Are there more than 2 sexes?

[Arete]

10 minutes ago, koti said:

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

When you make up arbitrary criteria to state that the intermediate states don't count, you have two binary categories. Yep. Spot on. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Arete

[koti]

18 minutes ago, Arete said:

...intermediate states...

Do you mean puberty for example?

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

Do you mean puberty for example?

No. Conception, birth and puberty are the temporal axis to the chart. 

[koti]

1 minute ago, Arete said:

No. Conception, birth and puberty are the temporal axis to the chart. 

Understood. So which intermediate states are you reffering to?

 

[Arete]

Just now, koti said:

Understood. So which intermediate states are you reffering to?

 

Every one of the boxes that describes a phenotype/genotype that lies between genotypically/phenotypically male phenotypically/genotypically female at either end of the chart. The temporal axis, along with the arrows demonstrates how an individual can transition between states at different life history stages.

Ergo. while there are two sexes, they are neither binary nor temporally fixed - so there are a minority individuals to which the question "Are you male or female?" would be "Neither." The biology reality of that is unequivocal. 

[koti]

18 minutes ago, Arete said:

so there are a minority individuals to which the question "Are you male or female?" would be "Neither." 

Which specific individuals are those people? Could you give some examples of what intermediate state or other condition you have in mind so I can better understand?

Edited December 9, 2021 by koti

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

Which specific individuals are those people? 

You want names?

[koti]

Just now, StringJunky said:

You want names?

I want examples.

[StringJunky]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

I want examples.

What form should these examples take?

[koti]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

What form should these examples take?

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

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

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

I was seeking clarity for everybody

[koti]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I was seeking clarity for everybody

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

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

On 12/8/2021 at 10:02 AM, iNow said:

Help me understand your thinking here. 

You have one group called "Male."

You have a second group called "Female."

You acknowledge that some people then don't have a sex when we use your own definition.

So, by default, doesn't this mean there's now a third group inclusive of "Other," or "no sex" to use your verbiage?

I'm not an expert mathematician, but I DO have fingers on both hands... and when I use them like an abacus to find a sum / total of all groups... that leads me to a count of 3 groups, not 2. 

Is it possible you only have 2 total fingers on your hands and that's why you've stopped counting this last group... a group which YOUR OWN definition and which YOUR OWN logic dictates must exist... must exist since YOU YOURSELF claim they fit into neither male nor female?

You say they have no sex. Okay, I'm fine with that, but they still exist and consequently they compose at least a 3rd category. 

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. 

 

19 hours ago, CharonY said:

 

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.

 

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.

 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

 

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

[J.C.MacSwell]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

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

Sex can reasonably be stated to be a continuum when you are considering gender, or sexual preference.

How is sex biologically/reproductively speaking a continuum? I can accept readily that there can be multiples based on a reasonable definition that obviates that it is.

What definition can possibly put it on a continuum?

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sex can reasonably be stated to be a continuum when you are considering gender, or sexual preference.

How is sex biologically/reproductively speaking a continuum? I can accept readily that there can be multiples based on a reasonable definition that obviates that it is.

What definition can possibly put it on a continuum?

 

I should have said 'spectrum', since the chromosome combinations are discrete.... there's more than two, as Arete's infographic shows

[J.C.MacSwell]

37 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I should have said 'spectrum', since the chromosome combinations are discrete.... there's more than two, as Arete's infographic shows

And there is nothing wrong with that, but it it isn't limiting itself to successful human reproduction, which is the basis for our species. If it did, it would be a much smaller infographic.

But I wouldn't really call it a spectrum in that infographic, the reference (proper IMO) to gender spectrum aside. For all the colours indicating a spectrum, there's an awful lot of arrows connecting distant colours.

That said, I think anyone placing the intersex at greater than 1% of our population are including an awful lot of people that are clearly male, and clearly female, fertility issues notwithstanding.

Edited December 10, 2021 by J.C.MacSwell

[Arete]

3 hours ago, koti said:

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

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. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But I wouldn't really call it a spectrum in that infographic, the reference (proper IMO) to gender spectrum aside. For all the colours indicating a spectrum, there's an awful lot of arrows connecting distant colours.

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. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That said, I think anyone placing the intersex at greater than 1% of our population are including an awful lot of people that are clearly male, and clearly female, fertility issues notwithstanding.

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. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Arete

[koti]

6 hours ago, Arete said:

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. 

I was asking for an example of the intermediate state which you are talking about as I am not trained in the field of biology and it would be easier for me to understand because,
There is not a single mention of "intermediate state" in the infographic you posted yet you keep mentioning it. The infographic mentions on the other hand, various syndromes, disorders, deficiencies.
You are right in your presumption of my argument, I also apologize if I'm wrong here but are you equating the phrase "intermediate states" with the various syndromes/deficiencies/disorders mentioned in the infographic? If yes, are you doing this to be more inclusive towards the people experiencing these states?

Edited December 10, 2021 by koti

[dimreepr]

Is it theoretically possible for a human, hermaphrodite, to self-inseminate?

[Arete]

8 hours ago, koti said:

I was asking for an example of the intermediate state which you are talking about as I am not trained in the field of biology and it would be easier for me to understand because,

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. 

8 hours ago, koti said:

There is not a single mention of "intermediate state" in the infographic you posted yet you keep mentioning it. The infographic mentions on the other hand, various syndromes, disorders, deficiencies.

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. 

8 hours ago, koti said:

You are right in your presumption of my argument, I also apologize if I'm wrong here but are you equating the phrase "intermediate states" with the various syndromes/deficiencies/disorders mentioned in the infographic? If yes, are you doing this to be more inclusive towards the people experiencing these states?

 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? 

[koti]

6 minutes ago, Arete said:

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? 

Thank you for clarifying, its all very clear to me, not that it wasn’t clear prior to your posts but at least now we have it all „on paper” Have a great weekend Arete. 

[TheVat]

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!  

[koti]

27 minutes ago, TheVat said:

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!  

I’d like to see cheering for the cyan lizards and fighting for keeping them safe, taking care of them but without twisting the meaning of words, bending science so it fits social and pollitical agendas. Utopian but sounds good doesn’t it? 

[StringJunky]

33 minutes ago, TheVat said:

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!  

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