greg1917 Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 To me this is just one of life's mysteries. Like the sock monster that lives in the tumble drier or how John Travolta ever thought Battlefield Earth would be anything other than a flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 The 'default setting' for an embryo is female. It takes testosterone to masculinise the embryo so that it forms into a male foetus. Nonetheless, all the anatomical bits are universal and so each sex has all bits and the equivalent of any bit can be found in both sexes in some form (either under developed, fully developed or developed differently). It's more efficient to start with a universal template and then develop (or not) the appropriate bits. So, Battlefield Earth...not worth a look then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoungStrife Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Grrr....I was gonna say that Glider. Oh well, I might as well add to it; Some other parts that change: enlarged cliteris, muscle structure, face structure, hair am,ount, internal sexual organs, and overall growth. Darn you glider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocBill Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Originally posted by Glider The 'default setting' for an embryo is female. It takes testosterone to masculinise the embryo so that it forms into a male foetus. Nonetheless, all the anatomical bits are universal and so each sex has all bits and the equivalent of any bit can be found in both sexes in some form (either under developed, fully developed or developed differently). It's more efficient to start with a universal template and then develop (or not) the appropriate bits. So, Battlefield Earth...not worth a look then? Well, I actually liked it. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PogoC7 Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Originally posted by Glider Nonetheless, all the anatomical bits are universal and so each sex has all bits and the equivalent of any bit can be found in both sexes in some form (either under developed, fully developed or developed differently). Billy: Your a F**king pussy! Dave: How do you figure? Billy: Well, all the anatomical bits are universal and so each sex has all bits and the equivalent of any bit can be found in both sexes in some form (either under developed, fully developed or developed differently). Dave: DIE!!!! *slashing of the knife* Billy: My EYE!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Because women have tongues. Or as a modification of Gliders point because the embryonic precursors of nipples have never evolved a particular sensitivity to androgens that prevents their development into nipples. By the same token, if you are (and I don't know why chemically) insensitive to androgens, than you can be genetically male (i.e. XY) but develop physically into a female. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 ...'because women have tongues'...heeheehee :haha: That's true about the androgen sensitivity (I can't remember the name of the syndrome), but it's a continuum and there are (apparently) degrees of insensitivity to androgens, which result in different degrees of masculinisation. I knew a male who although definitely male (married with kids), had structural (skeletal) attributes of a female; wide pelvis, hyperextensive elbows and abducting knee joints. He also had little body hair and a high pitched voice. On the masculine side, he had broad shoulders and was over six feet tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Kleinfelters... or is that another one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 That's it! (thanks for that, it was driving me nuts!). Keinfelter's syndrome (XXY) genotype which results in varying degrees of hermaphoditism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spuriousmonkey Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 you could also answer the question 'why do men have nipples' with 'why wouldn't men have nipples.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 You can argue men shouldn't have nipples because I suppose they cost more to run, i.e. heat loss, more skin cells sloughed off, more nerves. I thought Kleinfelter's syndrome resulted in sterility, though he does certainly fit the syndrome. I was reading about sexually ambiguous disorders in a book called Biological Psychology, they are surprisingly common. Due to a low level hormone insensitivity around one in a hundred births have some level of genital ambiguity. Around one in a thousand are pseudohermaphroditic (the PC term is an intersex) where the sex is impossible to define. This presumably doesn't include chromosomal disorders like Kleinfelter's, which alone has a frequency of around 1 in 1000 male births. The standard procedure in the past 50 years in the event of a hermaphroditic birth was to surgically alter the child to be female. Many people who have had this procedure have spoken out against it, saying they would rather have been left as they were. How should physically sexually ambiguous children be raised then? (Sorry for the thread drift) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Originally posted by Skye How should physically sexually ambiguous children be raised then? (Sorry for the thread drift) however they like. It is well known that boys tend to drift towards boys toys, and girls do the same, right from a very young age. I see no real reason why children should be forced to fit some sexual stereotype based on what is between their legs; at the end of the day, as paraphrased from a novel by Iain M Banks "It's brains that matter kids, gonads are hardly worth making a fuss over" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1917 Posted March 28, 2003 Author Share Posted March 28, 2003 I still think Battlefield Earth was a woeful film :lame: :lame: :lame: :lame: :lame: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 This may not be appropriate but... There is a 'female' porn star witht that condition and she is glad to have it. At the age of... 5 when the male sex organ began developing her parents decided to leave it be, that it was just natural. She did not have an excessively difficult childhood until puberty when a lot of confusion started. Obviously she wasn't into dating much. Well, now she is speaking out for all people of her kind and to parents with children affected with that condition to let their children make the decision once they understand it. She enjoys her work and life. Sorry, I can't remember the name. But it just goes to show what Edward said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocBill Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Can this be the end of this thread please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryoken Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Your the moderator, Bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Originally posted by Skye You can argue men shouldn't have nipples because I suppose they cost more to run, i.e. heat loss, more skin cells sloughed off, more nerves. I thought Kleinfelter's syndrome resulted in sterility, though he does certainly fit the syndrome. He does, but I'm not 100% certain he had Kleifelter's, there are a few condition that can lead to similar states. One of the results of Kleinfelter's is testicular atrophy, so sterility would be expected, but I'm not sure. I don't really know enough about it. It may be a qustion of degree or severity of the condition. .I was reading about sexually ambiguous disorders in a book called Biological Psychology, they are surprisingly common. Due to a low level hormone insensitivity around one in a hundred births have some level of genital ambiguity. Around one in a thousand are pseudohermaphroditic (the PC term is an intersex) where the sex is impossible to define. This presumably doesn't include chromosomal disorders like Kleinfelter's, which alone has a frequency of around 1 in 1000 male births. The standard procedure in the past 50 years in the event of a hermaphroditic birth was to surgically alter the child to be female. Many people who have had this procedure have spoken out against it, saying they would rather have been left as they were. How should physically sexually ambiguous children be raised then? Is that the book by James Kalat? Good book that. As for how sexually ambiguous infants should be raised, Radical Edward has a point. Masculinisation (or not) of certain centres of the brain will direct the child to orient themselves to one sex or another, so I'd say it's probably better to wait until they 'decide' for themselves (i.e. begin to display characteristic male/female orientation) rather than deciding for them and risking surgically forcing them into a category they ultimately don't feel they belong to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poena Posted April 25, 2003 Share Posted April 25, 2003 Mmm lactating males....:banana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now