The genders reversed?

could we not carry this a bit further and state that there is merely a minor variation in the genital arrangement, rendering one 'male', or 'female'.
and it could be argued that without the 'flavouring' of social conditioning, all human beings are merely variations on a theme (admittedly i find 'the music of the spheres' in certain cases, and not in others).

hence hetero, or homo sexuallity are likewise blips in a sine wave, not totally exclusive curves.

lets face it, we are all one, in it together, parties to the 'game'; labels aside, we use each other for gain and pleasure, in most cases offering equal in return. is it important how we line up on the field, or how we play the game.

[life, anyone?]

Aside from the genetic similiarities, what about the
emotional differences?

Bogowo, you make good points. But the importance of the subdivision of this ONE can only be decided by the person doing the math.

Calamity Jane, I don't know if these emotional differences are that great. I think it is mostly social conditioning that makes the differences seem so apparent.

Of course one can argue about hormones and chemichals and so on, but these things are not decicive for you personality, only your mood, and your mood changes continously.

Lastly I must admit the seemingly total difference in how men and women define and solve problems. But a man can easily adapt to a womans thinking in the same way a woman can a man's. The fact that women tend to be more down to earth in how they deal with things is also, I think, a fact that has more to do with social conditioning than with chromosomes.

Of course, when sex is in the loop both genders go off the walls.

Cyr,

Wow, I was following you until that last line.

What is this new thing about everyone going off the walls now during sex? I feel like I'm missing something...again.

I know. Women just seem emotionally unstable or something...what is that? :wink:

Very well said BoGo.

extra, only some women, not all

Not during sex EM. But when your feelers pick up the scent of a woman is just about the only time you leave your brain on a shelf without missing it. The same is true for women. They try to deny it, but I don't buy it.

How about we all assume we are different combinations of male and female qualities, good and bad,mixed up in different amounts.
The world would be alot more tolerant of each other.

I read something some years ago concerning the different "races" of humans. The research showed that a white man could have 40% white genes, 30% black and 30% indian. No human being alive has even close to all the genes from one "race". Whatever skincolor you have is only a result of wichever genes are in overweight in you, and it is always a close race.

gender marking.

genderalisation

<smile>A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke. Kipling.

And Cyracuz, if you even mention Bill Clinton, I'll have you neutered.

[people who are overweight shouldn't wear genes!]

love it!

i feel hormones have more to do with sexuallity, than biological designation.

[how many times, men, have you seen a woman ahead of you walking along the road, with long wavy hair, and a nice 'tight' ass, and though "oh my!", only to find out upon catching up that it's a guy! can you define 'mental embarassment'?]

and people who live in Norway and Canada should wear fur-lined genes.

Were your ears burning, Cyracuz? I sent a rhyme your way on WA2K.

Hey, Bo. You never did say why Letty should speak for herself. Still the brat, I see.

[because she's soooooo good at it!]

Hmmmm. I do believe, Cyracuz, that is one of Bo's left handed compliments.

All this time I thought that was a quote from Prissy and John.

Hey, I'm sorry for side tracking your intentions, Norway. I do that when I'm not certain what's going on.

ok, Cyracuz. I'm going to be serious and prim now:

A person is a person when born, and later other facets emerge, but I really don't care about the blood line nor the gender gap, I am going to address C.J.'s comment with a new study:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From our science editor:

By Randy Dotinga
HealthDay Reporter
Mon May 23, 7:02 PM ET



MONDAY, May 23 (HealthDay News) -- Oh yeah, right!



No, it's true -- many of you don't go a day without dishing out several doses of sarcasm. But some brain-damaged people can't comprehend sarcasm, and Israeli researchers think it's because a specific brain region has gone dark.


The region, according to the researchers, handles the task of detecting hidden meaning, a crucial component of sarcasm. If that part of the brain is out of commission, the irony doesn't come through, the scientists report in the May issue of Neuropsychology.


"People with prefrontal brain damage suffer from difficulties in understanding other people's mental states, and they lack empathy," said study co-author Simone Shamay-Tsoory, a researcher at the University of Haifa. "Therefore, they can't understand what the speaker really is talking about, and get only the literal meaning."


The findings, Shamay-Tsoory said, could help rehabilitation centers do a better job of helping brain-damaged patients adjust to the world and understand other people.


In their study, Shamay-Tsoory and her colleagues first enrolled 58 subjects -- 25 participants with prefrontal-lobe damage, 17 who were healthy and 16 who had damage to the posterior lobe of the brain.


Then they tested each person by exposing them to several "neutral" and sarcastic comments recorded by actors as part of a story. This "sarcasm meter" was designed to gauge how well the subjects could comprehend the unique kind of irony that is sarcasm.


For example, actors read phrases such as "don't work too hard" in both a neutral sense (meaning "you're a hard worker") and a sarcastic sense (meaning "you're a real slacker"). Each comment came in proper context as part of a story about, say, a worker who's sleeping or a worker who's grinding away at his job.


All the subjects understood the sarcasm except for those with damage to the prefrontal area, which is above the eye sockets and behind the forehead. And among those, people with damage to a specific area known as the ventromedial area had the most trouble deciphering sarcasm.


The researchers think lesions in several parts of the brain can contribute to an inability to understand sarcasm. But, they wrote, this particular area is important because it draws on your innate recognition of the emotions of other people -- empathy -- and past experiences to comprehend a speaker's intentions.


Brian Knutson, an assistant professor of neuroscience at Stanford University, said the findings make sense because the brain's cortex handles a variety of sophisticated tasks, and sarcasm could be on the list.


The findings also reflect a growing interest in how emotion is processed by the brain. "Emotion has not been a popular topic in science for a long time," because it's difficult to measure, he said, but things are changing.

They'll eventually come around to Letty's way of thinking. (sure they will)

There are only TWO emotions: Love and Fear!

Bill who?

And no. We here in norway don't wear fur-lined genes. We just stay really close together.

No apologies Letty, my intention was to get people ranting. Seems I had some success.

As for the scientific study you posted. I am convinced that there is only one emotion: Love. All other emotions are but twisted reactions of this one.