"There are only two genders, change my mind".

Intersex are not self-sustaining though. Two intersex people can't make more intersex people - that's the difference, that's what makes it a disorder, rather than a new sex.

I suppose you could technically call an intersex person neuter - but that has rather insulting connotations to my mind.

fertility is just a straw man as we have already established fertility is not a complete determining factor of sex designation

But it is. Because without reproduction there would BE no species. That is literally the whole deal evolution-wise. NOTHING else matters. Evolution isn't about feelings or even volition. There are variations and disorders, because you need genetic variation to affect change in evolution. But evolution doesn't give a shit if the intersex people and infertile people feel sad.

Binary #2. How many female emperor penguins remain on the ice during winter? None.

Debbie. do you understand that the point being made is that SEX is binary and not GENDER?

Do you understand that the argument i am making is to challenge them BOTH (independently, for the most part the last pages have been about sex).

I have no hope of succeeding obviously as its so set in stone we don't even have the language in English to describe it, doesn't make it wrong though.

Trivial point: "Nature" is not a conscious entity and so cannot follow rules or make decisions

Sounds familiar, Debbie

If they are not capable of any reproduction then they are not a sex classification! Sex classifications are 100% a descriptor of potential reproductive ability. You seem to be struggling with this very basic premise.

Trivial point: "Nature" is not a conscious entity and so cannot follow rules or make decisions: Nature just is, the rules come later.

That is my exact point though so not trivial, Binary sex designation is the application of human rules on a system without any. If there are no rules then any we make up cant be true.

Debbie. do you understand that the point being made is that SEX is binary and not GENDER?

I don't know why Debbie thinks it's so complicated. The definition of sex relates to potential reproductive ability (not whether you do so, or can no longer do so) and given that you need an XX person and an XY person to reproduce that is itself enough to prove sex is binary.

Debbie might argue that given the existence of people who cannot reproduce is enough to render that definition useless which is fair enough in which case Debbie feel free to think of another classification, but as far as science goes it's a great classification.

Debbie - no-one has argued that gender is binary. In fact the opposite has been argued.

^You are making an ideological point. It cant be backed up by science.
Intersex people are not a third sex, neither are infertile people.^

Its quite possible ignoring intersex chromosomes variances is the ideological argument as the science backs up that there are more than two sex chromosome types, not that there are only two. We ideologically wont accept that though.

No one is saying infertile people should be treated as lesser humans so stop implying that.

Nor am I and I ask you to stop inferring that I am

Trivial point: "Nature" is not a conscious entity and so cannot follow rules or make decisions: Nature just is, the rules come later.

I think the ternary-sex sci-fi novels have been written, or at least short stories.

I'm trying to show that all the arguments that sex and gender are binary are based on applying that model to the data set of possibilities such that it guarantees that sex and gender are indeed binary.

Again, no. Based on the fact that you need one XX person, and one XY person to make a new person.

One of each of two sexes.

Intersex, with rare exception (or a lot of medical assistance) are infertile - they do not participate in sexual reproduction

No amount of XXYs and XYs can have a baby.

curry I was about to say the same thing!

It is incredibly sexist to say that sex and gender are the same thing.

fertility is just a straw man as we have already established fertility is not a complete determining factor of sex designation

I thought somewhere i posted an answer to the question of what are we discussing but it seems to have got lost

I was discussing "There are only two genders, change my mind" I thought we had established by a few people that gender might be variable as it is personal and unique to everyone. thought we had moved onto challenging if Sex is binary.

I appreciate it takes two to reproduce but that does not exclude a third or higher number of sexes existing, they may or may not be capable of reproduction but they none the less have a sex even if it is neutral.

Great concept for a sci-fi novel though.

Ha ha yes - its hard enough to keep a monogamous relationship balanced and fair - imagine having to do it and live as a threesome! What a headache

I'm trying to show that all the arguments that sex and gender are binary are based on applying that model to the data set of possibilities such that it guarantees that sex and gender are indeed binary

Would you at least TRY to follow? We are saying SEX is BINARY NOT gender.

