4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.