{"id":53507,"date":"2023-10-29T13:58:58","date_gmt":"2023-10-29T20:58:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/?p=53507"},"modified":"2023-10-29T13:58:58","modified_gmt":"2023-10-29T20:58:58","slug":"everyday-erinyes-394","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.politicsplus.org\/blog\/2023\/10\/29\/everyday-erinyes-394\/","title":{"rendered":"Everyday Erinyes #394"},"content":{"rendered":"

Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto<\/span><\/strong>, Megaera<\/strong><\/span>, and Tisiphone<\/span><\/strong>. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”<\/p>\n

If anyone feels that today’s article coupled with my remarks constitute more of a personal rant than a political statement, I won’t disagree. However, if politics is to be regarded as a means of improving (and then maintaining and building upon those improvements – a proposition which seems to be losing suppport, but which should not be, then the personal Is political – is, indeed, the foundation of all politics. And it distresses me\u00a0 personally\u00a0 me that we seem to be going backwards, not only on this political point, but also on our cultural understanding of reality. I am not old enough to have see Christine Jorgenson in a movie, but I am old enough to have heard about her, and heard that she was a female soul (or person, or personality – I’m sure not everyone used the word soul – born into a male body. That made sense to me thenm and it still makes sense as an explanation, and still makes it quite clear that Christine had no choice in the matter. Yet, we were told then, and many of our worse, this youth are still being told today, that “gay” is a choice. Because “God doesn’t make mistakes.” No one appears to grasp the implication here -that, “No, God doesn’t make mistakes. You just think, in your arrogance, that you know what constitutes a mistake better than God does.” Dorothy L. Sayers knew better than that – in a novel published in the 1930’s, she has the character of a poorly educated farmer say of an elderly lesbian, “The Lord makes some on ’em that way to suit his own purposes.” These days, our “poorly educated” think they know better then their own all-knowing God.
\n=============================================================<\/p>\n

Biological sex is far from binary \u2212\u00a0this college course examines the science of sex diversity in people, fungi and across the animal\u00a0kingdom<\/h1>\n
Biological sex comes in many more forms than just male or female.
\nYifei Fang\/Moment via Getty Images<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ari Berkowitz<\/a>, University of Oklahoma<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\"Text
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Uncommon Courses<\/a> is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.<\/em><\/p>\n

Title of course:<\/h2>\n

Diversity of Biological Sex Characteristics<\/p>\n

What prompted the idea for the course?<\/h2>\n

Most people view biological sex, or the physical features related to reproduction, as simple and binary<\/a> \u2013 either male or female. Even those who recognize that gender \u2013 referring to cultural norms around biological sex, or a person\u2019s internal feeling of being masculine, feminine or both \u2013 can be complex and nuanced don\u2019t see biological sex in the same way. Many also regard variability in sex and gender as exclusive to people \u2013 not found in nonhuman animals.<\/p>\n

I am a behavioral neurobiologist<\/a> who has been teaching human physiology since 1998. Over the past several years, I have focused my reading and writing<\/a> on the biology of sex<\/a>. It struck me that many of my students had misguided assumptions about sex characteristics, including that all people are physically either 100% male or 100% female.<\/p>\n

A course on biological sexual diversity<\/a> in both nonhuman animals and people could challenge these assumptions.<\/p>\n

What does the course explore?<\/h2>\n

First, we examine why sexual reproduction evolved<\/a> in any species. This question is still hotly debated among biologists<\/a> because sex is inefficient. It requires time and energy to find a suitable mate and unite your sex cells, plus it allows you to pass on only half your genes to your offspring.<\/p>\n

In comparison, asexual reproduction<\/a> \u2013 essentially cloning yourself \u2013 is much more efficient. You don\u2019t have to find a mate, and everyone can produce offspring themselves because there are no males. In biology, \u201cmale\u201d refers to an individual that makes small sex cells like sperm, and \u201cfemale\u201d refers to an individual that makes large sex cells like eggs.<\/p>\n

Next, we explore nonhuman sexual diversity<\/a>, including fungi that have thousands of sexes<\/a> and aphids that reproduce asexually most of the year<\/a> but sexually once each fall. Among many others, we also learn about fish that are male or female at different times of their lives<\/a>; intersex crayfish<\/a>; and female spotted hyenas<\/a> that have a penis.<\/p>\n