Are there more than 2 sexes?

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you've chosen to use a binary system? One or the other.

Exactly. You only have two. So which group do you assign all of the intersex folks to?

I’m literally asking you to answer my question. 

You have intersex people. Do you lop them into the male bucket? Do you lop them into the female bucket? What do you do for those who are neither? 

What criteria are you using? 

Isn’t this weird insecure emotional drive to force everyone into simplistic binary choices (male, female, and literally nothing else) actually making this whole thing WAY more complex than it needs to be?

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Exactly. You only have two. So which group do you assign all of the intersex folks to?

I’m literally asking you to answer my question. 

You have intersex people. Do you lop them into the male bucket? Do you lop them into the female bucket? What do you do for those who are neither? 

What criteria are you using? 

Isn’t this weird insecure emotional drive to force everyone into simplistic binary choices (male, female, and literally nothing else) actually making this whole thing WAY more complex than it needs to be?

Why do you insist all of them be male or female? Do you think they are all the same?

How is that useful, when defining your binary system?

Or are you claiming binary classification of either male or female is not useful, and should never be used by anyone?

For the purpose defining human reproduction you can , usefully, divide humans into two categories in a binary system, male or female, with very separate and distinct roles. There is no third category that take part in human reproduction. Maybe one will evolve over time (unlikely), but currently not.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why do you insist all of them be male or female? Do you think they are all the same?

How is that useful, when defining your binary system?

iNow has not, so far as I can tell, taken ownership of a binary system.

Asking how you assign people to a category is a reasonable request. Yet you resist answering, as most others have resisted my request to define what they mean by sex. Because these definitions have proven inadequate in resulting in a binary system.

At which point people stall, toss in red herrings and or get angry and lash out.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Or are you claiming binary classification of either male or female is not useful, and should never be used by anyone?

That’s a false dichotomy 

You can use a binary classification as a first-order approximation and also acknowledge that it will fail to work when you delve deeper into the issue.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For the purpose defining human reproduction you can , usefully, divide humans into two categories in a binary system, male or female, with very separate and distinct roles. There is no third category that take part in human reproduction. Maybe one will evolve over time (unlikely), but currently not.

IOW, you can use a binary system for situations where you’ve narrowed the scope of inquiry. Here, you’ve limited the application to reproduction, but not all humans are capable of reproduction.

[J.C.MacSwell]

He seemed to think if one was used, all intersex would need to be classified together as either male or female.

He either has a binary system in mind that is rather unique, fails to see any value in using one...or something else...

Thus the questions.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

You can use a binary classification as a first-order approximation and also acknowledge that it will fail to work when you delve deeper into the issue.

 

For successful and natural human reproduction? At what point do you feel extra categories might become necessary?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

...you can use a binary system for situations where you’ve narrowed the scope of inquiry. Here, you’ve limited the application to reproduction, but not all humans are capable of reproduction.

What I said in my first post in this thread:

13 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There are two sexes required to create a human, correct?

No human can do it alone, and a third (or more) is never required, facilitation of the other two notwithstanding.

But not all can take part in reproduction. Could be age, to young or old or another reason.

It doesn't mean those individuals should be less respected, but for purposes of biological reproduction human sexuality is binary.

edit: or have i missed something? Has there ever been an individual that can sucessfully reproduce on more than one side of the equation?

 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

 

Asking how you assign people to a category is a reasonable request. Yet you resist answering, as most others have resisted my request to define what they mean by sex. Because these definitions have proven inadequate in resulting in a binary system.

 

I certainly haven't resisted very long as I've just started posting in this thread.

What I mean by sex depends on the context required for what is being discussed. That could be in binary terms, or otherwise.

[dimreepr]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

At what point do you feel extra categories might become necessary?

When all the frogs are women...

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He either has a binary system in mind that is rather unique, fails to see any value in using one...or something else...

Go with “something else.”

We agree that a simplified binary system is useful in some contexts. However, there’s a sizable population of posters in this thread claiming there are ONLY 2 sexes and refusing (for seemingly emotional reasons) to acknowledge the outliers which fit into neither.

When asked how to approach all other intersex and related possibilities, they ignore them or dismiss them as defects.

When asked into which of those 2 male/female buckets intersex individuals should be placed into, they refuse to answer.

When asked why they feel it’s better not to simply acknowledge that a 3rd category of “Other” is useful and more accurate, they call the person asking an ideological politically correct social justice warrior suffering from the grotesque idiocy of a peanut sized brain and storm out of the thread in a huff.

So yeah… something else it is.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Go with “something else.”

We agree that a simplified binary system is useful in some contexts. However, there’s a sizable population of posters in this thread claiming there are ONLY 2 sexes and refusing (for seemingly emotional reasons) to acknowledge the outliers which fit into neither.

