They myth of only two sexes

[lawcat]

Uncle Al: You are a true gay pastor. (You do not like "hetero norms" which make a problem out of "anal.oral" ordering; God will punish "hetero normatists.")
But, the post is about sexes, which is a biological fact. Not a matter of social opinion. I honestly do not know what the hoopla is about. Determination of sex is a determination of fact. Let the doctors say what it is.
As far as inventing the "rainbow" categories of sexes, I am unconvinced that it could be done in any pragmatic way. Morover, as a matter of "hetero normatism" I am strongly opposed to any change to the current male/female factual determination. (AS if someone can be a fairy, perhaps.)

[HydrogenBond]

The biological purpose of sex is to blend male and female genes. Plants have male and/or female parts for the purpose of this genetic recombination. They don't confuse this with too many extra choices. This is the foundation of the original sexual differentiation. Beyond that foundation, is a carrot on a string of impulse and pleasure, which helps lead animals in the direction of the primary.

The choice of sexual orientation has nothing to do with the primary reason the sexual differentiation appeared. Choice is connected to the carrot on a string. When nature went from only 1 and added 2, it is doubtful the goal was to reduce procreation (1) by making it random. That has no selective advantage.

But somewhere along the line, 2 sort of spun off by itself, where any hole or any phallic object could satisfy the criteria of 2, without the need to satisfy 2-1. What we are arguing is the right to any 2-loop. Why do we arbitrarily stop at gay an not add animals since that could also work a 2 loop.

To answer that question, let us look at eating. Plants just absorb to eat, which is level 1 eating. Eating is food energy and nutrient requirements. Animals also have a carrot on a string, creating impulse making eating pleasurable. The original goal of the carrot on the string is to satisfy 1. This gave selective advantage. The early 2-1 may have been connected to the given food for the species. The carrot serves the purpose of making the Panda climb the eucalyptus tree for its species food. The body is happy.

Somewhere along the line, the 2 of eating also spun off on its own, where the pleasure loop of eating is the spin off goal, without regards to the original 2-1 needs of the body. To be consistent, shouldn't we have full free choice for any 2 loop when it comes to eating? If I get pleasure from Big Macs and pleasure myself with this food 10 times a day this is my choice of 2-loop. Culture will try to help me connect back to some 2 to 1 so my body is better off. With sexuality, I suppose any disconnected 2-loop is about the same. But unlike eating, where culture tries to reconnect 2-1 for humans, with sex 2 loops are considered more advanced and natural. But then again, if they invent a bog mac pill or shot that allows me to eat 10 per day, that 2-loop would be natural.

[UncleAl]

How many different kinds of bathrooms should there be in a stadium or amphitheatre? What will be the qualification for entering a given one? Will Homelend Severity issue and point of use confirm sexual identity RFID implants?

XY Boys, XX girls. Full surgical and hormonal modification is social reassignment. Everything else is personal ethics and grist for the Vice Squad.

[HydrogenBond]

There are things that are natural and there are things that are natural human. Natural is the bigger set, while natural human is a subset of that. For example, it is natural for some animals to fly. But this is not natural human. This is not to say, humans can not learn to fly. But it will require the use of the brain/mind to compensate for the hardware limitations within human DNA, such a building a glider.

One way to unravel ambiguous differences between natural and natural human, is to take away brain created prosthesis, to see if it adds up. If we say flying is natural, so everyone gets the impression this means natural human, all we do is take away the glider so there is no artificial. At that point it is clear which is which. But as long as one is not allowed to take away the glider, we can perpetuate the myth natural=natural human.

The experiment I have in mind, since we are talking about sexes, is take away anything artificial or a product of the brain/mind, from sexuality. That means no toys, lubes, sexual related disease medications, contraceptives, etc,; no glider. Let nature take its course to see what becomes steady state, just like when natural human evolved. Many myths will be busted as they fall from the sky and crash. This experiment will never occur, since we need all those flying machines to maintain many natural myths that lie outside the subset called natural human. We will use philosophy (mind product) to undermine the experiment less it reveal myths.

Maybe we can do a thought analysis to see what we think would happen in the modern world if we burned all the sexual prosthesis. What would be the steady state that defines selective advantage for humans? What is humanly possible might be different from what is natural for humans. If we say something is a product of the mind and is part of free choice, but may not be natural human, that is good enough. To each their own mental image and choice of flying machine. In the age or green and organic it is good to have a choice that is uncluttered by some of the flying machine myths.