Discussion of everything related to the Theory of Evolution.
Hi Surgeon girl. What you have observed in old people is simply the result of the loss of the sexual hormones. People are not turning into the opposite sex. They are simply growing more similar physically because they no longer have the hormones that produce the secondary sexual characteristics. If you look at prepubescent children you will see the same similarity in the sexes.
I am awfully sorry but I just respectfully disagree.
Men have andropause.
Plants may also be exclusively male, female, or both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_repr ... erminology
Looking at your initial post I was not sure whether you were serious or not. And your "math" doesn't make any biological sense... You also reminded me of this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/1 ... 34518.html
(sorry, I don't like the Huffington Post, but had to be...)
This is a total confusion of cultural and biological reality.
Cultural reality is not a fiction, even if it is a probably only humans for whom eit is of primary importance. It is cultural factors that tell us that we must be classified a s male or female, and how this classification should determine our behaviour. In ancient Greece men were supposed to be totally heterosexual, but somehow there was no contradiction in this with them having male lovers and subordinate wives. In the last twenty years in Europe and North America we have decided to relax the strict classification, although most people expect to be able to put a single label on someone. Our current cultural reality has coopted science so naively people think XX means female, because XX drives hormones that deliver the individual.
In biological reality you need to look at each person as an individual. There are XX people who produce low testosterone but who know themselves as male. The hormones have been doing their job, but unfortunately the real world doesn't behave in the way out naive theories would let us believe.
Apart from basic anatomy, physiology and genetics you need to consider that there are large number of observational factors that correlate together to which we attach the labels male and female - these are the ones that define our cultural definition. At this point think like a physicist: those clusters are delivered by several continuously varying parameters and their expression and measurement is subject to a large number of external factors. You must expect overlap. At this point stop thinking like a physicist and go back to biology. Living organisms, especially long-lived animals, are constantly changing. There is no reason why a person who is right at the COG of one cluster should not 10 years later be found in the other.
Bringing this to practicality, we have a tendency to take a few scientific facts and use them to construct theoretical models that support our current cultural reality. Not many of us realise that we have hardly scratched the surface in understanding the organisation of humans so we should not expect to be able to know what explains our gender assignments.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest