bogus

I like how the artist included the one cyclone turning the opposite direction (on the right, hair blowing the other way)

… if you know you know 😎

Women are not included in those polls

… accurate

The point this guy is trying to make is that people are conflating Israel, Judaism, and Zionism in ways that don’t always make sense

Like, the polls you’re quoting are sentiments of Israelis, so this guy (and the vast majority of Jewish people in the world) are not included in those polls.

Even within Israel, that’s, what, 3-4 million people that disagree with that sentiment? And Israelis are only ~73% Jewish anyway?

On top of that, tons of zionists arent even Jewish, they are even likely to be antisemitic tbh.

So… what you said sounds a lot like “I don’t have anything against one particular group, but the sentiment of the citizens of this one country makes me second guess the perspective of a person in a totally different country just because they share one dimension of identity”… In essence, it sounds a lot like prejudice

(free palestine, in case that isn’t obvious)

Using Jesus as a reference is unfortunate, yeah, but any other world calendars have to pick a nearly equally arbitrary way to contextualize the start and end year.

Take your pick: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Year_in_various_calendars

I personally use “2024 CE” for “common era”, with BCE referring to “before common era”. This allows us to communicate relatively clearly with other people who use the Gregorian calendar without explicitly endorsing the birth of Jesus as the important event defining the switch-over between CE and BCE… A bit of a cop out, but

Anyway have fun, there are lots of options

Edit: also the one you’re referring to in your post is the Holocene Calendar

Absolutely!

Two eggs:

Booth et al. (2014). “New insights on facultative parthenogensis in pythons”. Biological Journal of Linnean Society, 112(3)461-468

Two sperm:

Tinti, F. and Scali, V. (1992). “Genome exclusion and gametic DAPI-DNA content in the hybridogenetic Bacillus rossius-- grandii benazzii complex (Insecta Phasmatodea)”. Molecular reproduction and development, 33(3)235-242

One egg:

Ryder et al. (2021). “Facultative parthenogensis in California Condors”. Journal of Heredity, 112(7)569-574

One sperm (surprised me too!):

Heesch et al. (2021). Evolution of life cycles and reproductive traits: insights from the brown algae." Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 34(7)992-1009

These examples are non-exhaustive (so many parthenogensis examples!) so if you want to know more, or if you’re interested in learning about the increased reproductive fitness post-homosexual mating activities, no one primary publication will give you a complete picture. I recommended reading the book I mentioned-- Evolution’s Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden-- because it details this in ways I can’t summarize in a social media comment.

I will have a PhD in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology. I have publications in epigenetics/chromatin/gene regulation and similar fields. I also research equity in the sciences, and one specific research focus is inequity for LGBTQ+ individuals in STEM. Therefore, I have expertise in these social issues as well as the biological ones. I will have a certificate added to my PhD in biology that validates this expertise in LGBTQ+ justice and social research methods.

I just want to be clear (not to this person but to anyone reading) that they are wrong.

They are assuming what they will read as evidence in books and literature. It’s frankly kind of astonishing that I can say “I’m an expert, I’m a biologist, and trans women are women with tons of biological evidence for that validity” and then have this person say “AH but the SCIENCE says I’m right, you just have FEELINGS!”

To be clear, the science says I’m right, the feelings are irrelevant. Toodles!

This is the last comment I will make to you.

Those who carefully read my previous replies will notice that I absolutely did not step over this question. The book I recommended details more than just animal and ecological examples, it also addresses physiological differences people of different sexes, sexual orientations, and gender identities.

Here’s the truth: the binary categories of male and female are not simple biological ones. Organisms cannot be neatly categorized as male or female, including humans. To put humans into these boxes is to ignore huge grey areas in our understanding of the biology underlying these traits. Even among XX or XY individuals, sex characteristics are polygenic and vary continuously, meaning that even looking at a person’s karyotype (which, you should understand, we hardly ever do) you could not reliably predict the appearance of external genitalia, the presence or absence of other sex characteristics like body hair or breasts, or the identity or orientation of a person.

Although I do not personally believe that having an underlying biological justification is necessary for a trans woman to be a valid woman, there definitely are physiological and biological realities that validate her experiences. Moreover, I don’t think we determine womanhood by biology at all-- for example, a XY human with complete androgen insensitivity would likely not even know HERSELF that she had a Y-chromosome, perhaps for her whole life, and you-- a random person on the street-- would be absolutely unable to tell.

If the question is, then, is there natural precedent for an organism’s sex chromosomes to be unpredictive of their sex characteristics or social roles? The answer is YES, unequivocally. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to be able to intentionally change their sex? The answer is YES, absolutely. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to have a social role that does not match the standard for individuals of their sex? The answer is also YES, 100%, certainly.

Thus, if the question is, are trans people representative of the norms of nature and the biological sciences? The answer is: You fucken BET.

Anyone who claims that trans women are somehow categorically distinct from other women is ignoring how loose the boundaries of womanhood already are. They are trying to twist the facts present under close examination of the biological world to fit their own human social narrative of gender essentialism. The facts of biology are absolutely on the side of trans individuals, this is the consensus among researchers-- and it is being ignored for political purposes in the same way the consensus among researchers on climate change is being ignored.

Like I said, I don’t have all day to engage on this, especially since almost everyone talking about trans people in relation to biological essentialism is not engaging in the discussion in good faith. The take home message is this: if you are earnestly wanting to understand what biological science says about trans people, go read that book, and listen to myself and other experts that trans women have every right and every fact on their side to support their identities.

Oh, second comment: your framing is disengenuine.

These are scientists, I’m a scientist, we’re held to standards of peer review and methodological scrutiny.

I don’t need to establish how and whether we’re doing science with authority-- that’s the beauty of the invention of the scientific method. I also don’t need to establish whether these are facts or opinions, because the body of research is so large and well-discussed, for decades now, that peer review has had plenty of time to do it’s work.

To humor you-- the methods used have been all of the above: surveys, experiments, studies, etc.

To humble you-- it’s extremely arrogant of you to ask a scientist, to their face, whether their research is real or just opinion. If you think all the research in this field is wrong, you can fix it the way we fix all our science: by conducting your own research and subjecting it to review by other experts in the field.

It’s a little unclear if you are asking for resources about the diversity of sex, sexual orientation, and sexual selection strategies in nature, OR about the ways in which they are misconstrued by society-- either by ignoring the diversity of nature to favor a heternormative and gender essentialist narrative, or by too closely feeling that what is natural is what should be considered good and just (the naturalistic fallacy).

I, myself, am authoring studies on the latter topic, but the field is so small that by sharing specific examples, I seriously risk doxxing myself (and others with whom I work closely on a politically fraught topic).

One also needs to understand the former before meaningfully engaging with the latter anyway, so I highly recommend the book Evolution’s Rainbow by Stanford ecologist Joan Roughgarden. The book is written in plain language (intended for a wider audience than just biology researchers) and details the (at the time-- 2009, with an updated edition from 2016) present summary of known ecological examples of organisms behaving in ways that counter the human social norms surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. She goes on to discuss the molecular basis of sex and gender in humans, including what is know about difference in brain structures and gene regulation, and then she contextualizes these examples in sociological terms. I think the book is a little dated at this point, and there was some conflict amongst biologists about aspects of the book that aren’t related to what we’re discussing (related to her modification of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection), so it isn’t perfect, but it’s basically the first thing any junior scholar is asked to read regarding this discussion topic. I think it will provide you with what you are looking for, seeing as it cites hundreds of studies in tens of fields of biological sciences relating to sex, gender, and sexual orientation in humans and other organisms.

Some key facts (mostly covered in the book) that you or others might find interesting:

• Homosexual behavior (same sex mating behavior) has been documented in fish, insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles, Invertibrates, and over 100 species of mammals
• Intersex bodies are common in nature, with many organisms either having characteristics of both sexes at one time or changing sex over the course of their lifetime. This is commonly found in “higher order” animals as well, and some populations of large mammals (like deer or bears) have been documented to have MOSTLY intersex individuals.
• Heterosexual mating is not required for reproduction, with documented examples of two sperm, two eggs, or just a single sperm or egg being enough to produce viable offspring in some circumstances. When homosexual mating is observed, it often increases the reproductive fitness of the participants
• The “sex roles” (unfortunate terminology, imo) of organisms are not a fixed norm, and we have many examples where the expectations you might have based on human societies for division of labor and activities are inverted or ignored entirely (such as birds where the males stay home and incubate eggs while the females compete with each other using displays of dominance and promiscuity)
• Although it doesn’t make sense to describe animals as having gender identities (due to those terms being intended for self-description among human social groups), it is worth pointing out that we do have many examples among animals where individuals of the same sex may have distinct categorical social dynamics, morphologies, and social roles (and that human gender identity does appear to have some underlying biological basis, although I will emphasize that it is non-deterministic and non-essentialist). There’s a discussion happening in the field about whether it is worth the potential downsides to describe these animals as having multiple genders within a single sex, so as to normalize and explain to non-biologists that human gender identities are mirrored by other organisms and are valid according to biological science

OP: says something revealing they don’t understand biology

Response: dude, what? You don’t understand biology!

You: “maybe they don’t understand biology because of all these new-fangled GeNdErS and iDeNtItIeS!!!”

(please don’t get me started on this, I am literally about to get my PhD in the ways people intentionally misconstrue and oversimplify sex, sexuality, and sexual selection in nature to obfuscate the validity of LGBTQ+ people in society and I don’t want to be here all day)

As an education professional: what the hell, dude? It’s not unfortunate that we aren’t just dropping struggling students without first carefully examining why they’re not succeeding.

