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 -  (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.