Now THAT'S funny
(www.reddit.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
That's the wrong tact. Sex is a category to define an organism's role in sexual reproduction. So, a female is an organism who is either:
Capable of producing ova
Would produce ova were it not for some type of disorder/injury
Had the ability to produce ova in the past
Will develop the ability to produce ova in the future, provided disorders and injuries don't prevent it
The definition for male is the same, but swap ova with sperm.
The result is anyone born with ovaries, but not testes is female, even if she has an enlarged clitoris, a Y chromosome, high testosterone, and low estrogen. Likewise, anyone born with testes, but not ovaries is male, even if he has micropenis, two X chromosomes, low testosterone, and high estrogen.
All of that is strictly determined by the presence or absence of a Y chromosome. You are probably correct, but the Y chromosome definition would never disagree with your definition in how it defines an individual and it removes the need to refer to the past, the future or injuries.
I was thinking of the sex episode of Bill Nye Saves the World. He says:
Clearly he and those who think like him think its more complicated than the absence or presence of the Y chromosome. Since they seem to have gotten hung up on chromosomal abnormalities, genital size, and hormone levels, I go to the ultimate question: can you get pregnant? Can you impregnant another member of your species?