Given that Queer stuff [LGBT+ is too long and clunky, so i'm sticking with Queer or Q] is peripherally related to religious matter and atheism in general, i'm looking to debate this point.
I beleive i can show that the 'there are only two sexes/genders' model is wrong.
And I can show that it is a spectrum, but i'm looking for someone to debate the other side of it.
Each of us will have to put forth a model, explain it, and defend it. With citations whenever possible.
Any takers?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I might be interested. But I'm not sure I understand what your position is, and what the opposit of it would be.
@ Breezy
Damn, I just agreed with you...
Old man shouts ...Damn, I just agreed with you...
It'll help if you rationalise it, "even a broken clock is right twice a day" sort of thing. That way it's his fault for getting something right for once, and you feel less dirty. Also note the admission he was right here is tentative, and in no way validates any hokum supernatural claims.
Well, I think a late brunch is called for. TTFN
What I learned in my anthropology class (don't judge me I had no choice but to take that class) is that gender is a social construct, sex is biological. So you can claim whatever GENDER you want to be and its technically correct (even a helicopter if you so choose), but there are only 2 SEXES. If you dont agree with this let me know why :)
Also the font of your name is pretty rad
@Stu K. Also the font of your name is pretty rad
The second letter, used to represent "Z" is a Chinese/Japanese character meaning "second" (yi in Chinese, otsu in Japanese). I wonder if that's significant.
Yo thats neat. You once said something about you living in Japan right?
Yeah; might want to rephrase your position; as it seems self contradictory as it is now written.
So, you're all right. I made a typo/mistake, which i have cleared up.
Basically, gender is a spectrum, and to a lesser extent, so is biological sex.
And these are positions i can defend.
I am forever running into people online who throw out the line 'There only too genderz dumbo!' And as soon as they are challenged, they fall apart.
So i was wondering if anyone one here wanted to go over it in detail?
Given that this si a forum, and not a chat channel or YT comments :P
Alright, well if I understood you correctly, them I'm down to defend the position that neither gender nor biological sex are a spectrum.
And for people asking about fancy text, it's my YT handle.
Azirahael. But seeing as no one can get THAT right, i figured there's no reason not to get fancy.
In case you're curious, it's pronounced Az-ear-a-hail.
And here's the text thingy: https://coolsymbol.com/cool-fancy-text-generator.html
I'm interested in your position that biological sex is on a spectrum, too, and would like to hear more. I'm guessing you mean the fact of transgenderism.
As for gender being on a spectrum, I dismissed the idea of male/female brains being vastly different long ago. I've never seen a set of pink and/or blue brain scan images. The small differences that do show up can largely be put down to how society raises the two genders differently, right from the word go. I overheard a conversation between my daughter-in-law and her pregnant sister about a baby onesie the sister had bought for the baby. It had "Soft Wookie, warm Wookie, little ball of fur..." on it. Both young ladies decided that made it masculine, and if the baby was a girl pink leggings and a pink ribbon would be needed to stop any confusion. Quite frankly, the conversation horrified me. So much so, I talked to my son about it.
Not complex. Similar to the gender spectrum.
Try to define male and female.
And i can find you a person missing that specific characteristic.
And that's just humans.
In fish, XX is male and XY is female.
but sticking with humans, there are humans who are fully female in characteristics, that have XY chromosomes.
I have XXY.
And there's XYY, XXX, XO to name a few more.
There are fully genetically male people born with no penis. some with no testicles.
There are males who don't produce testosterone, and thus lack masculine features like muscles and hair.
what sex are these people?
Not asking about gender expression, but biological sex.
That's why sex is on a spectrum.
Sure 99% of them are at one end or the other, but there's millions in the middle, and they still exist, even if out numbered.
Gender is the same, plus self identification, and expression.
hope that clears it up.
If i missed something, ot you think i got it wrong, let me know.
I would like to offer up a scenario to gauge your opinion... hypothetically, we have a colony on mars that is home to 1,000 labelled 'women' by a top doctor and biologist with decades of experience and peer review work to back him...
How long will the species continue for if left to their natural means?
I lean towards gender is a spectrum, and so is sex. So not really the debater you are looking for, looks like breezy will debate you from the other side however.
To me the argument gets real interesting when we throw in possible future technology. Like right now you may get away with saying something like: A human that carries ovum, (gamete,) and has a uterus that can carry a zygote to maturity and eventual birth of child could categorically be described as female sex over male. If a human can not do this, this in my mind, does not mean they are not also female, (for instance women that have reached menopause,) but the narrow definition above does well describes a very solid case of: female.
