[Merged] Strict biological definitions of male/female

[bobdroege7]

It's actually much more general than just mammals. I've been told by two biologists that the gametic definition of sex implies that sex is binary in all species of animals and vascular plants. Ideologues who want to redefine (or just pretend) human sex as non-binary, break the universality of the definition of sex. Humans, according to them, uniquely among all animals and vascular plants on earth, have non-binary sex.

Maybe you should have talked to a botanist.
I am not a botanist, but I have a garden and have raised various plant species.
You have to watch out for those hermaphrodites in certain species where you only want females.

 

[smartcooky]

Since some are sterile, then their role in sexual reproduction is none.

And since the sole purpose of sex is reproduction, and they have no role in that, they are not a sex

glad I could help!

But then I have already pointed this out.

No, what you have done is dodge the difficult questions... the ones you can't answer, because you know any answer you give will undermine your shtick.
‎
‎

 

[Agatha]

Since some are sterile, then their role in sexual reproduction is none.

But then I have already pointed this out.

Infertile males are still male. Infertile females are still female. They aren't intersex or sexless.

 

[bobdroege7]

And since the sole purpose of sex is reproduction, and they have no role in that, they are not a sex

glad I could help!


‎
‎

Sole purpose of sex is reproduction?
Got any proof of that?
Since rape is not sexually motivated, and can result in reproduction, I am afraid you have sawed off the limb you were clinging to.

Sounds like you are getting your info from the sky-daddy book.

Thump Thump

 

[ahhell]

Sole purpose of sex is reproduction?
Got any proof of that?
Since rape is not sexually motivated, and can result in reproduction, I am afraid you have sawed off the limb you were clinging to.

Sounds like you are getting your info from the sky-daddy book.

Thump Thump

I've long wondered about that. The rape is about power not sex or what not. Maybe so but Ghengis Khan is one of the most successful breeders in human history. Rape has also been an accepted part of War for all but about 2 or 3 hundred years of human history. Soldiers used to go out and kill all the men and rape all the women, that really seems like it basically the same as a lion taking over a pride and killing the cubs then breeding with the lionesses if you ask me.

That and power seems to be about sex for that matter. Powerful men sex up all the women they can. Kennedy, Clinton, Trump, and dozens of other politicians.

And yes, the purpose of sex is reproduction, pretty much everything else about sex is to keep that happening and to help ensure the child that results has a good chance of surviving to also have sex. All those endorphins and feel goods, just make sure sex happens more and hopefully bonds the two partners. The only question after that is gay sex, which just a happy accident, sex feels good and for what ever reason gayness isn't so bad that it's bred out. Contraception, well, because our giant brains can sometimes override our base instincts if we give it a chance.

 

[Rolfe]

At an opera singing workshop at the weekend. Group worked on the short chorus from Le Nozze di Figaro, "Giovanni lieti". I remember learning this in school. I was about 14. I had no clue what "that flower of virtue" meant. I worked it out later, but still never really thought through the implications. Singing it so much later, in Italian (the word "intacta" covers the notes used by "virtue" in the English version) with an opera chorus coach really brought it home.

Coach explanation. You are the servants on the estate, and you are Figaro's political pawns. Count Almaviva has renounced the droit de seigneur because he is so much in love with his new wife Rosina, and Figaro's wedding (the correct translation of the title of the opera) is the first one to happen since this renunciation, something Figaro and his betrothed, Susanna, are pretty happy about. But the Count really fancies Susanna and is regretting his decision. Figaro has arranged this musical and floral tribute, in public, praising the Count for his magnanimity, to try to make it harder for him to change his mind.

We were encouraged to make up our own characters. A woman servant the Count had already had his way with. A kitchen maid who fancied the Count and was sorry the custom had been abolished. A manservant whose wife had been raped by the Count on their wedding night. And so on.

This was normal. The alpha male, top of the heap, had the right of primo nocte, to take the virginity of every bride on his estate. To have the privilege of having sex with an untouched woman, something the hoi polloi weren't permitted to have. Possibly to be the father of the first child of each marriage on his estate. And, of course, the right to give every woman on the estate syphillis, if that was the situation. How much was about sex and how much about power? Probably a bit of both.

And this wasn't just a wartime thing, it was supposedly civilised people doing this in peacetime. I don't know when it was actually stopped for real. This was what women in that society had to put up with, whether they liked it or not. I think everyone knew who was a woman and who wasn't.

