Colin, I just want to thank you for your clear and helpful writing in this area, which is sorely lacking among the proponents of the sex-as-a-spectrum bunch.
I find it shocking that anyone can suggest that acknowledging these biological facts is in any way erasing feminine males, butch lesbians, or any other diverse behaviour group. One wonders if they really have managed to convince themselves of the veracity of their statements -- I have to assume they have. It's all very Orwellian.
Again, thank you for your contribution to sharing your knowledge. I have learned a lot of great biology as a result of reading your material.
Dr. Ray Blanchard, the top guru of 3 decades plus, "sexologist" (with the 3 others belonging to the 4 Horsemen of the Trans-Pocalypse, James Cantor, J Michael Bailey and Kenneth Zucker) created the 2 years of cross-dressing "Blanchard Protocols" (immediately violated, compressed like an accordion by surgeons and therapists alike, eg, in my then-husband's case in 1995, to one year) for the official "transsexual diagnosis."
The purpose of the "transsexual diagnosis" from a "sexologist" was to convince a surgeon to remove, in most cases, the testicles and penis of a male ideating a "disruptive" female persona. The surgeon then attempted to create a tunnel into the middle of the pelvis, out of the inverted penis and/or intestinal material, which was supposed to function as the female vagina. The surgeon then wrote a letter, after finishing with breast implants. (I'm in possession of my husband's, for his name change)
The "Let me sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" sexologist promises, despite the fact that women's vulva, clitoris and vaginal tissue have many more, and specialized, nerve endings than the male material used to visually mimic a woman's body. Each cell of the male organs used to "repurpose" as something appearing female, contains xy chromosomes, and he, the post-op individual, will never actually have the female sexual response in his desired sex encounters with men seeking penetrative sexual encounters with women. I apologize for the clinical descriptions here, but I am so tired of this feminine hesitation to tell it like it is.
Further, in 2002, Dr. Ray Blanchard said, "It's too disruptive to acknowledge that you wish your penis was part of your wife's body and not yours. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that this is a sexual compulsion." This was published in The Atlantic Monthly, an American periodical, in 2002, a study by author Amy Bloom, of couples on a cruise where the men are cross-dressing. The wives are not portrayed as acquiescing to this charade. These women simply did not have agency to leave. These men, in general, based on my data, now approaching data sets from "trans studies" with small subject numbers, reveals that these cross-dressing men employ prostitutes for the fetish exploration and are not monogamous. Those seeking to contribute from this segment of women's experience, contact form at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
"Fuentes appears to have learned little-to-nothing from that exchange, because yesterday he published an article in Scientific American titled “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary.”
Pretty insane that an article like this is being published in a magazine called "Scientific American"!
It is difficult not to conclude that the insistence of Fuentes and SA on conflating these concepts is because the ideology demands it. That is Soviet Onion science.
New here; and I’m interested in this collective notion of “masculinity” and “femininity” as perceived in terms of archetypal stereotypes. Prescribed cultural roles notwithstanding; let’s not forget that stereotypes are typically a result of selective breeding, and marked dimorphism between males and females is typically a result of polygamous mating strategies. Stereotypes don’t happen on their own… they are shaped! Since modern humans have adopted a more egalitarian mating strategy than our very distant ancestors might have, and are more lax about mate selection (we’re not choosing *only* the *most* stereotypically masculine or feminine individuals); then we can — and should — fully expect a wide range of varying traits among men and women.
Certain physical characteristics, on the other hand, remain more dimorphic… which I assume might mean that some traits such as personality are more mutable, while others are not (although we’re still rather selective - to a degree - about physical appearances…)
@Colin Wright : "[Gametes] are, however, the fundamental defining property of what it means to be male and female."
Does that mean you'd agree with the definitions for the sexes as published in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction? To wit:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
That producing sperm and ova -- present tense indefinite -- constitute the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male and female? That to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, that those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless?
Inquiring minds and all that ...
But still, a useful differentiation between "gamete types", on the one hand, and, on the other hand, "differences in size, shape, color, behavior, and other physical and behavioral characteristics between males and females of the same species" that might correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with gamete type.
You might consider that those differences correspond to or are analogous to the differences between the "essential properties" and the "accidental properties" of philosophy:
You might also consider another analogy with "independent variables (sex, gametes)" and "dependent variables (other traits that correlate with the independent variables)":
That is, maybe arguably, one of the primary benefits of DEFINING the sexes as a binary: one is able to plot sex -- the independent variable -- against the frequency of the other traits -- the dependent variable -- to acquire some understanding of how, and to what degree, sex itself might be a causative factor in the prevalence of any given trait. As in a typical "joint probability distribution" of agreeableness versus sex:
Colin, I just want to thank you for your clear and helpful writing in this area, which is sorely lacking among the proponents of the sex-as-a-spectrum bunch.
