1. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93415
    14 Feb '13 15:55
    how does god define which gender a person is?
  2. Joined
    09 Nov '12
    Moves
    1810
    14 Feb '13 16:06
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    how does god define which gender a person is?
    I don't know. You'd have to ask Her that question.
  3. England
    Joined
    15 Nov '03
    Moves
    33497
    14 Feb '13 16:26
    tells everyone no shopping in here, then looks at their reaction, men smile
  4. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8576
    14 Feb '13 16:37
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    how does god define which gender a person is?
    The difference in reproductive organs determines one's sex.

    I think somewhere around the 60s people started using the term gender in place of sex.

    IE. .... "which sex a person is ..." now is "which gender a person is".

    I think the term gender had to do with whether a noun was masculine or feminine in linquistics. A lot of that had no apparent ryhme or reason to it.
  5. Joined
    16 Jan '07
    Moves
    93415
    14 Feb '13 16:41
    Originally posted by sonship
    The difference in reproductive organs determines one's sex.

    I think somewhere around the 60s people started using the term gender in place of sex.

    IE. .... "which sex a person is ..." now is "which gender a person is".

    I think the term gender had to do with whether a noun was masculine or feminine in linquistics. A lot of that had no apparent ryhme or reason to it.
    does it have to be the organs they were born with?
  6. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8576
    14 Feb '13 16:471 edit
    Originally posted by stellspalfie
    does it have to be the organs they were born with?
    does it have to be the organs they were born with?

    I don't know.

    But your question is how does God determine something.
    I don't think God is at all perplexed or stumped by the matter.
  7. SubscriberSuzianne
    Misfit Queen
    Isle of Misfit Toys
    Joined
    08 Aug '03
    Moves
    35525
    14 Feb '13 16:58
    Originally posted by sonship
    The difference in reproductive organs determines one's sex.

    I think somewhere around the 60s people started using the term gender in place of sex.

    IE. .... "which sex a person is ..." now is "which gender a person is".

    I think the term gender had to do with whether a noun was masculine or feminine in linquistics. A lot of that had no apparent ryhme or reason to it.
    This is blatantly incorrect.

    What determines gender is one's genetic makeup.

    if you get a Y chromosome from your dad, then you're male.

    if you get an X chromosome from your dad, then you're female.

    Mom always gives an X chromosome. If you have XY, you're male, if you have XX, you're female.

    it doesn't matter what you got on the outside.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    14 Feb '13 17:12
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    This is blatantly incorrect.

    What determines gender is one's genetic makeup.

    if you get a Y chromosome from your dad, then you're male.

    if you get an X chromosome from your dad, then you're female.

    Mom always gives an X chromosome. If you have XY, you're male, if you have XX, you're female.

    it doesn't matter what you got on the outside.
    Medical science triumphs again! 😏
  9. Standard membersonship
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8576
    14 Feb '13 17:13
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    This is blatantly incorrect.

    What determines gender is one's genetic makeup.

    if you get a Y chromosome from your dad, then you're male.

    if you get an X chromosome from your dad, then you're female.

    Mom always gives an X chromosome. If you have XY, you're male, if you have XX, you're female.

    it doesn't matter what you got on the outside.
    Am I incorrect or just incomplete ?

    From birth is there a consistent relationship between the outward organs and the chromosome pairs ?
  10. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    14 Feb '13 17:16
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    This is blatantly incorrect.

    What determines gender is one's genetic makeup.

    if you get a Y chromosome from your dad, then you're male.

    if you get an X chromosome from your dad, then you're female.

    Mom always gives an X chromosome. If you have XY, you're male, if you have XX, you're female.

    it doesn't matter what you got on the outside.
    There's even more to it than that:
    Intersex, in humans (not to be confused with hermaphroditism, which since the 20th Century has only referred to animals), is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, and/or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as female/male sex binary. Such variation may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX female.[1][2] As with all humans, gender identity for intersex individuals may often be complicated.



    Other

    Unusual chromosomal sex

    In addition to the most common XX and XY chromosomal sexes, there are several other possible combinations, for example Turner syndrome (XO), Triple X syndrome (XXX), Klinefelter's Syndrome, (XXY/XXXY), XYY syndrome (XYY), de la Chapelle syndrome (XX male), Swyer syndrome (XY female), and there are many other individuals who do not follow the typical patterns (such as individuals with four or even more sex chromosomes).



