Male teen and Monsoon, and apparently a discussion about non binary gender and intersex.

[pelmut]

There are two sexes.[...] There is no third or interim biological sex

Just what I thought, by defining it that way you are producing a self-fulfilling prophesy.  If you were to listen to people who really know about what makes up sex, instead of dogmatically trying to impose your flawed views on others who already know better, you might learn something.  You don't have to take our word for it, go and ask any competent biologist or just borrow an 'O'-level textbook from the library.

[Stu]

Strictly speaking biological sex is not binary. People are fixated on the belief that there is only XX (female) and XY (male). In fact there is a range of other variations including XXY, XYY and even XO. These might be assigned at birth but the biology might develop differently because the appearance at birth was not actually representative of the baby's endocrine biology. They might not be viable for reproduction but lots of XY and XX people never reproduce. It is not justifiable to classify people's whole lives on reproduction potential when reproduction is not obligatory. Though the numbers are small they are proof that sex is not binary. This is biology, not trendy psychology.

The XXY people, XYY and XO are classed as DSDs - they are genetic disorders by which people who suffer with these are generally unable to produce viable sperm if male or conceive if female, or they may have other disabilities. Similarly, there are XX males (De la Chappelle) and XY female (Swyer sydrome) - again these are disorders of sexual development.

Trying to claim that being an XXY person is a "gender" is nonsense.

[Stu]

There are two sexes.[...] There is no third or interim biological sex

Just what I thought, by defining it that way you are producing a self-fulfilling prophesy.  If you were to listen to people who really know about what makes up sex, instead of dogmatically trying to impose your flawed views on others who already know better, you might learn something.  You don't have to take our word for it, go and ask any competent biologist or just borrow an 'O'-level textbook from the library.

I haven't made any "prophesy" - I have prophesised nothing. I have simply stated an inconvenient fact.

Just telling me you think my views are flawed and that you think I should consult someone is not an argument. In fact, it is the opposite of an argument. It has no substance.

[Bodycon]

I think it is fair to say that nature has no need for anything other than male and female, and nothing more than heterosexual, with anything that does not fit, killed or ostracised, in most animal systems. We keep some of that animal instinct but try to suppress it. Have a look at Meerkat Manor, we share 85% or so of our DNA with most mammals.

So, we are a higher species and have evolved to the point of probably no longer evolving. All the oddballs (in reference to species norms) are accepted to the point where we have names for most of them LGBTQ etc. etc. and that is fine, we should accept all around us as having a right to exist. However in order for any species (apart from Hermaphrodites) to survive nature needs only male and female, the others are accidents of DNA in the same way as a two headed lamb, one of which is born every now and then, or the folk with six fingers.

How you feel about yourself (gender) is not necessarily connected to what sex you are, however what sex you are is not your choice, but natures, be that male, female or something in between. If you can take the emotion out of all this gender vs sex argument you will see that we are the only species having this argument with the others just getting on with being born, surviving and, if lucky, breeding before dying, they really have better things to do.

Yes, it is an emotive subject, but like most things can be seen in simple terms when we reference our fellow species.

[crfriend]

In fact there is a range of other variations including XXY, XYY and even XO.

What are the statistical probabilities on anything other than XX and XY? I'd posit pretty darned low. I used to have an XYY cat who, as a male, had three colours to his fur, but I've never met such a human to my knowledge.

Reproduction in the modern world is entirely optional, but the original evolutionary background persists and is not likely to go away any time soon. My main worry revolves around social mores where it's utterly unacceptable for a man to express any emotions other than lust and rage. That needs to be reversed, and reversed pretty darned quick because that's the basis for the concept of "toxic masculinity" (which needs to be erased from the lexicon, or at least powerfully shouted down!).

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

I think it is fair to say that nature has no need for anything other than male and female, and nothing more than heterosexual

If that were true, such people wouldn't keep being popped out by their parents. The fact of the matter is that Nature depends on diversity to keep the species viable and adapted to the changes in its environment. One of the things that distinguishes us homo sapiens from the other species is that most of us have at least some empathy and extrapolate that to operating on the assumption that everyone, no matter how different or what their difference may be is intrinsically valuable.

In fact there is a range of other variations including XXY, XYY and even XO.

What are the statistical probabilities on anything other than XX and XY?