I find it shocking that anyone can suggest that acknowledging these biological facts is in any way erasing feminine males, butch lesbians, or any other diverse behaviour group. One wonders if they really have managed to convince themselves of the veracity of their statements -- I have to assume they have. It's all very Orwellian.
Again, thank you for your contribution to sharing your knowledge. I have learned a lot of great biology as a result of reading your material.
I really appreciate your clear writing--it makes it so easy to quote.
Dr. Ray Blanchard, the top guru of 3 decades plus, "sexologist" (with the 3 others belonging to the 4 Horsemen of the Trans-Pocalypse, James Cantor, J Michael Bailey and Kenneth Zucker) created the 2 years of cross-dressing "Blanchard Protocols" (immediately violated, compressed like an accordion by surgeons and therapists alike, eg, in my then-husband's case in 1995, to one year) for the official "transsexual diagnosis."
The purpose of the "transsexual diagnosis" from a "sexologist" was to convince a surgeon to remove, in most cases, the testicles and penis of a male ideating a "disruptive" female persona. The surgeon then attempted to create a tunnel into the middle of the pelvis, out of the inverted penis and/or intestinal material, which was supposed to function as the female vagina. The surgeon then wrote a letter, after finishing with breast implants. (I'm in possession of my husband's, for his name change)
The "Let me sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" sexologist promises, despite the fact that women's vulva, clitoris and vaginal tissue have many more, and specialized, nerve endings than the male material used to visually mimic a woman's body. Each cell of the male organs used to "repurpose" as something appearing female, contains xy chromosomes, and he, the post-op individual, will never actually have the female sexual response in his desired sex encounters with men seeking penetrative sexual encounters with women. I apologize for the clinical descriptions here, but I am so tired of this feminine hesitation to tell it like it is.
Further, in 2002, Dr. Ray Blanchard said, "It's too disruptive to acknowledge that you wish your penis was part of your wife's body and not yours. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that this is a sexual compulsion." This was published in The Atlantic Monthly, an American periodical, in 2002, a study by author Amy Bloom, of couples on a cruise where the men are cross-dressing. The wives are not portrayed as acquiescing to this charade. These women simply did not have agency to leave. These men, in general, based on my data, now approaching data sets from "trans studies" with small subject numbers, reveals that these cross-dressing men employ prostitutes for the fetish exploration and are not monogamous. Those seeking to contribute from this segment of women's experience, contact form at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Htt42Xeo&t=15s
FYI, letters to the editor of Scientific American can be submitted here: editors@sciam.com
"Fuentes appears to have learned little-to-nothing from that exchange, because yesterday he published an article in Scientific American titled “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary.”
Pretty insane that an article like this is being published in a magazine called "Scientific American"!
It is difficult not to conclude that the insistence of Fuentes and SA on conflating these concepts is because the ideology demands it. That is Soviet Onion science.
New here; and I’m interested in this collective notion of “masculinity” and “femininity” as perceived in terms of archetypal stereotypes. Prescribed cultural roles notwithstanding; let’s not forget that stereotypes are typically a result of selective breeding, and marked dimorphism between males and females is typically a result of polygamous mating strategies. Stereotypes don’t happen on their own… they are shaped! Since modern humans have adopted a more egalitarian mating strategy than our very distant ancestors might have, and are more lax about mate selection (we’re not choosing *only* the *most* stereotypically masculine or feminine individuals); then we can — and should — fully expect a wide range of varying traits among men and women.
Certain physical characteristics, on the other hand, remain more dimorphic… which I assume might mean that some traits such as personality are more mutable, while others are not (although we’re still rather selective - to a degree - about physical appearances…)
This is likely an annoying question, but:
is 'sex binary' an actual biological term?
[Duplicate to get Note link]
@Colin Wright : "[Gametes] are, however, the fundamental defining property of what it means to be male and female."
Does that mean you'd agree with the definitions for the sexes as published in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction? To wit:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
That producing sperm and ova -- present tense indefinite -- constitute the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male and female? That to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, that those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless?
Inquiring minds and all that ...
But still, a useful differentiation between "gamete types", on the one hand, and, on the other hand, "differences in size, shape, color, behavior, and other physical and behavioral characteristics between males and females of the same species" that might correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with gamete type.
You might consider that those differences correspond to or are analogous to the differences between the "essential properties" and the "accidental properties" of philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
You might also consider another analogy with "independent variables (sex, gametes)" and "dependent variables (other traits that correlate with the independent variables)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables
That is, maybe arguably, one of the primary benefits of DEFINING the sexes as a binary: one is able to plot sex -- the independent variable -- against the frequency of the other traits -- the dependent variable -- to acquire some understanding of how, and to what degree, sex itself might be a causative factor in the prevalence of any given trait. As in a typical "joint probability distribution" of agreeableness versus sex:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
If one mashes all of those traits into the definitions for "male" and "female" then that ability is lost or seriously compromised.