When asked how to approach all other intersex and related possibilities, they ignore them or dismiss them as defects.

When asked into which of those 2 male/female buckets intersex individuals should be placed into, they refuse to answer.

When asked why they feel it’s better not to simply acknowledge that a 3rd category of “Other” is useful and more accurate, they call the person asking an ideological politically correct social justice warrior suffering from the grotesque idiocy of a peanut sized brain and storm out of the thread in a huff.

So yeah… something else it is.

Fair enough. How do you define a third category of "Other" with regard to sex?

I see this as more problematic than binary or multiple categories.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Fair enough. How do you define a third category of "Other" with regard to sex?

Personally, I’d create more than 3 categories… for purposes of this discussion it doesn’t matter what they are… but if we AT LEAST now agree that there are more than 2 and a category of “Other” is more accurate and offers value, we could simply define it as “not male AND not female.” Done. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Personally, I’d create more than 3 categories… for purposes of this discussion it doesn’t matter what they are… but if we AT LEAST now agree that there are more than 2 and a category of “Other” is more accurate and offers value, we could simply define it as “not male AND not female.” Done. 

How is this better, or offer more value, than male or female...done?

What definition of strictly male and strictly female would enable this?

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

How is this better, or offer more value, than male or female...done?

Accuracy. Precision. Aligns better with reality.

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What definition of strictly male and strictly female would enable this?

You tell me. I’m not the one here emotionally arguing from a 6th grade level understanding of biology that there can only possibly be 2 sexes. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Personally, I think both binary and multiple categories are useful, and that what you are suggesting for 3 could be as well...but is certainly as problematic as binary. (not that any "multiple" system of classification would be fully useful)

7 minutes ago, iNow said:

Accuracy. Precision. Aligns better with reality.

You tell me. I’m not the one here emotionally arguing from a 6th grade level understanding of biology that there can only possibly be 2 sexes. 

Without using a strict definition of male and female, "not male or female" doesn't lead to accuracy or precision.

[iNow]

38 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Personally, I think both binary and multiple categories are useful,

In that case, you’re not the target of my pushback which is and has been consistently focused on those claiming there are ONLY 2, no exceptions. 

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Personally, I think both binary and multiple categories are useful,

Nothing wrong with that. Just as I posted ages ago, sex is binary, and gender presentation and identity are multiple. 

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, mistermack said:

sex is binary

Merely repeating a claim shown to be invalid doesn’t magically render it true. 

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In that case, you’re not the target of my pushback which is and has been consistently focused on those claiming there are ONLY 2, no exceptions. 

2 + 'defective'.

[iNow]

2 + X = greater than 2

🤓

(since counts of populations cannot be negative in this scenario)

[WillyWehr]

what have I done     xD

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, WillyWehr said:

what have I done     xD

You are banned! LOL  So, what do you reckon to what's been said?

Edited November 28, 2021 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 11/24/2021 at 12:21 AM, WillyWehr said:

Hey, are there more than 2 sexes? I recently talked to a person who told me that it has been scientifically proven that there are more than 2 sexes biologically and that the biological sex is a spectrum, so I wanted to ask if this is the truth?

Btw: it was definitely about biological sex, not gender.

My ideas:
I know men have XY and women have XX chromosomes. I know there can be mutations in which humans can have XXY chromosomes, but is this called the another sex? especially when this person isnt fertile. And if you include all mutations of the sexgenes, would you get a Spectrum?

If you were to ask me spontaneously what the definition of a sex is, I would say that you can be divided into men and women depending on the task to which you belong in reproduction, but it is not that easy because if you are through an accident becoming sterile you wouldn't belong anywhere anymore and if you were born sterile there is also a problem, so it needs a better / more complex definition, I suppose.

I would be interested in your facts to put it simply: Are there more than 2 sexes?

I just reread this again (the OP) and it deserves more likes IMO. Welcome to the Forums WW and I hope your posts are anywhere near as good.

edit: I still haven't read more than pages 1,7 and 8, but the thought holds. Willy has at this point only posted twice, so I'm assuming no "weird agenda" or subconscious need to discriminate, and taking his words at face value.

Edited November 28, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[Intoscience]

On 11/26/2021 at 2:47 PM, iNow said:

Why is it silly to suggest ability to bear children is the best definition of what makes a female?

Why is it silly to point out the situations where this definition is very clearly deficient and unusable?

Why is it silly to highlight that EVEN IF we ignore these elementary and remedial flaws with this definition that it doesn’t address the actual question of the thread?

It’s silly because this is so blindingly obvious that it shouldn’t need to be highlighted and repeated 73x to people as otherwise intelligent as yourselves. 

Since when do we poll the general population to understand accurate answers to scientific questions? Shall we poll the same gen pop that thinks climate change is a hoax, vaccines cause autism, and that chocolate milk comes from brown cows?

