วีดีโอ

If you subscribe most of my videos are much longer ;)

@brandonhutchison9864 Can you send some proof for the claim that many from 1948 can trace ancestry. From my reading it was largely either people who came during the Islamic conquest during saladin or Arabs who came in the late 1800s or early 1900s.

For interesting reference there were many in Europe that actual referred to Jews as Palestinians in the 1700's

Thanks my friend!

Is there room to separate the ideology from the personal identity of individuals? Respecting one's pronouns need not come with a full acceptance of trans-activist ideology. We discuss this towards the middle of the episode - I'm curious if you listened?

Thanks!

I have never used the phrase "a third sex" and I don't think that is a particularly useful or accurate term to reflect this conversation. Deciding to ignore/not include data of intersex humans because it doesn't fit a paradigm (ie, the 1-2% of people at minimum that are intersex) is poor scientific practice at best. The reality is there are people, with rates as frequent as red headedness, that have sex characteristics (chromosomal, phenotypic, gonadal, hormonal) that do not fit into definitions of male and female. These variations occur naturally and are not necessarily disorders or incorrect, but rather reflect the natural diversity in human biology.

@@laurmerl But that's my point, intersex is not a 3rd sex, humans are still only a dimorphic sex, the fact that at times the biology doesn't fall clearly on 1 side or the other doesn't change that fact.

I'd argue the biological diversity of human sex is far more nuanced than male and female, and instead of a binary it is a rather fluid spectrum, with weights on the most dimoprhic ends. There are two many data points that don't fit into the two points of male/female to support a rigid binary.

Thanks for that head's up! Was totally not the point of the wording so my bad! Curious about your thoughts regarding the episode

There is not a single human that's sex is identified at birth by the gametes they produce, as it would require incredibly invasive surgery for female presenting newborns and males don't produce gametes until puberty. Also, not only are there rare cases where individuals can have both gametes, but it becomes confusing when you have someone with XX chromosomes with male genitalia, and they also produce infertile sperm. They look male, but chromosomally they're female. The idea that gamete sex trumps chromosomal sex or genitalia/phenotypic sex is not largely supported by medical or scientific literature in humans or animals.

​@@laurmerl Sure, but secondary sex characteristics are strong indicators of the gametes a person will produce. Intersex cases are rare exceptions that are when development goes wrong, but reproduction-and the evolutionary survival of species-relies on the ability to differentiate sex. We don’t need to directly observe gametes to determine sex; biology has evolved clear markers, like external anatomy and secondary characteristics, to ensure successful reproduction. Ignoring this is like dismissing the evolutionary system that makes reproduction possible in the first place. Also, intersex people are not a 3rd sex as George has already pointed out, they still only produce either small or large gametes. I'm not sure why or when we've decided that an implication is considered normal. I also don't get why people compare us to other animals. For one, even animals that can change which gamete is produced are switching between two gametes and secondly, we're humans who can't switch which gametes we produce. I also don't get non-binary in terms of gender. Even with your clothing choice, hairstyle choice, etc, I can still tell from your face alone that you're AFAB. I'm all for people dressing and expressing themselves as they want to but why class yourself as non-binary and not just embrace the fact that men and women can dress however they want and go against social norms? It just seems like instead of pushing to change social norms, you're deciding to reinforce them.

