Are there more than 2 sexes?

[iNow]

1 hour ago, koti said:

Category
Sex

Glad I could help

Thank you for the wiki links, but the ask to you was to specify what YOU see as the most important ways these two differ (in context of this thread). 

As it stands right now, you’ve done little more than evade that request.

I’m sure that I’m misunderstanding you, but you APPEAR to be arguing that sex is not a TYPE of category, and (as I’m sure you’ll agree) that’s patently absurd. 

Since this can’t possibly be an accurate reflection of your actual position, I’m requesting that you please clarify it. 

[koti]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

…you APPEAR to be arguing that sex is not a TYPE of category, and (as I’m sure you’ll agree) that’s patently absurd. 

Your insincerity is only topped by your attepmts at manipulation.
 

17 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Poland is not a place where I would want to be gay or other. The atmosphere is probably like Ireland was until the RC church lost majority favour with its hypocritical teachings and abuses by its priests. It's probably quite difficult to be open about ones views that contradict the official line. This was in today's Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/depression-rising-among-lgbt-people-conservative-ruled-poland-survey-finds-2021-12-08/

 

This is true and its something a lot of people in Poland are ashamed of, including me. I wonder what it has to do with this thread though? If I didn’t know you better Stringy, I would think youre making a swing at me trying to make me look homophopic? 

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, koti said:

Your insincerity is only topped by your attepmts at manipulation.
 

This is true and its something a lot of people in Poland are ashamed of, including me. I wonder what it has to do with this thread though? If I didn’t know you better Stringy, I would think youre making a swing at me trying to make me look homophopic? 

No, I was kind of wondering aloud how much the  clearly prevalent stigma  in your country influences your own position. This seems to be the background 'atmosphere' you live in;  we are all products of our country to an extent. I'm a child of the 60's, and I have to admit I viewed them with some suspicion until my twenties, when I started to think about social 'outliers' for myself.

Edited December 8, 2021 by StringJunky

[Phi for All]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

This is true and its something a lot of people in Poland are ashamed of, including me. I wonder what it has to do with this thread though? If I didn’t know you better Stringy, I would think youre making a swing at me trying to make me look homophopic? 

Or, OR, we could be wondering why you can easily concede that you've been wrong in the past about other topics that involve gender, but can't even conceive of it in this case. You've also had trouble before with anti-vaxxer stances as well, and iirc you followed the science on that one and reasoned through a LOT of arguments you were getting locally.

That may not seem related either, but I can't help but see you as someone trying to navigate life like the rest of us, with a hopeful eye towards the future and one foot stubbornly dragging in the past. I know that my stubborn foot rarely sees reason, so it's up to my hopeful eye to sort out what's rational. Stubborn is where my emotions lead me when I can't come up with good reasoning, and perhaps I'm merely projecting that onto you. If so, I'm sorry.

[koti]

14 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Or, OR, we could be wondering why you can easily concede that you've been wrong in the past about other topics that involve gender, but can't even conceive of it in this case. You've also had trouble before with anti-vaxxer stances as well, and iirc you followed the science on that one and reasoned through a LOT of arguments you were getting locally.

If youre reffering to the "transgender" thread, I've never conceded anything there, that thread showed me how much bias and toxic PC is present on our forum, this thread right here only solidified my observation.
- I've never had trouble with anti vaxx stances. I mean I did and I do, my brothers wife is anti vaxx and that is pretty  truoblesome and ackward considering we all have children and are the same family. I've never expressed any traces of anti vaxx  stances in my life.

You seem so deep down the PC rabbit hole of this forum that you've managed to create your own version of me based on your biases which makes me sad because youve always been the wise good guy.

Edited December 8, 2021 by koti

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

If youre reffering to the "transgender" thread,

I'm not. I'm referring to your comment about the former Polish national stance against homosexuality, which you said a lot of people are ashamed of, including you. If that didn't involve a concession, my apologies for assuming.

4 minutes ago, koti said:

- I've never had trouble with anti vaxx stances. I mean I did and I do, my brothers wife is anti vaxx and that is pretty  truoblesome and ackward considering we all have children and are the same family. I've never expressed any traces of anti vaxx  stances in my life.

Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but this is what I meant, that you've had to defend your stance against anti-vaxxers who are close to you, not that you've agreed with them.

 

6 minutes ago, koti said:

You seem so deep down the PC rabbit hole of this forum that you've managed to create your own version of me based on your biases which makes me sad because youve always been the wise good guy.

Apparently so. 

[koti]

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

No, I was kind of wondering aloud how much the  clearly prevalent stigma  in your country influences your own position. This seems to be the background 'atmosphere' you live in;  we are all products of our country to an extent. I'm a child of the 60's, and I have to admit I viewed them with some suspicion until my twenties, when I started to think about social 'outliers' for myself.