Which has happened throughout this thread, but for weird emotional reasons lots of people continue ignoring those accurate corrections and posts designed to educate. 

Perhaps because that’s not the thread topic. Are there more than 2 sexes? Absolutely yes, in both the animal kingdom and also in humans. End program. 

I never said "the best definition" I just said that it was a simple obvious "general" difference between a male and female. Or are you telling me that men can bare children (without medical intervention)? Is there a single case in human history where a male human has become pregnant, carried a child and then given birth? 

I'm not claiming anything, I'm not arguing that there are only 2 sexually categories. I'm asking to define scientifically the difference between a male and female. This is relevant to the question because in order to define "other" sexes do we not require to define the difference between male and female, since the binary category is used as the base line to which all others are measured? CharonY answered this, stating that technically its not so simple, however CharonY then went on to say that even single celled organisms can be defined sexually (if I understood correctly) during reproductive stages changing as either one or the other. 

So forgive me if you think I'm being silly, my purpose was to gain an understanding through the eyes of a layman.  

Just to be clear, I actually agree that for the purpose of categorization then we need more than 2 sexes as you have continuously pointed out throughout this thread. So I also agree, if this is within the context of what the OP asked then you have given the answer. However for the purpose of biology which focuses on reproduction to characterise the sexes, are there only 2 definitive sexes? 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I never said "the best definition" I just said that it was a simple obvious "general" difference between a male and female. Or are you telling me that men can bare children (without medical intervention)? Is there a single case in human history where a male human has become pregnant, carried a child and then given birth? 

The only thing about reality is, it's profoundly resistant to a definition.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Intoscience said:

are you telling me that men can bare children (without medical intervention)? Is there a single case in human history where a male human has become pregnant, carried a child and then given birth? 

Irrelevant. Embedded in your comment is the assumption that ability to bare children is definitive when determining sex. It's very clearly not, and this point remains valid EVEN IF if we stipulate the point against which I've been arguing and even if we proceed with the "THERE ARE ONLY 2 SEXES!!!1!!2!!one!11!!" mindset.

Why? Because we still call individuals female when a) they are infertile, b) they are postmenopausal, and c) they are prepubescent. 

If one continues classifying any of the above 3 populations as "female," then by definition we know ability to bare children is not definitive in terms of sex classification. 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not claiming anything, I'm not arguing that there are only 2 sexually categories.

I understand, but many are. 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm asking to define scientifically the difference between a male and female

This is necessary, but insufficient in terms of answering the actual topic of this thread. Also, almost no matter what definition gets chosen for those 2 binary groups, we will continue to have outliers which mandate a 3rd category of "other."

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

for the purpose of biology which focuses on reproduction to characterise the sexes, are there only 2 definitive sexes? 

No, in neither the animal kingdom nor in humans. It's sometimes useful to say there are only 2 sexes, but it is never accurate. 

[Intoscience]

17 hours ago, iNow said:

Irrelevant. Embedded in your comment is the assumption that ability to bare children is definitive when determining sex. It's very clearly not, and this point remains valid EVEN IF if we stipulate the point against which I've been arguing and even if we proceed with the "THERE ARE ONLY 2 SEXES!!!1!!2!!one!11!!" mindset.

Why? Because we still call individuals female when a) they are infertile, b) they are postmenopausal, and c) they are prepubescent. 

If one continues classifying any of the above 3 populations as "female," then by definition we know ability to bare children is not definitive in terms of sex classification. 

Sorry, I'm not seeing this at all,

Regardless of the different stages / abnormalities a female may go through. The fact that females are inherently evolved/designed to bare offspring and males are not is a distinct difference between them. 

Your argument still stands regarding "other" I'm not arguing this. A person who has genitals' from both male and female may not have the required biological mechanisms to bare offspring, granted and maybe classed within the "other" group.

My question is what do you use to define - male, female, other? if there is no clear distinction between them? I'm not being pedantic, I'm asking for a definition so that I can understand what the differences are.  

Edited November 30, 2021 by Intoscience
spelling

[swansont]

This is triggering my OCD. Can we agree that the proper terminology is to "bear" offspring? Anyone can bare offspring; you do this when you give them a bath.

[mistermack]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

This is triggering my OCD. Can we agree that the proper terminology is to "bear" offspring? Anyone can bare offspring; you do this when you give them a bath.

Me too. We should stick to the bear facts. 

Most people who find themselves with a sex-identity problem, as in not identifying with the sex they were designated at birth, don't want to be a third sex. They want to be one of two sexes, but not the one they find themselves lumbered with. Even my own trans friend, who admits to confusion on the issue, wavers between wanting to be male or female. Never halfway. Some days it's one, other days it's the other.  I don't think he'd be impressed if you called him a third sex. (or she)