Humans arbitrarily decided to class them that way. We could have done it the other way around if we wanted. That's completely irrelevant to your claim that ginko trees are either male or female and that sex in them is binary. Clearly it is not
Obviously you're not capable of changing your mind because you're ideologically invested in this for other reasons. Evidence is meaningless. In which case I recommend deleting your account and picking another random thing to claim has binary sex. You won't find one, but this one is a lost cause
Biologists have for long chosen to classify male or female because it corresponds to something in the real world. On what basis do you regard such a fundamental classification as simply arbitrary?
My point is that the criteria for determining male and female is gamete size. Please expand on what you think is arbitrary. (Misunderstandings are inevitable when we have to be so concise).
Hairstyle should have nothing to do with sex. Some governments have in the past (and may still do) enforced sex based hairstyles which is insane. Occasionally gamete size is important or if not gamete size itself, the consequences of having a body organized around small or large gametes & yes sport.
That's what we've decided is the way in which we group everything. But then we also label a load of things with no gametes male and female too based on other things. It's all just pattern matching and attempts to model stuff to make predictions
Are you simply making a point about language? Well yes the sound of words in human language has not automatic relation to meaning. If you point is about biology, gamete size is such an important part of animal and plant life we would need words with the meaning of male and female if we lacked them.
Biologists used to believe all sorts of things. They thought all giraffes were the same species, they thought humans came in different "races". Biologists *today* treat "male" and "female" more as a spectrum than as a binary classification. On what basis do you regard this as incorrect?
Biologists are not out here claiming that your gamete size determines how good you are at sports, which bathroom you should use or even what your body looks like or how it functions. That's not on biologists.
Although male I have never stood a chance against an elite sportswoman in any sport but an elite sportswoman does not chance against elite sportsman in many sports. It is on the basis of evidence that several Olympic sports have switched to specifying biology as the criteria for competing.
That isn't because of their gametes, it's because of their material sex characteristics. The argument line you're now going down is in contradiction with your previous
When you say "elite sportswoman" do you mean "an elite with big gametes"? Or something else? Are you sure it's the gametes size which determines proficiency in sports?
Why is one end of my coaxial cable classified as male and one as female?? You're just arguing from semantic pareidolia. Plants aren't actually boys and girls, binary language is the underpinning of all oppression and you're a very silly billy.
Comments
Arbitrary.
Are gamete sizes why we have gendered divisions of sports?
Is gamete size why different hairstyles are associared with men and women?
Break it down, mystic.
When you say "elite sportswoman" do you mean "an elite with big gametes"? Or something else? Are you sure it's the gametes size which determines proficiency in sports?
I'm going to mute this thread now, it was funny at first but now there's too much ignorance in my mentions