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

Yes - it's reproductive bloody sex - that's the point of people having sex, it's how people are made? Doesn't mean that people with disorders of sexual reproduction aren't people!

People who aren't male or female - which are reproductive categories, are intersex. That's where it leaves them.

I'm not leaving them out, they're people, humans, with rich and fulfilling lives, they just don't have the ability to sexually reproduce. Having babies isn't the meaning of life (well, it is from nature's point of view I suppose).

What do you mean by 'where does it leave people'?

So sex designation is only about reproductive ability. Where does that leave people who can't

You aren't getting it. How we designate a species does not rely on the characteristics of the individual, but of the class.
Humans are bipedal, as a species, yes? They walk upright on 2 legs. Even you cannot argue with that. Sometimes people lose their leg(s) or are born without them. They are still members of a bipedal species. They are still humans and nominally bipedal. They just are not personally bipedal!

Same with sex. You are a male because you have xy chromosomes and a penis and make sperm etc. You may not personally be able to make sperm but that does not mean you are not a male.

This is very simple stuff.

MentholBreeze

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?

You seem obsessed with trying to create them though?

Yes it seems with great effort too!
Debbie how about you go and speak to a fertility doctor about your theory?

Debbie6666

Thank you for sticking around and arguing this through. I understand the point you are making, but remain completely unconvinced.

As I understand it, science = 'this is my theory, let's try and disprove it'.

I see several huge, concrete, testable and provable challenges to your position (listed by PPs). I still don't see challenges beyond the level of thought experiment to the accepted scientific and medical position.

MentholBreeze

So sex designation is only about reproductive ability. Where does that leave people who can't

You see, no matter how you try and define it you always leave someone out or force things into the model with a leap of faith and "just is"

OR not OF.

I think Debbie is going for a world record in sealioning, personally.

Thanks to post it on here for clarifying this for me.

I think, like Debbie, I had been working backwards (although not concluding anything like her/him).

Discussions I have seen around this issue let me to believe binary meant very existence of male and female, not the fact that to reproduce required a male and a female.

Although, obviously I knew that. It’s the act of reproduction and what it requires that determines whether it’s a binary?

Is that right?

Of course that then brings in the female penis and male vagina and definitions of sex that people are not comfortable with

Its not that we aren't comfortable with them, is is that there is no such thing. It's like saying hot ice, it doesn't and can't exist. It's an oxymoron, there is no such thing as a female penis of male vagina.

But as we can see here, no one has yet completely defined sex without causing unintended divisions

We all have, you just don't seem to understand. it does not create divisions. You seem obsessed with trying to create them though?

That breaks the very rules of binary though, there is a third option. Nobody is eliminating male and female and that they make babies, they just might not fully represent "sex"

Jesus, no, the binary is because you need one female and one male to make a baby.

Human reproduction requires both of two sexes - that's what makes it a binary.

If you needed a male, a female, and some other, third sex, then it wouldn't be a binary, it would be a ternary, but that isn't the case for human reproduction.

That breaks the very rules of binary though, there is a third option. Nobody is eliminating male and female and that they make babies, they just might not fully represent "sex"

Jesus, no, the binary is because you need one female and one male to make a baby.

Human reproduction requires both of two sexes - that's what makes it a binary.

If you needed a male, a female, and some other, third sex, then it wouldn't be a binary, it would be a ternary, but that isn't the case for human reproduction.

There is not a third option. The vast majority of intersex people are infertile. It's sad, but it's true.
Transgender people are not the same as intersex.
Hence the amazing news story about the first 'man' to give birth. They were, of course, actually female.

Male, Female, Intersex. Nothing lumped together, everyone accounted for. so you agree there are three or more sexes then other wise where did intersex go?

What theory are you actually talking about? The theory that humans are a sexually dimorphic species? Which means that we need a female and male to reproduce?

When making these discoveries, we also found some people that don't easily fit into either the male, or the female category. Their existence doesn't negate that the male and female categories both exist, and you need one of each to make a new human.

That breaks the very rules of binary though, there is a third option. Nobody is eliminating male and female and that they make babies, they just might not fully represent "sex"

In this instance, taking the things that don't look quite like male and female and saying they are close enough and lumping them into the data set using the theory your trying to prove true, when those things that are not quite a fit are the very things that may prove the theory is false.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Male, Female, Intersex. Nothing lumped together, everyone accounted for.

Bad science is to use the rules of the result your trying to prove to manipulate the data used in the analysis

In this instance, taking the things that don't look quite like male and female and saying they are close enough and lumping them into the data set using the theory your trying to prove true, when those things that are not quite a fit are the very things that may prove the theory is false.

That is bad science.

The extent of people's capacity to willfully ignore the truth in pursuit of an ideology never ceases to amaze me. How can it be that we are having to expend energy explaining that there are two human sexes?

(Well obviously I know the answer is because there's mileage in such deliberate obtuseness if you want to take something away from women and have it for yourself).

If your parents had believed sex is merely a social construct then you wouldn't exist

If only contraception could actually work that way

Debbie66 - if a male and a male have lots and lots of sex, there will never be a baby. If a female and a female have lots and lots of sex, there will never be a baby. If a female and a male have lots and lots of sex, chances are there's going to be a baby, and no amount of stamping your feet and saying sex is socially constructed is going to change that.

Since these two types of people very, very clearly exist, we went and looked at what the differences might be. Turns out, there's some very clear ones that even amateurs can notice, and also some very small ones that only become clear to scientists.

When making these discoveries, we also found some people that don't easily fit into either the male, or the female category. Their existence doesn't negate that the male and female categories both exist, and you need one of each to make a new human.

I'm going to cherry pick concepts from science without really understanding them, misapply them in an out of context way, and then claim that the unconvinced people don't have my superior knowledge.

Bad science?
That to make a baby you need sperm from a man and an egg from a woman? That is why sex is binary. It's really very simple.
If your parents had believed sex is merely a social construct then you wouldn't exist.
No.
Bad science is 'female brain in a male body'.

Binary is a number system, nature does not use numbers, they are too clumsy and ill defined and binary is the clumsiest off the lot

It's binary because there are 2 sexes required to make a new human. Not because every human exactly fits into one of those two boxes (although the vast, vast majority do, and those who don't are usually sterile due to their chromosomal disorder - note, still valid, real, humans - just not part of the reproductive binary)

The existence of people who are XXY (or any other makeup) doesn't negate that.

Also, your chromosomes don't change. If you're born XY, ie male, you can never become XX, ie female.

If you are born XXY (I believe defined as an intersex male) you can never become XX or XY.

none of these are value judgements, they're descriptions of reality.

The first definition fails as humans are not all identical and its possible/likely that intersex and transgender people fall between the established binary model which by definition means its not binary anymore, as there are now more than two things.

The only way to keep it binary is to apply the preconceived model of binary to it, which is bad science.

Coding! That's it.
It's the connection with a high salary in IT.