最近的搜尋紀錄
搜尋選項
管理者：
For those who think biological human sex is clear cut, worth reading this figure from the 2017 #ScientificAmerican again 
#nonbinary
https://static.scientificamerican.com/sciam/cache/file/164FE5CE-FBA6-493F-B9EA84B04830354E_source.jpg
@kofanchen Honest question at this place. A while ago I read both https://www.joshuakennon.com/the-six-common-biological-sexes-in-humans/ and another article, that seemed to get deeper into detail about this: https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/karyotypes-are-not-sexes
The second article claims there are differences between gender and sex - with sex being a description of purely reproductive stuff (biologically speaking).
Is the second article reasonable or questionable?
@jesterchen I am not expert in sex determination ( both in terms of genetics or sociology ) but I do think the figure I just shared answered your question...the short answer is the second article is not quite right in that it ignores the fact one can have genetic variation results in SRY expression in XX karyotype...and in such case how would we define sex for these individuals? I don't have an answer for this, as I believe sex and gender are both socio terms 1/2
@jesterchen but I do accept that many animals use oocyte and sperm as their reproductive means and "traditionally" those who produced sperms are called male and those with oocyte female. And as other biologists already said, there are plenty exceptions in the animal kingdom and the reproductive role can be rather fluid with environmental changes. IMV, the current "debate" is actually nothing to do with biology but how we treat non-binary fairly in equal human rights, again I have no answer.
@kofanchen
Does the Olympic Committee know about this?
@kofanchen@g0v.social
Now that's a bunch of possibilites concerning binarity! I had learned about some of the not-quite-so-binary humans, but not about this plurality. Thanks for sharing!
@kofanchen Seems like the main problem is that none of us are binary but sports separates contenders into two simple categories. Perhaps the latter is what we should be looking at.
@kcoyle
@peter just shared a proposal as such from #theconversation https://mastodon.gassner.io/@peter/112900086093177503
@kofanchen Thanks! I’ll hold onto this diagram for future use!
@kofanchen what does it mean? LGBT ppl will deliver again LGBT children?
@kofanchen I remember this graph from a lecture. It is the (still simplified) summary of decades of biological and medical research. The social sciences still are researching a lot, but they also gone a long way.
Isn't that a bit misleading, when it makes it seem that it's only a generic mutation matter, and that that exception to the norm is much more common than it is?
The extreme ends of that very interesting and informational infographic represent the normal situation, which is proportionally inverse in dimensions, if one considers the infographic area, if not more.
Of course, the exceptions to the norm are very complex and with all those variations, and deserve equal respect.
@RuiSeabra I agreed that the frequency of each case is indeed crucial information but I suspect the article was trying to highlight the possibility @w4tsn
@kofanchen @glennf Wow. Might need to get that on a shirt.
@kofanchen FYI here's the full citation and link to article (Sep 2017 issue) with this #WomenInDataviz #dataViz of the complexities of human biological sex:
Montañez, A. (2017). Beyond XX and XY: The extraordinary complexity of sex determination. #ScientificAmerican, 317(3), 50. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0917-50
#wayback_machine archived snapshot of article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240421151029/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/beyond-xx-and-xy-the-extraordinary-complexity-of-sex-determination
@nacly I didnot tag the doi becus it is behind pay wall
edit: thanks for including the archive version here