Leaderboard

Hey, are there more than 2 sexes? I recently talked to a person who told me that it has been scientifically proven that there are more than 2 sexes biologically and that the biological sex is a spectrum, so I wanted to ask if this is the truth? Btw: it was definitely about biological sex, not gender. My ideas: I know men have XY and women have XX chromosomes. I know there can be mutations in which humans can have XXY chromosomes, but is this called the another sex? especially when this person isnt fertile. And if you include all mutations of the sexgenes, would you get a Spectrum? If you were to ask me spontaneously what the definition of a sex is, I would say that you can be divided into men and women depending on the task to which you belong in reproduction, but it is not that easy because if you are through an accident becoming sterile you wouldn't belong anywhere anymore and if you were born sterile there is also a problem, so it needs a better / more complex definition, I suppose. I would be interested in your facts to put it simply: Are there more than 2 sexes?

2 + X = greater than 2 🤓 (since counts of populations cannot be negative in this scenario)

I did have a chuckle about the large negative spike in the green (death) graph. Reincarnation and Resuscitation Rules OK ?

Go with “something else.” We agree that a simplified binary system is useful in some contexts. However, there’s a sizable population of posters in this thread claiming there are ONLY 2 sexes and refusing (for seemingly emotional reasons) to acknowledge the outliers which fit into neither. When asked how to approach all other intersex and related possibilities, they ignore them or dismiss them as defects. When asked into which of those 2 male/female buckets intersex individuals should be placed into, they refuse to answer. When asked why they feel it’s better not to simply acknowledge that a 3rd category of “Other” is useful and more accurate, they call the person asking an ideological politically correct social justice warrior suffering from the grotesque idiocy of a peanut sized brain and storm out of the thread in a huff. So yeah… something else it is.

He seemed to think if one was used, all intersex would need to be classified together as either male or female. He either has a binary system in mind that is rather unique, fails to see any value in using one...or something else... Thus the questions. For successful and natural human reproduction? At what point do you feel extra categories might become necessary? What I said in my first post in this thread: I certainly haven't resisted very long as I've just started posting in this thread. What I mean by sex depends on the context required for what is being discussed. That could be in binary terms, or otherwise.

And also the method of observation, as pointed out by Penrose and Terrell. Observation can be direct, as in Penrode and Terrell, or indirect ie deduced from other observations and or calculations. Furthermore different observers have different interactions with a given object so it should not be suprising that they deduce different observations. I would say that is the philosophy of Relativity for you. I would completely agree with the rest of your post however.