Why do youn keep putting them together as if they are the same thing? If you can't understand this is the first fact, then you need to stop talking about this.

Debbie6666
You are making an ideological point. It cant be backed up by science.
Intersex people are not a third sex, neither are infertile people.

No one is saying infertile people should be treated as lesser humans so stop implying that.

Go and actually look at nature. Then formulate a theory.

we impose a binary model onto it by ignoring and assimilating the things that make the third and so on option viable.

So what’s the third option that doesn’t require an XX and XY to reproduce?

Debbie, with you're logic we won't be able to define anything anymore due to outliers.

People who are blind are still human... But it's not the natural state of humans. We evolved to have the sense of sight, those that are born without it have a disability. That's just a fact. Blind people aren't a 'variant on the spectrum of human sight'.
Similarly, we have two reproductive sexes. Females and males who are infertile are still makes and females, just as a blind person is still human.

if two beings have entirely different chromosomes in that way, they're a completely different species - just like we can't reproduce with birds.

I was thinking that as I posted. I just wanted to make sure I had nailed the exact point where the word binary applies.

Thermostatpolice

Thanks, i'm struggling to keep up to be honest.

I'm trying to show that all the arguments that sex and gender are binary are based on applying that model to the data set of possibilities such that it guarantees that sex and gender are indeed binary.

Ie if we wont accept intersex chromosomes as posibly being another version of sex but instead round them up into the binary male or female as variation and disorders then we can never arrive at any answer other than yes sex is binary. the theory under test has been used to force the data set to prove the theory.

I also have a side argument that nature does not adhere to binary rules, you can apply binary rules to it in an approximation but then all your left with is a model of nature not nature itself. If nature is not binary but rather an analogue system of variation then noting found in nature can be binary either. Everything in nature that we claim to be binary is only that way because we impose a binary model onto it by ignoring and assimilating the things that make the third and so on option viable.

But yeah going to take a break soon you will all be relieved to hear

Very disappointed to google 'ternary species' and find that there aren't any.
Great concept for a sci-fi novel though.

So, could we have fictional human beings with say 10 different types of chromosomes - J chromosomes and W chromosomes, but if only taking a representative of XX at XY produces offspring, and none of the others do, would that mean we are still binary?

As it pertains to sexual reproduction, yes, one of each of two types. Not one of each of 3 or 4 or 10.

You'd have females, males, wergles, burgles, durgles, rurbles etc. TBH though, I don't see that that works even as a thought experiment - if two beings have entirely different chromosomes in that way, they're a completely different species - just like we can't reproduce with birds.

Binary system in nature = how babies are made.

Or did I miss something?

IMHO, there are only 2 human sexes, along with a small number of abnormalities. As far as I know, evolution of vertebrates has never thrown up more than 2, although there are some creatures that can change their sex e.g. Clown Fish. 2 sexes is fundamental to the way animals propagate themselves. This may of course change in the future, but for now, this where we are.

Gender is a human construct based on perceived differences in roles between the 2 sexes. This perception varies according to culture and time, and the fact that that there are physical differences between the sexes e.g. woman bear children and men don't. In an ideal human world, there would be no difference between the gender roles, but that isn't likely to happen any time soon, however much we would like it to.

The consequence is that right now humans cannot change sex. Not completely. But we can change, or attempt to change, how we are perceived in society with regard to our gender role. How effective this is depends on which culture we live in and how strongly the gender roles are perceived by that society.

I cannot comment on why people feel they are a different gender to their biological sex. I don't understand it and have no direct experience of feeling this way. I don't even know what someone in this position believes the 'other gender' to be, as it varies according to their society. But while I do believe that you cannot change sex, since gender is not entirely based on your physical sex, I don't see why you can't attempt to change your perceived gender.

Where does that leave people who can't

‘Of, or denoting’ the sex who can, presumably. Through numerous markers.