|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 22, 2008 10:01:56 GMT 10
Sexual differentiation is often misconstrued. Basically it arises from different “strategies” (without intent) to sexual reproduction. Sexual reproduction itself seems to be a survival “strategy,” to achieve competitive advantage through diversity. Roughly, a gamete (haploid cell) fuses with another gamete to produce a zygote, each having supplied half of the genetic material required for reproduction. In cases of isogamy, gametes fuse with gametes of similar size, with each suppling half the nutrition required by the resultant zygote. However, an advantage may be gained by producing more gametes. This may be achieved by producing gametes with less nutrition. As a certain amount of nutrition is required by the developing zygote, if two gametes with low nutrition fuse, the zygote would not be viable. Thus, another “strategy” evolved, of producing fewer gametes but with more than half (virtually all) the required nutrition to compensate. The eventual result is called anisogamy or heterogamy and is manifest as "male" sperm and "female" ova. Beyond this microscopic differentiation (and its enabling chromosomal deficiency), macroscopic and behavioural sexual distinctions and expressions are widely diverse, some diametrically so, between species and, in humans, between cultures in different places, classes, eras and, indeed, between individuals.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 22, 2008 10:39:02 GMT 10
The Red QueenFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Review Excerpt - Linked Above]
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 22, 2008 21:55:57 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 22, 2008 21:59:05 GMT 10
Let's not forget that, as everyone knows, women are, of course, the weaker sex! Edward Burt, 1822, Letters from a Gentleman in the North of Scotland to His Friend in London.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 22, 2008 22:00:10 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by synchronicity on Sept 23, 2008 6:45:13 GMT 10
Which is somehow related to the question:
;D
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 23, 2008 8:59:06 GMT 10
Very apt Bro. Synch.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 23, 2008 18:35:52 GMT 10
Referring to Dudley Wright’s, Woman and Freemasonry (1922, William Rider & Son, Ltd.), we find two cases of initiation under ambiguous circumstances. The first case (pp.85/6) is that of the late eighteenth century initiation of Chevalier D’Eon De Beaumont (see also this link). S/he was initiated in a French lodge, holden under the Grand Lodge of England, while controversy over his or her gender was at its height. Fearing a kidnapping attempt by people who had placed large wagers on the issue, s/he was sheltered by a Past Grand Master of that Grand Lodge. Current opinions typically favour the autopsy finding stating s/he was male. However, this statement is at odds with D’eon’s own admission under oath, that s/he was female, after which s/he continued to live as such. Chevalier D’Eon De Beaumont The other case is that of Helene, Countess Hadik Barkoczy, who had some justification for considering herself to be male under the laws of her country. Wright tells us (pp.86/7): Helene, Countess Hadik Barkoczy, who was born in 1833, was the sole heiress of Count Johann Barkoczy, and being the last of her race was permitted by the Hungarian Courts to take the place of a son. She succeeded her father on his death in 1871, in the extensive Majorat of Barkoczy. In 1860 she married Count Bela Hadik, aide-de-camp to the unfortunate Emperor Maximillian of Mexico. With her inheritance she came into the possession of an extensive Masonic library. She was a highly educated lady, and made the Masonic literature her earnest study; and having mastered the statements concerning almost every degree in Freemasonry, an ardent admiration for the Masonic idea was aroused in her. She was well acquainted with some Freemasons, through whom she endeavoured to gain admittance into the Craft. Her desire was granted and in 1875, she was duly initiated in the Lodge Egyenloseg, in Unghvar, holding a warrant from the Orient of Hungary. On hearing of this glaring violation of the statutes the Grand Orient of Hungary instituted proceedings against the brethren who had been guilty of this “breach of the Masonic vow, unjustifiedly conferring Masonic Degrees, doing that which degrades a Freemason and Freemasonry, and for knowingly violating the statutes.” The judgment of the Council was given at their meeting on January 5th, 1876, when all the accused were found guilty. The Deputy Master of the lodge was condemned to the loss of all his Masonic rights and expulsion from the Order forever; the officers to have their names struck off the lists and the other members of the lodge to be suspended for a space of three, six, or twelve months. But still the question remained as to whether the duly initiated Countess could and ought to be looked upon as a regular Freemason and whether she could claim all the rights of a member of the Fraternity. On this point the Grand Orient of Hungary decided in their meeting held on 10th March, 1876, as follows: 1. The Grand Orient declares the admission of the Countess Hadik Barkoczy to be contrary to the laws, and therefore null and void, forbids her admittance into any lodge of their jurisdiction, under penalty of erasion of the lodge from the rolls, and requests all Grand Lodges to do the same. 2. The Countess is requested to return the invalid certificate which she holds within ten days, in default of which measures will be taken to confiscate immediately the certificate whenever produced at any of the lodges. While that may have been their decision, I suggest it does not necessarily fully address the question as to whether or not she was entitled to be considered a Freemason, by virtue of her legal status and the regularity of her initiation. The Barkoczy Coat of Arms The mention of these ambiguous cases remind us of the nebulous nature of gender in about one in 2,000 births where, because of ambiguity, gender is negotiated (formerly by doctors without even consulting the parents). Thus some who are genetically females may be raised as males and visa versa, without them or their parents knowing. Moreover, sometimes even the genes are not simply xx (female) or xy (male). This ambiguity raises a probability verging on certainty of there being some people who are genetically male, who would not be considered for initiation into mainstream Freemasonry. There is also a similar likelihood that some mainstream Freemasons are arguably women. IMHO, this likelihood renders the "No Women!" rule problematic (at best) and suggests it is an artifical construct rather than a "natural law."
|
|
|
Post by synchronicity on Sept 25, 2008 7:59:08 GMT 10
Elsewhere I jokingly referred to the two sexes being with issued different sets of dangly bits at birth. Well, I was only half-joking...
It might be useful to remember that for a long time during the embryo's development there is no sexual differentiation whatsoever and it could literally go either way. Then at one point the 'switch' flicks one way or the other, and the embryo starts developing one particular set of sexual organs... while still retaining the others in a vestigial form!
Also interesting is the fact that there are many creatures in nature which are completely hermaphrodite; others that literally change sex in the course of their life; and others still whose sex is determined entirely by external factors (e.g. temperature, etc.).
We have all heard the theory that each man has hidden in himself some feminine features and each woman some masculine ones. Well, this is true both physically and psychologically.
That marvellous little book, the Kybalion, has a lot to say about Gender, stating that is found in the entire manifest universe, where it takes many forms other than sex. Another important thing the Kybalion says about gender is that both genders are present in everything.
These are only the introductory remarks about gender, as there is a whole chapter on the subject further on in the book, plus a whole chapter on Mental Gender.
Gender is more an 'accident' (in the philosophical sense of non-essential attribute, although as we have seen, in nature it can also be an accident in the more common sense of the word) than an essential characteristic of human beings. Therefore I totally reject the idea that differences between men and women are so fundamental as to relegate the sexes into virtually different species.
In fact, I am surprised we are even discussing this as I thought it was self-evident.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Sept 25, 2008 9:08:34 GMT 10
In fact, I am surprised we are even discussing this as I thought it was self-evident. Indeed! However, the conservatism of mainstream Freemasonry has resulted in it becoming increasingly out of step with the wider community. From its "No Women!" rule being typical of many 18th century clubs, it is now an exception to social norms, attracting some who "like it that way" and who entrench the difficulty of implementing overdue changes. Very ironic in an institution which prides itself as being a universal and progressive science!?
|
|