abe smith

Well, ps418, we've tangled before about what we can call (if it's okay w/ you) "certainties".
I may as well say, bluntly, that I reject your foregoing unsubstantiated assertion that "99.99 percent of human beings" etc. The mere fact is that only a minuscule number of the totality of human beings (past,present and to come) have ever been tested to determine anything about their "gender" or "sex" -- WHATEVER THOSE LABELS MAY MEAN.
I strongly doubt whether you, ps418, are adequately-informed to assert very much about human "sexuality". At this point in human history and scientific information, the area of UNKNOWN is still enormous; and unless some deity or other has an inside track to you, providing information unavailable to everyone else, I question the reliability of your assertions.
We know (perhaps .... if you believe published papers. Why?)
that there are unquestionably -phaenotypic women women walking around among us whose so-far-known chromosomal codes are *XY*.
There are also (a few KNOWN) instances of human females
coded *X0*; there are such observed combinations as XYY; and XXY; and there are human *mosaics* whose bodies evince tisues some of which are XX, s9ome XY, and perhaps odd other codes *all in one person*.
Given the UNKNOWN becausee NOT_YET_TESTED ratios of what you like to call anomalies" (and the hell w/ your assertions about "normality"), there is reason to believe that of the Roman Catholic priesthood, for example, some "men" are occult *females*.
I understand that most people who are ignorant of hands-on biology (as, for example, Thos Aquinas was, and the present Vatican hierarchy obviously are) are more than willing, are eager to aannounce the "laws of human sexuality" and to pontificate at-length about "normal".
I observe from your responses here -- your bland "certainties" --- that you do not understand the statement "There are no type-forms in Biology."

ps418

First of all, even when making a fool of yourself, its important to keep your arguments straight. You asserted something about sex, not gender. What I said about sex is a fact, whether you accept it or not is an issue for you to deal with. Second, the vast majority of individuals need not be 'tested,' because their assignment to one sex or the other is totally unambiguous, just as I said.


No kidding. I know all about these individuals. I've posted several threads on these very issues. These individuals, among others, are precisely the one's I was referring to that make up maybe 0.01% of the human population. Duh.

There you go again, making up the facts to suit your diatribe. I said nothing about normality per se, but about whether ambiguously-sexed individuals are anamolous, given the accepted definition of the word. They are. Get over it. That is not a statement about the intrinsic worth of persons, but about whether there is statistical norm (there is), and whether ambiguously-sexed individuals differ from the norm (they do).


That's hilarious, coming as it does from an individual who thinks it controversial that there are two human sexes.

There are no platonic types, only individuals. The statement that there are two human sexes and in-betweens does not rely on any kind of philosophical acceptance of platonic types. The fact that I pointed out very explcitly that there are individuals with both male-typical and female-typical characteristics should have made this crystal clear.

Patrick

ps418

Though my estimate that 99.9% of individuals can be unambiguously assigned to one sex or another was a guesstimate, it turns out to be very close (within 0.01%) to the current best estimate.

Sax, How Common is Intersex? A Response to Anne Fausto-Sterling. J Sex Res 2002 May;39(2):174-8.

Patrick

Dr Rick

OT: They also do not develop male-pattern baldness in adulthood; it was the "discovery" of these people that led to our understanding of the role DHT plays in male physiology and to the development of the anti-balding medication, Propecia (finesteride), an inhibitor of Type II 5-alpha- reductase.

Rick

Corona688

While this is sort of true in a strict sense, I'm not sure it's really all that useful... it would be possible to use the same statement to say that species, in fact, don't exist because no two animals of the same species are PRECISELY the same. Yet biologists use the concept of species, genera, etc. because it generally fits and is a VERY useful concept.

The same goes with gender, I posit. Regardless of someone's sexual orientation or personality it's the reproductive apparati that define a person as a man or a woman! I don't really see what's wrong with this. This definition makes NO judgements whatsoever about a person.

In fact, our observations fit reality quite factually. In our species, except in very rare cases, women have 2 X chromosomes and men have 1 X and one Y. We can tell from the fact that someone has 2 X chromosomes that they're female, and vicea versa.

In summary, there are very obvious, observable, physical differences between the two human genders. So if you want to come up with a concept that describes all sorts of biological-psychological factors etc, go ahead, nothing wrong with that. It could be a useful concept. But don't call it gender, that's something else.

Nostalgic Pushhead

Not that I'm agreeing with Abe, but I think you're wrong here. Gender identity defines "man" or "woman" much moreso than reproductive organs and chromosones.

But since 99% of the time gender identity and sex coincide, I mostly agree with you.

Can we call it gender identity?

abe smith

It's pretty obvious to me that because of my (whether built-in or experientially-acquired) longstanding & almost-certainly-ineradicable thinking patterns, I am & am goina be unable to "understand", a fortiori subscribe-to your definitions and whaddye-call um, categories . I am probably the World's Maximum "Splitter", such that *for me* all categories have indeed only *one* member each.
If I say, One More Time, that all categories are manmade: which means *for me* that there are no type forms in the biologies, I wd expect you-all to dump everything you believe, on my head to change my position.... As that/your magnanimous effort is not going to alter my position, I beg you to spare yourselves the effort; and I will take my leave of this discussion and leave yez to it. Servus, Sirs & Mesdames; kuess die Haenden. Abe

P.S. As for the evidence of "research" and the various "studies", I was myself an assistant to a research Director; who (he) strongly pressured me to "cook" my data, in order to substantiate his dearly-ego-supporting premises. I have some firsthand experience of what "research" & its conclusions may be worth; and that is why..... lahdie dahdie dah Goodbye now, and thanks for the run around the track. Abe

Dr. Retard

The way I hear it, people wanted a term for the sociological differences associated with sexual differences. So they took the word "gender" from grammar. Some pedants still insist that "gender" is appropriately used only in reference to grammar.

By this artificial meaning, gender is social, by definition.

But then "gender" came to function as a stand-in for "sex" -- as a more polite word to put on official forms. So then gender is biological, of course.

So to re-ask the interesting question: to what extent, in what ways, and how are the sociological differences associated with sexual differences the inevitable result of these sexual differences?

Goober

HAHAHA, did you see phyrros post?

To paraphrase the whole thing: "There are no differences between men and women. Also, women are clearly superior to men"

That's hilarious.

Pyrrho

I'll give this to you in two steps to make it easier. To say that there are no BIOLOGICALLY BASED differences is not the same as saying that there are no differences (e.g., there may be differences due to differences in upbringing). Furthermore, to say that we don't have sufficient evidence on something is not the same as saying that it must not be true.