4 ms·

> When you're able to produce a 3rd kind of gamete, or a human that can produce the other kind too or in sequence, then you can change my mind and claim your No

> When you're able to produce a 3rd kind of gamete, or a human that can produce the other kind too or in sequence, then you can change my mind and claim your Nobel prize Many people result a null in this category in this without any medical intervention. Unless you intend to imply that someone is genderless if they produce no gametes? > FYI, intersex is a misnomer because it gives those who don't seem to understand the basics of human biology the idea that there is a 3rd sex (at least) when actually, it means that someone may have ambiguous gender, but they are still either one or the other. That is inaccurate. Humans can be born with both, or neither, sets of genitals, and chimerism can occur resulting in different portions of the body containing different genetics - it's possible for some portions to be XX and others to be XY. In addition, conditions such as klinefelter syndrome typically lead to individuals appearing closer to the XY end of the scale, their genome is actually XXY and doesn't match either.

esarbe 3y ago
You confuse the concepts of "sex" and "gender". Sex is defined by the gametes one produces. Female for few large gametes, male for many small gametes. If you don't have the capacity to produce functional gametes, you're asexual. Gender is the social expression of the set of behaviors typical for a given sex. Your gender does not necessarily have to correspond to your biological sex.
- Shared404 3y ago
  > You confuse the concepts of "sex" and "gender". > Gender is the social expression of the set of behaviors typical for a given sex. Your gender does not necessarily have to correspond to your biological sex. I'm more aware than most :P I just find it easier to start with the concept that people don't even understand even the biology they claim to tout before getting into that. E: I did poorly phrase that line in my last comment though.
- zo1 3y ago
  We can't just throw something like "you confuse the concepts of X and Y" like that. This whole sex vs gender this is absolutely new to the world, so we can't just expect people to know it much less agree with it. I may be ignorant of history on some pedantic definitional level, but every single thing I know or am aware when it comes to this topic is that there have always been two of this "thing" whatever you want to call it, barring small odd cases or medical conditions. Two. Likewise, sex and gender were always seen as one in the same and interchangeable. This is very much a new, modern thing that's been thrown into the mix. And don't get me wrong, everyone should have the right to express themselves freely as long as they don't hurt others. But this whole "gender" being something different to sex seems very much a spanner thrown in the works to confuse and back something as being "fundamental" as if it's needed in the fight for equal rights for the affected individuals. Whether a person gets to act as the other sex/gender is irrelevant, they are a human being and get rights as such.
  - esarbe 3y ago
    > sex and gender were always seen as one in the same and interchangeable Various cultures always have had different norms and rules for the sexes. What might appear manly manly in one culture might seem effeminate in another culture. Just see how makeup was considered manly in ancient Persia and how it was ridiculed as woman-ish in Greece. There have always been different interpretations and manifestations of what it means "to be a man" or "to be a woman" - that's gender. Some cultures - like some native American people - recognize expressions of sexual identity disconnected from their biological sex. So no; sex and gender were not "always seen as one in the same and interchangeable". I agree that sex/gender are irrelevant and that every human has the same rights as every other. Including the right to not be discriminated against based on sex/gender.
  - implements 3y ago
    > Likewise, sex and gender were always seen as one and the same and interchangeable. They’re often used interchangeably, but they’re two separate concepts: Sex is the body’s reproductive role - males produce sperm and inseminate females who produce ova and gestate fertilised eggs into mini-humans. Gender is a set of socially constructed stereotypes concerning how men and women should generally look, think, act and feel - traditionally men are masculine and women feminine. At least in the UK 2nd wave feminism sought to reject gender on the basis that it was sexist (discriminated between the sexes) in a way that limited and harmed particularly female people as individuals, but also males. They saw gender as part of a masculine / patriarchal (rule of the father) system of female oppression. I won’t write an essay (not what HNs is about) but that’s why some people have issues with gender being used as a synonym for sex.
- brigandish 3y ago
