In light of recent controversy and its handling, the twice-a-year FediForum unconference for April 1st and 2nd has been canceled by its organizer.

  • tasty_sandEnglish
    2·
    1 day ago

    I feel like you are conflating “the different combinations of directly reproduction-related traits which can occur in species which have sexes” and “the kinds of viable gametes which exist in creatures that have sexes”.

    It seems like your definition of the sex framework is based on “the kinds of viable gametes of creatures which have sexes” (I do think this is a binary, let’s call this X), while other people are arguing for a definition more like “the combinations of traits in these creatures of which certain combinations are directly responsible for the creation of viable gametes” (there are more than two of these, and it’s not clear how to enumerate them).

    That said, I might be wrong about what you are arguing and what other people are arguing. I’m sorry if I’ve wasted your time in some way.

    Also (a pedantic complaint) you said these things:

    they are all based around a universal binary biological structure

    The bio-chemistry of terrestrial life is built upon a binary sex framework

    There are multiple species of terrestrial fungi which use “mating systems” which aren’t sex-based and aren’t necessarily binary.

    Again, I’m sorry if I’ve wasted your time in some way.

    • Skiluros@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      11·
      16 hours ago

      No worries, we are all just taking part in an online discussion. Don’t think the notion of wasting time is relevant.

      I am arguing that sex is binary. That there are edge cases, but these exceptions largely prove the rule.

      The use of universal should have been “close to universal” or “very close to universal”

      Beyond fungi, there are many other examples as well, single strand DNA life and so on.