Is Sex/Gender Really a Continuum?

[Bacle2]

Hi, All:

I have heard all these claims thrown around that the sex/gender* of a person is not "binary" , i.e., it is not necessarily either male or female, but instead that it is a continuum with male and female at the ends. Is there something to this? If so, how can one test this; are there sort-of intermediates between XX and XY?
*Which is the correct one, BTW?

 

[Curious3141]

I've not actually heard this claim from reputable scientific sources (I'm discounting wikipedia and various social advocacy groups). If you can cite a credible source, perhaps we can discuss this further.

EDIT: Certainly, there are other at-least somewhat viable genotypes other than 46XX or 46XY, like 47XXY ("Klinefelter's syndrome"), 47XXX ("superfemales"), 47XYY and 45XO ("Turner's syndrome"), but they are almost always regarded as pathological rather than physiological variants.

There is also a wide variation in relative degree of androgenisation/feminisation depending on myriad factors, both genetic and environmental, and this can, of course, influence how "masculine" or "feminine" a person is, I suppose. This is considered normal variation; however, to the best of my knowledge, defining this relative degree is imprecise to the point that it becomes an exercise in futility.

Pathology that is directly unrelated to the sex chromosomes may cause abnormal sexual development (generally overfeminisation). For example, a defect in a cytochrome enzyme (C-21 alpha hydroxylase) can manifest as "Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia" where a 46XY genotypic male can look like anything from an underdeveloped male to a complete female (sans puberty and reproductive function). These are extreme variants that are readily recognised as pathological.

 

[Bacle2]

I'm not claiming it is true, I just want to know what others think because my knowledge of this area is very limited, so that I'm not able to accurately-judge any such claims. I hear about transgendered people; about people who believe they are a man(women) trapped in a woman(men's) body, which leads some of them to have a sex-change operation, etc. But I'm also curious as to how this claim could be put to the test.

 

[jim mcnamara]

I think you may be referring to something rare in humans: intersexuality possibly due to chimerism or genetic disorders like Klinefelter's Syndrome.

I do not know what the distribution is in the adult human population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex - this article cites .01 -> .02% of live births as requiring medical intervention to because of ambiguous sex characteristics. The article cites a large list of known causes.

@curious3141: Thompson and Thompson 'Medical Genetics' covers aspects this topic.
wikipedia cites a large number of clinical studies. Where is moonbear when we need her?

However this kind of thread is a disaster waiting to happen. My opinion.

 

[Bacle2]

.




However this kind of thread is a disaster waiting to happen.

Thanks, jim.

How so? I don't have any agenda, and I don't lean in either direction. Maybe it is a politically-charged topic?

 

[jim mcnamara]

curious3141 is thinking this is tabloid news fodder as well. It is that, too, IMO. Let's see what happens...

 

[Curious3141]

@curious3141: Thompson and Thompson 'Medical Genetics' covers aspects this topic.
wikipedia cites a large number of clinical studies.

Ah, OK. No, I'm familiar with the medical aspects of intersex and gender ambiguity. But calling gender a "continuum" sounds like a politically-motivated scientific imprecision.

Gender, in my view, is a categorical variable (designation). There are two normal states (male and female), making this a binary variable, but it is possible to recognise relative misfits that cannot be neatly categorised, including some that have a readily identifiable pathology (and some that don't). It still doesn't make gender a continuum (as in "continuous variation").

 

[jim mcnamara]

I agree - it is binary. I don't think what I cited implies a continuum...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Gender isn't really a biological topic so much a cultural one. Sex refers to biological characteristics but gender refers to the socially constructed collection of behaviours, roles etc that society deems a specific sex should portray. When people refer to gender not being binary they are addressing the idea that there are clearly definitely roles for men and women in society.

Short on time and sleep but here's a link to get you started, I suggest looking into gender studies as a field of sociology rather than biology to learn further.
http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

 

[Bacle2]

Thanks; I learned something .After visiting the page and seeing the same-old unsupported statement that men earn more than women for similar work (after repeatedly asking for proof in many sites--why would anyone hire a man if this was truly the case?), I think I'll spare myselef reading about how men suck and all they do is exploit and oppress women. I was just wondering if there is scientific basis for the claim about sex (I accept that the answer is no) ; the claims made by the gender studies people are more questionable IMHO.
Just trying to filter out garbage from both the far-left and the far-right.

 

[Ken Natton]

The concern expressed for this thread is that it will suffer closure because of the ‘tabloid journalism’ kind of bad science. And perhaps that is the fate of this thread. But what I cannot get past is how on Earth you could possibly discuss this matter without being philosophical. The question is inherently philosophical. For sure, Ryan has already mentioned the key, critical point, that sex and gender are two completely different things – though it appears to have passed the OP by. But then, understanding and recognising that point is unavoidably philosophical…

 

[Bacle2]

The concern expressed for this thread is that it will suffer closure because of the ‘tabloid journalism’ kind of bad science. And perhaps that is the fate of this thread. But what I cannot get past is how on Earth you could possibly discuss this matter without being philosophical. The question is inherently philosophical. For sure, Ryan has already mentioned the key, critical point, that sex and gender are two completely different things – though it appears to have passed the OP by. But then, understanding and recognising that point is unavoidably philosophical…

Would be better if you addressed me directly when saying I'm too thick to understand the issues in point, (or related/underlying issues) instead of referring to me as 'the OP'. Now, for what _you_ missed is that I posted this in the _Biology_ forum, because I was interested in knowing whether there is some _scientific_ or biological basis to many of the claims I have often heard made. I am well aware of the issues associated with this question, but there are a few reasons why I'm not interested in a discussion of that sort. Firstly, I'm just too busy to get into a seriously-involved discussion, and , secondly, I am aware of the policies re this type of post. Actually, there is a third point. I have attended classes in these types of issues and I have never seem them treated in a way I thought was reasonable, and I do not want to have to do some special research in order to bring the issue in a way that I believe would be fruitful.

So, while the question may or may not be inherently philosophical , I was _specifically_ interested in knowing whether there is scientific basis for claims that I have heard made. So what _you_ missed is that there are good reasons ( at least good for me) why I do not want to get into a discussion about related gender issues at this point.

 

[Ken Natton]

Would be better if you addressed me directly when saying I'm too thick to understand the issues in point, (or related/underlying issues) instead of referring to me as 'the OP'.

I neither made nor intended any suggestions of any failure of intelligence on your part. Ryan made what, for me remains the key point and your subsequent post made no acknowledgment of it. I understand your reasons for not acknowledging it, you have made them very clear, but that is all I was referring to. In any case, that point is not important.

I was actually making a serious point entirely apropos of this topic. My contention is that this thread will have one of three outcomes: As others have predicted, it will suffer closure because of unfounded assertions that are politically motivated. Or, it will suffer closure for a breach of the rules on philosophical content – my contention is that such a thing will have been unavoidable. Or, it will go nowhere, either because of lack of interest or because of the impossibility of significant discussion of the topic within the constraints set. So, assuming that the feared politically motivated interventions do not occur, my challenge is to discuss this topic in a meaningful way within the rules about philosophical content. My contention is that such a thing is impossible. Go ahead Physics Forums community, prove me wrong.

 

[Bacle2]

I neither made nor intended any suggestions of any failure of intelligence on your part. Ryan made what, for me remains the key point and your subsequent post made no acknowledgment of it. I understand your reasons for not acknowledging it, you have made them very clear, but that is all I was referring to. In any case, that point is not important.

I was actually making a serious point entirely apropos of this topic. My contention is that this thread will have one of three outcomes: As others have predicted, it will suffer closure because of unfounded assertions that are politically motivated. Or, it will suffer closure for a breach of the rules on philosophical content – my contention is that such a thing will have been unavoidable. Or, it will go nowhere, either because of lack of interest or because of the impossibility of significant discussion of the topic within the constraints set. So, assuming that the feared politically motivated interventions do not occur, my challenge is to discuss this topic in a meaningful way within the rules about philosophical content. My contention is that such a thing is impossible. Go ahead Physics Forums community, prove me wrong.

Maybe you can volunteer your services as a moderator for these discussions , i.e., moderate the phylosophy subforum; a difficult and thankless job --you will very often be criticized harshly by _all sides_ of an issue . Or you can try to bring in someone you believe can do a good job of it.

 

[dkotschessaa]

If you want to avoid softer, social science and psychological approaches to this topic you might have better luck with neuroscience than with biology.

 

[dkotschessaa]

The concern expressed for this thread is that it will suffer closure because of the ‘tabloid journalism’ kind of bad science. And perhaps that is the fate of this thread. But what I cannot get past is how on Earth you could possibly discuss this matter without being philosophical. The question is inherently philosophical. For sure, Ryan has already mentioned the key, critical point, that sex and gender are two completely different things – though it appears to have passed the OP by. But then, understanding and recognising that point is unavoidably philosophical…

By predicting doomsday on this thread you may have created a self-fulfilling prophesy. You should have left it to the moderators.

-Dave K

 

[Bacle2]

By predicting doomsday on this thread you may have created a self-fulfilling prophesy. You should have left it to the moderators.

-Dave K

But if experience ( in this forum) is any guide, it is a good bet that doomsday will come about. And the issue itself is pretty politically- and otherwise- charged, so that it attracts a lot of fanatics on all sides. Besides, for the time being, no philosophy-related topics are allowed in PF--precisely because of the experience with this type of topics.

And it is not so much the softness of the approach itself, which can sometimes be fruitful that I am trying to avoid, it is the extremism that so often comes with this type of approach.

 

[Borek]

There were so many OT posts, I am considering locking the thread now.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thanks; I learned something .After visiting the page and seeing the same-old unsupported statement that men earn more than women for similar work (after repeatedly asking for proof in many sites--why would anyone hire a man if this was truly the case?)

I'm not sure why you think this is unsupported, there have been many studies showing wage disparity between the sexes. Also you seem to miss the point with your last statement: the fact that women aren't hired in many fields as much as men in spite of their generally lower wage should flag something up, such as a possible sexism problem no? I'm don't intend to argue this point here though as this thread is in the biology forum and this is not a biological issue.

I think I'll spare myselef reading about how men suck and all they do is exploit and oppress women.

Not sure where you are reading that. Sounds like nonsense misinterpretations of feminism by the extremists you seek to avoid.

I was just wondering if there is scientific basis for the claim about sex (I accept that the answer is no) ; the claims made by the gender studies people are more questionable IMHO.
Just trying to filter out garbage from both the far-left and the far-right.

Which claim about sex? Sex isn't binary either. As others have pointed out there are people born intersex and whilst this is often classed as a medical disorder there are those that contest this
http://www.isna.org/

 

[dkotschessaa]

And it is not so much the softness of the approach itself, which can sometimes be fruitful that I am trying to avoid, it is the extremism that so often comes with this type of approach.

But it looks (to me) like you're trying to find some harder science to back up the claim of gender stratification - a claim that usually comes from social sciences and philosophy. I think it's a completely legitimate search, and I believe you'll find a lot of your answers in legitimate scientific studies of the brain.

By doing that - you can avoid some of the nature/nurture debate, because whether the input comes from nature or culture, the synaptic changes are basically the same.

-Dave K

 

[greendan]

I agree with Ryan_m_b, we need to distinguish the concepts of biological sex (a study of biology) and gender (a study of sociology). Primary biological sex is binary-ish, most people have either XX (female) chromosomes or XY (male) chromosomes, though as in all things genetic there is natural variation: people with X, XXX, XXY, XYY, etc. chromosomes. Other biological factors like hormones in the womb, hormone levels, etc. arguably add a secondary dimension to biological sex.