You might be right that you can’t let some students detract from the class for other students, but the solution there is advocating for better funding and more staff to be able to give every student what they need, whether they’re above or below the expectation for their age.

Saying it’s “unfortunate” that students don’t fail (read: ruin their whole god damn lives) as often anymore is blaming our most vulnerable YOUTH for the systemic problems of our society. It’s not their job to be what the school environment wants them to be, they don’t even have a choice about whether or not they are there. It’s our (as educators, and as tax paying and voting community members) responsibility to make sure they get the education they need to be functional members of our society.

We even have huge bodies of research to reinforce this. It’s not a secret that the school environment excels at making nice workers, not critical-thinking and well-adjusted adult humans.

Take it up with the school board! Take it up with the local, state, and federal government! Take it up with the voters!

The chemist in me is appalled… But the queer clown in me is delighted 🏳️‍🌈🤡

WHERE’S THE ICE VOLCANO

this is amazing content

10/10 cute lil guys eating their lil snacks

10/10 entertaining watching you happily watch the cute lil guys eating their lil snacks

perfect

why am I attracted to the man in teletubby stiletto boots?? Why???

When I say “the cell isn’t a machine”, it is in specific reference to the machine model of the cell, which is a previously established conceptual framework in the field of molecular biology. If you want to understand why that model is falling out of favor today, you’re invited to read the article linked by OP and/or the articles I have linked in other comments.

The gist is that the cell is more complicated, flexible, and emergent than any machine has ever been and will be for the foreseeable future, and the idea that we can simply map the functions of each molecule in the cell to get a perfect “circuit diagram” of how everything plays together is defunct.

I don’t have time to mess with this thread any more. You can either accept what myself (an expert in this field), the author of this publication (which happens to be one of the most prestigious journals in the world), and others who do this research daily are saying about this, or you can not. Frankly, if you are an expert also, the field, the research, and the truth barely cares about our opinion-- it certainly doesn’t care about non-expert opinions on the internet.

Junk DNA is repeating codons, or codons that occur in areas that are outside of the “start/stop” codon triplicate pairs.

Those sequences do things and have effects. In fact, the coding regions are often less functional than the non-coding ones.

They aren’t there for structural reasons, all DNA is the same 4 codons linked together over and over, all the different chromosomes are different sizes.

Sometimes they ARE there for structural reasons? Read: enhancers, or CTCF binding sites? Among many other myriad examples of functional noncoding regions? Also, nucleotides =/= codons. There are 64 codons.

All of this DNA is reported when the cells divide, that’s the only time those regions between the stops and starts actually come into play. This is very easily proven, we know the structure of the reading proteins down to the molecule (indeed there are starts and stops and triplicate base pairs that design these transcribing proteins).

That’s bull. You’re out of your depth. A contemporary college molecular biology course would show your examples to the contrary.

The “important” junk DNA that has significance while not being in a “start->stop” zone are the codons that occur before the first start codon on either side of a DNA strand, when DNA is replicated the protein that starts replicating it has to start at 1 end of 1 side of the DNA in order to be able to read it

I feel like a broken record but Enhancers! lncRNAs! siRNAs! Binding sites! Other gene regulatory regions! Epigenetic nucleosome modifications! Chromatin remodeler sites!

except it needs to find the end first, and to make sure it’s all the end it “clips” the first 6 (? Maybe more maybe less, it’s been decades since I’ve studied this)

Oh, there’s your problem. A lot has changed. You refuse to see the sea change happening around you because it means you’re out of date.

Sorry for the wall of text, but there’s plenty of examples of blatantly junk DNA, and there are known methods of how it occurs. Anyone who says every codon pair has a purpose has a screw loose and is ignorant to the mechanics of evolution.

I was happy to reply to you and engage pleasantly originally but you are only engaging with people that know less about biology than you do. You are not an expert if you last studied biology decades ago and can’t remember the details. You certainly aren’t enough of an authority on the subject to question a contemporary article published in Science or the work of other researchers currently in the field.

I really, really encourage you to read these papers thoroughly. You are the target audience-- people who learned the machine model of the cell and who are gripping it so tightly that they are blind to the nuance that we’ve uncovered. I also encourage you to not write insults about people who disagree with you, especially people with more domain knowledge than you have.

This is a funny comment though, because “junk” DNA is involved with epigenetic regulation and cellular behavior.

“It’s there so it must have function”, “it’s still in the genetic code so it must have been selected for” is the least nuanced take,

“It’s there just randomly and therefore is junk”, and “evolution does not select for efficiency” is an improvement,

But “it’s there and it’s doing something despite not having a bespoke, prescribed function” and “evolution is a cascade of emergent effects and random chance, none of our genome is non-functional even though it is random” is the most up to date take

You seem like a biologist, why not go read some of these papers? Like the one I linked by Dan Nichols? Most people don’t have the background necessary to understand the language (no shade) but you seem to!