  You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, which has risen to more widespread use through feminist scholarship without, as far as I can see, any basis in reality or good reason. From [1]: > The first title in SCI to use gender in a nongrammat- ical sense was Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic findings (Money, 1955). John Money[2], as it happens, was a sex abuser who performed experiments, sick experiments, on a pair of brothers that led to them both committing suicide. I wouldn't usually go with the genetic fallacy of dismissing an idea because of its origins, but I have no problem with it here because I see no valid point for its novel use. This quote is at the end of the Wikipedia article, and it sums him up and, perhaps, the movement that seems so desperate to use his work: > If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who's intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way. Edit: Additionally > If you don't have the capacity to produce functional gametes, you're asexual. Being unable to produce a gamete does not make one asexual, all humans are either male or female. If you lose your genitals in an accident that doesn't make you asexual, it means you're male or female who had an accident. Humans are bipedal but if you don't have both legs you don't stop being human either. [1] The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Controversies [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
  - esarbe 3y ago
    > You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, So what? The way we use words changes all the time. We discovered that we want to differentiate between the innate sexual reproductive capabilities and their expression in society, now we use words differently. That's what language does; it changes with time. > If you lose your genitals in an accident that doesn't make you asexual You don't have to go as far as accidents; menopausal woman lose their ability to produce gametes. They lose their sexual reproductive capabilities. Does it make sense to speak of a sex if you don't have sexual reproductive capabilities? Seems weird to me. Additionally; there have always been differences in how various cultures expressed sexual identity. And what seems effeminate in one society is seen as manly in another one; expression of sexual identity and sexual identity are two different things. We're not dung beetles that only have instinctive behavior; we also have cultural and individual behaviors that are added to that. That's why it makes sense to me to differentiate between sex and gender.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Sex is defined by the gametes one produces It can be, it can be defined other ways; biomedically for humans its not usually defined exclusively by gametes, since humans who do not produce gametes are usually assigned a sex (recently, in medical practice, assigning more than one, scoped to a particular purpose, and potentially involving narrative rather than simple labels has had some adoption and more discussion, because “sex” broadly is a multidimensional space of correlated, but not perfectly correlated, traits.) > Gender is the social expression of the set of behaviors typical for a given sex That’s specifically gender expression, which as distinct from gender identity and ascribed gender as it is from any of definitions of ”sex”.
brigandish 3y ago
> Many people result a null in this category in this without any medical intervention. Unless you intend to imply that someone is genderless if they produce no gametes? Humans only have the potential to produce one type of gamete. Whether they actually are able to produce that at any given moment is a different matter. > Humans can be born with both, or neither, sets of genitals Again, unless they are able to produce gametes of both types from them then it doesn't matter, and we have no recorded instances of this occurring. > and chimerism… is irrelevant unless it leads to the production of both types of gamete at the same time or in sequence, which it does not. There are only 2 sexes because there are only 2 types of sex cell. Each sex produces one type, that is why they are of that sex. There is no 3rd, there are no humans that produce both. Hence, humans are sexually dimorphic.
- Shared404 3y ago
  A chimeric human possessing the capability to produce neither gamete and possesing neither testes nor overies pokes apart that argument. In addition, as noted elsewhere in the thread, sexual dimorphism is typically used to discuss more than just gametes in study of other species, so why not ourselves?
  - brigandish 3y ago
    > A chimeric human possessing the capability to produce neither gamete and possesing neither testes nor overies pokes apart that argument You seem focused on actual when it should be potential. That individual, if one were to exist, would not be able to produce both if their disorder could be fixed. There have been no such individuals recorded so the scientific community waits with baited breath. > In addition, as noted elsewhere in the thread, sexual dimorphism is typically used to discuss more than just gametes in study of other species, so why not ourselves? As pointed out in the quote written by the zoology professors, anisogamety is determined thus. Whether other aspects of biology can be determined or inferred from sexual dimorphism is irrelevant to anisogamety. I know you want to make the “we are more than our genitals” argument but it’s just not relevant.

esarbe 3y ago

You confuse the concepts of "sex" and "gender". Sex is defined by the gametes one produces. Female for few large gametes, male for many small gametes. If you don't have the capacity to produce functional gametes, you're asexual. Gender is the social expression of the set of behaviors typical for a given sex. Your gender does not necessarily have to correspond to your biological sex.

Shared404 3y ago
> You confuse the concepts of "sex" and "gender". > Gender is the social expression of the set of behaviors typical for a given sex. Your gender does not necessarily have to correspond to your biological sex. I'm more aware than most :P I just find it easier to start with the concept that people don't even understand even the biology they claim to tout before getting into that. E: I did poorly phrase that line in my last comment though.
zo1 3y ago
We can't just throw something like "you confuse the concepts of X and Y" like that. This whole sex vs gender this is absolutely new to the world, so we can't just expect people to know it much less agree with it. I may be ignorant of history on some pedantic definitional level, but every single thing I know or am aware when it comes to this topic is that there have always been two of this "thing" whatever you want to call it, barring small odd cases or medical conditions. Two. Likewise, sex and gender were always seen as one in the same and interchangeable. This is very much a new, modern thing that's been thrown into the mix. And don't get me wrong, everyone should have the right to express themselves freely as long as they don't hurt others. But this whole "gender" being something different to sex seems very much a spanner thrown in the works to confuse and back something as being "fundamental" as if it's needed in the fight for equal rights for the affected individuals. Whether a person gets to act as the other sex/gender is irrelevant, they are a human being and get rights as such.
- esarbe 3y ago
  > sex and gender were always seen as one in the same and interchangeable Various cultures always have had different norms and rules for the sexes. What might appear manly manly in one culture might seem effeminate in another culture. Just see how makeup was considered manly in ancient Persia and how it was ridiculed as woman-ish in Greece. There have always been different interpretations and manifestations of what it means "to be a man" or "to be a woman" - that's gender. Some cultures - like some native American people - recognize expressions of sexual identity disconnected from their biological sex. So no; sex and gender were not "always seen as one in the same and interchangeable". I agree that sex/gender are irrelevant and that every human has the same rights as every other. Including the right to not be discriminated against based on sex/gender.
- implements 3y ago
  > Likewise, sex and gender were always seen as one and the same and interchangeable. They’re often used interchangeably, but they’re two separate concepts: Sex is the body’s reproductive role - males produce sperm and inseminate females who produce ova and gestate fertilised eggs into mini-humans. Gender is a set of socially constructed stereotypes concerning how men and women should generally look, think, act and feel - traditionally men are masculine and women feminine. At least in the UK 2nd wave feminism sought to reject gender on the basis that it was sexist (discriminated between the sexes) in a way that limited and harmed particularly female people as individuals, but also males. They saw gender as part of a masculine / patriarchal (rule of the father) system of female oppression. I won’t write an essay (not what HNs is about) but that’s why some people have issues with gender being used as a synonym for sex.
brigandish 3y ago
You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, which has risen to more widespread use through feminist scholarship without, as far as I can see, any basis in reality or good reason. From [1]: > The first title in SCI to use gender in a nongrammat- ical sense was Hermaphroditism, gender and precocity in hyperadrenocorticism: Psychologic findings (Money, 1955). John Money[2], as it happens, was a sex abuser who performed experiments, sick experiments, on a pair of brothers that led to them both committing suicide. I wouldn't usually go with the genetic fallacy of dismissing an idea because of its origins, but I have no problem with it here because I see no valid point for its novel use. This quote is at the end of the Wikipedia article, and it sums him up and, perhaps, the movement that seems so desperate to use his work: > If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 12 who's intensely attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way. Edit: Additionally > If you don't have the capacity to produce functional gametes, you're asexual. Being unable to produce a gamete does not make one asexual, all humans are either male or female. If you lose your genitals in an accident that doesn't make you asexual, it means you're male or female who had an accident. Humans are bipedal but if you don't have both legs you don't stop being human either. [1] The Inexorable Rise of Gender and the Decline of Sex: Social Change in Academic Titles, 1945–2001 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money#Controversies [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
- esarbe 3y ago
  > You may well say so, but it is a novel use of an existing word, So what? The way we use words changes all the time. We discovered that we want to differentiate between the innate sexual reproductive capabilities and their expression in society, now we use words differently. That's what language does; it changes with time. > If you lose your genitals in an accident that doesn't make you asexual You don't have to go as far as accidents; menopausal woman lose their ability to produce gametes. They lose their sexual reproductive capabilities. Does it make sense to speak of a sex if you don't have sexual reproductive capabilities? Seems weird to me. Additionally; there have always been differences in how various cultures expressed sexual identity. And what seems effeminate in one society is seen as manly in another one; expression of sexual identity and sexual identity are two different things. We're not dung beetles that only have instinctive behavior; we also have cultural and individual behaviors that are added to that. That's why it makes sense to me to differentiate between sex and gender.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Sex is defined by the gametes one produces It can be, it can be defined other ways; biomedically for humans its not usually defined exclusively by gametes, since humans who do not produce gametes are usually assigned a sex (recently, in medical practice, assigning more than one, scoped to a particular purpose, and potentially involving narrative rather than simple labels has had some adoption and more discussion, because “sex” broadly is a multidimensional space of correlated, but not perfectly correlated, traits.) > Gender is the social expression of the set of behaviors typical for a given sex That’s specifically gender expression, which as distinct from gender identity and ascribed gender as it is from any of definitions of ”sex”.

brigandish 3y ago

> Many people result a null in this category in this without any medical intervention. Unless you intend to imply that someone is genderless if they produce no gametes? Humans only have the potential to produce one type of gamete. Whether they actually are able to produce that at any given moment is a different matter. > Humans can be born with both, or neither, sets of genitals Again, unless they are able to produce gametes of both types from them then it doesn't matter, and we have no recorded instances of this occurring. > and chimerism… is irrelevant unless it leads to the production of both types of gamete at the same time or in sequence, which it does not. There are only 2 sexes because there are only 2 types of sex cell. Each sex produces one type, that is why they are of that sex. There is no 3rd, there are no humans that produce both. Hence, humans are sexually dimorphic.

Shared404 3y ago
A chimeric human possessing the capability to produce neither gamete and possesing neither testes nor overies pokes apart that argument. In addition, as noted elsewhere in the thread, sexual dimorphism is typically used to discuss more than just gametes in study of other species, so why not ourselves?
- brigandish 3y ago
  > A chimeric human possessing the capability to produce neither gamete and possesing neither testes nor overies pokes apart that argument You seem focused on actual when it should be potential. That individual, if one were to exist, would not be able to produce both if their disorder could be fixed. There have been no such individuals recorded so the scientific community waits with baited breath. > In addition, as noted elsewhere in the thread, sexual dimorphism is typically used to discuss more than just gametes in study of other species, so why not ourselves? As pointed out in the quote written by the zoology professors, anisogamety is determined thus. Whether other aspects of biology can be determined or inferred from sexual dimorphism is irrelevant to anisogamety. I know you want to make the “we are more than our genitals” argument but it’s just not relevant.