Is it the same in men and women ..

[Dracula]

Shortly - I read a scientific article claiming that in the embrio, it is first developed as asexual(nonsexual) and grows for some time as such .Later on at some stage it develops the genital organs - at a time when the other ones are already formed .So at a time an "individual "(forgive the word) exists that is neither male nor female .
Apart of that I watched a Discovery movie in which the surgeons that make transsexual operations claim,that a person is developed as both sexes to some extent (which would mean is asexual as well) -like the men having niples -which is a remain from the asexual being of the embrio in its early stage . This allows the successfull transversion of the genders .
I was comparing the two and I am thinking of the following :

I . Does this all mean that the men and women currently have same nervous systems and tissues ? The question appeared when they said that they convert vaginal into penis tissue and visa versa .

II . Most of all ,do the men and women feel one and the same pleasure in sex ?!?!?! because if their tissues are the same,so do the nervous systems , it will be obligatory that the woman feels exactly the same as the man who penetrates her during sex... No difference ...

III .I am aware of the existance of hormons and their diff reflection on the male and female bodies,but yet it won't change the flesh and the nerves . And as far as I know the nerves are the most important of all things .

In the antiquity ,Thiresius of Thebes hitting coupling/mating snakes with his stick turned into woman and tried the opposite sex pleasures .After that he claimed the woman feels 10 times more pleasure than a man (This is mythology aye strict bastards )
Was Thiresius right ?
Is it basically the same the women and men feel or one of the sexes enoys it more and feels it substantially differently ?

[Juvenal]

There are two aspects to gender: genetic gender (XY chromosomes = male, XX chromosomes = female), and physical gender (genitals, testes/overies).

The basic human form is female. Maleness is a modification. Male genitalia and gonads develop in response to hormones released during development in the womb. If this fails to happen, then the baby will be physically female even if genetically male (I think this also implies sterility). It is also possible to get partial formation of male genitalia resulting in various forms of intersex or hermaphrodite condition.

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

Physical pleasure from intercourse is obtained by friction. This is equally true for male and female. This should not be surprising given that the genitals for both sexes are simply varients of a common structure.

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

Sexual differences go much further than genitals and gonads - there are important brain differences. Women have monthly cycles which affect mood, Men have hormonal reinforcement of aggression (testosterone). Male brains develop enhanced spatial skills at the expense of social skills and empathy.

These differences are reinforced by cultural and social pressures. For instance, gender is so important to society that in the UK it is legally assigned at birth and cannot be changed subsequently (I may be out-of-date here).

[Dracula]

The basic human form is female. Maleness is a modification.

Nnnnnnooooooooooooooo.
Seriously what proof do you have . I think the main form lacks any sex features .

Physical pleasure from intercourse is obtained by friction. This is equally true for male and female.

Of course .So is it the same ? I don't think the other things you mention are important here,like the agressiveness and larger spaces etc .

[Juvenal]

Nnnnnnooooooooooooooo.
Seriously what proof do you have . I think the main form lacks any sex features .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#Biology_of_gender

In humans, the "default" processes of reproduction result in an individual with female characteristics. An intact Y chromosome contains what is needed to "reprogram" the processes sufficiently to produce male characteristics, leading to sexual differentiation (see also Sexual dimorphism). Part of the Y chromosome, the Sex-determining Region Y (SRY), causes what would normally become ovaries to become testes. These, in turn, produce male hormones called androgens...

...Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is an example of a DSD that also illustrates that female development is the default for humans. Although having one X and one Y chromosome, some people are biologically insensitive to the androgens produced by their testes. As a result they follow the normal human processes which result in a person of female sex. Women who are XY report identifying as a woman — feeling and thinking like a woman — and, where their biology is completely insensitive to masculinizing factors, externally they look identical to other women. Unlike other women, however, they cannot produce ova, because they do not have ovaries.

If you think from an evolutionary perspective you will realise that you won't have a main or original form that cannot reproduce! Forms that don't reproduce will quickly die out.

Of course .So is it the same ? I don't think the other things you mention are important here,like the agressiveness and larger spaces etc .

All of these things have an effect on attitudes to intercourse. Men have a tendency to be more interested in the act, while women have a more complex attitude because they need a reliable partner who is going to stick around to help look after the children (our DNA hasn't caught up with contraception yet).

[Dracula]

I don't think this

As a result they follow the normal human processes which result in a person of female sex.

is true .If a normal person is female ,then why it would be normall ? To live alone ? This is against any possible theory . You have to choose either between a hermaphrodite basic or an asexual .

And I am against the theory of the evolution .

[Dayman]

And I am against the theory of the evolution

That doesn't change that it does exist there my friend. All of these things are real and are also examples of evolution.

[Mythos]

And I am against the theory of the evolution .