 

[angrysoba]

And since the sole purpose of sex is reproduction...
‎

I wouldn't go that far!

 

[angrysoba]

Sole purpose of sex is reproduction?
Got any proof of that?
Since rape is not sexually motivated, and can result in reproduction,...

This is also silly. Of course rape is sexually motivated, at least mostly.

 

[jt512]

Maybe you should have talked to a botanist.
I am not a botanist, but I have a garden and have raised various plant species.
You have to watch out for those hermaphrodites in certain species where you only want females.

According to biologists, there are still only two gametic sexes, even in those species where both gametes are produced in the same individual (and, no, that does not occur in humans).

 

[smartcooky]

Sole purpose of sex is reproduction?
Got any proof of that?
Since rape is not sexually motivated, and can result in reproduction, I am afraid you have sawed off the limb you were clinging to.

Sounds like you are getting your info from the sky-daddy book.

Thump Thump

You really are showing your complete ignorance now. Did you really expect to intentionally mischaracterize what I posted and then get away with it without being called out for your stupidity?

You know perfectly well what I meant, as I am sure every other person who read my post knew. Looks like I will have to hold your hand and walk you through it in baby steps.

Sole purpose of there even being sex in mammals (in fact, and ANY species or plant or animal) is reproduction of that species? Did you not receive any sex education in school? Did mommy not talk to you about the birds and the bees?

 

[Joe Random]

... so therefore big, bearded blokes in a dress can be women, I suppose. I find it genuinely astonishing that people who call themselves sceptics, and who probably consider themselves very pro-science, can nevertheless find themselves in a camp that's as anti-science as flat-eartherism. It boggles the mind.

The tide appears to be turning on this, I think, and I hope that in a few years they have enough self-reflection and introspection to explain what happened. It would be instructive as a warning to us all. I'm not hopeful, though. History is not encouraging.

Yeah, I mean that's my assumption these days - it always seems (to me at least) to tie back into letting bio males get into bio female spaces because 'well, you just can't tell'. But I'd genuinely like to hear something different. I think it'd be interesting to hear a passionate argument that sex isn't binary which didn't end up mired in That Other Thread. I personally can't think of one, so it'd be nice if the proponents came out with something sane and logical which followed from their premise.

And this is me not holding my breath.

 

[bobdroege7]

This is also silly. Of course rape is sexually motivated, at least mostly.

I have gone too far in saying rape is not sexually motivated, that is a part but there are more dominant reasons for rape.

"No single facet explains the motivation for rape; the underlying motives of rapists can be multi-faceted. Several factors have been proposed: anger,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#cite_note-59"><span>[</span>59<span>]</span></a> power,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#cite_note-60"><span>[</span>60<span>]</span></a> sadism, sexual gratification, or evolutionary proclivities.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#cite_note-61"><span>[</span>61<span>]</span></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#cite_note-62"><span>[</span>62<span>]</span></a> However, some factors have significant causal evidence supporting them. American clinical psychologist David Lisak, co-author of a 2002 study of undetected rapists,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape#cite_note-63"><span>[</span>63<span>]</span></a> says that compared with non-rapists, both undetected and convicted rapists are measurably more angry at women and more motivated by a desire to dominate and control them, are more impulsive, disinhibited, anti-social, hypermasculine, and less empathic."

from wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

 

[bobdroege7]

You really are showing your complete ignorance now. Did you really expect to intentionally mischaracterize what I posted and then get away with it without being called out for your stupidity?

You know perfectly well what I meant, as I am sure every other person who read my post knew. Looks like I will have to hold your hand and walk you through it in baby steps.

Sole purpose of there even being sex in mammals (in fact, and ANY species or plant or animal) is reproduction of that species? Did you not receive any sex education in school? Did mommy not talk to you about the birds and the bees?

Here, let me google that for you

what is the sole purpose of sex - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Yes, I had sex education is school, in ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sixth grade. And in boot camp. That's where I learned the American definition of rape, which at the time was different from the British one: Any penetration however slight is sufficient to commit the offense.

Yeah, the birds and the bees, you know there are three sexes in honey bees?

I did not mischaracterize what you posted, it is there for all to see.

 

[smartcooky]

Here, let me google that for you

what is the sole purpose of sex - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Horsecock!

A link to psychology articles to answer questions about a biological function. ? Really? Have you been talking to Steersman ?

You are confusing cause and effect. All the emotional, psychological and other ways that sex might benefit individual humans ARE NOT THE REASONS for it's existence, they are a CONSEQUENCE of its existence. Sexual reproduction is a result of evolution, it is life's way reproducing of species. That is its sole, biological purpose. If your claimed third sex has no reproductive role (as you have stated) then is not a sex. Your claim fails! The End!

Yes, I had sex education is school, in ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ sixth grade. And in boot camp. That's where I learned the American definition of rape, which at the time was different from the British one: Any penetration however slight is sufficient to commit the offense.

Good for you. Obviously, It didn't stick though!

Yeah, the birds and the bees, you know there are three sexes in honey bees?

1. Completely false. Worker bees and the queen are BOTH female - only the queen plays eggs. The drones are the male bees. Their only job is to mate with the queen, and the queen's job is to lay eggs. , Workers are generally infertile, however, they can lay viable eggs in rare circumstances, (such as when the queen dies) but those can only ever develop into drones. So, while honey bees have three different types of sexed individuals, they still only have two sexes, male, and female. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying, or has no odea what they are talking about

2. We aren't talking about the biology of bees or other insects... we are talking about humans.

3. You picked the wrong lie to tell me. One of my daughters is a beekeeper!

I did not mischaracterize what you posted, it is there for all to see.

Yes, you absolutely did. THAT is plain for all to see!

 

[bobdroege7]

Horsecock!

A link to psychology articles to answer questions about a biological function. ? Really? Have you been talking to Steersman ?

You are confusing cause and effect. All the emotional, psychological and other ways that sex might benefit individual humans ARE NOT THE REASONS for it's existence, they are a CONSEQUENCE of its existence. Sexual reproduction is a result of evolution, it is life's way reproducing of species. That is its sole, biological purpose. If your claimed third sex has no reproductive role (as you have stated) then is not a sex. Your claim fails! The End!

Good for you. Obviously, It didn't stick though!



1. Completely false. Worker bees and the queen are BOTH female - only the queen plays eggs.

2. We aren't talking about the biology of bees or other insects... we are talking about humans.

3. You picked the wrong lie to tell me. One of my daughters is a beekeeper!



Yes, you absolutely did. THAT is plain for all to see!

Better talk to your daughter again, the workers can lay eggs, which don't need to be fertilized and develop into drones.

Laying worker bee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not calling you out for lying, because you are obviously mistaken and believe what you post.

You brought up the birds and the bees.

 

[smartcooky]

Better talk to your daughter again, the workers can lay eggs, which don't need to be fertilized and develop into drones.

Laying worker bee - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not calling you out for lying, because you are obviously mistaken and believe what you post.

You brought up the birds and the bees.

1. Where did I say that the eggs needed to be fertilized? In fact I said.... "Workers are generally infertile, however, they can lay viable eggs in rare circumstances, (such as when the queen dies) but those can only ever develop into drones."

2. Dodging again I see. The fact is that there are NOT three sexes in bees, there are only two. They are male (drones) and female (workers and the queen) . The fact that they have two versions of female individuals does NOT equate to them having a third sex.

 

[Agatha]

For example? What definition of intersex are you using that someone can be classified as intersex without having a DSD?

It would be appreciated if you followed up on this question.


You talked about infertile people (eg in the quote below) as if you contend that people who do not produce gametes are neither male or female; this is not the case. Infertile people are still male or female.

Yes, some males and some females do not fully develop as males or females.

What do you want to call those males and females that do not produce gametes.

To use a well-worn analogy, humans as a species are bipedal, yet someone born with only one foot is still human.

Most males and females produce gametes on sexual maturity, yet those who don't (for whatever reason) are still either male or female. They are not some kind of third sex. Sex is a binary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe you should have talked to a botanist.
I am not a botanist, but I have a garden and have raised various plant species.
You have to watch out for those hermaphrodites in certain species where you only want females.

Hermaphroditic species are still binarily sexed. Being able to produce both gamete types either sequentially or simultaneously doesn't result in sex being a spectrum, nor in there being more than two sexes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sole purpose of sex is reproduction?
Got any proof of that?
Since rape is not sexually motivated, and can result in reproduction, I am afraid you have sawed off the limb you were clinging to.

Sounds like you are getting your info from the sky-daddy book.

Thump Thump

You're mixing definitions, specifically you're mixing the meaning that applies to classification within an anisogamous species with the meaning that applies to the act of intercourse.

Sex - by which I mean the classification of male and female - evolved as a mechanism to pass on genetic material. The purpose of having separate gamete types is explicitly reproduction, and by extension the entire reason that we evolved distinct anatomies to support those gametes is explicitly reproduction.

Sex - by which I mean the act of intercourse - evolved to facilitate the exchange of genetic material. We evolved the urge to engage in sexual congress so that we can pass on our genes by exchanging gametes.

That we gain pleasure from it is a side effect. That some people gain pleasure from hurting other people while doing it is also a side effect. And in some species (mallard ducks the horrible little creatures they are), rape is the primary means by which reproduction occurs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, the birds and the bees, you know there are three sexes in honey bees?

No there aren't. There are two sexes - male and female. It just happens that most of the females are sterile workers, and only the queen is fertile. Drones are male, and are (except for mutation or injury) fertile.

Same is true for ants, termites, etc. Most colonial insects. Functionally true for several mammals as well, where only the primary female breeds, and all subordinate females are prohibited from reproducing. Meerkats, for example, where only the dominant pair are allowed to make babies. If any subordinate female meerkat gets pregnant, they'll usually be killed, sometimes evicted from the tribe and left to die alone.

 

[ahhell]

You really are showing your complete ignorance now. Did you really expect to intentionally mischaracterize what I posted and then get away with it without being called out for your stupidity?

You know perfectly well what I meant, as I am sure every other person who read my post knew. Looks like I will have to hold your hand and walk you through it in baby steps.

Sole purpose of there even being sex in mammals (in fact, and ANY species or plant or animal) is reproduction of that species? Did you not receive any sex education in school? Did mommy not talk to you about the birds and the bees?

This I think strawmanning, not you Smartcooky but the other fella. There is a thing with online discourse were someone reads a thing in a way that does not make sense and its very hard to tell if its deliberate or just that someone is just incapable of understanding the opposition. Not sure how to address that, I'm sure i've done it but I'm also sure i've posted hypotheticals meant to clarify my oppositions opions in my own mind and been accused of strawmanning. In real life its easy to clarify this sort of thing but on the internet, seems not.

 

[Paul2]

No there aren't. There are two sexes - male and female. It just happens that most of the females are sterile workers, and only the queen is fertile. Drones are male, and are (except for mutation or injury) fertile.

Same is true for ants, termites, etc. Most colonial insects. Functionally true for several mammals as well, where only the primary female breeds, and all subordinate females are prohibited from reproducing. Meerkats, for example, where only the dominant pair are allowed to make babies. If any subordinate female meerkat gets pregnant, they'll usually be killed, sometimes evicted from the tribe and left to die alone.

You're reply here made me think of a point that I haven't seen before: if there were three sexes, then you'd be seeing some species being able to procreate by combining genetic material from *3* different sources. But that is never seen (I am not a biologist). *That's* what would be required to have 3 sexes.

ETA: Maybe not: is it possible to procreate by combining sperm from 2 different fathers into one offspring?

ETAA: Yes, by chimerism or - my new band name - Heteropaternal Superfecundation.

Still not three sexes, though. ETAAA: especially in humans.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're reply here made me think of a point that I haven't seen before: if there were three sexes, then you'd be seeing some species being able to procreate by combining genetic material from *3* different sources.

Not necessarily... My understanding on this is shaky, so I recommend double checking me. Algae have like 6 sexes, that is 6 different genetic packaging types. But reproduction still happens in pairs, it's just that the pairings have different combinations for mixing genetic materials. I'm going to have to go look it up, I can't remember if each type can combine with each of the others, or if there are only certain combos that work.

The point is that having more than 2 sexes doesn't necessarily mean that all of them would be required for reproduction. That would actually be a very unstable evolutionary strategy, as you'd have to be able to locate one of every other type of sex in order to procreate, and the more there are the lower the likelihood of successfully finding all of the mates you need.

 

[sphenisc]

Not necessarily... My understanding on this is shaky, so I recommend double checking me. Algae have like 6 sexes, that is 6 different genetic packaging types. But reproduction still happens in pairs, it's just that the pairings have different combinations for mixing genetic materials. I'm going to have to go look it up, I can't remember if each type can combine with each of the others, or if there are only certain combos that work.

The point is that having more than 2 sexes doesn't necessarily mean that all of them would be required for reproduction. That would actually be a very unstable evolutionary strategy, as you'd have to be able to locate one of every other type of sex in order to procreate, and the more there are the lower the likelihood of successfully finding all of the mates you need.

Explanation of mating types:

Mating type - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Louden Wilde]

You're reply here made me think of a point that I haven't seen before: if there were three sexes, then you'd be seeing some species being able to procreate by combining genetic material from *3* different sources. But that is never seen (I am not a biologist). *That's* what would be required to have 3 sexes.

ETA: Maybe not: is it possible to procreate by combining sperm from 2 different fathers into one offspring?

ETAA: Yes, by chimerism or - my new band name - Heteropaternal Superfecundation.

Still not three sexes, though. ETAAA: especially in humans.

Yes still 2 sexes - a third sex would be a distinct gamete type that would combine with one of the other gametes (3 copies of most large chromosomal regions are not tolerated in mammals or are at best deleterious - think Downs Syndrome). Incidentally, when 2 sperm fertilize an oocyte, you typically get a hydatidiform mole - an overgrowth of extra-embryonic tissues with little or no growth of the fetus proper.

 

[smartcooky]

Not necessarily... My understanding on this is shaky, so I recommend double checking me. Algae have like 6 sexes, that is 6 different genetic packaging types. But reproduction still happens in pairs, it's just that the pairings have different combinations for mixing genetic materials. I'm going to have to go look it up, I can't remember if each type can combine with each of the others, or if there are only certain combos that work.

Of course as you know, that still doesn't satisfy the the requirement for there to be a third, different and independent sex before the burden is met for the claim that sex is a spectrum. There have been several claims here that individuals with certain chromosomal defects are that third sex, but the science does not bear those claims out.

For a claimed third sex to be a valid, biological sex, it MUST meet four conditions..

1. It has a reproductive role, and
2. That role is different from either of the other sexes, and
3. It contributes genetic material, and
4. Such contributed material is unique to itself.

We can apply all four of these conditions to both "male" and "female" phenotypes. A proposed third sex must also meet these conditions.

Every single one of these claims fails at one or more steps. With very few exceptions, every one of those individuals with DSD (or Intersex as some people incorrectly call them) can only contribute the same material that the male or female sexes contribute... which means they are either males or females, therefore, not a third sex.

The exceptions are infertile, and cannot contribute genetic material at all, which means they too are not a third sex.

Given the antagonistic way in which sex determination is made in mammalian development, where presence or absence of testosterone is the critical differentiating factor, where a female phenotype occurs by default in the absence of masculinizing hormones, I cannot see any possible mechanism for a third sex to even exist from a science standpoint.

 

[bobdroege7]

Sex is bi-modal, not binary.

There does not have to be a third sex for it to be non binary and on a spectrum.

 

[Paul2]

Sex is bi-modal, not binary.

There does not have to be a third sex for it to be non binary and on a spectrum.

In biology, sex is a strategy by which offspring are produced. Offspring are produced by fusion of two, and only ever two, different types of gametes (at least in mammals). To that extent, sex is binary.

Perhaps you're looking at the determination of sex, as opposed to its definition?

 

[bobdroege7]

In biology, sex is a strategy by which offspring are produced. Offspring are produced by fusion of two, and only ever two, different types of gametes (at least in mammals). To that extent, sex is binary.

Perhaps you're looking at the determination of sex, as opposed to its definition?

Maybe so, but for this

Semi-Identical Twins Resulted From Two Sperm Fertilizing One Egg

It was quite a party with six sets of chromosomes when the usual post-fertilization expectation is two.

www.forbes.com

Yeah, I am not looking for a definition of sex, the Oxford dictionary is nice, but quite heavy, and better used for a doorstop outside the Biology lab.

 

[smartcooky]

Maybe so, but for this

Semi-Identical Twins Resulted From Two Sperm Fertilizing One Egg

It was quite a party with six sets of chromosomes when the usual post-fertilization expectation is two.

www.forbes.com

Yeah, I am not looking for a definition of sex, the Oxford dictionary is nice, but quite heavy, and better used for a doorstop outside the Biology lab.

Yeah, nah... still only two sexes involved, Male and Female. No third sex involved here.

There are only two sexes, therefore sex is binary. There is no reasonable refutation of that fact

I repeat, for a claimed third sex to be a valid, biological sex, it MUST meet four conditions..

1. It has a reproductive role, and
2. That role is different from either of the other sexes, and
3. It contributes genetic material, and
4. Such contributed material is unique to itself*.

You have ZERO evidence for the existence of a third sex, which there MUST be for sex to be anything other than binary.

* and just to clarify (i.e. head-off the obvious misrepresentation at the pass) by "unique to itself", I DO NOT mean unique to an individual, I mean unique to the SEX of an individual.

When you are able to show me an individual whose sex is such that it is capable of producing gametes that are neither ova nor sperm, and which perform some reproductive function in the creation of a zygote, only then will you have evidence for a third sex, and only then will you be able to truthfully claim that sex is on a spectrum. Until you do... you've got nothing.

 

[angrysoba]

New Studies Show episode out on Sex and Sports, and no this is not about the Olympic Village, but about the question of segregating sports according to biological sex.

Given that it's something a bit controversial/spicy, they have paywalled it. They often say these are topics they are too scared to release publicly but the real reason is that they presumably want to get more subscriptions.

Anyway, if anyone wants to give it a go or try the free trial, or just listen to the first free ten minutes, here it is....

Paid-only Episode 15: Sex and sport

The battle of the sexes. Or is it "genders"?

substack.com

 

[bobdroege7]

Yeah, nah... still only two sexes involved, Male and Female. No third sex involved here.

There are only two sexes, therefore sex is binary. There is no reasonable refutation of that fact

I repeat, for a claimed third sex to be a valid, biological sex, it MUST meet four conditions..

1. It has a reproductive role, and
2. That role is different from either of the other sexes, and
3. It contributes genetic material, and
4. Such contributed material is unique to itself*.

You have ZERO evidence for the existence of a third sex, which there MUST be for sex to be anything other than binary.

* and just to clarify (i.e. head-off the obvious misrepresentation at the pass) by "unique to itself", I DO NOT mean unique to an individual, I mean unique to the SEX of an individual.

When you are able to show me an individual whose sex is such that it is capable of producing gametes that are neither ova nor sperm, and which perform some reproductive function in the creation of a zygote, only then will you have evidence for a third sex, and only then will you be able to truthfully claim that sex is on a spectrum. Until you do... you've got nothing.

Third sex not required for sex to be non binary, sorry did you miss me saying that.

Sex is determined by a number of genes, a couple chromosomes, and the input of several hormones, with all those factors involved, it exists on a spectrum, not binary.

You can pound square pegs in round holes and round pegs in square holes all you want as well as use a number of fallacies in your arguments, but you still fail to show that sex is binary.

 

[ahhell]

Third sex not required for sex to be non binary, sorry did you miss me saying that.

Sex is determined by a number of genes, a couple chromosomes, and the input of several hormones, with all those factors involved, it exists on a spectrum, not binary.

You can pound square pegs in round holes and round pegs in square holes all you want as well as use a number of fallacies in your arguments, but you still fail to show that sex is binary.

Seriously, a number of genes? In humans is that number....one gene? I guess two if you really squint?

 

[Paul2]

Maybe so, but for this

Semi-Identical Twins Resulted From Two Sperm Fertilizing One Egg

It was quite a party with six sets of chromosomes when the usual post-fertilization expectation is two.

www.forbes.com

Still only two different types of gametes: sperm and egg.

Yeah, I am not looking for a definition of sex, the Oxford dictionary is nice, but quite heavy, and better used for a doorstop outside the Biology lab.

But if you say that sex isn't binary, you're talking about the definition of sex, via its characteristics (binary or not).

 

[Paul2]

Sex is determined by a number of genes, a couple chromosomes, and the input of several hormones, with all those factors involved, it exists on a spectrum, not binary.

It's not that sex is binary, but individuals' mix of sex characteristics exist on a spectrum.

 

[smartcooky]

It's not that sex is binary, but individuals' mix of sex characteristics exist on a spectrum.

This is the mistake he keeps making. He confuses bimodality with spectra.

Sure, you can have a bimodal spectrum, for example, you can show that the characteristics of a range of individual humans of both sexes exist on a spectrum... height, weight, physical strength, bone density, lung capacity etc, and when you plot that on an axis you find you have a single distribution with two peaks displayed side-by-side, with two distinct bell curve shapes. But NONE of that puts sex itself on a spectrum. Those bell curve peaks are centred around the two, and only two possible sexes of the individual humans in that range. There are only two sexes, male and female. There is NO third sex - bobdroege7 can flail and pontificate all he likes, he cannot point to ANY individual human that is a sex other than male or female.

 

[smartcooky]

Third sex not required for sex to be non binary, sorry did you miss me saying that.

You can say it ll you like, you will still be wrong every time you say it.

Sex is determined by a number of genes, a couple chromosomes, and the input of several hormones, with all those factors involved, it exists on a spectrum, not binary.

Horsecock

You can pound square pegs in round holes and round pegs in square holes all you want as well as use a number of fallacies facts in your arguments, but you still fail to show that sex is binary.

FTFY.

If sex is not binary, please provide an example of ANY individual human that is of a sex other than male or female, and describe how that person's sex contributes to sexual reproduction.



‎

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sex is bi-modal, not binary.

There does not have to be a third sex for it to be non binary and on a spectrum.

This is incorrect.

For an item to have a bimodal distribution, it at must be an ordinal variable. Ordinal means that it is REQUIRED to have an intrinsic ordering characteristic. Thus, you have to be able to say A1 > A2 > A3 > A4... So... what's the intrinsic order of sex? Is male > female, or vice versa?

To have a spectrum, the variable is required to not only be ordinal, but continuously measurable. It must be able to be infinitesimally subdivided. You might be able to get away with using figurative meanings of "spectrum", but then you're still going to have to demonstrate that there are many more than two sexes, and that it's possible to have "supra-male" instances, mixed-sex instances, and "supra-female" instances.

And none of that is true in anisogamous species. There are only two sexes. There is nothing in between, there is no spectrum, and it's not bimodal.
Whoever convinced you that sex is bimodally distributed has lied to you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Third sex not required for sex to be non binary, sorry did you miss me saying that.

You said it, but you were wrong.

Sex is determined by a number of genes, a couple chromosomes, and the input of several hormones, with all those factors involved, it exists on a spectrum, not binary.

Actually, no. Sex is determined by the SRY gene located on the Y chromosome. But that's sex determination, not sex definition.

For consideration... sex in alligators is determined by the temperature of the nest. If the temperature is below a certain level, all of the hatchlings will be female. If it's above a certain level, all of the hatchlings will be male. If the temperature is in between, some of the hatchlings will be male, and some will be female. Temperature determines what sex the offspring will be... but there are still only two sexes: male or female.

In a normally developing fetus, the SRY gene instigates development of a male. Things can go wonky with that determination process, for example, the zygote might have the SRY gene translocated during division, so it ends up on the X chromosome instead. Similarly, the receptor for the SRY might be faulty, and might not receive the orders. Then you get things like CAIS where the fetus is chromosomally XY, but is female.

In humans, as in all other mammals and birds, sex is defined based on the phenotype of the reproductive system. There are two reproductive systems - one that evolved to support the production of large slow-moving gametes packed full of nutrients, and another that evolved to support the production of small fast-moving gametes that have barely enough energy to make it to the big one. And because sex is defined based on the system, it doesn't require actual production or even presence of gametes. Nor does it require that all elements of that system be present. At the end of the day, however, there are two systems that have evolved in our species.

For sex to be a spectrum, there would need to be a multitude of functional systems that have evolved to support the production of a multitude of different gamete types. And there aren't - there are two gametes, and two reproductive systems.

You can pound square pegs in round holes and round pegs in square holes all you want as well as use a number of fallacies in your arguments, but you still fail to show that sex is binary.

You've shown nothing other than a willingness to parrot a nice-sounding lie that you've been told.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not that sex is binary, but individuals' mix of sex characteristics exist on a spectrum.

Yep. A male with a long penis is not "more male" than a male with a micropenis. A female with large breasts is not "more female" than a female with very small breasts. A male with a high sperm count and fantastic motility isn't "more male" than a male who is sterile. A female with a whole bunch of eggs isn't "more female" than a female who is infertile.

Guess what females don't have? Sperm counts. Guess what males don't have? Egg counts.