Anyways, at the rate of medical advancement it could soon be possible to change part of all of the above scenario to where even this definition of "definitely a female" may change. I do predict at current rates of tech advancement sometime in the next 100 years the idea and term of male/female will mostly fade to obscurity, at least for those that have access to the tech.
Hey there, Azirhael. Welcome to the AR. I'm a little jealous of your wicked font design, just so you know. *chuckle* Pretty damn cool.
Anyway, while I am not exactly studied enough on the subject to debate it, I figured I could at least toss my personal view into the ring as a potential source for discussion. Interesting topic, and I am curious to follow what others may have to say.
While on the surface it is basic instinct to simply say there is only male and female sexes, one has to consider that there are many asexual creatures in nature. Therefore, in my own layman's opinion, it stands to reason there could be some gray areas with humans. And, like you said, there are people who are born with traits (physical and genetic) of both male and female in varying degrees. So, I suppose that would tend to beg the question of what "sex/gender" would those individuals be classified? Along those same lines, one also has to consider how that individual prefers to be addressed (as male or female).
On a slight tangent, thankfully the gay/lesbian/trans community is gradually becoming more and more socially accepted. Whenever I see a gay or lesbian couple in public not afraid to openly display they are a couple, it actually gives me some small hope for society as a whole. Maybe we are finally going in the right direction and pulling away from the Dark Ages.
Anyway, fascinating subject. Looking forward to seeing the different views/opinions.
Note: The following is intended for the OP alone.
What is a spectrum?
Merriam-Webster (2018) defines a spectrum as a "continuous sequence or range." The key characteristic of a spectrum, is not only that it moves equally along two opposite ends, but that the categories along that continuum are artificial. Color is a spectrum; and different cultures divide colors along different boundaries.
What is sex?
In the animal kingdom, it is the case that biological sex is more diverse. Certain species can reproduce without sex, other species are both male and female simultaneously, and still others can cross over from male to female (Urry, et al., 2016). Diverse as nature may be on the whole, every species has a category in which they exist. For us humans, our category is divided among two sexes: male and female.
Rather than a spectrum between these two categories, what one finds is a mixture of the genetic information of male and female, summing up to produce an intersex individual. They are the product of both sexes combining in different ways, rather than existing between the two sexes: "An intersexed person is 'one in whom sexually dimorphic characters are mixed so that he or she carries both male and female biologic features not usually occurring in the same individual'” (Rosenthal, 2012) ."
What is gender?
Gender is the behavioral aspect of our biological sex. It is not something separate from biological sex, nor is it the same. Gender is simply the product of our biological sex. Given that the amount of behavior's that a person can elicit are near infinite, it is also incorrect to view gender as a spectrum between two polar opposites. Gender is something we do, not something we have. Gender is "a way of acting the body" (Chrisler, et al., 2012).
The terms Masculine and Feminine describes the way society categorizes behavior, in light of our biological sex. Whatever males do, becomes seen as masculine behavior, and whatever females do, becomes feminine behavior. A biological male can behave in ways which society considers feminine, but his gender has not changed in respect to himself; what has changed is whether society sees him as behaving like a stereotypical male, to a stereotypical female.
So, my position, is that gender should not be viewed as a spectrum, nor a two-category system. Instead, gender should be viewed as the behavior produced by a person's biological sex.
An underhanded way to "win" a debate is define your opponents position out of existence.
You have defined the word spectrum so narrowly that I can't think of anything off hand that meets your requirements.
The apparent contradiction between the two bold parts is the key.
I'm using the visible spectrum as the standard model for defining a spectrum. Adjust any misunderstanding you may have had, to that. The opposing party is free to agree or disagree with that definition.
I'm used to responding to multiple users, disagreeing with me on multiple fronts. Your interruption here, however, seems antithetical to a debate between two people.
I have to admit I would fall within the 'against' side of the argument, in relation to this particular argument.
However, I have followed the debate with interest, but it does appear to be very similar to a theological position
defending intelligent design.
Arguments can be made, but the science refutes it all.
I always find this topic interesting, firstly I'm all for people living how they won't to live, and no one should judge... but I acknowledge that is quite the utopian view/dream.
I'd reply to the OPs follow up post, does someone missing a part of themselves that defines them as a women, make them less of a women? Would a women that has had a mastectomy or removal of uterus, make them less of a women?
Does a mean that 'fires blanks', make him less of a man?
Does say having an XXY set of chromosomes which is between a 1:500 to 1:1000 shot, mean you are not either? Or subject to an evolutionary mutation?!