If you are against the theory of evolution, no scientific article will convince you of anything. You asked a question, for which you believe you have the answer (scripture) and every logical answer will involve evolution. Seriously, I don't know why you even asked the question if you are not prepared to accept an answer that you know contradicts your worldview.

[Dracula]

If you are against the theory of evolution, no scientific article will convince you of anything. You asked a question, for which you believe you have the answer (scripture) and every logical answer will involve evolution. Seriously, I don't know why you even asked the question if you are not prepared to accept an answer that you know contradicts your worldview.

I am against the evolution not on scriptural but on logical grounds . It is not proved convincingly,therefore I reject it . THe questions of this thread are generally unconnected with it .

[Adar]

This problem is best solved by looking at the definitions of "male", "female" and "asexual". An asexual embryo would essentially mean that the embryo develops along a given path and then at a certain point diverges into one of two options based on if the embryo carries a XX or XY pair of chromosomes.

If we look at the development of the embryo into a fetus are we able to see a complex serie of transformations that cannot really be fixed into certain arbitary stages. Instead we see a continual process where the structure and organs are formed. This process is triggered and regulated by the genes in the DNA. If an embryo lacks X chromosomes (due to failed transcription or some other event during the forming of the embryo) will a misscarriage happen. The X chromosome carries all the information to produce a living female baby, the major function of the Y chromosome is to act as a master switch (by a region called "sex determining region Y) and thereby produce a male.

This means:

• An embryo lacking x-chromosomes will be naturally aborted (misscarriage).

• A person may be born with a XY karyotype but still be a girl becuase the sex determining region on her Y chromosome does not function. This should however lead to Turners syndrome (which is by definition what you get if you are born with only a single X chromosome and no Y).

• A person may be born with a XXY karyotype but will still become a male becuase the sex determining region will activate and deactivate the necessary genes on both X chromosomes.

This answers the question on the genetic level and I leave it up to you to decide on how you want to philosophically implement this into your definition of male, female or androgynous.

To further confuse the definition of male and female. Birds and lizards sex chromosomes are instead called ZW. This is to reflect the fact that in these species is it the male that is homozygotic (carrying two identical copies of the sex gene) with ZZ. While the female is born with a ZW couple (with the sex determening region on the W chromosome).

This contradiction is becuase our arbitary definition of "male" and "female" is based on observation. The individual ejaculating is defined as the male and and individual becoming pregnant (or laying the eggs) is defined as the female. As you can see are things at the cellular level not always conforming to the way we define the world around us.

[Dracula]

So looking at the site you provided it appears that the embryo develops long time as having no sex/gender features ,right ? Which essentially means that it is asexual ? Or do I misunderstand ? And the chromosomes appear and divert it later into m-fm ?

[Adar]

So looking at the site you provided it appears that the embryo develops long time as having no sex/gender features ,right ? Which essentially means that it is asexual ? Or do I misunderstand ? And the chromosomes appear and divert it later into m-fm ?

The problem is sematic rather than scientific and I must honestly say that I am much better at the scientific part. The problem here is what you define as "asexual". All (viable) embryoes carries the sex chromosomes and there are genes on them that are active even in the earliest stages of development. This means that the embryo is affected by it's sex chromosomes even at the earliest stages. However it lacks discernable sexual organs in the earliest stages so even if it's sex is determined is it not a sexual being (as in capable of sex).

My defination:
The embryo has a sexual identity (ie carrying an Y chromosome or not) from it's earliest stage.

This is a problem we encounter very often in the wonderful world of biology. We want to quantify things into something more comprehendable and find ourselves hindered by the limits of languages. Personally I find myself generally resorting to this kind of logic (does the gene/loci/chromosome have this?) transforming things into simple booleric questions (questions answered true or false).

This kind of logic works well for me since I am specialising in analytical chemistry and/or molecular biotechnology but it won't serve you very well if you study biology at animal level. You will just end up with an endless number of questions to answer.

[Dracula]

I am compar. good in phylosophy and must say- everything definite or known can be well defined .If it can't ,something about it is either unknown or untrue .The language can be no limit .It's just whether you are used to describing or not .

I think what you mean is a general uncertainty in science caused by the unknown aspects of the studied objects and the interpretation of the known material .

But anyway,it is not me to judge . I must say one thing -it appears that to be human,you need 2 chromosomes-be them of whatever kind -either X or Y or any combination x2 .So a thing that has 1 won't be asexual but inhuman .
The things that have 2 are human no matter the combination .Now the logic -
since these chromosomes may or may not affect the embryo -it may generally exist without them as some flesh .Moreover the same flesh can turn into either male or female .If so,the flesh itself is indifferent to the sex/gender,it is only the chromosomes who are. If this is true ,the flesh itself is asexual .If it wasn't ,it wouldn't turn into either genders with no difficulty . So it is designed to accept either genders-and since one of the genders cannot accept the other-it is asexual .

p.s. you get this when you study Aristotle .

