Are there more than 2 sexes?

[koti]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

They get there in the end... if they think.

Really?

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 hours ago, Arete said:

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. 

Roles in successful human sexual reproduction. Please explain why you can't see this?

 

20 hours ago, Arete said:

 

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%. 
 

First off, how can it possibly be defined to be as little as 0.001%?

Second, is 1.7% anywhere close to your opinion on a reasonable definition you prefer to use? And if so how many XX and XY chromosome individuals are included in that 1.7%? (and you can exclude very rare cases of mixed)

All that said/questioned +1 on your post.

Edited December 10, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[Arete]

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Roles in successful human sexual reproduction. Please explain why you can't see this?

Some X0 individuals can successfully fall pregnant. A proportion of XXY individuals produce viable sperm. Plenty of XX and XY individuals are sterile. So sex isn't well defined by successful reproduction/production of viable gametes either. 

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

First off, how can it possibly be defined to be as little as 0.001%?

Generally those studies only consider true gonadal intersex (i.e. XY karyotype with ovaries and vice versa) to be defined as intersex. 

5 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Second, is 1.7% anywhere close to your opinion on a reasonable definition you prefer to use? And if so how many XX and XY chromosome individuals are included in that 1.7%? (and you can exclude very rare cases of mixed)

It's not my field of study and there appears to be plenty of contention, but it does appear to be the most widely accepted figure, if you go by say, the UN office of Human Rights, or the Intersex Society of North America, for example. The ISNA page has a breakdown of specific intersex conditions included, and I cited the actual peer reviewed paper in my previous post. 

I would say it appears credible, but doesn't account for population variation - for e.g. It does not test if the rate of intersex births differs between say, North America and East Asia. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Arete

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, Arete said:

Some X0 individuals can successfully fall pregnant. A proportion of XXY individuals produce viable sperm. Plenty of XX and XY individuals are sterile. So sex isn't well defined by successful reproduction/production of viable gametes either. 

 

There are two and only two roles in successful human reproduction. They are distinct from each other and both are required. This is clearly binary proposition. It makes no attempt to classify unsuccessful roles. It makes no attempt to be inclusive. It just looks at the two critical roles that keep the human race enduring.

The fact that there many additional ways to categorize sex does not change the fact that this is a biologically accurate context.

5 hours ago, Arete said:

 

Generally those studies only consider true gonadal intersex (i.e. XY karyotype with ovaries and vice versa) to be defined as intersex. 

When coming up with that figure of 0.001% as intersex, what do they consider the other 99.99% of the population?

Do they consider them divisible into "male" and "female"?

5 hours ago, Arete said:

It's not my field of study and there appears to be plenty of contention, but it does appear to be the most widely accepted figure, if you go by say, the UN office of Human Rights, or the Intersex Society of North America, for example. The ISNA page has a breakdown of specific intersex conditions included, and I cited the actual peer reviewed paper in my previous post. 

 

From the abstract of that article:

"We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births."

So to get to that figure they are clearly including many readily categorizable males and females as intersex.

5 hours ago, Arete said:

 It's not my field of study and there appears to be plenty of contention, but it does appear to be the most widely accepted figure, if you go by say, the UN office of Human Rights, or the Intersex Society of North America, for example. The ISNA page has a breakdown of specific intersex conditions included, and I cited the actual peer reviewed paper in my previous post. 

If you go by organizations with political agendas.

The majority of the 1.7%, a number often cited for political purposes, are XX and XY individuals.

And 99.9+% of XX and XY individuals are readily categorizable as either male or female.

After removing those 99.9+% a reasonable estimate of intersex individuals would be around 0.4%.

Categorizing those 0.4% into male and female might be more problematic, but for many quite possible.

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There are two and only two roles in successful human reproduction. They are distinct from each other and both are required. This is clearly binary proposition.

Except the OP didn't ask, 'what is required for human reproduction'?

Besides I still maintain the possibility of human self-insemination, not the worm method though. 😣

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Except the OP didn't ask, 'what is required for human reproduction'?

Besides I still maintain the possibility of human self-insemination, not the worm method though. 😣

Have you tried other methods?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Have you tried other methods?

Not personally, but I understand it involves a turkey baster... 

If I happen to be on that rare part of the spectrum of life, as to be a 'human' that is both capable of producing sperm and an egg and a usable womb and lucky enough too utilise our best technology.

I have a third choice... 😉  

[J.C.MacSwell]

26 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Not personally, but I understand it involves a turkey baster... 

If I happen to be on that rare part of the spectrum of life, as to be a 'human' that is both capable of producing sperm and an egg and a usable womb and lucky enough too utilise our best technology.

I have a third choice... 😉  

You're one of a kind Dim...at least for now...

[dimreepr]

52 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You're one of a kind Dim...at least for now...

Aren't we all?

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Aren't we all?

Yep. We await the technology from our biology community, just as we await a more precise definition of biologically male and female that can include everyone...with no guarantee whether it is theoretically possible...or not.

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

as we await a more precise definition of biologically male and female that can include everyone...

I can't include everyone, becuase not everyone is involved... 

[iNow]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

just as we await a more precise definition of biologically male and female that can include everyone

We already have one. It’s called “accepting that there’s more than 2 binary categories.”

 

This thread is like:

A: Do ALL substances contract when they freeze?

B: Nope.

A: Of course they do, and that’s what science has said FOREVER.

B: Nope. There’s different behavior for water and other related substances when they freeze, for example. Not everything contracts. 

A: Right, but water is an anomaly. Everything contracts when it freezes. 

B: Well, I guess if you ignore water and related substances with different behaviors when they get cold then that’s true, but you can’t just ignore water if you wish to remain accurate.

A: Yeah, but there’s only a tiny tiny fraction of substances that do this. MOST don’t.

B: So what? Clearly not ALL substances contract when they freeze.

A: I’m SO tired of the PC agenda that’s ruined science and can’t believe this nonsense is being taught to students. You should be ashamed of yourselves and just stick with the facts. It’s obvious that EVERYTHING contracts when it freezes and I can’t believe you idiots don’t see this!

B: Sigh. There’s bismuth, too. 

A: I wish someone would give me an example of something that doesn’t contract when frozen. 

B:  Silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, plutonium… I could go on. 

A: I’m just going to keep waiting for an answer from the experts. 
 

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

30 minutes ago, iNow said:

We already have one. It’s called “accepting that there’s more than 2 binary categories.”

 

This thread is like:

A: Do ALL substances contract when they freeze?

B: Nope.

A: Of course they do, and that’s what science has said FOREVER.

B: Nope. There’s different behavior for water and other related substances when they freeze, for example. Not everything contracts. 

A: Right, but water is an anomaly. Everything contracts when it freezes. 

B: Well, I guess if you ignore water and related substances with different behaviors when they get cold then that’s true, but you can’t just ignore water if you wish to remain accurate.

A: Yeah, but there’s only a tiny tiny fraction of substances that do this. MOST don’t.

B: So what? Clearly not ALL substances contract when they freeze.

A: I’m SO tired of the PC agenda that’s ruined science and can’t believe this nonsense is being taught to students. You should be ashamed of yourselves and just stick with the facts. It’s obvious that EVERYTHING contracts when it freezes and I can’t believe you idiots don’t see this!

B: Sigh. There’s bismuth, too. 

A: I wish someone would give me an example of something that doesn’t contract when frozen. 

B:  Silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, plutonium… I could go on. 

A: I’m just going to keep waiting for an answer from the experts. 
 

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

You forgot:

A: What if we only consider substances that contract when they freeze...can we categorize them all as substances that contract when they freeze?

B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water?

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You forgot:

A: What if we only consider substances that contract when they freeze...can we categorize them all as substances that contract when they freeze?

B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water? Well… yet again… Why would you? That makes it very much seem like YOU’RE the one posting here with an agenda, even though that’s the accusation you keep leveling at others who are simply trying to remain accurate… wrongly and continuously suggesting that WE’RE the ones with an agenda. It’s also not even what the OP asked about, so there’s that. It’d be like asking, “if we assume there are only 2 sexes, then are there only 2 sexes?” Ridiculous.

There. FTFY

And if we consider ONLY reproduction, then yet again we return to the original counter: That’s dumb because it ignores the infertile, the prepubescent, and the post menopausal.

Edited December 11, 2021 by iNow

[Arete]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

There are two and only two roles in successful human reproduction. They are distinct from each other and both are required. This is clearly binary proposition. It makes no attempt to classify unsuccessful roles. It makes no attempt to be inclusive. It just looks at the two critical roles that keep the human race enduring.

There are two, binary GAMETES in an XY mating system. Gametes are distinct from sex - many diploid organisms have two gametes and zygotic states that are generally hermaphroditic.

Sex is not defined by gametes and includes both physiological and chromosomal properties, in which there is clearly diversity beyond two binary categories. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When coming up with that figure of 0.001% as intersex, what do they consider the other 99.99% of the population?

You can argue semantics about where to draw lines on a spectrum forever. Some critics of the Fausto-Sterling paper state that X0 individuals are female - others disagree, which I imagine depends on your perspective and the scientific utility of categorization to your particular field of study (e.g. a geneticist vs an endocrinologist vs a sociologist etc.) , and has analogous discussions across the sciences - e.g. taxonomic nomenclature. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Arete

[J.C.MacSwell]

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

There. FTFY

 

More accurate fix:

B: Nope. Even by that definition...what about water? You're starting to sound hydrophobic. You're not hydrophobic, are you? Because that seems like the type of argument a hydrophobe would make.

Lather, rinse...repeat as necessary

Edited December 11, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

I’ve never called any single one of you names or suggested ill intent in this thread (if only the same could be said of those responding to me). Please try again. 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

This thread is like:

A: Do ALL substances contract when they freeze?

B: Nope.

A: Of course they do, and that’s what science has said FOREVER.

B: Nope. There’s different behavior for water and other related substances when they freeze, for example. Not everything contracts. 

A: Right, but water is an anomaly. Everything contracts when it freezes. 

B: Well, I guess if you ignore water and related substances with different behaviors when they get cold then that’s true, but you can’t just ignore water if you wish to remain accurate.

A: Yeah, but there’s only a tiny tiny fraction of substances that do this. MOST don’t.

B: So what? Clearly not ALL substances contract when they freeze.

A: I’m SO tired of the PC agenda that’s ruined science and can’t believe this nonsense is being taught to students. You should be ashamed of yourselves and just stick with the facts. It’s obvious that EVERYTHING contracts when it freezes and I can’t believe you idiots don’t see this!

B: Sigh. There’s bismuth, too. 

A: I wish someone would give me an example of something that doesn’t contract when frozen. 

B:  Silicon, gallium, germanium, antimony, plutonium… I could go on. 

A: I’m just going to keep waiting for an answer from the experts. 

No, it's more like ...

A - There are only red , green and blue LEDs for each pixel of my TV.
B - But I perceive yellow, magenta and cyan, so there must be more.
A - No, those are variations/combinations of the three basics.
B - But that is how I perceive them. Why must you be so mean, and not consider my feelings over your reality?

And I didn't even call you any names.
I was going to tell Dimreepr to 'go f**k himself' but he said he already does that with a turkey baster 😄 😄 .
( It's a difference of opinion people, lighten up ! )

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

I’ve never called any single one of you names or suggested ill intent in this thread (if only the same could be said of those responding to me). Please try again. 

Are you "B." INow? I assumed "A." and "B." were composites you made up of members in this thread, for the purposes of mocking the "B." leaning arguments, even while most making those arguments have accepted from the outset that, depending on context, sex can be more than binary.

[StringJunky]

This BBC article came out yesterday. It's this discussion being played out in real life:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59584638

Edited December 11, 2021 by StringJunky

[iNow]

37 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

even while most making those arguments have accepted from the outset that, depending on context, sex can be more than binary.

Wait, what? Are we reading the same thread here? 

[StringJunky]

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you "B." INow? I assumed "A." and "B." were composites you made up of members in this thread, for the purposes of mocking the "B." leaning arguments, even while most making those arguments have accepted from the outset that, depending on context, sex can be more than binary.

Why are we 13 pages up the road if that's true?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

This BBC article came out yesterday. It's this discussion being played out in real life:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59584638

+1 for the article. Hard to pick sides. A classic example of "They said, she said".

33 minutes ago, iNow said:

Wait, what? Are we reading the same thread here? 

Well...I did skip to start posting on page 7, after scanning page 1.

Edited December 11, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[koti]

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Why are we 13 pages up the road if that's true?

Because some of us are filtering the science through a PC filter and some of us refuse to accept that.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

Because some of us are filtering the science through a PC filter and some of us refuse to accept that.

Can you tell me who is using a PC filter? I ask because I've not seen either side of the discussion doing that. Any example would be great.