Please read through this article:
https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article/120/1/1/2864987It claims that "male and female are socially constructed and imaginary" because "there are no universal differences between male and female across all species"
Although we typically think of females and males as being well-defined categories across all three eukaryotic supergroups that contain massively multicellular taxa, namely animals, plants, and brown algae (Ophistokonta, Archaeplastida, and Heterokonta), all of the above criteria for differences between females vs. males are illusory and/or inconsistent. Amongst eukaryotes, there is no essential/universal difference between females and males
It calls anisogamy a poor way to distinguish male from female. One section holds that in a few species capable of androgenesis and parthenogenesis, two sperm or two eggs sometimes form a zygote, so sperm would be able to do what an egg does, blurring the differences between the two cells
In taxa with central fusion and terminal fusion, eggs or egg nuclei fuse with other eggs or egg nuclei (Stenberg & Saura, 2009; Booth et al., 2014). Although much rarer, two sperm pronuclei fuse to form a zygote, for example in the androgenetic stick insect Bacillus grandii (Tinti & Scali, 1992). Therefore there is no universal complementarity between egg and sperm
Do you have arguments against the claims in the article?
"Man and woman, male and female, are imaginary social constructs" is always something "trans" supporters claim. I don't believe that supports "trans" people like they want it to. Quite the opposite. If male and female, man and woman, were imaginary and socially constructed, it'd mean a "trans man" isn't a "man" and a "trans woman" isn't a "woman" because there is no such thing as a man or woman, male or female, ultimately debunking their own "trans" ideology
Quick Reply