    Other

    Mosaicism and chimerism

    A mix can occur, where some of the cells of the body have the common XX or XY, while some have one of the less usual chromosomal contents above. Such a mixture is caused by either mosaicism or chimerism. In mosaicism, the mixture is caused by a mutation in one of the cells of the embryo after fertilization, whereas chimerism is a fusion of two embryos.
    In alternative fashion, it is simply a mixture between XX and XY, and does not have to involve any less-common genotypes in individual cells. This, too, can occur both as chimerism and as a result of one sex chromosome having mutated into the other.[26]

    However, not all cases of mosaicism and chimerism involve intersex.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

  11. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    14 Feb '13 17:17
    Originally posted by sonship
    Am I incorrect or just incomplete ?

    From birth is there a [b]consistent relationship
    between the outward organs and the chromosome pairs ?[/b]
    No
  12. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    14 Feb '13 17:26
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    This is blatantly incorrect.

    What determines gender is one's genetic makeup.

    if you get a Y chromosome from your dad, then you're male.

    if you get an X chromosome from your dad, then you're female.

    Mom always gives an X chromosome. If you have XY, you're male, if you have XX, you're female.

    it doesn't matter what you got on the outside.
    Wow are you wrong.

    http://skepchick.org/2013/02/37609/

    ... This is where it becomes obvious that Hall does not understand the difference between sex and gender. The terms “women” and “men” are terms for gender; “female” and “male” are terms to refer to sex. She confusingly uses sex traits to describe gender differences. We certainly assign meanings to these different biological traits, but what Hall is explaining above turns out to be an excellent example of how sexed bodies come already wrapped up in our understandings of gender. Hall’s understandings of what it means to be “man” and “woman” (gender) affect how she categorizes bodies (sex).

    Let me deconstruct this a bit further: having breasts, menstruating, getting pregnant, lactating, and having two X chromosomes are not inherently “womanly” things. Those are things that are more common to female-bodied individuals, but a person who identifies as a woman may go through her life not having or doing any of those things. Because “woman” is a cultural category, not a biological category.

    Biologically speaking, Hall’s dichotomy is still way too neat. There are plenty of examples that further demonstrate how Hall’s idea of the clear-cut division between male bodies and female bodies is not so simple. For instance, people with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) who are born with XY chromosomes develop female bodies because their cells are incapable of responding to androgens like testosterone. These individuals are not men simply because they have XY chromosomes! Some of them may be men, but others may not be. Regardless, their bodies develop externally as female bodies (they may have internal undescended testes and lack a uterus). But the thing is, however their bodies develop, that does not necessarily tell us anything about their gender.

    What Hall is doing here is playing into a biological reductionist view of sex/gender, where the thing that is most important in determining gender (and the differences among them) is biology. This sort of reductionist thinking was shot down back in 1975 when Gayle Rubin introduced a categorical split between sex and gender. Of course, gender theories have moved away from this split as a nice and neat division of nature and nurture (a false dichotomy for humans if there ever was one). The latest theories concerning sex/gender are biocultural (looking at the ways that biology and culture work together as opposed to privileging one over the other). This is quite evident in work by people like biologist Anne Fausto-Sterling and medical anthropologist Katrina Karkazis. ...
  13. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    14 Feb '13 17:27
    Many people seem to think things like gender definition, gender identification, sexual orientation, etc. are so cut-and-dried and simple. The fact is that they are not. Of course, the homophobes do not allow themselves to come to grips with this, lest they have to give up their bigotry.
  14. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    14 Feb '13 17:34
    Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
    Many people seem to think things like gender definition, gender identification, sexual orientation, etc. are so cut-and-dried and simple. The fact is that they are not. Of course, the homophobes do not allow themselves to come to grips with this, lest they have to give up their bigotry.
    I couldn't agree more...

    Trying to make everyone fit in a simple binary view of gender can cause enormous damage to those who
    do not fit neatly into these two little boxes... Even without people being homophobic.
  15. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    14 Feb '13 17:35
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I couldn't agree more...

    Trying to make everyone fit in a simple binary view of gender can cause enormous damage to those who
    do not fit neatly into these two little boxes... Even without people being homophobic.
    True.
Back to Top