The Myth of Two Sexes: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » The Myth of Two Sexes » The Myth of Two Sexes

The Myth of Two Sexes
Link to a podcast re:biology of sex

The Myth of Two Sexes

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 10/10/09 - 08:11 AM: Subject: The Myth of Two Sexes	#1
Providing a link for a fairly accessible discussion on the reality of two human sexes. This was of issue recently on the board, so some might find it interesting. From CBC Radio, the program Quirks and Quarks. http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/archives/09-10/qq-2009-10-10.html Scroll down to the last story. South African runner Caster Semenya won the gold medal in the women's 800-metre race at the World Track and Field Championship in Berlin back in August. But many of the 18-year-old's competitors complained that Semenya must be a man; she looked like a man, had a flat chest and a deep voice and her time was just too fast. The International Association of Athletics Federations ordered a gender test. It was revealed that Semenya, like approximately sixty-five thousand children born every year, has both male and female sexual characteristics. In her case, no uterus or ovaries and undescended testes. What we used to call hermaphrodites, are now referred to as intersex. Dr. Gerald Callahan is a professor in the Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology Department at Colorado State University. He recently wrote a book about this subject called Between XX and XY: Intersexuality and the Myth of Two Sexes. He says we all might be intersex to a certain extent.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/10/09 - 09:04 AM:	#2
This implies that the line between male and female is blurrier than earlier supposed, and not that there are more than two sexes. What does it mean to say that we're all intersex to a certain extent? Biologically this isn't the case, mostly because we created and classified the terms based on the normative morphology of the sexes, and clearly the distinctions we draw are there. Clearly it's true to say that we share many, many similar characteristics to our opposite-sex counterparts, but this generally isn't considered relevant in the context of sex. I think that we need to explicate what we mean specifically, and biologically when we are talking about the sexes, and whether it would be more useful to stick with the common dichotomy of the sexes, or drop this for a more uniform view of the sexes.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3305

Posted 10/11/09 - 12:27 AM:	#3
I realized this a long time ago. Psychologically, we build rigorously bounded categories for "male" and "female". But biologically speaking: we start out in the womb as female, then develop different characteristics based on the levels of hormones we receive, not necessarily our genes. The XX and XY distinction we label "female" and "male" only indicate gender based on the hormones produced on average. There are many intersexed individuals which have DNA for one gender, but express for the opposite gender. There are also other types of XXY, XYY, etc, (the "super-male"). Even so, the differences between genders could be considered a continuous spectrum rather than a complete separation. There are different levels of body hair, male pattern balding, breast and hip development throughout humans. There is no true "gender", but only social convention. The Olympics has decided to accept the standard of following DNA. Therefore someone with XY genes are considered "male" for the purpose of competition, regardless of how they express, and has lead to several athletes who otherwise appear female from competing.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/11/09 - 06:54 AM:	#4
swstephe wrote: I realized this a long time ago. Psychologically, we build rigorously bounded categories for "male" and "female". But biologically speaking: we start out in the womb as female, then develop different characteristics based on the levels of hormones we receive, not necessarily our genes. The XX and XY distinction we label "female" and "male" only indicate gender based on the hormones produced on average. There are many intersexed individuals which have DNA for one gender, but express for the opposite gender. There are also other types of XXY, XYY, etc, (the "super-male"). Even so, the differences between genders could be considered a continuous spectrum rather than a complete separation. There are different levels of body hair, male pattern balding, breast and hip development throughout humans. There is no true "gender", but only social convention. The Olympics has decided to accept the standard of following DNA. Therefore someone with XY genes are considered "male" for the purpose of competition, regardless of how they express, and has lead to several athletes who otherwise appear female from competing. And yet somehow it remains impossible to slip a reverse-trap or trap past me.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 10/11/09 - 07:59 AM:	#5
Wosret wrote: What does it mean to say that we're all intersex to a certain extent? That the normative claims you describe do not apply to human beings.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/11/09 - 10:38 AM:	#6
Kwalish Kid wrote: That the normative claims you describe do not apply to human beings. There are no normative morphological differences between the sexes in human beings? Is this what you're saying?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 10/11/09 - 04:44 PM:	#7
Yes.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/11/09 - 04:49 PM:	#8
Certainly we must be misunderstanding each other. If there were no normative morphological differences between the sexes, then it would be the case that it would not be possible to tell the difference between women and men, in general, by their morphologies. Are you saying that you cannot, in general, tell the difference between men and women based on their physical appearances?
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3844

Posted 10/11/09 - 08:08 PM:	#9
Wosret wrote: Certainly we must be misunderstanding each other. If there were no normative morphological differences between the sexes, then it would be the case that it would not be possible to tell the difference between women and men, in general, by their morphologies. Indeed. It just happens that this is the case. Are you saying that you cannot, in general, tell the difference between men and women based on their physical appearances? No, in general we can. It is just that morphological differences are not definitive.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P Can you pass Religion 101?

Wosret
Tetsugaku no mongaikan

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: Nova Scotia Canada

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 2876

Posted 10/11/09 - 08:21 PM:	#10
Kwalish Kid wrote: It is just that morphological differences are not definitive. Is anything? Let alone our own invented taxanomies, and classifications. The important question is whether or not is it is useful. I think that it is.
"If you've got any last words, say 'em now." - Nadie. "I am Horo the Wise." - Horo the Wise.

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.