hey :-)

I found this question and it feels a lot like troll question. However, I think it needs a solid answer. Speaking as a non-binary person who's seen this s*t over and over.

"sex cells" for me this is just biological essentialism, sperm/egg, and the DNA mention, which will be XX/XY chromosomes, is the same - there will be two only, boom, science doesn't care about your attack helicopter gender. I'd hazard a guess the OP wants someone, stumbling in from some other discipline with more confidence than sense, in order to say something really essential and binary without much else, so it can be hacked up and used as anti-trans evidence.

I think if it's deleted, if the link isn't completely erased then it will be used as an example of "the medical folk don't know".

Even if it is completely erased, then if it's been screen-shot, then erased, the same argument will be made.

If it gets edited at all/too heavily, same argument ...

Ignored. Same argument.

A decade or so ago there was an extreme right-wing christian group who set up something like the "American Association of Psychologists" (notice the difference?) and published lots of anti-LGBT stuff, but all official looking (I might have remembered details slightly wrong, but their basic goal was to look like the Official US. __ then pummel LGBT folk and it worked).

This site already brings tons of that sort of cred just by being SE. Now it's Medical Science, this is possibly a responsibility.

It feels like this sort of question is best dealt with a good answer, even though it's a crap question, just so a unfortunate little artefact isn't handed out to some nasty individuals who use it to hurt people.

Unfortunately I don't know the answer and I hope there is one. I feel like researching it so maybe I will answer. I think there is and it's not too hard if sticking to "sex cells"? ie. yes most people are XX or XY but that doesn't strictly govern secondary sex characteristics, has nothing to do with gender identity, isn't binary etc. etc. all with good back up links.

Would appreciate input, knowledge, of the subject or SE etc.

Of course I could be mistaken, and be calling out a valid question. I read it as "does XX/XY/?? over-ride sperm|egg production or vice-versa when determining human sex"

What is primary sign of sex, sex cells or DNA?

  • I closed the question for lack of research. It will eventually be deleted automatically by SE unless someone edits it and it gets reopened. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're asking us to do about it.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    Nov 6, 2023 at 14:43
  • @CareyGregory I think I've been clearer on the response to the gay questions. But simply put, the 404 page can be used and might actually be the goal: medicalsciences.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/913/…
    – user27472
    Nov 6, 2023 at 15:38
  • @CareyGregory as for this, I would have liked to have answered it with the current medical consensus on sex of humans, which I think is that it is more complex in every respect, without even considering identity, in order to put a good artefact into a credible website, rather than a dead page, but I would really have to do some research on that one - that way, if they were poking for real doctors to say "binary" to use in bad faith then no, they don't get that
    – user27472
    Nov 6, 2023 at 15:41
  • I still don't understand what you're asking us to do about it. If people want to use this site to support their agenda through misinformation then I don't know what we can or should do about that.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    Nov 6, 2023 at 15:48
  • @CareyGregory by "us" do you mean mods, or users in general? It's opinion on a discussion that I felt was relevant so not really a call to action, though maybe it ends up as that
    – user27472
    Nov 6, 2023 at 16:02
  • Both mods and the user community. You think the question you cited needs a good answer, but the question doesn't meet site requirements. The author chose to ignore my warning for 2 months instead of fixing it, so closing was the appropriate measure. We're not going to accept poor questions just because somebody might misuse the question for propaganda. And there's nothing anyone can do about questions not getting answers other than answer it themselves.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    Nov 6, 2023 at 19:16
  • @CareyGregory I was suggesting the odd bad actor might be thrown by a good answer, not actually suggesting all bad questions need good answers in general
    – user27472
    Nov 6, 2023 at 19:48
  • You seem to have this idea that speaking about medical facts here openly can have deleterious effects so we need to self-censor or risk having our words cause harm or being used for nefarious purposes. You've expressed this sentiment more than once, which leads to your questions often being coy and cloak and dagger-ish. That's not how medicine and science in general work. Absolutely no subject is taboo here as long as it's on topic, not illegal, and not misinformation, and that's as it should be. I think you need to leave the coyness and your fear of people misusing our words at the door.
    – Carey Gregory Mod
    Nov 7, 2023 at 1:07


You must log in to answer this question.