Gender
Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2018 9:58 am
An unfortunate trait of Wikipedians, is they tend to be thick. Proper thick. Here's a typical comment from a Wikipedian.....
Anyway, as they say, TO THE SCIENCE MOBILE!.....
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/
Good answer.
That's from Carrite (Tim Davenport) writing on Wikipediocracy. On the forum, he uses the moniker "Randy in Boise", which is a Wikipedia in-joke for someone who ignorantly stumbles into a topic, armed with insufficient knowledge, and makes a nuisance of themselves for the knowledgeable editors.XX
XY
That's gender.
Sorry if science is un-PC.
Anyway, as they say, TO THE SCIENCE MOBILE!.....
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-science-of-sex-and-gender/It’s possible to be XX and mostly male in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology, just as it’s possible to be XY and mostly female.
Would you trust your kids to be reading an encyclopedia built and maintained by morons? Particularly if they're struggling with their gender identity? Do you want Uncle Randy anywhere near their young minds?As science looks more closely, however, it becomes increasingly clear that a pair of chromosomes do not always suffice to distinguish girl/boy—either from the standpoint of sex (biological traits) or of gender (social identity).....To varying extents, many of us are biological hybrids on a male-female continuum.
Good answer.