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

[Childrenofthestones]

Not my words but Steven Crowder's (like him or loathe him). in this interesting experiment on a campus.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

curry I was about to say the same thing!

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

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.

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.

^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

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.

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

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.

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

Sounds familiar, Debbie

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.

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.

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.

Two sexes.

Because there are only two types of sex chromosome. X and Y. There is no Z or P or H or whatever for humans.

The female always passes on an X. The male passes on an X or a Y.

But neither can pass on anything else. There is no 'third letter'.

When a parent passes on the wrong number of Xs or Ys they create offspring with an intersex disorder e.g. XXY or XYY. But they are still passing on either 1) Xs or 2) Ys.

Not some other type of sex chromosome that would be represented by a third letter.

If there are no rules then any we make up cant be true.

But there are rules - one XX and one XY to make a new human. That's the rule, it's firm, it's clear!

we don't even have the language in English to describe it, doesn't make it wrong though.

Ah. All the words in English language at your disposal, but I am detecting a need to change the meanings...

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)

You can't challenge them both! They are completely different things. The fact that you think yuo can lump them togeteher shows you don't understand what they even are.

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

WE do. YOU do not, it would seem.

The 2 sex classes (male and female) denote the 2 classes of human that respectively produce the 2 kinds of gamete required for successful sexual reproduction. Hence, sex is a binary.

Intersex people aren't a 3rd sex because they don't produce a 3rd kind of gamete.

The idea that a person's sex class is in any way related to how much humanity they can claim is the problem here, and one feminists have been trying to point out for some time.

Debbie6666 That's not what I meant.

This is what I meant:
We can discover rules by observation and these rules describe our understanding of the way nature works. Rules can therefore be "true" as long as our observations support them.

In the case of two sexes being necessary for human reproduction (and I believe for most other animals) there is an overwhelming weight of evidence in support for that rule.