Ok, I got your schedule. I have already defined a scheme about what a Man and a Woman are, in short: Individual who has an ability to produce male gametes (Spermatozoa) > Male. Individual who has an ability to produce female gametes (Eggs) > Female. Of course, again for exceptions where individuals don't produce gametes or produce both, and I reiterate again, EXCEPTIONS, the Biologist doesn't research a species based on exceptions, furthermore, nor does he do research based on deleterious mutations, Anyway, the your argument was based on a magic to say that sex is a specter, nor am I going to waste my time answering the rest of your messed up dissertation, but allow me to reinforce my idea through the text I'll write now: As more and more people look for themselves as trans, non-binary and are in gender non-compliance, have an impulse towards classifying as obsolete the notion that males and exist as real biological entities. Instead, some argue, we have only varying degrees of “masculinity” and “femininity”. And getting into a deeper idea: Based on this reasoning, the very idea of segregating any space or sport using binary sexual categories is seen as illegitimate, since if no definitive line can be drawn, who can say that a supposed “ male “ isn't it actually a female? Many even claim that we should let people decide for themselves which sex they are, as if that were a matter of personal choice. I noticed two types of arguments here in this OP, already answered in my first text, but I will make a point of detailing it further. Both arguments - that of intersex conditions and that of secondary organs and characters - stem from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of biological sex, which is related to the distinct type of gametes (sexual cells) that an organism produces. Ser, males are the sex that produces small gametes (sperm) and the necessary large gametes (eggs). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no sexual spectrum. Biological sex in humans is a binary system and therefore there are only two. However, it is crucial to keep in mind that the sex of respondents within a species is not based on the individual's ability to produce certain gametes at any given time. Prepubertal men do not produce spermatozoa, and some adults sterile of both sexes are don't produce gametes due to various infertility problems. Still, it would be incorrect to say that these have no discernible sex, as individual sex corresponds to one of the two distinct types of reproductive anatomy (ie, ovaries or testicle) that develop to produce sperm or eggs. , regardless of past, present or future functionality. In humans, including here transgenders and so-called “non-binary”, which are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unmistakably male or female in 99.98% of cases. (1). By analogy, we flip a coin to randomize a binary decision because a coin has only two sides: heads and tails. But a coin also has an edge, and at about 1 in 6,000 (0.0166%) (2) thrown (with a nickel) it will fall into that edge. It's practically a the same probability (3) of someone to be born with an intersexual condition. Almost all heads or tails will be heads or tails, and those heads and tails don't come in grades or blends. That's because heads and tails are qualitatively different and mutually exclusive outcomes. The existence of extreme cases does not change this fact. Heads and tails, despite the existence of the border, remain discrete results. Likewise, sexual development outcomes in humans are almost always unmistakably male or female. The development of ovaries versus testicles, and therefore of female and males, are also qualitatively different outcomes which, for the vast majority of humans, are mutually exclusive and unqualified or to varying degrees. Male it's persistent, despite the existence of intersex conditions, continue to be in different categories. The existence of intersex conditions is often taken into account when arguing for the inclusion of trans women in women's sports and other contexts. But transgenderism has absolutely nothing to do with being intersexual. For the vast majority of inidividual claiming trans or non-binary identities, their gender is not an issue. It is the primary sexual organs, not identity, which determines a person's sex. The different male and female developmental trajectories are, themselves, a product of millions of years of natural selection, since secondary traits will contribute to evolutionary fitness in males and second in different ways. Women with narrower hips had more problems giving birth to children with larger head and those therefore with larger hips had an evolutionary advantage in childbirth, of course, humans who remained in the tropics did not acquire wider hips as they had no evolutionary advantage. for that, walking with the hips together allowed a fast locomotion, which may have allowed more distant destinations. This is observed in the difference between sub-Saharan African and African-American women, who in general have a smaller hip than white women, but this is beside the point of what is being discussed, consider this as a curiosity, returning to the topic : That (Big hips) wasn't relevant for men, which is one of the reasons their bodies tend to look different. But that doesn't mean that a person's hips—or any of their characteristic secondary categories, including beards and breasts—defines their sex biologically. These characteristics, although they have evolved due to sex-specific selection pressures, are completely irrelevant when it comes to defining a person's biological sex. Advocates of the sexual spectrum model no doubt meant well when these theories were developed. After all, who wouldn't want an explanation of human biology that validates all of our mutable forms of self-conception and understanding? But over time, it became clear that they created a false theory of biology that distorts the human nature and harms the vulnerable. When you try to achieve equality and justice by distorting reality, inequality and injustice are never eliminated, only reallocated. But anyway, this is my argument basically, I hope I managed to synthesize it well. And one more thing before leaving: If you can prove to me the existence of these gametes I will give up in this debate. That's it, see you later XD

As much of the world still remains unvaccinated, new strains continue to emerge. Recently a new variant of concern (B1.1.259, omicron). It carries 32 mutations compared to the original strain in the gene coding for the spike protein, raising worries that current vaccines might be less effective against this variant. https://www.who.int/news/item/26-11-2021-classification-of-omicron-(b.1.1.529)-sars-cov-2-variant-of-concern It is yet another reminder that the pandemic is far from being over.

Then explain to me the fundamental difference and how we biologists got it so wrong for decades.

Why? If intersex exists… if you call them anomalies… or call them defective… what we call them doesn’t matter. What DOES matter is they don’t fit into either the male bucket or into the female bucket. If another bucket is needed, that means there are more than 2 categories. It means there are at least 3 categories. You sure are getting super emotional over this. I’m simply asking a simple question, but you keep evading it and calling me and Charon names instead.

You are so full of it. You are embarrassing yourself, trying to prove that black is white. "strongly suggest" was the best you could do? You would be better off stopping digging.

Oh science is now done in links? How brilliant. If I knew that I could have finished my PhD in a weekend. And of course it shows that you are missing the mark entirely as you only provide links to asexual reproduction. My question was aimed to help you understand what sexual processes are and where the overlap within the broader aspect of genetic recombination is. How about you read some Lederberg and Tatum who were among the first to characterize recombination in bacteria. (Nature volume 158, page558 (1946)). From then onward they described sexual processes in bacteria, specifically E. coli.

So go ahead, show me empirical proof of this supposed "3rd sex", following your logic, there is a kind of Human, who doesn't have two arms LMAO Giant Cope By the way, I don't even know why I'm still answering you, you just dont add anything in any debate. Mainly on this one. Go back, prove that anomalies involving sex chromosomes give rise to a 3rd sex, otherwise I won't answer it again, I'll just ignore it I just want to see the magic in trying to accomplish that hahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahah

I do recognize the part science plays in the destruction of the world. No, it's not what I'm saying. At all. He hasn't. Should be's are as wishful as ever after's.

No, we don't. All 'others' are already very much like us and we are very much like them, having all evolved together from the same protozoan beginnings.

No, you can't know [in the sense of fully experiencing and understanding] anybody - not even yourself. You can know a lot about others, as well as yourself. You can empathize, sympathize, observe, listen, conjecture, extrapolate, project and imagine. That is how all the stories of humanity come about. Also knowledge of science. Most living things are only happy for brief periods of time, in specific limited ways. A constant state of happiness is expensive to support and impossible to maintain. For some fortunate creatures, a sustained state of contentment is their normal; for must, it's a condition greatly to be desired, rarely attained.

What about a tiger born with 2 legs? Or why aren't you 215cm and 140kg and playing for the NBA?

Mass communication is not a rejection of science; it is an achievement of science. The internet is not a rejection of science. Killer drones are not a rejection of science. Deep ocean oil drilling, pesticides, terminator genes - these are not rejections of science. These are tools of destruction developed by science. This is science in the service of destruction. Of course the mistakes are made and the crimes are committed by humans: humans use science. I know that; have never said otherwise. I did say, however, that science does not replace or displace imagination and magical thinking. And that science and magical thinking, reason and emotion, have always existed side by side, serving different functions in the human psyche. Indeed. And it has not diminished his belief in gods, life after death and a lot of other fanciful notions. Tradition aside - and the tenacity of some traditions, like organized religion, in preference to other traditions, like beating children into obedience, suggests that people value some traditions more than others. The supernatural and its denizens have never explained the world. Now that science has explained the world, superstition is still going strong - not explaining, but serving other needs. Dogs bark. This orange is round. Both are facts, but they don't support each other.

This is utter rubbish. That is GENETIC recombination.

And that category is not a 3rd sex in humans now is it Charony. Just spit it out and say it through the downvotes, the subtle accusations and implications of homophobia, racism, conspiracy theory throughout the previous transgender thread and this one, just please f say it - "Individuals who are e.g. sterile from birth, are intersex or have other deviations from the standard distribution are NOT a 3rd SEX in homosapiens !"

In a world that only has black and white colours, you can have an infinity of grey SHADES. If you confuse shades with colours, this is what you get. People here are confusing characteristics with an actual sex. Like the greys, you can have as many characteristics as characters, all from two actual sexes. How does that not surprise me? You made a silly post, and now comes the bullshit cover-up, consisting of smoke and wind. If you hadn't noticed, I backed up my posts.

Into an anomaly, a deviation from the normal distribution within our species, like any non ideology infatuated person would. And no, it doesn't mean I'm transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, or whatever other phobic your hand waving instead of clapping marble brain thinks.

