Stop being silly because you’re pissy about being wrong. Another quote from the same Phd Evolutionary Biology as above:
contemporary scientific debates have long moved on from questioning whether the sex binary is a fact to questions about how anisogamy evolved, why it persists, and what its evolutionary consequences are.
Anisogomy is by definition binary because they’re a subset of multiple models but we were talking about biological sexes which includes plant and fungi models of sex which are absolutely not binaries and are more complicated. You’re clearly unfit to have this discussion if you think your quote is some kind of “gotcha”.
I’m getting redditor debate bro energy from you. Go take a science class and stop misquoting people. Anisogomy specifically refers to a subgroup of plant and animal reproduction.
You’re confusing sex with mating types. But thank you for finally acknowledging that anisogamy is observed to be binary.
I realize that the accentuation there might come across as sarcastic, but it’s genuine. Too many people are trying to argue with me about things I’m not saying or they misunderstand. My original comment should’ve been an entirely uncontroversial minor correction.
I did acknowledge it in every post. I said biological sex has two models and one is not a binary model. You made some absolutely inane assumptions about the future of scientific models.
I think you’re confusing sex with mating types again, but as long as we can agree for anisogamy
It’s rather silly that you say “inane assumptions about the future of scientific models” and then go on to describe the same thing in different words.
You’re saying “the map is not the territory”, which is true, but ignoring that the territory has been observed to have an attribute universally. The territory could change, but until it does, it’s correct to note the current universal reality of that attribute in the map.
You’re basically saying “Yeah, but you could just be a brain in a jar!” or “What if electrons stopped existing!”. Interesting thought experiment but silly to take seriously.
Anisogamy also refers to some plant sex characterizitions; its a paraphylitic group. Its better to think of it like a basket you can sort things into.
There’s also evidence animals have transitioned between zw and xy sexual systems multiple times. Its likely that in transition periods there would be both zw and xy which suggests historically, at least a kind of transitory “xyz” system (which would fall outside anisogamy’s definition if x y and z all had different sized gametes - not an impossibility) where there were likely two compatible pairings and a noncompatible pairing but that would be a costly system to maintain so its not surprising existing observations don’t see this occuring.
If such things were identified in the wild it could be defined as a “third sex” or as a “transitory sexual system” etc. Dolly the sheep also had 3 parent/donor cells instead of the usual two. Its a special case but it also falls outside of normal sexual reproduction model as many gene editing expiriments do.
The models describe commonalities, not certainties or absolutes. This is why the original analogy is fine; there are things that seem like they would obviously fit into sexual reproduction (>1 but not exactly 2 dna donors or parent organisms such as polyspermy) but we still call it a binary because such instances are rare. The original analogy is also an obvious analogy for gender (or “legal sex” or “sex assigned at birth” because as soon as it has a social context it becomes gender and law is a social context).
The model could change if a third gamete type evolved, but that’s not a caveat worth mentioning. Maybe we’d get a sperg! Or a spegg!
Stop being silly because you’re pissy about being wrong. Another quote from the same Phd Evolutionary Biology as above:
Anisogomy is by definition binary because they’re a subset of multiple models but we were talking about biological sexes which includes plant and fungi models of sex which are absolutely not binaries and are more complicated. You’re clearly unfit to have this discussion if you think your quote is some kind of “gotcha”.
I’m getting redditor debate bro energy from you. Go take a science class and stop misquoting people. Anisogomy specifically refers to a subgroup of plant and animal reproduction.
You’re confusing sex with mating types. But thank you for finally acknowledging that anisogamy is observed to be binary.
I realize that the accentuation there might come across as sarcastic, but it’s genuine. Too many people are trying to argue with me about things I’m not saying or they misunderstand. My original comment should’ve been an entirely uncontroversial minor correction.
I did acknowledge it in every post. I said biological sex has two models and one is not a binary model. You made some absolutely inane assumptions about the future of scientific models.
I think you’re confusing sex with mating types again, but as long as we can agree for anisogamy
It’s rather silly that you say “inane assumptions about the future of scientific models” and then go on to describe the same thing in different words.
You’re saying “the map is not the territory”, which is true, but ignoring that the territory has been observed to have an attribute universally. The territory could change, but until it does, it’s correct to note the current universal reality of that attribute in the map.
You’re basically saying “Yeah, but you could just be a brain in a jar!” or “What if electrons stopped existing!”. Interesting thought experiment but silly to take seriously.
You’re not making the point you think you are.
Anisogamy also refers to some plant sex characterizitions; its a paraphylitic group. Its better to think of it like a basket you can sort things into.
There’s also evidence animals have transitioned between zw and xy sexual systems multiple times. Its likely that in transition periods there would be both zw and xy which suggests historically, at least a kind of transitory “xyz” system (which would fall outside anisogamy’s definition if x y and z all had different sized gametes - not an impossibility) where there were likely two compatible pairings and a noncompatible pairing but that would be a costly system to maintain so its not surprising existing observations don’t see this occuring.
If such things were identified in the wild it could be defined as a “third sex” or as a “transitory sexual system” etc. Dolly the sheep also had 3 parent/donor cells instead of the usual two. Its a special case but it also falls outside of normal sexual reproduction model as many gene editing expiriments do.
The models describe commonalities, not certainties or absolutes. This is why the original analogy is fine; there are things that seem like they would obviously fit into sexual reproduction (>1 but not exactly 2 dna donors or parent organisms such as polyspermy) but we still call it a binary because such instances are rare. The original analogy is also an obvious analogy for gender (or “legal sex” or “sex assigned at birth” because as soon as it has a social context it becomes gender and law is a social context).