Re: sex, not gender {actually, it IS Gender}

Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

> Andy-
>
> Why try to make something complicated out of something simple?  Unless I
> am way off base, 99% of people can be categorized quite easily with a
> dichotomous category.

        Actually, recent medical science is beginning to see that there is
at least 10% of the world's population that is "gender ambiguous" or have
"ambiguous genitalia". So two categories are NOT enough. There are at least
five (5) genders: male, female, he-she, she-male, and hermaphrodite. Each
has there own unique set of genitalia. For those of you who want the least
amount of categories, then we can say male, female, and transgendered. But
there are NOT just TWO (2) categories. We need to also consider what a
person is chromosomally. With that is mind, on its own, we have XX, XY, XXY,
XYY, and mosaic. The last one, mosaic, is where some of their cells are XX
and other cells are just X alone. The first five (5) DO NOT match up with
that last 5 (five). Therefore, a considerably increased amount of research
is needed before we can make ANY sweeping generalisations.

--
                                                 Your Friend in Peace,
                                                        Glen Nuttall
                                                            UPF
                                                   http://www.upf.org
                                                        upf@upf.org

"Courageous Knowledgeable People,
               United Compassionate World,
                              Committed Responsible Future"

"Out of Respect for Diversity
           comes Recognition of Fundamental Freedoms,
                      Individual Rights,
                                 and Personal Responsibilities"

"In the common interest of a Lasting World Peace
                      through a Unified Planetary Assembly"