Questions about genders ... male/female

[psychoslice]

Because in between the two, is the abnormality of the two, and hence the labels we put to the abnormality.

[Aractus]

Yes, but biology isn't concerned with abnormalities. As I just showed you, people with XY chromosomes who have androgen-insensitivity syndrome are biologically considered to be male. Other areas of science define sex/gender differently to biology, but the OP asked the question about biology and the answer is that every human is distinctly male or female from the biological perspective irregardless of development abnormalities.

[psychoslice]

Yes, but biology isn't concerned with abnormalities. As I just showed you, people with XY chromosomes who have androgen-insensitivity syndrome are biologically considered to be male. Other areas of science define sex/gender differently to biology, but the OP asked the question about biology and the answer is that every human is distinctly male or female from the biological perspective irregardless of development abnormalities.

MMMM, that is interesting, something to think about.

[Aractus]

I should have said that doesn't mean that other areas of science (e.g. psychology) aren't valid. Psychology is generally only concerned with the mind and brain and not concerned with other physical attributes, etc. Biology is only concerned with physiology and anatomy (and not with "appearance"), and is not concerned with cognitive function.

[bennyboy]

Greetings!

I'm new here, so I'll add a short reason why I am asking this question on this forum.

I teach worldviews classes to high schoolers. We cover Secularism, Postmodernism, Islam, New Spirituality, Christianity and Marxism. Within each worldview we cover each discipline of theology, philosophy, history, economics, sociology, ethics, biology, psychology, law and politics and how they differ across the board.

We are currently in the biology unit ... and I've pondered this question from an atheistic evolutionary viewpoint for a bit ... and I can't seem to find an answer.

So, I thought I would post here to see if you all could offer some insight.

Why do we only have two genders, male and female? [excluding asexual animal reproduction] ... just humans and almost all animals? Why only two? Why not ... say ... seven, or seven-thousand? If we have evolved over time from a single celled organism ... why did we only evolve into two genders and not more? Why did it stop at two? Thanks for your time.

Well, you have the innie and the outie-- and then you run out of plug-in options.

I think the idea of a multiple inheritance through shared DNA is pretty cool. Maybe people will do it eventually, artificially.

We have a good narrative for sexual reproduction-- it provides a mechanism for variation, allowing a better chance for at least some individuals to survive a change in environment.

But what would a third genetic source do? More variation? I don't think so-- it would be simpler to ingrain variability in 2-party reproduction.

[Violet]

You're forgetting transgenders, my friend. The issue isn't as clear cut as it seems.

Yeah, way to pull someone in with a title that sounded promising, right? And then, no... it's about biological sexes. It could have been about societal categorization of people and the duties assumed of each, it could have been about the psychological interpretation of the self and it's application to their vessel... heck, it could even have been about the pointless technique that is giving words gender, and I mean: I could rant on that topic all month long.

But no. It's about chromosomal pairs, and the fact that the two sex thing has found significant success in achieving genetic diversity. Not sure what it has to do with atheism (actually, I do know: nothing), but... it's an irrelevant post on an irrelevant topic that could have been so much more.

* Violet goes ahead and just puts on the rose-coloured glasses, and continues fantasizing about what could have been.

---

Thanks for that insight. What about the "transgender community" ... does it require a new gender? Or will male/female just have to work for them as is? I'm just thinking out loud here.

Nah, not taking the bait... between the misunderstanding of sex chromosomal pairings (there are many more than XY and XX, but few of them are fertile, and the very existance of the Intersex population should make this clear), and the misunderstandings of gender (there are many more than 'two gender's, and the very existence of the Genderqueer population should make this clear)... I'd be here all week just getting off the ground, when nothing interesting has yet been said.

[Angrboda]

... So even if a new gender were to have mutated, it would have very likely been ousted very quickly, as the likelihood that a single new gender would be able to reproduce would be pretty low.

The problem with this is that the same logic applies to one sex versus two. Sex is expensive, evolutionarily speaking. One sex alone, asexual reproduction, easily outperforms two sexes in terms of reproduction, so there has to be some leveling factor that justifies the added cost of two sexes. For a time it was thought that the increase in genetic diversity yielding reproductive advantages was that justification, but if I remember rightly, simple diversity on its own doesn't explain it.

Matt Ridley's The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature goes into detail on the question and is probably the go to book for answers regarding the question.

See Wikipedia | Red Queen hypothesis.

[Cato]

@OP, see if any of these are satisfying:

- Reproduction via gangbang makes for crowded maternity wards.

- Parent teacher conferences would be exhausting.

- Family court would be a fucking zoo.

- Hallmark can only handle an additional 363 gender based parental holidays, so 7000 more genders is not possible.

- Adam would have to have had a shit ton more ribs for all the extra helpmeets.

and perhaps the most compelling:

- Additional genders add an unacceptable level of complexity in deciding who is responsible for making the post fuck sandwich.

[Aractus]

Nah, not taking the bait... between the misunderstanding of sex chromosomal pairings (there are many more than XY and XX, but few of them are fertile, and the very existance of the Intersex population should make this clear), and the misunderstandings of gender (there are many more than 'two gender's, and the very existence of the Genderqueer population should make this clear)... I'd be here all week just getting off the ground, when nothing interesting has yet been said.

Whiles those are valid issues, they are not relevant to human biology. Humans cannot biologically be intersex, although they can have (as mentioned before) serious abnormalities.

It is possible for some birds and some other animals to be intersex, the condition produces an adult that is biologically male on one side and biologically female on the other (split vertically left-right). such intersex creatures can be fertile - meaning they can be both the paternal and maternal parent of an offspring. In other creatures sex/gender can be determined environmentally and not genetically, and in some creatures they can change their sex from male to female (or the other way) as an adult in a single sex environment. Again, humans can't do this, and although environmental factors can produce serious abnormalities in development, it can't determine gender. It is biologically impossible for a human to develop both an ovary and a testicle. The human gonads cannot develop separately into the two distinct sexes, as can happen (as mentioned) in birds.

Biologically speaking, a person with a single X chromosome is a female. A person with three X chromosomes is a female. A person with XXY chromosomes is a male.

This is not meant as an attack on your community, just on the exact biological definition of sex/gender.

[Reader]

Sorry I've not posted in several days. The classes I'm teaching are new, so there's a lot to prepare each week. I've read all of the responses and shared them with my students last week. They appreciated the feedback. If it's alright, I'd like to post questions that the students may come up with or need clarification as we cover different topics. We are just seeking to comprehend.

The next question: (we now understand why we didn't evolve into 7 or 7000 "sexes") ... is at what point did we go from being asexual to being sexual (2 sexes) in order to reproduce?