Leaderboard

If the sex and gender categories are continuums, how can one delineate them? It's like saying 'How many temperatures are there in temperature?'. It has occurred to me be, albeit belatedly, that the basic premise of the OP is incorrect.

Paul, these are not ideological/political threads.. To simple minds there are only males or females.. So suppose you are talking to someone who has both male and female organs, and they are fully functional and person can be either father and mother at the same time. What gender does this person have? In your oversimplified worldview, you cannot decide what gender this person has.. Him or her? She or he? (brain freeze) If you want to discuss it from a political point-of-view: The Polish (your country) national identification number (PESEL) (assigned by the government at birth) encodes a person's gender (the last digit is a checksum; if the penultimate digit is odd the person is male, if even, the person is female). Determined at birth (so by just looking at the body of infant; wondering what they do with intersex person? Toss coin?). When someone has a gender reassignment operation, they must also have their ID changed and the all the data associated with it (bank accounts updated, documents, etc., etc.). Some countries have begun to recognize this problem and have begun to move away from making it static and fixed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_identification_number "In 2017, the Norwegian Ministry of Finance approved changes to the numbering system. After the changes, the number will no longer indicate gender, and the first check digit will be 'released' to become part of the individual number."

There is a small percentage of people born without a brain, Anencephaly. The argument being currently presented is that if you are born that way,it is not a 'defect'. Obviously then, there are humans without brains. Lobsters don't have brains either. So 'lobster' is a type of human, just a variation on the brain volume spectrum. Maybe J Peterson was right to compare humans to lobsters. PS I have many friends here. I'll be back when we start respecting each other's opinions, and actually listening to each other without the accusations. So long.

I have not caught up with all posts, so apologies if that has been addressed already. Basically that is not what I am arguing. Rather, I am saying that what is generally accepted (even if we use terms in scientific literature) are only an approximation of the true complexity of a system. However these approximations can serve important purposes. It makes a lot sense to define two sexes into which the vast majority of a given species falls into, for a wide range of reasons. What I am saying, however, is that despite its usefulness, it still remains an approximation. As String Junky (via Markus) mentioned, it is a map, a representation of nature's complexity. It is not nature itself. What it also means is that rarities are something that exist in nature. I.e. we cannot ignore them because they do not neatly fall into our neat representation of nature. To take the map vs territory example. A map might not need all the nook and crannies in a particular area in order to help you find the way. But it does not mean that those finer detail are not part of the landscape. Moreover, not everything that exist in nature has to be operational based on narratives we made up. Especially in biology there are exceptions for virtually every model we have. Evolution by natural selection is a simple narrative, for example, but if we look at individual traits (or history of genes and proteins) then the situation becomes very tricky indeed. So while the theoretical framework is not wrong per se, it is incapable of covering all the diversity we see today (all the nook and crannies). Folks often do not seem to understand the complexity of biological systems and how limited our understanding on the most detailed level really is. And at some point, our approximations break from reality. If the question is are there two sexes in humans, I would say yes. But if the question is are there only two, my answer based on my understanding of biology is it is complicated. We can play the same thing with species. "Are there different species?" Why, yes of course how else would we talk about e.g. biodiversity or speciation? "So what is the precise definition of species that covers the biodiversity we see?" Well, we got a couple and each covers a different segment of the natural world, but none really covers all. And then you could ask, if that is the case, are species actually real? Well kind of, but only in a continuum (as measured by overall genetic distance, for example) and we just make artificial delineation based ultimately on the question we are working on. To summarize the overall argument, we use sexes as categories, just like species, because they are useful and are at least kind of a representation of nature. But either definition does not fully cover the complexity of nature. If we confuse both (maps and territory, again) we run the risk of overriding nature/reality with our assumptions of it, which ultimately is bad science. It has little to no impact for common usage and even in many scientific areas we can ignore these finer distinctions. But if your research is to exactly look at these gaps, of course you cannot ignore those finer points anymore.

Yes you could. The word 'spectrum' comes with some ambiguity, the word continuum does not. Consider the electromagnetic spectrum This is continuous in frequency and therefore forms a continuum. But take the spectrum of some atom. This consists of a series of discrete lines, omitting frequencies between those lines. Definitely not continuous. But you could say that the sodium spectrum falls on the electromagnetic continuum.

Me too. Some of the posts on this thread are so ludicrous, they appear to be disingenuous bordering on trolling. Or a bit of both. Better left alone.

And it never is...it keeps her happy, and she is actually near full time, acting out the good side of humanity...love, kindness and tolerance.

We seem to have established that thereare states between male and female, such as 'mostly male' or 'mostly female'. And you guys want to give each of those many variations a new gender name ? Let's hear some of them; I need a good laugh. And we're not talking about what technology will bring in the future, or has enabled us to do. Who cares if you can surgically attach a human uterus to a pig ? And what gender will it be ? Europe was once a month away, by boat, from North America. It is now 8 hours away ( used to be 4 by Concorde ). That doesn'y change geography; it is still a different continent. No one has ever claimed that gender changes on reaching menopause, or on becoming infertile. Just like no one would ever claim humans are not bipedal if they need a cane to walk in old age. Both male and female lose certain abilities as they age; things that they once could do. Is having an opposing viewpoint to yours, what you consider 'trollish' ?

Finally a good question ... +1 An observer sees a 'foliation' of the 4 dimensional block. The observer's FoR determines the orientation of the foliation with respect to the spatial/temporal dimensions. This orientation will have varying lengths, and durations, for differing observers. And all foliations are equally valid.

I always knew you were infected, Dim 😄

Come now. We all benefit from a look in the mirror, from honest self-appraisal. It does not mean there is anything is wrong with you. Gay is cool. You love men. Men have loved other men, in various ways, from the dawn of time. Nothing wrong with that. Love is good. Many of the great minds and creative people of our history were gay. It is something to be proud of. Elsewhere you said you were ugly. So what? Men like Wallace Shawn, Woody Allen, Jon Polito, Michael Emerson, and many many others, have put themselves and their homely faces in front of cameras with great success and even created appealing characters. Some women find irregular features sexy - I know, because I married one! As for scientific BS, again, so what? What is wrong with saying bullshit, if you are among people who can help you spot the bullshit and figure out why it's bullshit? Everyone spouts bullshit, it is part of the human condition, and part of learning. Even as you claim to want to depart, you keep interacting with us. Which puts the lie to your claim. If you really wanted to leave, you would just stop posting and visiting the site. You would not need any dramatically announced breakup to effect that departure.

That was a very nice way of phrasing it (I keep forget to use it). The reverse is also true, just because we do not have mapped something, does not mean that the territory does not exist. I find it sad that otherwise intelligent folks start to throw accusations around once they are encountering especially scientific viewpoints that differ from their personal experiences, rather than at least trying to engage into the reasons why ideas are shifting (and obviously, the mere fact that scientific ideas are amenable to changes is what makes science, science, rather than doctrine).

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.

Synopsis: Earth is covered in water, then a rouge interstellar dust cloud covers the surface. Because of Earth's faster rotational rate, centrifugal force keeps this dust layer floating above the water. Earth's water at this time is comprised of a higher percentage of 'heavy water' (D2O). The water's higher density works in conjunction with the centrifugal force to maintain the supercontinent, Pangea. As Earth's rotation slows, finally a point is reached where gravity overcomes the floating supercontinent. The supercontinent fractures, beginning its fall. Fissures break open expelling water from the deep, launching it up to the stratosphere and producing a flood that covers the planet. Chemical reactions between ozone and the heavy water exasperate the deluge. Parts of the supercontinent settle in clumps, forming what will later be continents. These new continents along with the ocean floors become subject to seismic/tectonic activity from the inner Earth. This planetary cataclysm changes the percentage of heavy water. The resultant normal water initiates the hydrologic cycle. Rainbows symbolize the promise not to flood the Earth again. Any thoughts...

So youre treating anomalies which the intersex people suffer as additional sexes. I’m trying to let that idiocy sink into my mind and think of something decent to reply to you but only indecent words and sentences come to mind.

It just solidifies my stance towards you when you cherry pick things from my comment while evading the meat. And it's all to make the poster to look like a dick and a moron for future readers while downvoting ad nauseam - thats being a dick. This will work but only in a closed and biased environment - this site. This is what you were supposed to adress: "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" Yes you did. But you also wrote this which is a really dirty and fallacious swing and the subject. Levels of grotesqueness are hitting the stratosphere here, this kind of debate is something that I came in here 6 years ago to counter against the religious and anti scientific crackpots, besides trying to aquire new to me knowledge which I’m getting none from this.