iNow

You can repeat your incorrect point as often as you desire. That won’t magically render it true. The question is are there more than 2 sexes. There are at least male, female, and other. That’s 3, so the answer is an unequivocal yes. You already quoted it. Perhaps try reading again, maybe more slowly this time.

No, it’s like some people saying ALL humans are born with 2 legs, others pointing out that sometimes people are born with fewer or more than 2 and providing copious examples of this happening, then the original person holding firm to their original claim that ALL humans are born with 2 legs. There. FTFY. It’s interesting how ideological the motives seem to be of those individuals willy nilly tossing the ideological label at others. Yep. No ideological bent in your post. Nope. No sir. Nothin to see here. 😂 I’d encourage you to avoid mirrors, and maybe lookup the idea of psychological projection. On another note, this OP has only 1 single post here and this was it. They were clearly a hit and run poster merely trying to stir the pot and divide communities.

No, it simply doesn’t. You said there are only 2 categories: Male and female. You then acknowledged “defects” that don’t fit into either, yet refuse to acknowledge this leads at least to a 3rd category of Other. Nobody is saying there are 7.X Billion sexes. They’re saying words like defect are both unkind and irrelevant to the conclusion that there are more than 2 sexes. They’re saying you don’t get to dismiss the aforementioned “Other” category just by calling them defects, anomalies, low probability, or now “conditions.”

No, the argument is that a SMALL percentage is not the same as a ZERO percentage. Does this allow you to more accurately comprehend my point without leaving in a huff? There’s only one person here saying others are dicks and calling their positions grotesque idiocy. It’s certainly not me.

And even if we switch to using the word “anomaly,” then we STILL have more than two… at the very least we have male, female, and anomalies… and last I checked, 3 is more than 2 (keep me honest on that, studiot… I’m no Leonhard Euler over here)

Even if we argue based on semantics, you have two categories and you also have multiple populations that fit into neither of those two. Ergo, from a semantic point of view, there are clearly MORE than two categories… there must be since you have multiple populations that don’t fit into either of them. Pretending this isn’t so doesn’t magically make the issue disappear, nor does dismissing them as defects. You have (at the very least) a THIRD category of “Other.”

What is it specifically about your broader perspective and desire for objectivity that leads you to subjectivity dismiss with the wave of a hand all those counter examples which demonstrate your preconceived conclusion to be flawed? You’ve acknowledged the existence of humans who fit into neither the male nor the female bucket, yet you continue to insist that the male and female buckets are the only possibilities. That’s illogical.

Why do you believe the best choice is to ignore those others possibilities? What about them should be dismissed when attempting to answer the question “are there more than 2 sexes?” We’re not talking about turning Volvos into Vespa’s. We’re talking about genetic sexes that fit into neither one of the male/ female buckets. You’re trying to force evidence into your preconceived conclusion. You’re ignoring the evidence that shows where you’ve made an error in your thinking. For someone who for so many years has argued the topic of evolution with creationists right along side me, it’s unthinkable to me that you’re relying so heavily on their tactics to protect your untenable stance on the topic of sex classification.

Right. Which means there are more than two, regardless of how common those other two are. You’re not making much sense This is not related to any argument I or others are making so appears to be either a blatant strawman or at least an irrelevant red herring

Why not?

Fair point, and here are 2 others: 1) Thread asks is there are more than 2. There are, whether or not we correctly describe them as discrete vs continuous 2) Thread isn’t limited to humans, at least not as currently written in the OP

Why is it silly to suggest ability to bear children is the best definition of what makes a female? Why is it silly to point out the situations where this definition is very clearly deficient and unusable? Why is it silly to highlight that EVEN IF we ignore these elementary and remedial flaws with this definition that it doesn’t address the actual question of the thread? It’s silly because this is so blindingly obvious that it shouldn’t need to be highlighted and repeated 73x to people as otherwise intelligent as yourselves. Since when do we poll the general population to understand accurate answers to scientific questions? Shall we poll the same gen pop that thinks climate change is a hoax, vaccines cause autism, and that chocolate milk comes from brown cows? Which has happened throughout this thread, but for weird emotional reasons lots of people continue ignoring those accurate corrections and posts designed to educate. Perhaps because that’s not the thread topic. Are there more than 2 sexes? Absolutely yes, in both the animal kingdom and also in humans. End program. You first… why is a perfectly common genetic sequence able to be dismissed with the wave of a hand as a “defect” that isn’t directly related to the central question of the thread? These gene sequences more than adequately demonstrate that there are more than 2 sexes and that the elementary school level definitions being used by your side of this conversation are useless garbage, so why disregard them? Pot. Kettle. Black.