Some good, some bad, some for health, some for wealth, some for food, some for power, some for convenience, some for efficiency, some for fun. Yes. And? None of that makes science anything other than a methodology used by humans to achieve things humans want, good, bad and silly. When humans are constructive, they use science. When humans are destructive, they use science. When humans are in a hurry, they use science. When humans just want to show off, they use science. It plays a part in everything humans do. A hammer is a good tool, until you bash somebody in the head with it. A bayonet is a bad tool, until you use it to dig sugar beet. What philosophy? And where did anyone say that science has a moral value - or, for that matter, a character of any kind? It's a methodology used by humans for human purposes - and nothing more. That may be true of some individuals in some situations; it is evidently not true of humankind. If it were true, there would be no change - political, philosophical, dietary or cultural. Yet change goes on all the time: people stop believing what they were taught, turn against their parents' ideals, overthrow entire systems of government and thought. Even in religion, there have been several major upsets and new innovations, as well as forcible imposition of one religious regime on people of a different faith. And old-time religion most certainly doesn't explain any of the modern ghost-lore, zombie fear and cockeyed unscientific theories. Some people still think so. Most used to think so. Most don't anymore. See - it;s just one of the conventions that don't hold ad infinitum. No, they didn't. You keep repeating that opinion, without a single source for it. I gave you a dozen sources for believing otherwise. People found picturesque ways to describe natural phenomena; they told stories anthropomorphizing natural phenomena; They speculated about the origin of their tribes; they revered their ancestors; they invented rituals around the fact of death; they elaborated world-views and set out standards of social behaviour. They still have: science didn't make superstition go away. Exactly. Explain it all you want; people will never like it. That's what religion is for: to mitigate the hard, cold facts of life on Earth.

You're easily kept amused. If you followed the subject, as I do, you would know that the UK government figures occasionally got re-assessed, and certain classes of deaths were removed from or added to the total on frequent occasions as recording criteria evolved. It's not rocket science. That is simply a faithful graph of the official UK government figures, exactly as they were issued. They are actually 7 day averages. And the total sample size is about 340 million tests, with ten million positive, and 145,000 deaths. A bit more reliable than Swansonts out-of-date sample of about 4,000 non-representative health workers.

Different does not equal to a 3rd sex. Ofcourse theyre different. Your dishonesty in discourse is amazing.

Because I didn't. So you keep telling me, without any particulars or proofs. What philosophy? Which questions have I failed to answer? Sounds like? You must have a different pitch from mine. I do recognize the part science has played in the destruction of the world. Why don't you? Do you really think chemical warfare is good? Do you really think climate change is good? Science is a methodology used by humans to achieve ends that humans desire. Good, bad and silly. I also recognize the part superstition, magical thinking, irrationality and organized religion (even such organized religions and irrational cults as make effective use of technology to further their ends) have played in the destruction of the world. That does not mean -- and does not say -- that either of those human capabilities has a moral value apart from the uses to which humans put them. Except that I've claimed no such thing. Yes. The two kinds of thinking continue on together, side by side, hand in hand. The Egyptians of Ra had a sophisticated, technologically advanced civilization; they had precision engineering, meteorology, agriculture and astronomy as well some quite progressive notions civil law and of governance generally. Their highly organized, ritualized religion was a whole separate realm from their practical application of knowledge. Do you really not see the difference in religious belief, practice and application in stone age, bronze age, classical and modern societies? No worries. You haven't presented any examples. You made some vague statement about pandemics - of which I see no relation to primitive or ancient cultures or religions. I can see that. What philosophy? Perhaps you'll forgive me for asking again. Only, it's disconcerting to be daily accused of 'pushing' an unspecified, unnamed, undescribed - yet somehow presumed wrong - 'philosophy'. If i knew what it is, I might be able to repudiate or defend it. I see you won't. That's all right.

Something lacking in your comprehension, if you can't see it.