[Adar]

I am compar. good in phylosophy and must say- everything definite or known can be well defined .If it can't ,something about it is either unknown or untrue .The language can be no limit .It's just whether you are used to describing or not .

I think you should try some university courses in biology and/or organic chemistry before you try to say that again. The problem is that to properly define a complex organic system (like the human body) will you have to transfer so much information that it isn't possible to confer it in a meaningful way in a discussion like this.

p.s. you get this when you study Aristotle .

I really think you should try for something more up to date and preferably in the realm of biology rather than philosophy. Your attempts of philosophically definining the realm of biology cannot work unless you learn more about biology. A normal human is born with 46 chromosomes, 2 of them are the sex chromosomes (the ones defining us as male or female). Lets try your way of defining humanity.

Is this girl human?


She only has 45 chromosomes becuase she's only born with a single X chromosome.

Also on the issue of tissue. All human tissue is made up of cells, each cell contains a nucleus. The nucleus is the location of our DNA, this means that every single cell of our body (apart from red blod klots) has a sexual identity in the way we have previously discussed about embryos (remember that embryos begins as a single cell). This mean that you cannot separate our genetic sexual identity from our body. The cells providing you with new skin will not be affected by the coding in the sex determining region of their DNA but it will still be there.

[boofhead]

I've read we all start in the womb as female. If the mother's body gives a testosterone boost to the foetus at a certain time then the clitoris grows and extends and becomes the penis, and the ovaries grow out as testes. So of course friction remains a common regarding sexual excitement, as in essence the female clitoris is the male glans (knob).

When something interrupts this process you can end up with hermaphrodites etc with half-formed genitalia.

It also raises interesting questions regarding brain development and homosexuality. As the testosterone boost alters an unborn child's sex, the brain likewise alters in form, and yet a certain percentage may end up with male physical characteristics and yet a dominantly female brain when it comes to sexual attraction.

[Dracula]

It also raises interesting questions regarding brain development and homosexuality. As the testosterone boost alters an unborn child's sex, the brain likewise alters in form, and yet a certain percentage may end up with male physical characteristics and yet a dominantly female brain when it comes to sexual attraction.

Thanks for the reply .As for the latter,this would be valid only if the attraction and the interest are totally physical .I mean if somebody is attracted to a person for his emanation (what a person he is) ,this can't be applied .

[removeduser_426582376423734]

The gooch (whatever it's scientific name is) is pretty much proof that we were chicks before we were dudes.

[The Fish]

I'm unclear as to what exactly is being asked in this thread. Is it if fetuses at some point in their development are asexual? If so, then the answer is yes, since all fetuses have to develop internal and external genitalia and gonads; obviously at some point in their development, they lack these structures (simply because they haven't formed them yet).

In fetal development, all fetuses develop the same initial rudimentary reproductive structures (the mesonephros, metanephros, and genital tubercle, for example, are all fetal structures that form the eventual genito-urinary system, and in men and women, eventually become different structures). Thus, a fetus with these structures could be considered asexual, since it simply hasn't developed far enough to actually have any tangible adult structures. Without androgen stimulation, however, all fetuses will eventually develop female external genitalia, but not necessarily female gonadal structures. Thus a person with androgen insensitivity syndrome will be GENOTYPICALLY male (i.e. will have a Y chromosome), and will produce androgens, but has a defect in the androgen receptor, making them insensitive to the effects of the hormone. The fetus will develop female external genitalia, but will NOT be a full female; they will lack ovaries (instead having cryptorchidism, or undescended testes) and thus will be sterile.

We thus have to distinguish between genotypic gender (i.e. are they male or female according to their chromosomes) and phenotypic gender (lift up the skirt and take a look).

Oh, and to whoever said XXY people have Down syndrome, that's not correct; XXY causes Klinefelter's syndrome. Down syndrome is caused by trisomy 21.

[Dracula]

I'm unclear as to what exactly is being asked in this thread.

the question is -is the flesh indifferent to sex/gender by itself ? If theorethically one can bump a woman with all male hormons ,chromosomes etc would she (just imagine theorethically) turn into a man ? Is there women's flesh and mens' flesh ?

[Sebdeas]

the question is -is the flesh indifferent to sex/gender by itself ? If theorethically one can bump a woman with all male hormons ,chromosomes etc would she (just imagine theorethically) turn into a man ? Is there women's flesh and mens' flesh ?

You can´t change someone´s chromosomes. Hormones only change signals, they don´t change your DNA.
But what do you mean with men´s flesh and women´s flesh? That doesn't make any sense:hmmm:

[Dracula]

You can´t change someone´s chromosomes. Hormones only change signals, they don´t change your DNA.
But what do you mean with men´s flesh and women´s flesh? That doesn't make any sense:hmmm:

I mean the tissue . Is it the same .When you kiss woman's breasts,are they same as men's breasts,just enlarged ?!