Leaderboard

Depends on what you mean by sex. Do you mean what gender you identify as ? Recreational ? Or procreational ? This is a Science site, and we classify sex only as it pertains to reproduction of the species. Self identity and recreational, we leave to the psychologists and sociologists. In terms of reproduction, there is a hard line between the two sexes/genders; one gives birth to young, the other doesn't. As they get older women might lose that ability, but sometimes we lose other abilities also. Are humans not classified as bipedal when they use a cane or sit in a wheelchair ? Are humans sighted, or on a 'spectrum', because some lose their eyesight as they get old ? It is black and white; that doesn't mean there aren't species that reproduce asexually, but of those that can even change sex, ( as Sensei mentions ) only give birth as female. Which 'sex' do you want to discuss ?

Depends on how complicated you want to be. I mean, uterus transplantation are a possibility. And of course this would be the ability to bear argument according to which women with infertility issues would be considered male.

I would suggest you tell your child, to play on the swings; while the grown-ups have a conversation.

The answer depends on what you want to convey. Two sexes is sufficiently simple narrative, like the sun is yellow or the sky is blue. It is an operating framework that works, but if you ask scientifically, you know it is a simplification. As mentioned before, it is all about context. You know, all models are wrong, some are useful. The karyotype definition covers about 98% of all cases and that will often suffice. Unless of course you want to focus on the remaining few percentages, at which it becomes iffy. The design argument is problematic as an ability becomes the defining factor and any form of sterility makes it complicated. You then again have to override the definition to fit certain folks in. We have generally accepted definitions, but as you mentioned, if we look at them in more detail, it is clear that classifications are all constructs. It does not mean that we should abandon them. However, when dealing with nature scientifically, we should not confuse them with reality, either.

You got it backwards. Depending on which characteristic you use, you there will be a subpopulation which you could assign to either category, if you only use two. I.e. if you use karyotype, clownsfish have only one sex. If you use behavioral cues you can to some degree of accuracy say that the those that do more of the behaviour of males are males and those that fit female behaviour are female. But if you look at a hundred females assigned that way, 99 might have female gonads, but 1 might still have retained male ones. You might find a couple that still have both characteristics and so on. So in other words, if everything has to fit two categories, you can make them, but it does not mean that those reflect nature. And as a side note, in science lingo, gender and sex are two different (but related things) things. Exactly. And also the photon does not care either way, it is just what it is. The categories are basically made by an observer, not by the photon itself, if that makes any sense.

Nope. I stopped taking wood shop in grade 9.

I picture you right now holding a wooden cube in one hand and a hammer in the other. Below you is a hole slightly smaller than the cube and the hole is shaped like a circle. You’re tenaciously pounding away trying to smush the cube into the hole with your hammer, scraping the sides and causing dirt to displace everywhere… and all the while you’re mocking everyone else who attempts to clarify for you that your cube doesn’t actually fit there. More than that, you’re being told where it DOES fit yet you’re plugging your ears and closing your eyes to this information… the information highlighting that there’s a square hole right beside you ready to perfectly receive your cube like a glove awaiting a hand.

Finding Nemo could have been much more interesting... They do use the opposite ZW system for their sexes too though not sure how that works out. Best definition is based on type of gametes produced. Even that is bit dubious though. You're not actually restricted as long necessary code exists or relevant hormones.