Again I offer the above scenario? You have a colony on another planet where life is led naturally, if all the occupants were male or entirely female, how long would the species survive?
@Randomhero1982
I assume your scenario question is directed at original post, but incase it is an open ended question:
Assuming there was facilities that allowed human life to survive and multiply at all even if there was males or male sperm on ice around.
Subtracting out the "men," and there was no technology available to recreate some sort of artificial sperm that can complete the process of fertilizing an egg. Then yeah, the species will die off as soon as the last "female" dies. Especially if the selection of females used is "has eggs, but no sperm." And are tested for that.
@LogicForTW
Yes of coursw it is open for all, and thank you for commenting.
I think on sociological level, you could argue there is a spectrum and we should all be encourage to understand and be compassionate...
However at the biological level we are evolved from a primate that requires male/female mating in order for us to be here today.
Either way, we cannot survive as a species without biological females and/or males.
That is self evident.
Gender is a cognitive function separate from a biological function. Gender is anything and everything you want to make it. All that limits gender identity is imagination, social norms and the law. I don't know that it makes any sense to say Gender is on a spectrum, unless of course that spectrum is infinite.
You can not possibly demonstrate there are only two sexes - which has nothing at all to do with "gender." There are males, females, hermaphrodites, .... (Try This)
https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/
The six biological karyotype sexes that do not result in death to the fetus are:
X – Roughly 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 5,000 people (Turner’s )
XX – Most common form of female
XXY – Roughly 1 in 500 to 1 in 1,000 people (Klinefelter)
XY – Most common form of male
XYY – Roughly 1 out of 1,000 people
XXXY – Roughly 1 in 18,000 to 1 in 50,000 births
I would concede that there are indeed six biological karyotypes as you described, this is well known!
But let us not brush past the fact that actual experts consider the likes of XXY or Klinefelter syndrome is chromosomal disorders, similar to 46 or XXXY... they are considered to be mutations from XX and XY.
Again let me stress I have absolutely no issue with anyone want to claim any gender identity they wish, and I would support it and sympathise with this... however, biology, science and the experts that we rely on via peer review state there is two biological sexes.
However mutations may take place, furthermore we should be careful not to make the assertion that someone with a different set of chromosomes that have endured a mutation are any less of a man or woman.
But the sticky part is that basically everything is a mutation, so selectivity ignoring some mutations doesn't seem like a good idea to me.
It's a fair point you raise (by the way it wasn't me who disagreed with your comment)... but in this debate it relies heavily on the assertion that people with different chromosomes are any less a man or woman... that is pretty harsh I feel!
We have a biological norm that is crucial to the evolution of mammalian species, rather then being divisive and separating those who have a chromosome, hormonal or genetic abnormality, we should being more inclusive I feel.
But thanks everyone btw, this is the first time I've managed to discuss this online in a rational and sensible way... most people go nuts after 10 minutes.
I think a point can be made, that you cannot simply say: A female is xx, and a male is xy. When there are exceptions to that rule.
But you could say: science agrees, if you have xx pair you are considered to be a female in gender, and if you have xy pair you are considered a male for most purely science purposes.
I like how: purely science speaking, females are far more valuable and more important to the continuation of the human race then males. Yet we live in a mostly male dominated society. If all men disappeared tomorrow, the human race would live on, (provided that at least a few males could still be born further into the future. But if all females disappeared tomorrow, the human race would die out as the males died of old age.
Your assertion was that "Gender Model is wrong." An that there are "Only Two Sexes"
You asserted that the gender model is a spectrum. Agreed. A huge spectrum that is based on absolutely any Gender you can imagine. It is a cognitive function and can be placed on any sort of spectrum you like.
As far as the main 6 types of sexual identifications go.... "They are all male or female - except for the mutants." Hello?? Are you listening to what you are saying? Furthermore, there are even more sexual characteristics that occur but are generally fatal to the embryo. (According to the article referenced.)
Not even 20 years ago, doctors were still chopping and cutting up these mutants and ascribing sexual identities to them, Male or Female as only two were recognized. We are not doing that any longer here in the west. Perhaps the practice is still carried out where ever you are?
Evolution is a strange bedfellow and mutations are more common than most people imagine.
I think the model I presented is still the best way to approach the question. Sex in my model is defined as having a specific function in reproduction, which applies to our species and may not apply to other species. Male and female both play unique roles in reproduction. That those functions can break down and mix up within our species, does affect the number of sexes within our species.
Pages