News Trans character announced

[CorporalCaptain]

Some humans are born without limbs, too many limbs, additional fingers, or even without a cerebrum, or with disabilities. Would you say that therefore: Humans have more than 2 legs and 2 arms, humans have more than 10 fingers, or that humans do not have a cerebrum, and humans do not walk or cannot see?
And what is the connection to the original statement of "more than two sexes"?

Generalizations of the type you seem to be trying to make aren't valid, end of.

Because we are all of the same species, there are genetic and developmental commonalities between most of us, but there is variability, and statements of the type "all people are either ___ or ___" that are under discussion don't hold absolutely. Such statements are exclusive and false: they deny personhood to people who don't fit into those categories, and their falsehood follows from the self-evident self-contradiction of denying personhood to a person. The truth in these cases would be closer to "most people are either ___ or ___, but some aren't."

Most humans have two arms and two legs, but some don't. Some people have more than ten fingers, some have fewer, but most have exactly ten including the two thumbs. And so forth.

 

[Guy Gardener]

IDIC.

 

[NCC-73515]

Generalizations of the type you seem to be trying to make aren't valid, end of.

Because we are all of the same species, there are genetic and developmental commonalities between most of us, but there is variability, and statements of the type "all people are either ___ or ___" that are under discussion don't hold absolutely. Such statements are exclusive and false: they deny personhood to people who don't fit into those categories, and their falsehood follows from the self-evident self-contradiction of denying personhood to a person. The truth in these cases would be closer to "most people are either ___ or ___, but some aren't."

Most humans have two arms and two legs, but some don't. Some people have more than ten fingers, some have fewer, but most have exactly ten including the two thumbs. And so forth.

Phrased like that, all of this is perfectly correct. "All" and "some" being the important words.
So going back to the original statement: Why are there more than two sexes, and what kinds of sexes are they?

 

[Guy Gardener]

Phrased like that, all of this is perfectly correct. "All" and "some" being the important words.
So going back to the original statement: Why are there more than two sexes, and what kinds of sexes are they?

So you're trying to start a fight?

How gauche.

 

[NCC-73515]

So you're trying to start a fight?

How gauche.

Why is questioning the statement "that humans only have two sexes is a huge misunderstanding of biology" starting a fight?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Phrased like that, all of this is perfectly correct. "All" and "some" being the important words.
So going back to the original statement: Why are there more than two sexes, and what kinds of sexes are they?

If the information that has already been provided in this thread isn't enough to get you started, then I don't know what to say, except that there are other posters with far more knowledge on the subject than I have.

 

[NCC-73515]

Here's a good overview:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

The devil is in the details, as with all biological topics.
As I wrote, it's a spectrum between still just two biological sexes (which is not the same as gender btw).

 

[cultcross]

Yeah, so, being trans puts us in mortal danger and also gets chasers trying to fuck me for fetishistic reasons so how about we not compare that to being a nondescript child of a single parent. Like, I'm sorry things were tough for you but our human rights are literally being challenged all the time because of our trans-ness and we nearly lost some earlier this summer.

Poverty and broken homes are not a valid source of real suffering? People in those situations don't face shorter life expectancies, more violent lives, higher suicide rates, generally poorer prospects and human rights violations at the hands of the state?

You don't have to dismiss other people's experiences of struggle for yours to be valid.

So you're trying to start a fight?

How gauche.

Don't accuse others in thread please; a report is sufficient. I think it's clear from @NCC-73515 most recent that they were not in fact trying to start a fight, but trying to understand.

 

[NCC-73515]

What I mean is that intermediate forms between two extremes (which most people don't even fall into when you take secondary characteristics like body hair as a masculine trait for example) still are between those two poles, with partial features of one or the other side. More of one meaning less of the other. It's like the sexual orientation scale that goes from 100% hetero to 100% homo. Such a linear spectrum does not have additional ends, it still has two.

 

[cultcross]

It's the binary part that's in dispute; to use your analogy, it would be wrong to say that humans orientations are heterosexual and homosexual. It would be right to say that there are more than two orientations. (Although that spectrum does have other 'ends' in fairness, like asexuality). It's also worth considering that on a spectrum, there is nothing particularly remarkable about the end points.

 

[NCC-73515]

But the intermediate orientations between hetero and homo are not a separate, third orientation.
Bisexuals are kind of like the Guardian, being both and neither XD
Asexuality would be a separate scale, probably one where libido is the factor.
Actually, if we consider all these traits as separate scales, we are simply multidimensional beings

 

[cultcross]

But the intermediate orientations between hetero and homo are not a separate, third orientation.

People of that orientation would probably dispute that. The spectrum is an arrangement for our convenience in reference, you can also think of the other orientations in a list, which helps make the end points stand out less.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

But the intermediate orientations between hetero and homo are not a separate, third orientation.
Bisexuals are kind of like the Guardian, being both and neither XD
Asexuality would be a separate scale, probably one where libido is the factor.
Actually, if we consider all these traits as separate scales, we are simply multidimensional beings

To use a spectrum analogy, yellow may be a mixture of red and green, which you can see by the application of filters, but yellow is a distinct color from both. You cannot reduce yellow to red and green, because the experience of perceiving yellow is its own thing.

 

[Mudd]

What I mean is that intermediate forms between two extremes (which most people don't even fall into when you take secondary characteristics like body hair as a masculine trait for example) still are between those two poles, with partial features of one or the other side. More of one meaning less of the other. It's like the sexual orientation scale that goes from 100% hetero to 100% homo. Such a linear spectrum does not have additional ends, it still has two.