When in science we assign categories the big question is always what makes sense (aka is it useful?) and to some degree how close do categories reflect reality. For example using categorical variables to assign size (e.g. small, medium, large) has obviously some uses (e.g. for certain clothing) but clearly does not capture the complexity of height ranges in humans. So OP is kind of asking how close the common two categories reflect nature. To answer this question it is obviously necessary to collect data and then decide whether there are categories that reflect that data. I.e. we cannot start of with the assumption that there are only e.g. three categories and then try to squeeze everything into it. If we were to do that, I could make the argument that there are only three heights in humans. So now take a look at potential classifiers and to keep things simple let's stick with humans. One potential way that has been mentioned is karyotyping. We just say that XY is male and XX is female. The issue is that more than those two karyotypes exist. While the number is low, we cannot just ignore them. They exist and therefore the classification does not reflect the entirety of biology. It covers well over 98% of all cases, however, and in many cases it is sufficient to use such a measure. But again, that is a category we make and it does not fully capture the complexity of nature. There are other criteria one could make, such as looking at gonad tissue. But there are cases of chimerism where folks have both types of tissue. We can decide based on fully formed reproductive organs, but then it would include folks whose organs are not fully formed. We can decide based on function (e.g. childbirth) but that would exclude sterile folks. So fundamentally we can make categories that cover most, but clearly not all cases. So to answer the question are there more than 2 sexes, one would have to be very clear what one is really asking. Have we (as humans) created more than two sexes as classifiers? That depends on the field I guess but quite often only two are used as main categories and then the term intersex is often used as a kind of catch-all for all other cases. If you are saying if nature has only two sexes, the answer is not really. MigL, to answer your question, it depends a lot on what the researcher is looking for. If they want to look at genetic control of their sex, they could e.g. look at the expression of the main regulator gene and go from there. If group interactions are what folks are looking at, often the largest in the group is the dominant female and has altered behaviour. That being said, there are many cases where it might not be apparent (e.g. incomplete sex changes) and in these cases you can not really assign a sex trivially. E.g. you might have a fish that behaves like a female but is unable to produce eggs, for example. Or you can dissect the fish to look at the gonadal tissue, but again, it might be unclear. In other words, the researchers assign sex once sufficient parameters are fulfilled relevant to their work (on the tissue, functional organ and/or behavioural level) but they can get things wrong if the transition does not follow the expected route.

I am talking about the implications of relativity as in the block universe. Since particles appear to just exist as static world lines, I do not understand how a static universe like this can have different parts that are simultaneously different sizes from length contraction. And what does it physically mean to be an observer?

You know that there is no such thing as 'frictionless', don't you ? The laws of Thermodynamics can be likened to a card game ... 1 - You can't win ( can'tcreate energy in a closed system ). 2 - You can't break even ( no such thing as frictionless ). 3 - You can't get out of the game ( entropy )

With zero friction a flywheel should keep spinning indefinitely - but when you draw any energy from it, eg by using it to power an electrical generator, it will slow down. You won't evade the laws of thermodynamics.

I know what you mean ... Science always talks about circles and spheres, when we know no such thing as a perfect circle or perfect sphere exists in nature. They are a 'spectrum' of shapes. Seriously, biological classifications are just that, an easy way to group organisms into groups according to certain specific criterea. And, yes, some of those criterea are binary. Does it matter tome what you choose to identify as? Not at all. I only get my back up when I'm told what I have to perceive you as. That is not my subjective reality; don't force yours on me. Do you identify any other organisms as anything other than your subjective perception of them ? Or do you ask your cat if she wants to be referred to as 'dog' ? Yeah, read the story. I was trying to be funny, and failed miserably.

Don't forget the teacher! I had a horrible experience with calculus the first time I took it, mostly because the teacher's style didn't suit me at all. I dropped the class and took it the next semester with a different teacher and did fairly well. Sometimes it's just about the connection between teacher and student, and how one's enthusiasm (or lack thereof) can be channeled into effective learning.

The most likely option: These ancient myths will continue being used to control the masses. Some poor gullible soul will be told by another human (likely a more intelligent one) that their messiah is here, they will point to some regular Joe, and the gullible will believe the person telling them, even when the person telling them is sharing untruths.

This whole premise which was introduced by @swansontat the begining of the thread is as much wrong as it is absurd. I genuinely do not know if you both plus @CharonY are so far down the rabbit hole of PC that you've lost your screws already or you are just pretending for the sake of something. It doesn't matter as far as I am concerned as unconscious incompetence is as much incompetent as deliberately bullshiting people into a view (anti vaxers come to mind) No, post menopausal women are not an argumet nor the infertile women are - Women bare children, men don't and thats ok, really it is grotesque that you seem to think its not. You have to be a really special kind of dick to argue that an evolutionarily built in defect or trait of a species is evidence for another evolutionarily built in trait. You're a DICK iNow. You haven't got reprimended for calling me one a few years back so it's only fair I won't be reprimended for calling you one now. You do go straight into confrontation in most your post regarding me so dick is what you get.