Charles Arthur
1 min readSep 3, 2023

--

>>it 's an essentialist and purely biologically argument based upon reproductive "value" alone. Are we then merely baby factories, useless unless we breed?>>

Ask evolution. It got us here in the first place.

More specifically: I'm not making any comment about our personal merit as humans. I'm just explaining human sexual biology. The ultimate value of humanity is a topic for some quite different article.

>>You've encouraged sexual discrimination by stating that there are only two biological sexes which, in the eyes of Science, is all that matters.>>

That's a ridiculous statement. Stating scientific fact encourages discrimination? You sound like the Vatican telling Galileo that it was heresy to take the Earth out of the centre of the universe.

>>I don't think that you'll convince someone with an XXY genome or an XO genome to agree with that hypothesis.>>

And yet, they're members of the human race (yay!) and they're one sex or the other. Your desire to shuffle them off into some special corner apart from males and females won't work.

>>Choose your words more carefully next time, sir. >>

Eppur si muove.

--

--

Charles Arthur
Charles Arthur

Written by Charles Arthur

Tech journalist; author of “Social Warming: how social media polarises us all” and two others. The Guardian’s Technology editor 2005–14. Speaker, moderator.

No responses yet