Gender is a psycho-social construct that assigns multiple uncorrelated personality traits and/or social roles to a finite number of discrete sets, though as a highly social species, this can be as important (or more so) to people as biological sex. We're most familiar with the modern Western gender norm that tightly associates two genders with the two most common biological sexes - but the number of genders and their association with biological sex are far from universal and vary significantly over time and between cultures - several South and Southeast Asian cultures recognize three genders and some Native American cultures recognize even more (and recognize that one may have multiple genders at once, and may have different genders at different times in life).

Modern gender theory has found flaws in the 'gender as spectrum' model (for being one-dimensional), and theorists are actively developing alternate models. Currently, the most commonly accepted modern model of gender theory is summarized by this illustration: unacceptable link

Mathematically, this theory can be described as a multidimensional vector space where all traits are orthogonal and have only a positive magnitude (thus masculine/feminine are not opposite, but orthogonal). Cultures then project that space on arbitrary manifolds in an attempt at dimension reduction - though the merit and purpose of this reduction is hotly debated. The exact dimensions may be somewhat arbitrary, and may even be fractal (i.e. themselves a reduction of even more roles and traits) as explored here: unacceptable link

If this seems somewhat un-emperical, keep in mind that just as in Physics, there is a division between theoretical and experimental gender study. Theory may be impossible to prove, but may still be predictive of future findings and never proven untrue.

 

[Bacle2]

Interesting, Greendan, I guess this is an application of Principal Component Analysis maybe with Differential Geometry.

 

[Jarven]

Mathematically, this theory can be described as a multidimensional vector space where all traits are orthogonal and have only a positive magnitude (thus masculine/feminine are not opposite, but orthogonal). Cultures then project that space on arbitrary manifolds in an attempt at dimension reduction - though the merit and purpose of this reduction is hotly debated. The exact dimensions may be somewhat arbitrary, and may even be fractal (i.e. themselves a reduction of even more roles and traits) as explored here: unacceptable link

Hats off, I don't know if you just came up with that on your own or if you read that somewhere but math and gender identification that's quite clever.

Sex is pretty binary as it relies on "solid" anatomical structures and hormonal levels. Gender is a bit more ambiguous and saying its binary is probably incorrect.

 

[Evo]

Jarven, please use the quote function when you quote a post so that it doesn't look like it's you that has posted

 

[Evo]

The concern expressed for this thread is that it will suffer closure because of the ‘tabloid journalism’ kind of bad science. And perhaps that is the fate of this thread. But what I cannot get past is how on Earth you could possibly discuss this matter without being philosophical. The question is inherently philosophical. For sure, Ryan has already mentioned the key, critical point, that sex and gender are two completely different things – though it appears to have passed the OP by. But then, understanding and recognising that point is unavoidably philosophical…

We don't allow philosophy here because it lacks scientific merit. This is a science subforum and requires links to mainstream scientific peer reviewed acceptable research. I agree with Borek, thread closed.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sex is pretty binary as it relies on "solid" anatomical structures and hormonal levels.

Not really, there's great variation in biology and whilst most people might fall into a fairly distinct category of male or female many people are born intersex. Currently any intersex person is regarded as having a medical condition and parents are offered the choice of which sex they would like the baby to be before surgery is conducted upon it to make it resemble that sex. This is becoming a more controversial issue as time goes on with many questioning the classification as a medical condition (as there aren't always health problems) and regarding it as unethical to force sex-assignment surgery on a child. I posted a link above for a North American intersex society for those who'd like to read more on this, here it is again along with others for the UK, Australia and an international network:

http://www.isna.org/
http://www.ukia.co.uk/about.html
http://oii.org.au/
http://oiiinternational.com/

EDIT: sorry didn't realize this thread had been closed. I agree with the other mentors, this discussion on gender has come to a natural stopping point.