|
29. Sep 2025|20:28 |
Biju palaidusi garām, ka Latvijas Satversmes tiesas tiesnesis, doktors Jānis Neimanis ir uzrakstījis rakstu, kurā paudis domu, ka reti seksuālās attīstības traucējumi nozīmē dažādus dzimumus. https://www.delfi.lv/898102/versijas/120088652/janis-neimanis-vai-tiesam-pastav-tikai-divi-dzimumi-polemika-ar-tiesibsardzes-izteikumiem
Tālāk neko jaunu un nezināmu nepateikšu: tas tā nav.
Viņš runā par hromosomām, bet tas nav veids kā dzimumu nosaka bioloģijā. To nosaka, vadoties no tā vai ķermenis ražo (vai ķermeņa plānā ir ražot) lielās vai mazās gametas (olšūnas vai spermatozoīdus). Seksuālās attīstības traucējumi pastāv, protams, bet tie nav citi dzimumi.
Rakstā vēl viņš min, ka seksuālās attīstības traucējumi (ko viņš sauc par interseksuālām variācijām) "ir apmēram 1 no 1500–2000 jaundzimušo" un dod atsauci.
Tāpēc, ka DSD (Disorders of sex development) tiek dāžādi aprakstīti un kategorizēti, varu iedot arī citu atsauci, šeit ir sacīts, ka tie ir 1/5,600. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
Jebkurā gadījumā, nekur citur bioloģijā tik retas deviācijas no normas negrauj fundamentālus konceptus. Kā piemēru var minēt polidaktilismu - ģenētiski iedzimtu fizisko anomāliju, kad pirkstu skaits ir lielāks nekā parasti, kas ir sastopams 1/500-1000 cilv. Bet tomēr tiek uzskatīts, ka cilvēkam ir 20 pirksti, nevis pirkstu spektrs.
-----------------------
Ielikšu te fragmentus no evolucionārās bioloģes raksta. (Ja jums ir slinkums lasīt visu, jo tas tiešām jau ir zināms, tad aicinu izlasīt tikai priekšpēdējo rindkopu)
It might be helpful to think about the act of sex, perhaps in nonhuman species like chickadees or chacma Baboons. In sexually reproducing organisms (the overwhelming majority of animal species), while sex often satisfies a deep drive and is generally enjoyable, enjoyment is not the primary purpose of sex; it is instead a strong motivator, natural selection’s solution to get animals to engage in an often-risky behavior that requires a significant expenditure of energy. The primary purpose of sex is to produce offspring that combine the genetic material of their parents, so that those offspring can go on to pass on their DNA to future generations, and so on.
Moreover, sexual reproduction in animals can only occur when two distinct types of gametes (specialized sex cells containing DNA) fuse: the small mobile ones (sperm) and the large immobile ones (eggs). We call animals that produce sperm “male” and those that produce eggs “female.” That’s about it. The bottom line is that there are two gamete types and thus two sexes. There are no other sexes, no other reproductive categories.
Among mainstream evolutionary biologists, there is simply no disagreement on these basic points: The “gametic view” is the established orthodoxy of our field. It applies across sexually reproducing animals and accommodates all the complexity and variation within the sexes. It holds in nonreproductively viable animals—like postmenopausal me—that don’t produce gametes; it holds in male seahorses that get pregnant; in clownfish who change from male to female (first producing sperm and then eggs); in females who identify as male (trans men) and take male levels of testosterone and have a deep voice and a thick, bushy beard.
There are no additional or intermediate gametes. There are only sperm and eggs. Therefore, there are only two sexes, even if some people (or other animals) don’t fit obviously or neatly into one sex or the other. Traits associated with sex—like chromosomes, hormones, brain, feelings, or behavior—are not binary; nor do they define sex. However, there are two, and only two, sexes.
Recently, challenges to this “gametic” definition have mounted. Sex, even within the sciences, is often described as impossible to determine definitively; assigned; complex; on a spectrum; fluid; socially constructed, etc., etc., etc. You might have the impression that these changes are in response to new scientific discoveries, but you’d be wrong. What has changed is our political environment and the stakes for policy-relevant science, especially to do with questions about who counts as male or female in law and society. But it is precisely when the stakes are high—like right now—that we must be as clear as possible about the facts, use shared language, and do whatever we can to give airtime to all good-faith views and perspectives. Narratives about the facts that appear designed to shame dissenting views and tie them up with political agendas are not helping.
Where are these new narratives about sex coming from? Places like Harvard and scientific journals like The Lancet—i.e., institutions that purport to outsiders to represent the consensus of leading scientific authorities in their fields. However, in the case of the nature of sex, and in other areas, what these institutions seem to increasingly represent is not the consensus of scientific experts but the opinions of political activists that are then mapped back onto “science” in order to burnish their authority.
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/there-are-only-two-gametes |
|