Are there more than 2 sexes?

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.

Precision. Accuracy. Alignment with reality. Understanding. Clarity. There are others, but my only agenda is to present correct information and refute falsehoods. 

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.
<…>
What am I not seeing ?

If I came in here claiming there were ONLY 2 types of quarks, up and down, would you not correct me for sharing falsehoods, and continue correcting me even if I remained obstinate in my stance and unable to defend it without casting personal aspersions at others?

[mistermack]

24 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

new, more enlightened population will emerge

You seem to be claiming the "enlightened" ground without any justification. It's enlightened to treat people with respect and understanding and a "live and let live" attitude, but pretending that science had the number of sexes wrong for all these years is just wokeness gone mad. Darwin would have pissed himself reading this thread. 

[zapatos]

I am unsure why taking the position that there are more than 2 sexes is considered 'woke', 'pc', 'enlightened', etc.  What has been said by anyone that makes the position 'woke'? It looks to me as if there is simply a difference of opinion. 

[StringJunky]

15 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You seem to be claiming the "enlightened" ground without any justification. It's enlightened to treat people with respect and understanding and a "live and let live" attitude, but pretending that science had the number of sexes wrong for all these years is just wokeness gone mad. Darwin would have pissed himself reading this thread. 

Darwin was man of his time, and was 'correct' for his time. The same applies to us. We may have been correct for most of our lives but our generation's 'facts' are changing to something else... or rather more nuanced.

Edited December 9, 2021 by StringJunky

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

It'll take some decades for these relatively  avant garde concepts to filter across the population. The Old Guard will die off and the new, more enlightened population will emerge with no hang ups about it. As people get older they become more fossilzed in their worldview; people become representative of their time in history.

Actually, reading that again, it seems that you've accepted that the answer to the question of this thread is currently no. No, but maybe yes after some decades. 

It's a bit like Gay. Decades ago, gay meant bright and cheerful and light hearted. Now it means homosexual. The world is truly a better place. 

 

[StringJunky]

24 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Actually, reading that again, it seems that you've accepted that the answer to the question of this thread is currently no. No, but maybe yes after some decades. 

It's a bit like Gay. Decades ago, gay meant bright and cheerful and light hearted. Now it means homosexual. The world is truly a better place. 

 

It was a comment on the current state of play, and what will probably happen in future. I've been called 'gay' by folks much older than myself in the old meaning. Tis life.

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

If I came in here claiming there were ONLY 2 types of quarks, up and down, would you not correct me for sharing falsehoods,

The quark model was proposed by Gell-Mann and Zweig in 1964, as part of a classsification system known as the 'eight-fold way'. 
The criteria for sorting quark 'flavors' was estabilished long before any experimental evidence for quarks.
IOW, the 'purpose' of the quark model demands that they have the flavors dictated by SU(3) symmetry, just as reproduction model of the human species dictates the sorting into male/female sexes. Neither is sufficient on its own, and any other sorting is superfluous.
What is the purpose/reason for extra sex classifications ?

( and thanks for making a lier out of me; I said the previous would be my only post on the matter )

[iNow]

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

What is the purpose/reason for extra sex classifications ?

I already answered this above within the same post you just quoted, did I not?

7 hours ago, mistermack said:

You can point to examples of male and female that developed other than the usual way, and call it whatever you like. But you can't make it a new sex

Why not? Please, be as specific as possible in your response. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by iNow

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

There is not necessarily a need for one. I.e. if we only want to discuss reproduction, we certainly can ignore infertile groups for the most part. This is one of the various cases where a binary classification is useful and as routinely done. However, I interpreted the OP as broader, as in: "does sex only exist in a binary classification system". As a biologist the almost automatic answer is "no" as basically every classification scheme we have is just a simplification in which almost always cases are found which do not fit these schemes (there are many things that are taught as being universal, except when they aren't, such as e.g. species, or the genetic code). 

Whether we need to use or address those elements in our scheme depends highly on what we use the classification for. If, for example we solely look at reproduction as a particular trait, then of course we would not need to consider infertile variants. If, on the other hand the question is can we cover the whole human variety that exist just using two sexes, well, in this thread no one managed to create a definition that would have not at least some group falling outside of it, which by definition does not cover the whole variety that exists.

To provide an alternative approach to visualize but also categorize sex, which biologically exists in a continuum, in a more concise way some developmental biologists in the 50s tried to create a model of sexual development in humans. Fundamentally the idea is to look at the various steps starting from the karyotype to the full development of sexual organs and organize them into layers. So for example the karyotype would be considered the first element or layer which would be the genetic basis for the following development. The second layer is then when embryonic endocrine organs are formed that make hormones that push development more toward a male or female direction. Then in interaction with those, the next step would be the formation of internal reproductive organs then shaping external sexual organs etc. (I am sure that I missed some finer points but you get the idea).

However, the folks who developed this model where especially interested in what they called intersex- i.e. those where either one or multiple of these layers where not clearly in the one or the other extreme. The karyotype could be fully male for example, but much of the internal and external organs would look female (so you could classify layer one as entirely male, but layers two is a bit indetermined resulting in the following layers looking female, for example). Each of the layers is non-binary as individuals would fall somewhere between the two extremes. A person that we would consider archetypical male would therefore fall mostly on the male side at each of these layers, a female on the opposite. However, persons that do not consistently are in or the either end (or perhaps are somewhere in the middle in some of those layers) could be considered intersex or at least on the extreme end of one of the genders (e.g. someone with a micropenis but otherwise fitting in the male categories in the other layers otherwise).

So that is an example of an alternative model of sex, which tries to capture the complexity of sex and was developed in order to understand the concept of intersex. And before someone accuses science of following some current political agendas, this model was developed sometime in the 50s which, to my knowledge, is not generally considered to be overrun by SWJs. But at the same time, the folks stopped short of developing a new classification scheme, it was more a descriptive model to a broader range of human sexual elements which would not be possible if we just ignored the presence of those falling outside an exclusive binary scheme.

These thoughts have been polished over the years and the mechanisms in each of these layers have been more tightly connected to complex signaling networks which are not simply on or off (i.e. binary) but you can imagine various parts of the network pushing into one, whereas other elements pull in another direction (for each element, i.e. gonadal development, sex organ development etc.) and as such at each step you have a range of possible outcomes (which also depends on external factors, such as exposure to xenoestrogens). 

But that being said, it is a model used in a particular context, but is likely to unwieldy if one is really not interested in the finer developmental differences between individuals.

 

 

[mistermack]

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Why not? Please, be as specific as possible in your response. 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126174-are-there-more-than-2-sexes/?do=findComment&comment=1193725

 

[dimreepr]

15 hours ago, mistermack said:

Try to write your own "improved" wiki page, including more sexes, and you would be laughed off the web. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexual_reproduction

Which ever way you want to spin it, life/sex is more than a simple binary state.  

[mistermack]

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Which ever way you want to spin it, life/sex is more than a simple binary state.  

But as I pointed out earlier, asexual means non-sexual. So where's the logic in trying to portray non-sexual as another sex?

Yes, life is more than a simple binary state. But sex IS a simple binary state. By definition, as far as wiki is concerned: 

"Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female, in animals and plants that propagate their species through sexual reproduction.^[1][2] The type of gametes produced by an organism define its sex. "

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

But as I pointed out earlier, asexual means non-sexual. So where's the logic in trying to portray non-sexual as another sex?

Some species are capable of both, so they're male, female AND both; by my fingers that = 3...

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, MigL said:

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 ?

That's an insulting strawman attack on StringJunky's post and his obvious intentions. We both were questioning koti's own words about local influences on his stance regarding gender, and I find your twisting of that to make it look like we're caricaturizing him as homophobic to be cheap and beneath you. Why must so many feel so threatened by this?

[koti]

33 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's an insulting strawman attack on StringJunky's post and his obvious intentions. We both were questioning koti's own words about local influences on his stance regarding gender, and I find your twisting of that to make it look like we're caricaturizing him as homophobic to be cheap and beneath you. Why must so many feel so threatened by this?

So its ok to question my credibility based on my ethnicity but its not ok to point that out?

I wish I was a black, transgender woman from Norway right now, it would sure make life easier for me on this site compared to being a white, heterosexual male from Poland.

And you know what, thats ok. Stereotypes are an inevitable part of social interaction and I always could laugh about it regardless what side of them I'm on. I'm not taking offence on any of this and most of all, I will not forge this position into an offecive/defencive line of arguing during this discussion.
It does make me feel a little sad to see the very people whom I though I provided more than enough evicende over the years for my views and personality to accuse me of homophobia, conspiracy theories, anti vaxx stances. But you know what Phi, thats what ideology and pollitics does to you and while being a little sad I'm not surprised.

Edited December 9, 2021 by koti

[StringJunky]

26 minutes ago, koti said:

So its ok to question my credibility based on my ethnicity but its not ok to point that out?

I wish I was a black, transgender woman from Norway right now, it would sure make life easier for me on this site compared to being a white, heterosexual male from Poland.

It has bugger all to do with your ethnicity.  I was talking about the environment you were raised in, and the possible effect of that. You could be a native Pole in China and the effect could be the same if you were brought during your formative years there. Most people want an easy social life, so they conform, especially children, who have a higher need to be socially accepted by their local peers.

Edited December 9, 2021 by StringJunky

[koti]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It has bugger all to do with your ethnicity.  I was talking about the environment you were raised in, and the possible effect of that. You could be an native Pole in China and the effect could be the same if you were brought during your formative years there. Most people want an easy social life, so they conform, especially children, who have a higher need to be socially accepted by their local peers.

Youre right, I missplaced the word ethinicity I should have used environment instead.

I don’t think we did this formally Stringy, I must ask you what pronouns you use, I don’t want to insult you by mistake. Mine are he/him today. I will also inform you what sex I am when this thread runs its course and I finally find out.

Edited December 9, 2021 by koti

[MigL]

Thank you for your well thought out response, CharonY.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Some species are capable of both, so they're male, female AND both; by my fingers that = 3...

On the other hand, actual scientists seem to only consider two sexes ...

Scientists Genetically Edit Mice To Have Female Only Litters With 100 Percent Efficiency (msn.com)

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It has bugger all to do with your ethnicity.  I was talking about the environment you were raised in, and the possible effect of that.

All of the qualities I mentioned were also environment related.

47 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's an insulting strawman attack on StringJunky's post and his obvious intentions. We both were questioning koti's own words about local influences on his stance regarding gender, and I find your twisting of that to make it look like we're caricaturizing him as homophobic to be cheap and beneath you.

Blinders much ?

[dimreepr]

41 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Why must so many feel so threatened by this?

Because, being wrong is threatening and ugly; and all we want is pretty and predictable...

15 minutes ago, MigL said:

On the other hand, actual scientists seem to only consider two sexes ...

Actual scientist's consider much more than that...

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, koti said:

Youre right, I missplaced the word ethinicity I should have used environment instead.

I don’t think we did this formally Stringy, I must ask you what pronouns you use, I don’t want to insult you by mistake. Mine are he/him today. I will also inform you what sex I am when this thread runs its course and I finally find out.

He/him and I am ostensibly male, but cannot currently confirm this genetically whether I'm some variation on xy.

[CharonY]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

On the other hand, actual scientists seem to only consider two sexes ...

As I said before, it is one viable model. Having even the majority working using one model, does not invalidate others. And obviously specifically researching the spectrum of sex is a specialized research area and will have fewer folks work on it then more general research where folks might prefer to work on simplified divisions. The latter is problematic, however, as it turns out that risks conditions are better traced by e.g. monitoring the levels and changes of e.g. sex hormones, rather than looking at other markers of sex (e.g. chromosomes). 

That being said, there are at least 3k articles dating back to the 50s looking at the range of intersex we can find. And as you know, in science we often have slightly different models in order to address different questions.

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Thank you for your well thought out response, CharonY.

On the other hand, actual scientists seem to only consider two sexes ...

Scientists Genetically Edit Mice To Have Female Only Litters With 100 Percent Efficiency (msn.com)

All of the qualities I mentioned were also environment related.

Blinders much ?

Is Charon not an 'actual' scientist?

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, koti said:

So its ok to question my credibility based on my ethnicity but its not ok to point that out?

Questioning your credibility based on ANYTHING would be a personal attack in a thread like this, imo, and was never my goal. I was attacking your stance on this particular issue, and I had asked if there might be something in the national mood that might have influenced your stance in the same way it did wrt gay rights in the past. You had said your opinions no longer align with the national sentiment, and you regretted your earlier stance (or did I misread that all completely?!). I was trying to draw a parallel with this issue, that it may seem very cut and dried to you now, but isn't there a possibility your stance might relax a bit in time?

But I did it so badly that you and MigL and others think I was either stereotyping you, or questioning your credibility, or blindly being overly emotional about the topic while calling out others for it. I reread what I wrote and I can't find where I said these things, or even implied them, but it has happened so often that it must be me. Blame it on the busy holidays, maybe later I can take more time to figure out what I keep doing wrong. I hope all the genders stay safe this holiday season! Take care.

[Arete]

[koti]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

...I had asked if there might be something in the national mood that might have influenced your stance in the same way it did wrt gay rights in the past...

Could you elaborate on the gay rights in the past thing, I don't understand?
 

19 minutes ago, Arete said:

I'm seing 2 sexes with additions of various syndromes, conditions and disorders.