RitterVonRitter (imported) wrote: Wed Apr 04, 2018 3:19 pm
I don't agree with that at all. I reject the modern (post-modern) classification of 'gender.
Sex should be classified according to biology. The whole purpose of a classification is to order and group things in order to better understand the world.
The creation of non-binary genders does not meet this purpose. It only leads to misunderstanding and confusion.
Gender, if the term is to be used outside of linguistics, needs to be used in a way that allows us to better understand and classify the world. The non-binary thing only causes unnecessary complication.
A better definition of gender would be the expression/identity of male or female.
Some people are confused by the fact that gender in humans relates to the presence of XX chromosomes in the female and XY chromosomes in the male. The X and Y binary identification leads one to assume it is a simple binary system. However the expression of the combination of the X and the Y after fertilisation is what truly creates the gender and it is not a binary expression. If it were truly a binary system we would only have MALES XY and FEMALES XX.One only has to look around to see that this is not the case. "Gender" as a term is generally (but loosely) used to differentiate between male and female and in its simplest form this is true.
When speaking in the context of the biological sciences and medicine where perhaps classification is required to be formal then this simple case does not hold. Sex (gender) is determined by genes, there are genetic disorders whereby the X and Y chromosomes are not represented by the simple binary male /female system (XY is male XX is female). An individual who inherits chromosomes XXY for example is has underdeveloped genitals (Klinefelters syndrome). An individual with X- has Turners syndrome and develops similar to an immature female. When the X and Y chromosomes are not a simple XY male /XX female category then gender is clearly a non binary description for the process of classification purely because there are more than two! I do not understand how you can hold to a definition of the term that predates the discovery of the genes that control the expression of sexual characteristics. I have clearly listed four separate genders XY, XX, XXY, X- already, just because there are only two chromosomes used to create these four individuals does not make the expression of the genes a simple binary sytem. If you wanted to round it up to just two, for your convenience, by picking male or female, depending on which they most closely resembled with their genitals then I feel this would be a poor way to classify things scientifically. We may as well call anything that can fly "a sparrow" for the sake of simplicity.
So loosely speaking you get away with "gender" meaning male or female, but surely in the context of this forum where the specific topic revolves around this we should be clear it is non- binary in the correct scientific sense?
Speaking of expressed gender in a social sciences context, it is very unhelpful to limit yourself to only two genders. Here you have all the social and environmental aspects that combine to determine gender expression. The expressed gender of an individual is the genotype (for example XY) after all the other aspects of development from egg to individual have been taken into account ( this is called the phenotype). It is clear that even with my simple example of 4 different genotypes being acted on by myriads of environmental and social factors that gender expression is more of a continuous variety from what you would call male all the way through to female.
If we assigned a gender score in a very crude way as below
An individual you would class as VERY male scored 50.
An individual you classed as VERY Female scored at 50
An individual with male genitals but very female character attributes scored 0
An individual with female genitals and male character attributes scored 100
And then score indivuduals across this range depending on their percentage of the two extremes
Plot the graph and you would get a classic bell shaped curve. The vast majority would be in the 40 to 60 score range. For sure there are not only two points on the graph showing a BINARY separation of gender.
So back to the OP and the question of is "Eunuch" a third sex. I hope it is clear now why I found the question too open to be answered without considerable clarification. If we take any male genotype or phenotype individual and remove the testicles what effect does that have on the individuals concept of their sex or gender or even our interpretation of their sex and gender?
Lets take a simple example of an individual with XXY chromosomes, this individual may well present as male but have underdeveloped genitals. Upon castration this individual may well change in terms of character due to depletion of any T the underdeveloped testicles were making. On top of this there would be the social impact of castration and their own evaluation of their sexuality, the age of the operation and their personal circumstances (married or with a male partner if gay etc). As you can perhaps understand the gender definition for this individual would have blurred boundaries and may not fit a binary definition.
Your assertion that individuals fit neatly into a simple binary classification very poorly models the population and serve no purpose in any serious investigation into the manifestation of a variety of gender expressions that we experience.
There are undoubtedly people reading the forum who do have genders that fall into the tails of the Bell curve I mentioned. Some of these people may have had elective surgery to try and align their physical state with their mental one. In the past there have been ill advised medics who have forced their concept of what is right onto people, and there are crimes committed against groups of people by a majority who do not comprehend what it means to be different and want to either change those who are different or get rid of them. The negative reaction you have received I feel has it roots in in the core assumptions of your posts which through their simplistic outlook would seem to align with the views of those who are either ignorant, bigots, or worse.
Sorry for the long post, I could have some of this wrong of course and would welcome constructive criticism but I have put forward my views as clearly as I can on this very interesting subject.
