GC: Is sexual attraction only based on genitals, or is there more to sexual attraction (e.g. attraction to secondary sexual characteristics, "femininity", "masculinity", etc)?

submitted by Not_a_celebrity from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

just because biological sex is a spectrum, does not mean the position on said spectrum is arbitary. And, no, trans activists are not demanding to be recognized as the opposite sex (biology), they are demanding to be recognized as the opposite gender (social).

do these authors present any solid, concrete criteria that cover all cases?

Read the papers... The first one at the very least.

can you quote the solid, concrete criteria?

Now, show me those papers disproving there are only two sexes, please.

how exactly would such a disprove of biological sex as a strict binary even look like for you? Since even outright mixed gonads are dismissed by you. And don't ask for some third or intermediary gamete, because that is not the claim that is being made.

Maybe if you weren't so focused on extremely rare cases in order to justify your worldview you would understand

a complete definition of biological sex has to include all existing cases, no matter how rare.

Read the papers... The first one at the very least.

And, seriusly, read the paper about gamete competition and gamete limitation.

again, I do not dispute that the modell of biological sex as a binary is not an usefulll generalization, it's just not a complete modell. Let me explain it to you by physics: the general theory of relativity describes gravity and makes, compared to the newtonian theory of gravity that also describes gravity, several quite counterintuitive claims (gravity affecting time, there being such a thing as a space time continum that is "bended" by mass), is vasytly more difficult to apply (I'd know, I had a course in it) and was, at the time, quite controversial and seen as political ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity ). Today it would be rather easy to find a peer reviewed paper that calculates gravity based on the newtonian modell. Does that mean that the general theory of relativity is a bunch of nonsense? Of course not. It's just that for the vast majority of cases the simpler, easier to use modell is sufficent. Analogously, for the vast majority of cases the modell of biological sex as a binary is usefull, easy to use and intuitive. But when considering all cases one has to use the more complicated, difficult to use and counterintutive modell, as otherwise one starts to encounter problems with cases covered by the complicated but not the simple modell.

And here you have another article explaining how there are two sexes.

which defines the sexes based on gonads which we already had (if definition were solely based on gonads, a gonadectomy would mean that the person in question would no longer have a biological sex) while dismissing ovotesticular cases merely based on rarity (which for an all including definition of biological sex can not be done). Therefore this article is not providing a compelling case for dismissing the modell of biological sex as a heavily bimodal spectrum.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

just because biological sex is a spectrum, does not mean the position on said spectrum is arbitary. And, no, trans activists are not demanding to be recognized as the opposite sex (biology), they are demanding to be recognized as the opposite gender (social).

As I said in other comment, in practice it's the same thing, especialy because gender identity is given preference over sex.

can you quote the solid, concrete criteria?

If you don't want to read the whole paper there is a nice glossary at the end where sex is defined.

how exactly would such a disprove of biological sex as a strict binary even look like for you? Since even outright mixed gonads are dismissed by you. And don't ask for some third or intermediary gamete, because that is not the claim that is being made.

Yes, a third or more gametes since that is how we define sex. And I want to know what reproductive roles the additional sexes have, too. How are babies made under this model?

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

If you don't want to read the whole paper there is a nice glossary at the end where sex is defined.

that paper defines biological sex based on active gamete production. Which, for the purpose of this discussion, we have already dismissed as that would mean that a person that, for whatever reason, doesn't actively produce gametes would be without a biological sex.

Yes, a third or more gametes since that is how we define sex. And I want to know what reproductive roles the additional sexes have, too.

you are essentially pulling the same thing that creationists do when they think that the non-existence of a "Crocoduck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck ) means that the theory of evolution is false. The "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not claim there to be a third gamete or additional reproductive roles. You clearly don't and don't want to understand the modell.

How are babies made under this model?

the spectrum of biological sex is a bimodal spectrum, where the vast majority of cases are on the position of the spectrum that is fully either one of two states (with these two states being centered around the two reproductive roles). The further away a case is from this position is on the spectrum (e.g. the greater the difference to being one of those two states), the less likely this case is to be fertile (depending on the specifics, assisted reproductive techniqes might help). If a fertile member from one mode and a fertile member of the other mode mate, there is some probability of conception taking place with (in humans) the member of the female mode carrying the fertilized ova in their uterus until birth.

[–]BiologyIsReal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

that paper defines biological sex based on active gamete production. Which, for the purpose of this discussion, we have already dismissed as that would mean that a person that, for whatever reason, doesn't actively produce gametes would be without a biological sex.

No, you’re the only ones dismissing such definition. You asked me for a paper supporting my position and I gave you one.

you are essentially pulling the same thing that creationists do when they think that the non-existence of a "Crocoduck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck ) means that the theory of evolution is false. The "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not claim there to be a third gamete or additional reproductive roles. You clearly don't and don't want to understand the modell.

So, am I like creationists? LOL The irony is totally lost in you. I asked you for a paper disproving there are two sexes. A third gamete certainly would do.

the spectrum of biological sex is a bimodal spectrum, where the vast majority of cases are on the position of the spectrum that is fully either one of two states (with these two states being centered around the two reproductive roles). The further away a case is from this position is on the spectrum (e.g. the greater the difference to being one of those two states), the less likely this case is to be fertile (depending on the specifics, assisted reproductive techniqes might help). If a fertile member from one mode and a fertile member of the other mode mate, there is some probability of conception taking place with (in humans) the member of the female mode carrying the fertilized ova in their uterus until birth.

That is a rather convoluted way to say there is some probability a fertile woman get pregnant after mating with a fertile man.

So, do you believe sex is a spectrum or sex is bimodal? Because these are two different things. A spectrum implies there is a continuum between the male extreme and the female extreme. A bimodal distribution implies there are two distinct populations. Many sex related traits are indeed bimodal, height being a good example. Actually, I would say the fact many sex related traits are bimodal disprove the hypothesis of sex being a spectrum. If sex were a spectrum, we would see a single normal curve when plotting height distribution in the human population instead of the two curves we actually observe. In fact, a bimodal distribution support the “there is two sexes” model.

[–]Taln_Reich 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

that paper defines biological sex based on active gamete production. Which, for the purpose of this discussion, we have already dismissed as that would mean that a person that, for whatever reason, doesn't actively produce gametes would be without a biological sex.

No, you’re the only ones dismissing such definition. You asked me for a paper supporting my position and I gave you one.

so, now you are back to defining sex on active gamete production? Either you changed your definition yet again, or you are using a paper for supporting your position despite the paper using definitions different enough from yours that it can't be used to support your position.

you are essentially pulling the same thing that creationists do when they think that the non-existence of a "Crocoduck" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocoduck ) means that the theory of evolution is false. The "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not claim there to be a third gamete or additional reproductive roles. You clearly don't and don't want to understand the modell.

So, am I like creationists? LOL The irony is totally lost in you. I asked you for a paper disproving there are two sexes. A third gamete certainly would do.

your understanding of the "Biological sex as a spectrum"-modell is comparable to a creationists understanding of the theory of evolution. Because, again, the "biological sex as a spectrum"-modell does not make a claim towards a "third gamete".

So, do you believe sex is a spectrum or sex is bimodal? Because these are two different things.

Biological sex is a bimodal spectrum. The above case in your link actually quite nicely illustrates a bimodal spectrum - a population with two distinct peaks representing two modes. For Biological Sex in the "Biological sex as a spectrum"-modell it looks (Note regarding the link: for that illustration, please cross "gender" mentally out and replace it with "biological sex". The article it's from was argueing for both sex and gender being bimodal spectra and they didn't bother making essentially the same graph twice) the same, with the peaks being the typical (i.e. most likely to be fertile) positions on the spectrum, and the middle between the modes being a minima. This is not the same as biological sex being a binary, because if it were a binary, there would be absoloutly no overlap instead of only little overlap (i.e. the middle in between the modes being completly empty, instead of there just being very few cases).

If sex were a spectrum, we would see a single normal curve when plotting height distribution in the human population instead of the two curves we actually observe.

that would be the case if I were claiming sex to be an unimodal spectrum, which I never did.