Why is it linear? You couldn't put gas and straight at two points on a circle and, say, pan and asexual at other points?

I mean, assuming that you want to chart it visually.

 

[eschaton]

I agree that there are many different ways in which human chromosomes - along with physical morphology - can express. However, I'm not sure calling them biological sexes is in most cases accurate.

From an evolutionary perspective, the purpose of sex is to allow for a certain kind of reproduction - one which allows for the intemingling of two different individuals genomes rather than simply copying the genome of the parent asexually. Certain lineages of Eukaryotes (mostly animals and plants) developed sperm and ova (interestingly flowering plants developed motile sperm very similar to animals). Of course the expression of biological gender varies from species to species. Most plants and many snails are male and female at the same time. Some fish can change biological sex over the course of their lives. The genomes determining biological sex in birds are completely different than the X/Y in mammals). We can go on and on, but in the end sexual reproduction generally requires two individuals - sperm and ova.

The possibilities for biological reproduction are limited. Unlike some animals (including some lizard species) human females cannot self-impregnate clones of themselves. Human also cannot shift like some fish from a fertile female to a fertile male as they get older. The number of intersex individuals who are capable of both fathering a child and carrying a child to term is very small. There may be many different expressions of biological sex between male and female, but they are mostly either sterile (meaning genetic dead ends) or function in a matter analogous to male or female bodies. Since the evolutionary purpose of biological sex is to reproduce, and there are only two ways for humans to reproduce themselves biologically, I think it's fair to say there are only two biological sexes - even if we can recognize other sexes (and genders) as existing culturally.

 

[cultcross]

How could "many different ways in which human chromosomes - along with physical morphology - can express" be anything but biological?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Since the evolutionary purpose of biological sex is to reproduce, and there are only two ways for humans to reproduce themselves biologically, I think it's fair to say there are only two biological sexes - even if we can recognize other sexes (and genders) as existing culturally.

The most frequently realized function is not the same as the purpose. This is not a pedantic, hair-splitting distinction. There is no scientifically-proven purpose to any aspect of biological evolution. Rather, it is an ongoing terrestrial phenomenon, that probably does occur on other planets as well, but possibly not.

We can talk about the overall main evolutionary function of sex, but to say that it has a singular evolutionary purpose is nonsensical. Because evolution is a process of adaptation, sex can have whatever evolutionary functions get realized.

For example, some predators exploit sexual signals to attract prey [https://www.jstor.org/stable/3037471]. Their niche can even be described as depending upon that type of behavior. Since eating is essential to reproduction, one wouldn't classify eating is a non-essential evolutionary function. From the perspective of such predators, a major function of the sexuality of their prey is to provide the means of luring them in.

In humans, sex is not performed exclusively for reproduction, far from it. Furthermore, the impact that sex has on the structure of human society is enormous. Human beings are affecting the biosphere of the entire planet, and human technology has existential impact on many species. Non-reproductive human sexual activity is therefore an indirect but nevertheless significant factor impacting the process of planet-wide evolution right now.

So, no, sex has no singular purpose in biological evolution. It has a main function, by which I mean the most frequently realized function, but there are other realized functions that sex has as well.

 

[NCC-73515]

To use a spectrum analogy, yellow may be a mixture of red and green, which you can see by the application of filters, but yellow is a distinct color from both. You cannot reduce yellow to red and green, because the experience of perceiving yellow is its own thing.

Yellow is a certain wavelength, but can also be created by adding red and green. That's why it's not a good analogy. Wavelengths alone would work better, I guess.

Why is it linear? You couldn't put gas and straight at two points on a circle and, say, pan and asexual at other points?

I mean, assuming that you want to chart it visually.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

As I wrote, asexuality would be a separate scale, and the entire 'personality' or 'sexuality' of a person is multidimensional.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yellow is a certain wavelength

Sorry, no. Certain wavelengths are instances of yellow, but many yellows are a mixture of more than one wavelength.

But in terms of color perception, even the perception of monochromatic light involves the stimulation of multiple types of cones on the retina [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell]. It is the fact that typically people have three-types of cones (S, M, and L; some people have fewer, some have more) which makes RGB color monitors feasible.

That's why it's not a good analogy.

Typically, the perception of yellow light, even monochromatic yellow (of a single wavelength) involves the stimulation of both M and L-type cones. So, it's a great analogy.

 

[NCC-73515]

Sorry, no. Certain wavelengths are instances of yellow, but many yellows are a mixture of more than one wavelength.

But in terms of color perception, even the perception of monochromatic light involves the stimulation of multiple types of cones on the retina [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell]. It is the fact that typically people have three-types of cones (S, M, and L; some people have fewer, some have more) which makes RGB color monitors feasible.


Typically, the perception of yellow light, even monochromatic yellow (of a single wavelength) involves the stimulation of both M and L-type cones. So, it's a great analogy.

Adding different shades of yellow of course makes it more complicated. Still, a certain small part of the visible spectrum is yellow. Why else would you use it as a spectrum analogy?

Cones are a reason why the analogy fits better to a combination of primary colors. You can absolutely reduce yellow perception to a combination of M and L cone responses as you point out, and yellow is not a separate thing then. Maybe I misunderstood your analogy, cause from my POV, you're arguing against it