They myth of only two sexes

[Larv]

Why should sex be an either/or situation? With a surgical snip here and an attitude adjustment there you could be breaking down the myth of just two sexes.

“It’s a little bit different in every person and in between what we think of as the all-male male and the all-female female, there is a whole spectrum of people with varying amounts of male-ness and female-ness mixed together.”

 

Callahan acknowledges that society is still a long way from accepting intersex people, but says the intolerance is largely due to a lack of information.

 

“I think we need to change the way we teach biology to kids,” he said.

Should we change the way we teach biology in schools? Should we teach our kids about the wonderful spectrum of rainbow sexes that could be available to them if they just became more open minded?

 

Hey, kids, don't be either/or nitwits. Expand your horizons to include a multitude of sexes. It's the new way to discover who you really are.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

ovaries and a uterus = female

 

testes and no uterus = male

 

Even with hermaphrodites it shouldn't be too hard to figure out their sex (short of them having everything needed to create offspring, carry to full term, and birth them)

 

It would be soooo nice if people would stop confusing peoples lifestyle choices with biology. (IMHO)

 

Homosexuality and "gender confusion" are best explored as a psychological rather than biological issue (also IMHO) (please note I have no problem with persons living these lifestyles...I do however have a problem with it being catagorized anything besides a conscious decision...of course engaging in any type of sex at all is a choice and anyone believing otherwise is a fool)

 

A boy that wants to be a girl or a girl that wants to be a boy is not another sex nor is a girl that simply prefers intercourse (if you can call it that) with girls (or boy with boys....you get the idea).

 

So no we should not teach alternative lifestyles as different genders. (all apologies for the roundabout path to get to the point)

[Miranda]

So no we should not teach alternative lifestyles as different genders. (all apologies for the roundabout path to get to the point)

I agree all the way up to your last sentence, which just needs a little re-phrasing. Gender roles are socially constructed. Thus, an 'alternative lifestyle' actually is an adherence to a gender role, but it's true that it doesn't make it any more biologically valid. Ones 'sex' is based on the biological, physical characteristics. So, we could teach about how there is a spectrum of sexes, and a spectrum of gender roles that we like to believe are based in biology, but that in reality those gender roles are inherently arbitrary constructs that have little to do with your sex.

[UncleAl]

Heteronormatism problematizes homosocial othering.

 

There are only two sexes, oral and anal. Anything else is perversity and must be banned with mandatory heinous penalities for accusation. There is no law absent enforcement. God punishes sinners and does not abide sycophants. Test of faith!

[pamela]

how many homosexuality is natural threads later and now this......

pardon me while i go drown myself in tequila.:evil:

[Miranda]

UncleAl, you're joking, right?

[freeztar]

You crack me up, Al.

 

I agree that it's important to draw a line between biology and psychology. Sex, in biology, is not a spectrum. It's male or female (excluding hermaphrodites of course). In psychology, sexual preference is a spectrum.

 

So, for psychology, I'd argue that it is appropriate for society to recognize the spectrum of sexual preference and teach tolerance.

 

As far as keeping biology and psych in separate domains though, there is some cross over and that too should be recognized and appreciated. For example, people thinking of a homosexual lifestyle as a purely psychological choice would do wise to study some biology on the subject.

[Miranda]

I agree that it's important to draw a line between biology and psychology. Sex, in biology, is not a spectrum. It's male or female (excluding hermaphrodites of course).

But if you include hermaphrodites, then sex is on a spectrum, yes? :evil:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

You still can narrow them down M or F based on uterus or no uterus ovaries or testes with very rare exceptions regardless of what their genitalia look like.

 

But if you include hermaphrodites, then sex is on a spectrum, yes?

[Larv]

Biologically, we know that all sexual permutations start with the morphing of female genitalia in the womb. This is true, of course, for males and our genitalia. We got them from a feminine source and the Y chromosome. Indeed, that is why we have nipples.

[lawcat]

Uncle Al: You are a true gay pastor. (You do not like "hetero norms" which make a problem out of "anal.oral" ordering; God will punish "hetero normatists.")

But, the post is about sexes, which is a biological fact. Not a matter of social opinion. I honestly do not know what the hoopla is about. Determination of sex is a determination of fact. Let the doctors say what it is.

As far as inventing the "rainbow" categories of sexes, I am unconvinced that it could be done in any pragmatic way. Morover, as a matter of "hetero normatism" I am strongly opposed to any change to the current male/female factual determination. (AS if someone can be a fairy, perhaps.)

[HydrogenBond]

The biological purpose of sex is to blend male and female genes. Plants have male and/or female parts for the purpose of this genetic recombination. They don't confuse this with too many extra choices. This is the foundation of the original sexual differentiation. Beyond that foundation, is a carrot on a string of impulse and pleasure, which helps lead animals in the direction of the primary.

 

The choice of sexual orientation has nothing to do with the primary reason the sexual differentiation appeared. Choice is connected to the carrot on a string. When nature went from only 1 and added 2, it is doubtful the goal was to reduce procreation (1) by making it random. That has no selective advantage.

 

But somewhere along the line, 2 sort of spun off by itself, where any hole or any phallic object could satisfy the criteria of 2, without the need to satisfy 2-1. What we are arguing is the right to any 2-loop. Why do we arbitrarily stop at gay an not add animals since that could also work a 2 loop.

 

To answer that question, let us look at eating. Plants just absorb to eat, which is level 1 eating. Eating is food energy and nutrient requirements. Animals also have a carrot on a string, creating impulse making eating pleasurable. The original goal of the carrot on the string is to satisfy 1. This gave selective advantage. The early 2-1 may have been connected to the given food for the species. The carrot serves the purpose of making the Panda climb the eucalyptus tree for its species food. The body is happy.

 

Somewhere along the line, the 2 of eating also spun off on its own, where the pleasure loop of eating is the spin off goal, without regards to the original 2-1 needs of the body. To be consistent, shouldn't we have full free choice for any 2 loop when it comes to eating? If I get pleasure from Big Macs and pleasure myself with this food 10 times a day this is my choice of 2-loop. Culture will try to help me connect back to some 2 to 1 so my body is better off. With sexuality, I suppose any disconnected 2-loop is about the same. But unlike eating, where culture tries to reconnect 2-1 for humans, with sex 2 loops are considered more advanced and natural. But then again, if they invent a bog mac pill or shot that allows me to eat 10 per day, that 2-loop would be natural.

[UncleAl]

How many different kinds of bathrooms should there be in a stadium or amphitheatre? What will be the qualification for entering a given one? Will Homelend Severity issue and point of use confirm sexual identity RFID implants?

 

XY Boys, XX girls. Full surgical and hormonal modification is social reassignment. Everything else is personal ethics and grist for the Vice Squad.

[HydrogenBond]

There are things that are natural and there are things that are natural human. Natural is the bigger set, while natural human is a subset of that. For example, it is natural for some animals to fly. But this is not natural human. This is not to say, humans can not learn to fly. But it will require the use of the brain/mind to compensate for the hardware limitations within human DNA, such a building a glider.

 

One way to unravel ambiguous differences between natural and natural human, is to take away brain created prosthesis, to see if it adds up. If we say flying is natural, so everyone gets the impression this means natural human, all we do is take away the glider so there is no artificial. At that point it is clear which is which. But as long as one is not allowed to take away the glider, we can perpetuate the myth natural=natural human.

 

The experiment I have in mind, since we are talking about sexes, is take away anything artificial or a product of the brain/mind, from sexuality. That means no toys, lubes, sexual related disease medications, contraceptives, etc,; no glider. Let nature take its course to see what becomes steady state, just like when natural human evolved. Many myths will be busted as they fall from the sky and crash. This experiment will never occur, since we need all those flying machines to maintain many natural myths that lie outside the subset called natural human. We will use philosophy (mind product) to undermine the experiment less it reveal myths.

 

Maybe we can do a thought analysis to see what we think would happen in the modern world if we burned all the sexual prosthesis. What would be the steady state that defines selective advantage for humans? What is humanly possible might be different from what is natural for humans. If we say something is a product of the mind and is part of free choice, but may not be natural human, that is good enough. To each their own mental image and choice of flying machine. In the age or green and organic it is good to have a choice that is uncluttered by some of the flying machine myths.