>The point here being that our 'general sexual
>dimorphism' an artifact of our inability to measure
>with sufficient accuracy, and a political desire for a
>certain power gradient.
Margaret, please estimate how many more people will no longer have either a male or female sexual identity in which the genetic, chromo and hormo levels are consonant once better measurement techniques are devised? And if more people have one of F-S's other sexual identities, how does this mean that biological sexual identity is not given?
>
>That political desire manifests in other ways. For
>example: why was a person with only 1 Black
>great-grandparent considered Black? Logically, it
>makes no possible sense. Yet it was (and still is, in
>places) political reality, and many people will say
>it's 'natural'. Why? What's 'natural' about it?
There is nothing natural about that or, for that matter, kinship systems. Didn't Sahlins once quip that the more developed a peoples' genealogical sense the more kinship relations have no basis in biological relatedness?
>
>Making reproductive role more figural than other
>characteristics is, as Carrol illuminated so
>beautifully, a political decision.
How have I done that?
Almost all serious sex deviance is
>associated with XY people, for one thing. So since
>'female' is the default development pattern anyway, and
>there is good evidence that 'male' development is shaky
>and fraught with opportunities for error, why don't we
>just acknowledge that 'male' is only a convenient
>identifier for 'sperm-producing, limited-capacity
>females'?
I hope this is meant to be wildly funny because it is.
>
>Fausto Sterling did little more than put old wine into
>new bottles, re-labeling the canonical
>'pseudo-hermaphrodite' categories. Her notion of
>multiple genders seems intuitively correct, but the way
>she packaged it is ...inadequate. Not many intersexed
>people support her terminology.
Why are they ticked at her? Because she suggests the greater 'sexual deviance' of hermaphrodites who have had a male or female identity foisted upon them is probably due to socialisation, not hormonal causes?
>
>What _is_ gender, exactly? Until you come up with a
>useful definition at that level, it hardly makes sense
>to go further.
I'll think about it.
>
>As to the value of 'correction', which would you rather
>have: funny-looking but sensitive genitals, or
>'corrected' genitals that neither look fully normal nor
>retain neurological integrity?
The decision seems more complex than that. For hormonal therapy, it seems to matter a great deal how the child had been raised. Don't know if all surgical correction has above consequence.
Hey, do you know if there any way to take a sperm count at home?
Yours, Rakesh