mountain_hare

OK, I know that this really isn't entirely evolution, but it is certainly biologically and genetically centred.

I remember reading a book a year ago about Men. It asked the rhetorical question "What makes a man", and then, after examining the issue in depth, came up with a 'no idea'. After all, there are so many hormones, genes, chemicals. etc. involved, that the answer is so clear cut.
From memory, there were some 'women' who had female genes, but certain 'female' hormones were turned off. And individuals with a vagina and penis (although they weren't well formed).

Anyway, I ran into a fanatic who is against homosexuality, except this fanatic is eloquent with words. He believes the sexuality is black and white.

I lack the book about Men (which I could have used to whip his ass in five seconds), and have forgotten the details. Does anyone have info, or good web pages, which describe why sexuality isn't clear cut? Biologically and physcologically.

DougP

could you explain what he means by "black and white" please?

mountain_hare

Well, one poster stated that sexuality was not black and white, but a 'continuum'

Oh, wait, I'll actually post part of what the poster (who I agree with) said:

http://messageboard.cinescape.com/ha...b=5&o=&fpart=8
I agreed with this guy, and stated that anyone who believed that sexuality was black and white, and a non-complex issue, as ignorant, and that I agreed with the poster, that sexuality was a continuum (I have read a few books which a friend lent me about this, I didn't just glean the info off a website in passing).
His opponent then gave me a tongue lashing, which I responded to with tongue in cheek.

Jet Black

believing this kind of thing to be black and white is the height of ignorance. there are many well known and documented case of sexually ambiguous individuals, with varying numbers of sex chromosomes (XO XX(female) XX(male) XY(male) XY(Female) XXY XYY and so on) with varying degrees of genital expression. MRI scans of transsexuals (both pre and post treatment) have often shown brain activity more similar to their chosen physical gender. Quite why one would expect sexuality to form in a black and white manner when the genes, chromosomes, body and brain don't is beyond me.

DougP

Well, ill say this bit at least.

I think that masculinity and femininity are really social terms. Classically "masculine" traits arent found just in men, same with "feminine" traits. The sliding scale explination offered above is similar to this. In fact, most people that are "hypermasculine" act that way because they are afraid of their "feminine" sie, not because they have no femininity. I would say that "feminine" and "masculine" are kind of silly terms, because pretty much everyone has bits of both and if they are in both, then they are not one or the other. Rather, I think that they are more simply "human" and society has decided which should be associated with the female and which should be associated with the male. If I may reccomend some extracurricular reading, "The Wimp Factor by Stepen J. Ducat is excellant (it also ties how this effects politics).

Dr.Xu

Sex is biologically defined in different levels:

chromosomal sex: XX = female, XY = male
gonadal sex: do you have ovaries or testes?
external sex: do you have an uterus and a vagina or a penis?
subjective sex: do you consider yourself to be a woman or a man?

The trick is that not always all of this "determinants" coincide...

You can still have XY chromosomes, not develop testes and look like a woman. Some XX babies are born with an enlarged clitoris that looks like a penis, making sex determination difficult. There are the even more complex cases of true hermaphrodites, who have both types of gonads.

In a very simple way, the cascade of sex determination is as follows:
the default way of human development is to produce a female. That's why X0 babies are girls. So, in the absence of a specific stimulus, any embryo will develop as a girl.
There's a gene in the Y chromosome (SRY)that provides the stimulus to shift embryonal development to tha male route. The product of this gene will ultimately tell the undiferentiated gonadal tissue to stop becoming an ovary and turning into a testicle instead.
Once a testicle is formed, it will release testosterone to the body, causing the undiferentiated external sexual organs to develop into a penis. Testosterone will also shape the secondary sexual characteristics (hair and fat distribution, tone of voice, etc).
In this intrincate process, there is room for errors.

Even when the genetic / physical determination of sex is carried out perfectly, we still do not know what goes on in our brain that makes one "feel like a man/woman". The issue of how we express our sexuality (aka who we like to have sex with) is another matter full of nuances. I really think that sex determination/hermaphroditism and sexual attraction are different issues altogether.

mountain_hare

In my LAYMAN opinion (hope I don't sound too ignorant), I think that they are related. Males have sex with females to produce offspring. Sexual attraction should, in part, determine whether someone is male or female. For instance, if someone is sexually attracted to women, then it could be reasonable to call them at least PART male. Am I making sense? :huh:

BillyTheKat

Conception can be the consequence of sex between men and women, but it's not always the intent of either party; even if we look at other animals, I doubt anyone can prove that males have sex with females to produce offspring anyway, and let's not forget that males don't always have sex with females, even with the intent to have offspring (it's amazing what you can get on the internet these days!).
Why should sexual attraction determine anything other than what a person is sexually attracted to? Attributing male characteristics to someone who is attracted to females is the socially constructed bit that DougP discusses above, and which is based on the assumption that (only) males are attracted to females, and which I'm sure you would admit is a bit of a circular argument, and speaks more to our societal values than to any biological truth about attraction. Let's also bear in mind that attraction is about more than the gender of a person, and can also include qualities which could be typed as male or female, regardless of the gender of the person possessing them.

DougP

Yes, it is important to note the difference between Sex and Gender, which are different concepts. Sex is biologically defined term, Gender is a socially defined term.

BillyTheKat

I was thinking of the way that qualities such as being strong and dominant are considered male qualities, being considerate and nurturing are considered to be female qualities, and the way impressions of others are built up according to these gendered assumptions. Perhaps men who are attracted to dominant women are a teeny bit gay, or perhaps it's simply time to dump the whole bunch of stereotypes.