Two University of Leicester students speak out over ‘absurd’ and ‘Orwellian’ decision by the BBC and ITV Studios to edit out pride pins worn on University Challenge

    • Jiral@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Not really. Genders do exist in biology. They may not always be clear cut (and one animal might have also both genders at the same time) but they most certainly do exist and are the foundation for sexual reproduction which is very much a thing, next to asexual reproduction. Human races are not.

      • tangosox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        I have a psychology degree, and I’m back in school pursuing a nursing degree, so I’m currently retaking human development. Both when I originally studied it about 12 years ago and today, we distinguished biological sex from gender and its social and psychological components.

        Biological sex is absolutely real, but it isn’t synonymous with gender. Biological sex concerns reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, hormones, and other biological characteristics. Gender also involves identity, social roles, and cultural expectations.

        Children begin learning gender roles and stereotypes through socialization in infancy. According to gender schema theory, by around age three, most children can label their own gender. Around four, they develop gender stability, understanding that boys generally grow into men and girls into women. By around six, they develop gender constancy, understanding that changing clothing, hairstyles, or activities doesn’t necessarily change someone’s gender.

        Interestingly, children tend to enforce gender stereotypes most rigidly around ages five to six. By seven or eight, they generally become more flexible and accepting of peers who don’t conform to traditional gender expectations.

        So yes, biological sex exists and is relevant to sexual reproduction. But that doesn’t mean the social roles, expectations, and identities associated with sex are themselves biological facts.

      • 9bananas@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        no, those are sexes. different thing altogether!

        although, tbf, not all languages distinguish between the two…

      • gwl [he/him]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        No they literally don’t.

        You’re thinking of Sexes.

        • Sex - DNA
        • Gender - Social Construction that ties stereotypes to things that there’s no connection to
        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Biological sex is a large cluster of traits with bimodal distributions where typically the traits are somewhat close to each other on their curves.

          You still manage to get situations like my ex’s mom getting karotyped as XY despite having given birth multiple times

      • iuminou@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        this claim is only in any way excusable if youre not a native english speaker

        you are describing “sexes”

        sadly some languages (such as Polish) do not distinguish

        on the other hand, if you are aware of this distinction and are making this claim despite that, this is a horrifying take