tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2814994353835004156.post3360724152801306373..comments2023-12-18T20:54:23.723+00:00Comments on philosomama: Alex Byrne respondsEllen Clarkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16849531733597762341noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2814994353835004156.post-82453154917352470632020-04-27T01:08:02.304+01:002020-04-27T01:08:02.304+01:00That has to be the worst analogy I've ever see...That has to be the worst analogy I've ever seen. Unlike northerners and southerners of his example, all humans are without sex at conception. Their identity as either a biological male or female diverge from the same point. Even if a gamete-based classification is used, the process of gamete production is highly systemic. If we're going to look at biological sex descriptively, numerous factors need to be present, from chromosomes, hormones, anatomy, to all the other sex-specific traits. Furthermore, many of those traits are common in both males and females.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2814994353835004156.post-78706172820277622072018-11-20T12:43:03.141+00:002018-11-20T12:43:03.141+00:00Interesting.
One minor comment I would add in to ...Interesting.<br /><br />One minor comment I would add in to the mix is that gamete dimorphism isn't the universal condition in biology, and is itself an evolved state-of-affairs. That is, there are species (not humans of course) in which sexual reproduction involves the fusion of equal-sized gametes; indeed this is the ancestral condition from which gamete dimoprhism gradually evolved, for reasons that are somewhat disputed.<br /><br />Samir Okasha<br /><br />Samir Okashanoreply@blogger.com