​@@mike309saa Intersex individuals are *at least* as common as red hair, which is 1-2% of the population, or 1 in 50 people. This number does not include the people who find out they're intersex late in life do to infertility issues, or perhaps never find out at all. Removing data because it is doesn't fit perfectly into a paradigm is at best, poor scientific practice. We can't simply dismiss red heads or intersex as irrelevant because we decided, arbitrarily, that it needs to be more common. The wording of intersex as a result of "developmental disorder" is potentially misleading. It certainly can be, but the line between disorder and natural variation is blurry. If the argument is its uncommon, and thus a disorder, then being a red head would also be a disorder. If the argument is it can cause functional issues with fertility and is thus a disorder, its perhaps stronger but leaves out intersex individuals who have no issues with fertility at all. In which case, they wouldn't have a disorder. While I agree with you that just because something happens in animals doesn't make it directly applicable to humans (ie, animals that display hermaphrodism or can change their sex), if you want to talk a true evolutionary perspective, it necessitates a comparative approach that includes more than just humans. When we look at sex from an evolutionary perspective, it is incredibly variable on all levels (chromosomal, gonadal, phenotypic, etc) across all levels of life. So the argument that "evolution says" there are only two sexes is confounding, because it is humans that say that - evolution doesn't really care about labels. In fact, there are strong arguments to be had that the ability to differentiate sexes evolved AFTER organisms were having sex. Which is to say it is likely that the earliest of organisms that started swapping gametes were unable to differentiate sex. What they likely developed first was the ability to identify conspecifics, regardless of sex. As humans we have evolved to be attracted to different things, and tellingly some of these things are unique to certain places, times and culture. Some of these proximal attractions we have given ultimate meaning too (in humans and other animals). Ie, we might say a female peacock is attracted to males with bright colors and evolution supports this because to have bright colors, that peacock needs a nitrogen rich diet. But, the immediate cause of that attraction has nothing to do with diet or logic. This is true in humans, sexual attraction is proximately irrelevant to whether or not child birth is involved. Importantly, evolution only requires a trait to have a net zero impact on fitness to exist. So it can be quiet difficult to determine if traits evolved bc they increased fitness, or simply from random chance and a net zero impact. Additionally, for thousands of years men that have had sexual relations with other men have gone on to procreate and have families. Talking strictly biology and evolution becomes challenging when we overlay societal labels. For example, homosexual men and women can and do procreate. The label homosexual doesn't define who they have sex with, but rather who they are attracted to. Obviously these traits are AT LEAST evolutionary neutral, and their are interesting arguments to be had they provided other benefits. So this idea that evolution says there is only man and woman otherwise our species would die bc how would we know who to have sex with is not only wrong, it's bizarrely out of place evolutionarily. I never said there are 3 sexes. I said the idea that sex is clean cut into two perfect categories is in and of itself incorrect biologically. This is not new. There are 50+ year old textbooks that lay out layers of sex, including chromosomal sex, gondal sex, phenotypic (includes genitalia) sex, behavioral sex and hormonal sex. Gametes are not actually directly listed, but part of the gonadal sex structure, and there is a reason for that. In fact, the idea that sex is defined solely by the gametes we produce, without regard to chromosomes or phenotypes or hormones, is just not a largely support by the medical or scientific community. It's a very narrow framework that has limited application, and tends to rely on "functional" gametes in the definition (ie, if someone has both male and female gametes and let's say the sperm lacks fertility function but the egga are viable, then that person must be female regardless of the fact that they have a penis). However this argument is problematic as it would define infertile humans as essentially sexless. Finally, another example of the issue with hyperfixation on gametes is that we are not sea urchins that just release our gametes into the sea and hope they find each other and create life. So for someone who has viable eggs but no uterus to grow the egg, the argument that gametes alone define sex because they determine life collapses. Sex is layered and nuanced.

Thanks my friend!

I totally agree with the transcending evolution! I'll wait for Lauren to weigh in on the biology question.

This is a great question! I am quiet familiar with PCOS, so I'll break it down how I conceptualize the layers. First, PCOS is very heterogeneous and thus has a lot of different presentations. Some women with PCOS have hyperandrogenism (they produce excess testosterone), and others do not. Some have cysts on their ovaries, and others do not. This complicates the question, as the cysts alone wouldn't cause any change in presentation of sex characteristics. Second, I also want to acknowledge this is can be a very sensitive question for some women who might be offended by the suggestion that this disease changes their sex. Many women with PCOS struggle with their sense of womanhood, so no one answer to this question works for everyone. So by western medical standards, sex and intersex status are largely determined by genitalia (often at birth). Therefore from a medical, diagnosistic standpoint PCOS does not usually qualify as intersex. However, the level of hyperandrogenism that some women experience with PCOS can lead to an enlarged clitoris (clitormegaly) BUT the extent of this is not normally anything as dramatic as what one might be seen with say, congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Additionally, there are women who experience significant other secondary sex characteristics as a result of the hyperandrogenism, including deepened voice, excess hair, infertility and even male patterned baldness. I have met some folks with PCOS who have come to identify themselves as intersex as a result. However, this is not the norm, and definitely shouldn't be assumed.

I really appreciate the comment! For me it's all about finding a middle ground between xenophobia on one side and a refusal to admit that there are problems being caused by untempered immigration into Europe on the other. Feel free to subscribe to the channel if you'e interested!

For the record neither myself - nor the guest - voted for Trump. I just recorded a podcast about Europe - it isn't doing too well either. Here's the link - curious to hear your thoughts: th-cam.com/video/3cuGwGO_LlY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=aGcL4PeE3OJzQ0JR