Yes, there are many species that have more than 2 sexes. Those are decided by scientific consensus.
But sex is ultimately a category to describe the process of reproduction. By definition, this is exclusionary. It’s why conservatives fumble so much when trying to describe sex in terms of actual definitions. Inherently, it is not possible to fit every person into a table of 2 columns in that way. Sex is not a binary because human beings are not binary. There is an incredible amount of variation in our bodies.
You are vastly underestimating the prevalence of chromosomal variations. They are common, especially among cis women.
I like the way you phrased that at the end. Sexes are categories that relate exclusively to the concept of progeny. If you’re not able to reproduce, you’re already kind of excluded from the sex binary. If we break the human concept of sex down to its constituent parts, it is just “can procreate”. The categories are useful in some contexts, but to state them as universal or to try and extrapolate them so widely is significantly disruptive and unhelpful. Humans are and always have been more than our reproductive anatomy. Your doctor and anyone you want to reproduce with are really the only people who need to know whether you fit into either category.
But that’s not more that two sexes. It’s the same number or less. A hermaphrodite isn’t a third sex, it’s two sexes side by side and a sexless cellular organism has exactly one sex.
The distinction male/female is usually determined by measuring the size of the gametes. Female gametes are the bigger ones (e. g. ovum) and male gametes are the smaller ones (e. g. spermatozoon). There are organisms where the gametes of both sexes have the same size. So technically they have two sexes but don’t fit the categories male and female.
Sex in the sense that we have been talking about it here is in reference to mammals. The moment you wander outside of the mammalian class of vertebrates these concepts of sex start to become far less applicable.
There are many birds that have more than 2 sexes. Reptiles and invertebrates as well. Asexual reproduction would be classed as it’s own sex apart from any male/female system.
Correct on both counts. To make it even better, there exist some creatures that primarily mate and reproduce sexually, but can also reproduce asexually if the situation requires it - I think ants, and some reptiles, if I remember right.
Aren’t there more than two sexes in biology?
Yes, there are many species that have more than 2 sexes. Those are decided by scientific consensus.
But sex is ultimately a category to describe the process of reproduction. By definition, this is exclusionary. It’s why conservatives fumble so much when trying to describe sex in terms of actual definitions. Inherently, it is not possible to fit every person into a table of 2 columns in that way. Sex is not a binary because human beings are not binary. There is an incredible amount of variation in our bodies.
Depends on how you’re counting.
Relating to humans?
Yes but they are mutations (e. g. XXY, XXX, etc.) that often give rise to numerous biological problems or death.
I don’t know if there are species that require more than two sexes to propagate. I never head of them.
You are vastly underestimating the prevalence of chromosomal variations. They are common, especially among cis women.
I like the way you phrased that at the end. Sexes are categories that relate exclusively to the concept of progeny. If you’re not able to reproduce, you’re already kind of excluded from the sex binary. If we break the human concept of sex down to its constituent parts, it is just “can procreate”. The categories are useful in some contexts, but to state them as universal or to try and extrapolate them so widely is significantly disruptive and unhelpful. Humans are and always have been more than our reproductive anatomy. Your doctor and anyone you want to reproduce with are really the only people who need to know whether you fit into either category.
XY is a mutation, genius
Im thinking creatures that propagate via asexual reproduction might not fit the male/female sex binary and intersex might not as well?
But that’s not more that two sexes. It’s the same number or less. A hermaphrodite isn’t a third sex, it’s two sexes side by side and a sexless cellular organism has exactly one sex.
The distinction male/female is usually determined by measuring the size of the gametes. Female gametes are the bigger ones (e. g. ovum) and male gametes are the smaller ones (e. g. spermatozoon). There are organisms where the gametes of both sexes have the same size. So technically they have two sexes but don’t fit the categories male and female.
But wouldn’t the asexual reproducing animal that is one sex be neither male or female and thus is a third?
Sex in the sense that we have been talking about it here is in reference to mammals. The moment you wander outside of the mammalian class of vertebrates these concepts of sex start to become far less applicable.
There are many birds that have more than 2 sexes. Reptiles and invertebrates as well. Asexual reproduction would be classed as it’s own sex apart from any male/female system.
Correct on both counts. To make it even better, there exist some creatures that primarily mate and reproduce sexually, but can also reproduce asexually if the situation requires it - I think ants, and some reptiles, if I remember right.