I like to pride myself that only evidence, rational conclusions and empathy for the weaker are infuencing my position. I've never experienced what you said above, since I can remember I despised people who are hompohobic, I spent many years in my youth making my life as a DJ and I had many gay friends, very good ones, I still keep in touch with a few. Don't measure everyone with your yard stick.

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

..you've had to defend your stance against anti-vaxxers who are close to you, not that you've agreed with them.

We don't talk to each other nor meet for about 4 years now, it wasn't possible to manage out a compromise.

Edited December 8, 2021 by koti

[iNow]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Will you please elaborate a bit on this and explain what you see as the most important ways they differ (in context of this discussion)?

2 hours ago, koti said:

Category
Sex

Glad I could help. 

57 minutes ago, iNow said:

Thank you for the wiki links, but the ask to you was to specify what YOU see as the most important ways these two differ (in context of this thread). 

<…>

I’m sure that I’m misunderstanding you, but you APPEAR to be arguing that sex is not a TYPE of category, and (as I’m sure you’ll agree) that’s patently absurd. 

Since this can’t possibly be an accurate reflection of your actual position, I’m requesting that you please clarify it. 

48 minutes ago, koti said:

Your insincerity is only topped by your attepmts at manipulation.

Let me repeat myself. Please clarify what you see as the relevant differences btw those terms (in context of this thread). 

[koti]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Let me repeat myself. Please clarify what you see as the relevant differences btw those terms (in context of this thread). 

I refuse to participate in a discussion where a grown educated man asks another grown educated man the difference between the words „sex” and „category”

[iNow]

It's a shame that you refuse to even attempt arguing in good faith.

You suggested my argument was flawed or somehow invalid because I used the word category instead of the word sex.

I used the word category when suggesting we have male, female, and folks who don't fit into either. The existence of those folks who don't fit into either necessitate a 3rd "category" of "other" or "no sex" to use the OPs words.

You then made a flip comment about category and sex being different. I don't disagree, but sex is obviously a type of category.

I'm asking you to clarify why you think pointing out that these words are different in any way negates the logical argument I've presented. You keep calling me names and evading. I'm trying to give you a chance to defend your stance and change minds. 

Including mine. 

[koti]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I used the word category when suggesting we have male, female, and folks who don't fit into either. The existence of those folks who don't fit into either necessitate a 3rd "category" of "other" or "no sex" to use the OPs words.

And that 3rd category is not a 3rd sex. FFS!

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

And that 3rd category is not a 3rd sex. FFS!

It is evidence of more than 2, whether or not you call “other” a sex. It means saying there are only 2 is inaccurate. 

[koti]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

It is evidence of more than 2, whether or not you call “other” a sex. It means saying there are only 2 is inaccurate. 

Apparently you do need to read through the definitions of the words sex and category. If you have 2 Ford Mustangs and one of them breaks down it doesn’t mean you have a Mustang and a Chevy. You still have 2 Mustangs. 

[iNow]

The analogy here is you keep claiming ALL cars / ALL Fords are either a Mustang or an F-150, and others are asking you where then do we put the Taurus and the Fiesta and the Explorer and all of the other Ford models since they’re neither a Mustang nor an F-150. When we ask this, you call us manipulative walnut brains caught in a vortex of politically correct culture instead of offering an answer with any actual substance to this perfectly valid criticism / question. 

Worse, you're trying to dismiss the existence of the Taurus and Explorer and Fusion etc. as "defects" off the manufacturing line... but they're still cars that exist, and which are not able to be accurately called either a Mustang or an F-150

Edited December 8, 2021 by iNow

[koti]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

The analogy here is you keep claiming ALL cars / ALL Fords are either a Mustang or an F-150, and others are asking you where then do we put the Taurus and the Fiesta and the Explorer and all of the other Ford models since they’re neither a Mustang nor an F-150. When we ask this, you call us manipulative walnut brains caught in a vortex of politically correct culture instead of offering an answer with any actual substance to this perfectly valid criticism / question. 

Worse, you're trying to dismiss the existence of the Taurus and Explorer and Fusion etc. as "defects" off the manufacturing line... but they're still cars that exist, and which are not able to be accurately called either a Mustang or an F-150

The crux here which you either keep omitting on purpose or its eluding you is that all of them are still f…g cars !

[mistermack]

There are two aspects of sex, from a biological point of view.
Firstly there is the way that reproduction is achieved, so that the species can persist. That involves production of gametes, and the transfer from the male to the female of sperm to fertilise an egg. 

The second aspect, is the way that that transfer is achieved. Sex for typical flowers involves insects, for many animals involves a compulsion to mate. For other plants it's pollen being shed in the wind, and encountering by chance female parts of flowers. 
In all cases, it's about male gametes fusing with female gametes to start off a new generation. 
There's no third, fourth or fifth sex involved in reproduction, only male and female gametes. 