Similarly, there's a small and in fact indeterminant percentage of Western men who prefer skirted garments to those that societal norms dictate for men, but we're here!

My main worry revolves around social mores where it's utterly unacceptable for a man to express any emotions other than lust and rage. That needs to be reversed, and reversed pretty darned quick because that's the basis for the concept of "toxic masculinity" (which needs to be erased from the lexicon, or at least powerfully shouted down!).

In the first place, it is not "utterly unacceptable for a man to express emotions other than lust and rage." I wholeheartedly agree, that while social norms have loosened up in that regard since I was a boy, they have a very long way to go.

in the second place, I wish that you would recognize that "toxic masculinity" is widely accepted as too words, that "toxic" is used as an adjective to identify a malignant variation of masculinity. Consequently, I hope that the expression stays in common usage as long as it takes to eradicate the mindset that the label is meant for.

My first instinct is that it could be awhile. Less than 20 years that I didn't think I would ever see the day that I could go to work in a dress and skirt and now I do that every working day so you just never know.

Btw, in one or another of the treads you defined "masculinity" as being able to be a hard-nosed SOB or an empathetic, nurturing good guy depending on the circumstance. Actually, what you were describing the survivor personality, which was identified by a psychologist who published a book by that title, lived in the Portland metropolitan area (Yes, I met him once.) and got his graduate degree from the University of Michigan (Sorry, as a Life Member of the Alumni Association I simply had to throw that last bit out there. Go Blue!)

[Pdxfashionpioneer]

I like the way you say "Assuming you value your job". That perfectly demonstrates the issue - intolerance of beliefs that do not conform to the hegemony of the establishment. Those who dissent will be erased, just as happened in the old Soviet Union and still occurs in modern China. People who have principles are willing to stand up to that and say what they believe. That is especially important in universities where freedom of thought and expression should be paramount.

Hello Stu,

I stand by what I wrote because it matches my life experience (And I probably have decades more of that than you do.) and it's well supported by both social and biological science.

That said, let me clarify the caution I was trying to provide you. I didn't mean to suggest you would be canceled. I was trying to warn you that your whole mindset is custom made to not only offend, but outrage a growing percentage of young people. Especially those who are likely to go to college. That being the case, if you stay on the track suggested by your posts, I anticipate that at some point you are going to have such a large collection of negative student reviews that your university will have no choice but to cut you loose. If for no other reason than students stop signing up for your classes.

But you be you. Who am I to tell you what to do or how to think?

[pelmut]

The XXY people, XYY and XO are classed as DSDs - they are genetic disorders

You are denying the existence of these variations and simultaneously confirming them but saying they don't count because they are 'disorders' -- and the reason you think they are 'disorders' is because they don't fit your classification.  You are using a circular argument.

The male/female approach to biology is an easy way to explain things to young children, but it is fundamentally flawed and can only lead to confusion and difficulty when confronted with the reality of genetics and evolution.

[rivegauche]

Yes, the people who are neither XY nor XX are rare, but they exist, so by definition, sex is non-binary. Binary does not allow for ANY variations from two types - that is what binary means. People with these rare genetic disorders have a right to lives free from prejudice and from people erasing them from all existence and consideration because they are a tiny minority.

[Bodycon]

I think it is fair to say that nature has no need for anything other than male and female, and nothing more than heterosexual

If that were true, such people wouldn't keep being popped out by their parents. The fact of the matter is that Nature depends on diversity to keep the species viable and adapted to the changes in its environment. One of the things that distinguishes us homo sapiens from the other species is that most of us have at least some empathy and extrapolate that to operating on the assumption that everyone, no matter how different or what their difference may be is intrinsically valuable.

You seem to be misunderstanding between errors in genetics pertaining to sex and evolution. The reason we keep popping out small numbers of intersex is the same reason we keep getting two headed lambs - genetic error. The fact that we don't have more and more two headed lambs and they haven't become the norm is simply that in terms of nature they serve no purpose.

Nature only requires male and female to breed and keep the species' going. The typical reaction to "different" in any species is to kill or ostracise thus keeping the species on the straight(ish) genetic path. Humans have developed to a point where we accept "different" as we do not consider that it endangers our genetic future, or probably more likely don't care.

Evolution is a change to the species over time to adapt to changes in habitat, be that food type, environment, or whatever and has nothing to do with sex.

As a creationist, I had thought you would maybe propose that all the variations in sex and gender were "by design"? (light the blue touch paper and retire....)

[rode_kater]

I used to have an XYY cat who, as a male, had three colours to his fur, but I've never met such a human to my knowledge.

The problem with these kinds of statements is that we never test for these things, so we don't know the real incidence. For example, there is the case where a mother failed a genetic test with her own child. It turned out she was a chimera: she had absorbed a non-identical twin in the womb and had different genetics depending on which part of her body was tested.

How often does this happen? We have no idea, because we never test for it. In the case of your cat it was obvious from the fur, but there could be millions of chimeras out there, we just don't know (and honestly don't care).

ISTM in this thread we have the logical fallacy "the human species has two sexes" (which is true) implies "all members of the human species are one of two sexes" (which is false). Members of a collection do not necessarily exhibit all the traits of the collection they are part of.

[STEVIE]

Is this an example of the "Butterfly" Effect?
Storm in a teacup that takes on biblical proportions.
We ain't never going to agree on this, so why get all hot under the collar?
It certainly changes nothing for the rest of humanity and his dog.
Just, live, let live and everyone be whatever....................
Given the depth of debate, I am surprised by how so many find that so hard to comprehend.
Steve.

[Stu]

I stand by what I wrote because it matches my life experience (And I probably have decades more of that than you do.) and it's well supported by both social and biological science. That said, let me clarify the caution I was trying to provide you. I didn't mean to suggest you would be canceled. I was trying to warn you that your whole mindset is custom made to not only offend, but outrage a growing percentage of young people. Especially those who are likely to go to college. That being the case, if you stay on the track suggested by your posts, I anticipate that at some point you are going to have such a large collection of negative student reviews that your university will have no choice but to cut you loose. If for no other reason than students stop signing up for your classes.

But you be you. Who am I to tell you what to do or how to think?

Hi David

I have all kinds of students and this is never an issue. I teach my specialism and treat everyone the same. How someone identifies is not relevant and none of my business.

It's odd that I made a comment in this thread in which I supported this young man's right to try on a prom dress and insisted he should be treated as any other customer, yet suddenly I am the bad guy - again. He was a customer and should have been treated as such just as I treat my students as students. See where I am coming from?

[Stu]

Yes, the people who are neither XY nor XX are rare, but they exist, so by definition, sex is non-binary. Binary does not allow for ANY variations from two types - that is what binary means. People with these rare genetic disorders have a right to lives free from prejudice and from people erasing them from all existence and consideration because they are a tiny minority.

Human beings have five fingers on each hand. I went to school with girl who had six fingers on each hand and that was caused by a rare genetic disorder called polydactylism. That doesn't mean she was a different species, or that there are two types of human - it means she had a rare genetic disorder. Humans have five fingers on each hand and any other configuration is an abnormality.

"People with these rare genetic disorders have a right to lives free from prejudice and from people erasing them from all existence and consideration because they are a tiny minority."

Nobody is suggesting that people with DSDs like Kleinfelter's Syndrome (XXY), or De la Chappelle (XX male) or Swyer Dyndrome (XY female) etc should be subject to prejudice or erased any more than someone with any other genetic abnormality like Ppolydactylism or Marfan Syndrome or thalassemia should suffer prejudice or erasure. A genetic abnormality is just that - it does not define the person who has it.

[Stu]

You are denying the existence of these variations and simultaneously confirming them but saying they don't count because they are 'disorders' -- and the reason you think they are 'disorders' is because they don't fit your classification.  You are using a circular argument.

I haven't denied genetic disorders exist. I have denied there is any such thing as a person being non-binary. Almost all people with chromosomal abnormalities identify as either male or female - and the overwhelming majority of those who claim to be non-binary have no genetic basis for claiming to be such. Consequently:

Non-binary = feelings

DSDs = biology

You are choosing to conflate them because that conforms to your existing biases.

The male/female approach to biology is an easy way to explain things to young children, but it is fundamentally flawed and can only lead to confusion and difficulty when confronted with the reality of genetics and evolution.

The reality of genetics are that there are fundamentally two sexes and someone's sex is determined by their reproductive function.

The reality of evolution is that it can only happen if reproduction is possible, and to reproduce requires one male and one female.