Timeline for Is sex a spectrum?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 14 at 16:29 | comment | added | bandybabboon | It's amazing to think that the dual bell curve of sexual phenotype applies to most of the animal clades that we see. I was quoting a 1950s scientist who used the words "continuously variable" in the sense of regularity of the variation being a continous spectrum, as opposed to that of a dual gaussian distribution. It's just 2 bell curves, another example from nature is snapdragons. researchgate.net/figure/… | |
| Aug 15 at 17:13 | comment | added | Nuclear Hoagie | @bandybabboon Bimodality simply isn't evidence of a trait that is not continuously variable, though. The bimodal plot you've chosen to illustrate the point of non-continuity is clearly labelled as a "continuum", and shows that individuals occupy the entire space between extremes. This is a trait that is both bimodal and continuously variable. | |
| Apr 20, 2022 at 22:13 | vote | accept | Tetragrammaton | ||
| Sep 9, 2021 at 14:45 | comment | added | Some_Guy | was confused with the downvotes on this answer, until I looked at the edit history. It's much better now, good job (imo, although I'm by no means an expert) | |
| Jan 1, 2020 at 17:27 | history | edited | bandybabboon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 134 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2020 at 16:57 | comment | added | Ben Bolker | This is improved. Are you willing to include the sources for your two figures? | |
| Jan 1, 2020 at 8:22 | history | edited | bandybabboon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 310 characters in body
|
| Jan 1, 2020 at 8:06 | comment | added | bandybabboon | Scientists Fred P. Thieme and William J. Schull of the University of Michigan wrote about sexing a skeleton in 1957: “Sex, unlike most phenotypic features in which man varies, is not continuously variable but is expressed in a clear bimodal distribution.” Chromosomes, Gamete structure, Hip structure, they graph into two modes. | |
| Jan 1, 2020 at 2:31 | comment | added | canadianer | The answer is bad because you assert that sex is bimodal but provide no evidence to support it. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 20:01 | comment | added | bandybabboon | Bryan Krause, you are contradicting fact: physical gender is bimodal ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Physiology There is a list of other bimodal distributions in nature, which includes harvester ants, which are also related to chromosomes. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 18:32 | comment | added | Bryan Krause♦ | @Tetragrammaton It's usually not good to accept answers with so many downvotes. This answer is bad: it has a graph of a bimodal distribution that is just an illustration and has nothing to do with sex. The rest of the answer talks about sexual orientation and not sex. It then talks about morphology of ants which are not related to sex at all since all the worker ants are sterile females. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 0:19 | vote | accept | Tetragrammaton | ||
| Jun 3, 2021 at 16:35 | |||||
| Dec 31, 2019 at 0:19 | comment | added | Tetragrammaton | @com.prehensible Thank you by the way, for answering the question. So, we can conclude that sex is not binary and is in fact bimodal. That's not really on a spectrum, but it definitely means that sex is not that fixed as many falsly claim. | |
| Dec 31, 2019 at 0:01 | comment | added | Tetragrammaton | @DeNovo You are incorrect. I did not misue the term gender and properly differentiated it from the term sex, as can be clearly seen above in my post, if anyone dares to read it. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 23:47 | comment | added | John | @com.prehensible have you read the wiki? because the first sentence tells you it is a social construct, and the second paragraph goes on to tell you why sex and gender are not interchangeable terminology. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 19:03 | comment | added | bandybabboon | @John, No, it's fine to use the word as long as you don't claim there is a precise narrow definition for the word based on your imagination. Your claim that gender is not sex is nonsense according to the wiki page gender, if you read the first phrase of that page it puts your old tutor's quip in the bin. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 15:45 | comment | added | John | @com.prehensible sounds like even more reason not to use the term. Also what do weaver ants have to do with the question? | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 11:46 | history | edited | bandybabboon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 112 characters in body
|
| Dec 23, 2019 at 11:32 | history | edited | bandybabboon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 822 characters in body
|
| Dec 23, 2019 at 10:26 | comment | added | bandybabboon | Gender is not really an established word, John, it has almost no precedence in scientific literature other than the sense that I use, It's etymology doesn't make sense for science either. Since 1990 there has been a lot of identity hysteria which has seen a new sense attributed to gender, the one that you are militant about: books.google.com/ngrams/… and google.com/… | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 10:15 | history | edited | bandybabboon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 58 characters in body
|
| Dec 23, 2019 at 6:28 | comment | added | John | I know what a bimodal distribution is and human gender is not bimodal, even if sex largely is and confusing them makes your answer straight up wrong. Its bad enough the question is using poor terms there is no excuse for an answer to. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 6:20 | comment | added | bandybabboon | @john en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans#Physiology besides, it's simple maths like 1+1 =2, if you can read a graph you can understand it john. bimodal distribution is not more complex than a bell curve, it has peaks. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 6:13 | comment | added | bandybabboon | Menage, is a strictly non-zoological term that french proudly use to refer to their household, I 've never heard of a ménage d'animaux, an animal household. Sorry I copied that straight from the wiki because was ona small phone screen. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_humans | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 6:00 | comment | added | De Novo | @John the OP seems to be misusing the term gender. The edit clarifies the question to be about sex, not gender. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 5:56 | comment | added | John | this really has nothing to do with the question, as the linked article is discussing sex not gender. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 4:32 | comment | added | De Novo | Because it contains the implication that intersex people are non-human animals. I'm sure that's not what you intended, but it can read that way. | |
| Dec 23, 2019 at 4:11 | comment | added | bandybabboon | Mais pourquoi donc? | |
| Dec 22, 2019 at 23:48 | comment | added | De Novo | I'd avoid using the term menagerie to describe intersex individuals | |
| Dec 22, 2019 at 22:55 | history | edited | bandybabboon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 438 characters in body
|
| Dec 22, 2019 at 22:48 | history | answered | bandybabboon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |