Leaderboard

Ok, So a person born with a single X chromosome is not karyotypically male (XY) or female (XX). They have female gonads, and can typically reproduce with fertility treatments, but often display masculine secondary features. Typically, they have a female gender identity, but not always. Ergo, such a person exists in a genotypic/phenotypic state between the general definitions of male and female. The medical diagnosis they would generally be given is that of Turner's Syndrome. Yes, they are medical diagnoses of intermediate states. As an analogy most humans have 46 chromosomes. Some have 47. They are typically diagnosed with Downs, Edwards, Patau etc Syndrome - just because there are medical diagnoses for trisomies doesn't mean that ALL humans have 46 chromosomes - because people with 47 chromosomes do exist. Yes I am, and no, it's not about inclusiveness necessarily - it's simply factual accuracy. Intersex people exist, which means that sex is non-binary for a proportion of humans. Stating that they somehow don't count because of the associated diagnoses for these states doesn't make people with Turner's, Klinefelter's AIS etc disappear. As I alluded to previously, you wouldn't throw all the cyan lizard specimens out the window just so you could put the lizards into jars labelled blue and green, so why would you do it with human sexes?

Fascinating. Clarity was achieved on the first page of this thread, but it took eleven more pages for it to sink in. Long live the cyan lizards!

Oh, this is too good not to get a piece of. Love all these projects! I don't do any precision work myself - lack the skill and patience - but I mess around with bits of maple sometimes. Carve them into bookends, mostly.

I mean my first post in the thread contained citations with examples, the infographic contains dozens of examples of intermediate trait states, other threads have included numerous examples... If I am to be somewhat presumptive, and I apologize if I'm wrong, if your argument is that these individuals should be excluded based on them being "abnormalities" or "disorders", then yes, I agree that sex becomes binary and fixed if you choose to ignore all of the circumstances in which it doesn't. If you were sorting green and blue lizard specimens in the museum and you threw the one in fifty that was cyan out the window, the lizards would all indeed be blue or green. The arrows indicate potential changes in trait state that may occur with changes in life history or therapeutic intervention. E.g. at conception, an XO indivdual is Karyotypically 50/50 between male and female, at birth they have female gonads, but take on masculine secondary sexual characteristics during puberty. I think regardless of how you define it, at the end of the day it's rather difficult to define sex as binary in any biologically accurate context. The most widely cited proportion for intersex births is 1.7%, although depending on how you define intersex, estimates can range from 0.001% to 4%. At the end of the day, biological classification is messy. I mean even if you go to the gametes - I have a friend who studies selection in sperm morphology - there isn't even a typological definition of sperm that holds universally true. Trying to put virtually anything about nature into binary categories is going to be an oversimplification of existent diversity.

Okay, I know this one is a bit of a stretch as a "woodworking" project, but I did have to make the base out of wood. 😁 I am going to be a grandfather again, the first grandchild that is a boy, and the parents are decorating his room in a space motif. So I found plans for this lamp and made it. Pretty simple and I think WAY cool! 😀

Steve Bronski died on December 9th 2021 at the age of 61. He was largely responsible for the emergence of the Synth Pop movement in the early 80's mainly through this wonderful track. This track was one of the reasons I got into music and DJ'ing later in my life, I was 9 when this came out in 1983, it was revolutionary and it started the whole synth pop movement in Europe.

Now that’s a super cool idea! Am curious how you finish them? Here’s a fun side view of the recently completed table I mentioned above

If sex is a continuum, which is the expert view, how is it possible to define male and female as distinct states?

Are you considering the definition given or are you not? You have 3, and only 3, objects in your hands: a football, a basketball, and a hammer...so is it fair to say you have 3 balls, spherical, oval, and "other"? The answer of course is yes, if by "ball" we agree to the definition that it is any object, and by the stricter normally definition generally used you don't need to be an expert mathematician to know you only have 2. Granted. Nor has anyone stated a clear definition of biologically male and biologically female beyond referring to the two different roles in successful human reproduction. And it's pretty evident there are only two. So we have at least 2 reasonable answers to the question and it depends on the context of what is meant by sex. However difficult the categories are to define, I think we all know what Koti is referring to. His inability, my inability, your inability, or biology's inability to state it clearly enough for you doesn't change that. And of course sex can also take on contexts that you can only conclude it's non-binary. And some of those contexts can be important for science, unlike the inclusion of the hammer as a "ball", which I don't think will ever happen short of some group seeing it as politically expedient to do so.

The US used to mandate draft registration (still does) and military service if your number came up. Seems to me putting yourself in harm’s way in service of your country would get more pushback than efforts to protect you, but this is where we are, I guess.

I liked the bit about using D'Alembert's statistical mistake with the two coins. Thanks a lot for the reference. +1

I think we can all agree that for the purpose of reproduction of the species ( human, that is ), only two sexes are needed. One is not enough, and three ( or more ) are superfluous. That doesn't mean that there are not people who don't fully fit into the male, or female, grouping; but for the criteria of reproduction, there is no third ( or 4th, or 5th ) category to place them in. One has to ask, then, what is the purpose ( or agenda, if you will ) for having more than the male and female sex classifications. Please explain. Thank God he's not Mexican, or you'd imply he was lazy. Or Oriental and a bad driver. Or Italian and a mobster. Can you see what is wrong with that line of thinking, Stringy ? I had hoped this thread had died, because I really don't like having people I consider friends call each other 'dicks', or make thinly veiled implications of transphobia, homophobia or racism, so this will be my only post on this thread. But I would like an answer ( I will still read ) as to WHY a third sex is needed, and what is the PURPOSE of the differentiation. Is more 'separation' really desirable to more 'inclusion' ? Is this just another social engineering exercise ? Is it to make some people, who feel 'different', feel better about themselves ? What am I not seeing ?

Could you elaborate on the gay rights in the past thing, I don't understand? I'm seing 2 sexes with additions of various syndromes, conditions and disorders.

It would be beneficial for everybody if you’d let the expert answer.

Yes, clarity is what we very much want so please let the resident expert answer thank you.