This isn’t terribly hard, Koti. The structure of the discussion is roughly this: A: We define women by the ability to conceive and gestate and give birth to offspring. B: That definition is lacking. If we followed that definition, we’d be forced to say that infertile females aren’t women or that post menopausal females aren’t women. That’s just silly. If we want to do this right, we’ll need more to go on than “ability to procreate.” … Btw - It’s also irrelevant to answering the actual thread question which asks “are there ONLY 2 sexes.” You’re ignoring that question and offering a weak, unhelpful, and deeply problematic definition of just ONE sex. A: OMG you’re so PC and grotesque! I came to this site to get away from this type of thinking and to rebut opinions not rooted in evidence! You’re forcing me to tell my 5 year old son he’ll be a mother some day!! B: Sigh. Whatever, dude. You’re clearly unable to rebut valid criticisms of your stance and are literally adding nothing to the discussion other than childish outbursts and name calling. A: Oh yeah, we’ll you’re not just a dick… you’re a special kind of dick, so there! B: 🙄🥱 Since when is anyone forcing you to participate? Is your posting to these threads not voluntary? Wink twice and hold your thumb and forefinger together if we should send immediate help to your location!

Well, at least you’re consistent in your total inability to offer any coherent support whatsoever for your stance and opposition. Your ENTIRE post history on this and related topics is, “Nuh uh!! Also, iNow is a doo doo head.” Color me unimpressed, but thanks for letting me live rent free in your head all these years.

No, but suggesting that one must tell their 5-year old son that they can carry a baby in their belly is somehow a helpful answer to the question “are there only 2 sexes” is. I don’t mind people having viewpoints different from my own, but I do mind when they resort to little more than childish snark and logical absurdities as their only defense of those viewpoints.

Implicit in your point is that ability to give birth is what makes a woman. As has already been pointed out repeatedly, your definition leads to absurdities like saying post menopausal women and the infertile are not women. Your stance also doesn’t answer the thread question about whether it’s accurate to say there are ONLY two sexes. So your trollish point is both wrong AND irrelevant. Tell your son whatever you want. Hopefully as he gets older he’ll be able to think critically and answer his own questions and leave any inaccurate ignorance he’s inherited / received from you behind him. Tell him probably not, but we don’t yet know what will be possible in the future. Tell him sex is not determined based on ability to gestate offspring, neither in humans nor in other organisms throughout the animal kingdom. You know… or you could lie and teach him falsehoods. That’s possible too, I suppose.

Strawman much? Also, by the way… he technically could. A male pregnancy is certainly possible by having an embryo implanted into the man's abdomen. It would be ectopic with the placenta attached to an internal organ such as the bowel and later delivered surgically. So YET AGAIN your argument crumbles under even the most basic scrutiny.

Probably at the point where we acknowledge it’s entirely inaccurate and long outdated to continue obstinately demanding that there are only two sexes. Exactly, and the same applies here… yet here we are in a thread where a sizable percentage of participants are refusing to move off their position which is functionally equivalent to demanding that ‘ALL snowflakes are the EXACT same color!!!’

I picture you right now holding a wooden cube in one hand and a hammer in the other. Below you is a hole slightly smaller than the cube and the hole is shaped like a circle. You’re tenaciously pounding away trying to smush the cube into the hole with your hammer, scraping the sides and causing dirt to displace everywhere… and all the while you’re mocking everyone else who attempts to clarify for you that your cube doesn’t actually fit there. More than that, you’re being told where it DOES fit yet you’re plugging your ears and closing your eyes to this information… the information highlighting that there’s a square hole right beside you ready to perfectly receive your cube like a glove awaiting a hand.

Let me take this opportunity to remind readers of some useful factoids shared recently in another thread. They’re insightful when attempting to accurately answer the thread question and when pushing back on the many remedially inaccurate responses being shared here with great certitude and unfounded confidence. https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125880-jordan-petersons-ideas-on-politis/?do=findComment&comment=1190758 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125880-jordan-petersons-ideas-on-politis/?do=findComment&comment=1190791 I just don’t know who to believe... These quotes from our resident biology experts who’ve worked in the field for years and years and years and who are massively clear on the vagaries and messiness in biological classifications, or the people who are forcefully arguing an untenable position based on outdated 6th grade level understandings of biology and misplaced preconceptions. It’s such a hard choice. 🙄 QFT

In which case, the person pretending that there are, in fact, such things as "perfect spheres" is the one who is mistaken. Same applies here, and sex is even more variable than spheres in nature. The biases on this topic are strong. This seems so mind numbingly obvious that it shouldn't even require explanation, IMO.

Well, I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong. Our binary classifications are not just arbitrary, but rather often inaccurate. Suggesting otherwise shows bias in the speaker/author, not rigidity in the sex classifications across the animal kingdom.

Are there more than two sexes? Yes Must we ignore a ton of exceptions to pretend there are ONLY two sexes? Yes Do more than two sexes exist across the animal kingdom? Yes Are humans part of the animal kingdom? Yes Does it make sense to suggest some rigid state of ONLY two sexes map accurately on to humans, but not other organisms, and that this is the most precise framing of the question totally unrelated to our preconceptions and personal cultural biases? No

Disagree all you want. I can't force you to be correct. By this definition, those who are infertile and post-menopausal aren't women. They're also only acknowledging a subset of the possibilities. Others are like XXO, etc. It's forcing the data to align with ones preconceptions instead of the other way around.

Yes Nearly everything in the cosmos exists somewhere along a spectrum. Humans just force things into arbitrary binary buckets for convenience. Sex is no different.