Reply
Sun 5 Sep, 2004 03:06 pm
Do you have a philosophical definition of man and woman? or do you stick with the accepted a man has a penis, a woman, a vagina?
What makes a human being of one sex?
There are chromosomal markers of gender:
xx: Female
xy: Male
This happens at conception. However at about six weeks the fetus gets an androgen wash. Less androgen = female phenotypes such as breasts and vagina; More androgen = male phenotypes such as penis and testies.
These two things do not always match up. There is a decent percent of humans that are chromosomally mismatched with thier phenotypes. But, when they do match you tend to have 'normal' acting males - and normal acting females (if there is such a thing - okay bad joke).
There are also chemicals that play a factor in gender or sex. It is a complicated thing - but at its simplest level; more testosterone = more male traits (physical play, protection of others, not asking directions); more estrogen = more female traits (mothering instincts, submission in play, shopping for shoes).
This complicated and often ill matched process nets us (in my opinion) a large spectrum of males and females - on one end super males and the other super females.
The reality is though that the vast majority of us rest closer to the middle of this continuum and have multiple traights from 'both sides'.
This does not leave us a clear cut way to distinguish between the two - and often in extreme cases (hermaphrodites etc.) leaving one to simply pick by 'feeling'.
I don't think it is all relative - but I don't think it is all biological or societal either.
TF
Yin and Yang. Opposites. Men = Fire. Woman = Water.
Part genetics, part cultural roles.
Politically Correct
Not a philosphical one but a utilitarian one. Does the subject satisfy the rules?
strange thing how thinkfactory answered everything and nothing all at once.. thanks for your answer
coming - what subject and what rules?
When a woman sleeps around she's "a stud".
When a man sleeps around he's "a whore".
Still no explanation for Richard Simmons.
CerealKiller wrote:When a woman sleeps around she's "a stud".
When a man sleeps around he's "a whore".
Still no explanation for Richard Simmons.
shouldn't it be the other way around?
... or Juan Gabriel here in Mexico
sorry, not my intention
but.. aren't men the 'studs' and women the 'whores'?
and Juan Gabriel is a mexican singer who is well known to be effeminate and I think it's now well known that he's gay... so he could be the mexican counterpart to Richard Simmons
JoeFX wrote:sorry, not my intention
but.. aren't men the 'studs' and women the 'whores'?
and Juan Gabriel is a mexican singer who is well known to be effeminate and I think it's now well known that he's gay... so he could be the mexican counterpart to Richard Simmons
Yes, as the saying goes. I was using irony. But there should be no difference in labeling people for the same act.
Juan Gabriel is the mexican Richard Simmons. I did not know that. Our countries should be proud.
Gender types can be said to be social constructs but I also believe there is a natural general type of each, caused by hormonal levels and reproduction role necessity.
when considering sexual categorization, one should always keep two important, but often ignored aspects of sex in mind; sexuality is a continuum - i.e. whereas there are 'men' and 'women', the purity of this 'black/white' differentiation is widely blurred over a very large range of variation, with few, if any, examples of the 'absolute';
secondly the importance of sexuality is greatly overrated; it actually has an impact over a tiny fraction of life activities, where it is dominant over other personality factors. This last factor is, of course widely misunderstood and the importance of sex has been exaggerated out of proportion by social practices born of the natural kingdom's preoccupation with 'procreation' - hence 'survival'; which in the human species has been 'hyped' into a virtual obsession.
Is the subject male or female?
JoeFx
The rules.
Here are the utilitarian rules which factor into all circumstances.
If it benefit me and you pay or if we both benefits than you pass the rules. If neither of us benefit or you benefit at my expense than it is in violation of the rules. Simple!
Re: Is the subject male or female?
coming wrote:JoeFx
The rules.
Here are the utilitarian rules which factor into all circumstances.
If it benefit me and you pay or if we both benefits than you pass the rules. If neither of us benefit or you benefit at my expense than it is in violation of the rules. Simple!
I need an expansion of who "you" and "me" are in this context.
I assume the "rules" to be laws (or regulations).
I think I understand, but at the same time I don't
This is why marriage, despite it's flaws can be a great equalizer. If you, as a guy, are thinking "crap, what the hell did I do now," you are probably trying to actually save your relationship, and you do not have to be married to go through that. If she's thinking "what a bastard, how could he do this to me," she is probably also thinking about saving the relationship, even if she's off to her mother, or a friend. I don't think it's so much a matter of preconceived 'roles' as it is about how much respect we give to another human being we care about. Despite what some may think, being strong does mean being strong for others. That alone makes you stronger yourself.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace