|
|
|
|
|
|
by tree_of_item
2766 days ago
|
|
|
The last sentence shows that they, Nature, are seriously suggesting that there is something wrong with defining sex based on observable sexual characteristics. This shows they are willing to put ideology over science: the only reason to suggest such a thing is ideology. |
|
|
No. They are suggesting that there is something wrong with defining it based on just one particular observable characteristic.
There are numerous characteristics in humans that come in two forms or varieties, one generally associated with males and one generally with females. Many people end up with some characteristics of the form generally associated with males and with some characteristics generally associated with females.
For example, there is a response in the hypothalamus to the pheromone androstadienone that is different in males and females, and can be recognized on an MRI scan.
Another example is how "male" and "female" brains perform visual and spatial memory tasks, such as imagining how a shape would look when rotated. Males generally are better at this than females, and brain scans show that when doing this task males are using different parts of the brain than females use--male brains approach this task differently than do female brains.
Some people with male genitals have female androstadienone response and female visual and spatial processing, and some people with female genitals have male androstadienone response and male visual and spatial processing. In particular, studies have found that transgender people are often this way, with their brain having the responses of the gender they identify as rather than the gender their genitals suggest.