When it comes to sexual identity, it's only there at all because for millions of years, there has been a successful chain, one after the other, of male gametes being joined to female gametes, and reproduction following on. The only reason that there are males and females, is reproduction. So sex identity is there to enable sperm from a male to fuse with an egg from a female. The sexual organs evolved that better enabled that to happen. And the sexual behaviour evolved in a similar way to successfully transfer sperm to ova. 
So in the true sense of the word, there are only two sexes. 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. To do that you would need to change a couple of billion years of history.

Wikipedia starts it's main page on sex thus : 

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.

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

[iNow]

1 hour ago, koti said:

The crux here which you either keep omitting on purpose or its eluding you is that all of them are still f…g cars !

We agree. Those are all cars... And all of these people are still humans. And they also each all have a sex, even if it's neither male nor female. All I'm saying is, since they are neither male nor female we must allow for a 3rd category/sex of "Other."

What do you feel I am omitting or being eluded by?

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

So in the true sense of the word, there are only two sexes.

Your 3rd grade level presentation of biology has been repeated and debunked repeatedly in this thread already. Simply repeating flawed positions doesn't make them correct. 

Edited December 8, 2021 by iNow

[koti]

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

We agree. Those are all cars... And all of these people are still humans. And they also each all have a sex, even if it's neither male nor female. All I'm saying is, since they are neither male nor female we must allow for a 3rd category/sex of "Other."

Really? Category slash Sex? After all these pages and all that has been said you are still not sure what my point of view is?

 How many times do I need to state that Sex and Category are not interchangeable. You’ve become so sensitive and so saturated with twisted pollitical correctness that you are convinced that categorising someone as one who suffers from a birth defect or a genetic condition instead of „a 3rd Sex” is somehow dehumanizing and deplorable. It’s not. There are 2 sexes in humans and untill evolution changes that, it will stay that way. Various deviations from that fact are what they are - deviations, defects, conditions that people suffer. 

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, koti said:

Category slash Sex? After all these pages and all that has been said you are still not sure what my point of view is?

I keep asking you to explain how my usage is flawed and you keep not explaining. Closest we got was some wiki links. 

25 minutes ago, koti said:

Various deviations from that fact are what they are - deviations, defects, conditions that people suffer. 

Is a deviation not a type of “other?” 

It’s not male. It’s not female. Fine, call it a defect or deviation… I don’t care, but that’s still a 3rd group (aka there are NOT just 2)

Edited December 8, 2021 by iNow

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Your 3rd grade level presentation of biology has been repeated and debunked repeatedly in this thread already. Simply repeating flawed positions doesn't make them correct. 

Your totally pointless post is on the level of "not it isn't" which is all you've managed on this thread so far. I notice you couldn't refute  or "debunk" one single point that I made. 

[StringJunky]

When the same points keep being brought up repeatedly, I think this conversation is exhausted.

[koti]

20 minutes ago, iNow said:

I keep asking you to explain how my usage is flawed and you keep not explaining. Closest we got was some wiki links. 

Is a deviation not a type of “other?” 

It’s not male. It’s not female. Fine, call it a defect or deviation… I don’t care, but that’s still a 3rd group (aka there are NOT just 2)

You’re so woke and scientifically fashionable that you don’t care, I get it. You probably think its cool or even noble to categorize someone born with a genetic condition as a different sex other than male or female, I get that too. I disagree but I get it. 

[mistermack]

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

When the same points keep being brought up repeatedly, I think this conversation is exhausted.

I think so. If someone wants to try to change the meaning of a widely understood word, there's nothing to stop them. But you can only change it for yourself. The actual meaning only changes for real, when it catches on with the majority population. Can't see that happening in this case, when most people have no problem with the original meaning of a sex. 

If nearly everybody thinks there are just two sexes, then there are just two sexes. That's how language works.

[StringJunky]

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I think so. If someone wants to try to change the meaning of a widely understood word, there's nothing to stop them. But you can only change it for yourself. The actual meaning only changes for real, when it catches on with the majority population. Can't see that happening in this case, when most people have no problem with the original meaning of a sex. 

If nearly everybody thinks there are just two sexes, then there are just two sexes. That's how language works.

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.

Edited December 9, 2021 by StringJunky

[MigL]

10 hours ago, CharonY said:

Both for common as well as scientific usage we can use a range of definitions, which have been explored to death and there is nothing wrong with either a karyotype or reproductive function per se. But since biology is always fuzzy at the edges, there simply won't be something perfect we ca use.

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.

 

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

No, I was kind of wondering aloud how much the  clearly prevalent stigma  in your country influences your own position.

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 ?