Sorry if I was too ambiguous with my language. I highlighted the non-functioning genitalia because it is how I remember the distinction; but both ferms and merms have genital structures unique from hermaphrodites in that they are synthesized with quasi male/female structures. The processes of sex, birth, waste defecation, urination, ejaculation and menstruation are all somewhat different.
If you were looking for different variation in the sorts of things that are normally clustered with “sex”, then there are a lot more expressions. There are for instance ambiguous genitalia, unusual chromosonal sex, Aphallia, and especially human protandry.
You are right, I am not an expert on all this stuff and I should not have said “five” in such a definitive way. In general, I have developed the bad habit of writing with too much authority. I apologize for that it is a byproduct of my time debating. I shouldn’t have said “five” in such a definitive way. That said, the point I was trying to make is that the concept of sex is socially constructed, which what you are arguing does not change right?
That said, the point I was trying to make is that the concept of sex is socially constructed, which what you are arguing does not change right?
I was not particularly concerned about that.
But if you want my opinion, no—“2 sexes” isn’t “socially constructed”, it’s just a “false proposition”. We know better, some people haven’t gotten the memo, ::shrug::.
Or to flip that over, we can look at it empirically rather than logically: “male” and “female” seem to be useful clusters. If we’re going to go all clustery on it I’m not sure there’s a better number for k than 2. It’s one of the better one-bit predictors for questions like “Is this person going to show up to the wedding in a dress?”.
But the human position goes beyond simply labeling, it is breeding. For thousands of years we have killed/maimed infants who do not fit the dichotomy manipulating the gene pool towards a social agenda. In the same way we breed race horses and pea plants. I agree that there are biological limitations on the extent of malleability, but I think to say that it is simply a “false proposition” is an understatement. It is condoned eugenics in a very hitler-esque way.
Calling that process “breeding” is quite strange. There aren’t many genetic facts that survive consistent selection against them over thousands of years.
Foucault would call it biopwer if you like that term better, but it is essentially breeding. The reason it is not as effective as a geneticist in their greenhouse is the scale. Even if a government has a policy of “fixing” hermaphrodites, the reality of actualizing that over a territory the size of a kingdom/country is almost impossible.
Is that a sufficient explanation why they haven’t been completely wiped out? Check my facts on this, but I think about 1:3000 people is born not male or female.
...or it could just be that extremely complex systems like gender unavoidably go haywire during fetal development or a mutation hits, and this results in a normal background rate of around 1:3000?
Yes, that seems reasonable. There are four biologically possible scenarios I can think of to explain the numbers:
It’s developmental noise.
Mutations that cause hermaphroditism arise at a certain rate and are eliminated by natural (or artificial) selection at a certain rate; this is mutation-selection balance.
Multiple genes at different loci are required to produce a hermaphrodite (this is epistasis); natural selection doesn’t act against these genes since it is rare for them to be found in the same invididual, and they may produce some benefit when apart.
Hermaphrodites have reasonable fitness and are held at an equilibrium frequency in the population.
Four seems far and away the least likely; I’d be suspicious of an equilibrium that’s so low, not only in our species but all our mammalian relatives. Perhaps there are answers in the literature; I don’t have the time.
Sorry if I was too ambiguous with my language. I highlighted the non-functioning genitalia because it is how I remember the distinction; but both ferms and merms have genital structures unique from hermaphrodites in that they are synthesized with quasi male/female structures. The processes of sex, birth, waste defecation, urination, ejaculation and menstruation are all somewhat different.
You are right, I am not an expert on all this stuff and I should not have said “five” in such a definitive way. In general, I have developed the bad habit of writing with too much authority. I apologize for that it is a byproduct of my time debating. I shouldn’t have said “five” in such a definitive way. That said, the point I was trying to make is that the concept of sex is socially constructed, which what you are arguing does not change right?
I was not particularly concerned about that.
But if you want my opinion, no—“2 sexes” isn’t “socially constructed”, it’s just a “false proposition”. We know better, some people haven’t gotten the memo, ::shrug::.
Or to flip that over, we can look at it empirically rather than logically: “male” and “female” seem to be useful clusters. If we’re going to go all clustery on it I’m not sure there’s a better number for k than 2. It’s one of the better one-bit predictors for questions like “Is this person going to show up to the wedding in a dress?”.
But the human position goes beyond simply labeling, it is breeding. For thousands of years we have killed/maimed infants who do not fit the dichotomy manipulating the gene pool towards a social agenda. In the same way we breed race horses and pea plants. I agree that there are biological limitations on the extent of malleability, but I think to say that it is simply a “false proposition” is an understatement. It is condoned eugenics in a very hitler-esque way.
Calling that process “breeding” is quite strange. There aren’t many genetic facts that survive consistent selection against them over thousands of years.
Foucault would call it biopwer if you like that term better, but it is essentially breeding. The reason it is not as effective as a geneticist in their greenhouse is the scale. Even if a government has a policy of “fixing” hermaphrodites, the reality of actualizing that over a territory the size of a kingdom/country is almost impossible.
Is that a sufficient explanation why they haven’t been completely wiped out? Check my facts on this, but I think about 1:3000 people is born not male or female.
...or it could just be that extremely complex systems like gender unavoidably go haywire during fetal development or a mutation hits, and this results in a normal background rate of around 1:3000?
Yes, that seems reasonable. There are four biologically possible scenarios I can think of to explain the numbers:
It’s developmental noise.
Mutations that cause hermaphroditism arise at a certain rate and are eliminated by natural (or artificial) selection at a certain rate; this is mutation-selection balance.
Multiple genes at different loci are required to produce a hermaphrodite (this is epistasis); natural selection doesn’t act against these genes since it is rare for them to be found in the same invididual, and they may produce some benefit when apart.
Hermaphrodites have reasonable fitness and are held at an equilibrium frequency in the population.
Four seems far and away the least likely; I’d be suspicious of an equilibrium that’s so low, not only in our species but all our mammalian relatives. Perhaps there are answers in the literature; I don’t have the time.
The upper bound I’m familiar with is about 1:100 naturally intersexed, though it might be working with a looser definition.
No, I have a horrible memory for numbers. You probably are right.
Somewhere in that sentence is some amount of social construction. That is, people haven’t “gotten the memo” because they don’t want to get the memo.