in article %bF%6.1622$tD1.233998 at news3.oke.nextra.no,
>>>> Isn't that what I wrote?
>> Nope :)
oh darn typos! :-)
>> Thank you for the link.
> I read through it and as you say later there are some uncertainties of the
> corpus callosum, you more or less confirmed it (unintentionally) by also
> saying that the female uses BOTH hemispheres (hence better communication ?)
> ,while males are using the hemispheres 'lateralized' (your words, not mine)
Actually, those aren't necessarily -my- opinions, mostly I'm just listing
the reported findings of particular researchers. For example, Simon LeVay
says dimorphism of the CC (corpus callosum) exists, which is why I
referenced him for that section, but there's a lot of others who say it
doesn't exist, so I cited a critique (Anne Fausto-Sterling). I myself really
have no idea, I can only say that it isn't yet known for certain because the
scientific community has reached no agreement on it. As far as the CC goes,
I don't think a conventional standardized technique for measuring it has
ever been agreed upon, therefore making it quite difficult to compare one
study with another.
Moreover, that women are less lateralized than men (if they are in fact) has
not been definitely attributed to a putatively larger corpus callosum. It
could be the result of something else... not likely but nonetheless
possible. Really, the deeper I get into sex dimorphism, the more I realize
that so little is known for certain about it. Virtually everything is
theories built upon the foundation of other theories (though some of them
have high probabilities of being true). I think it'll be some time before
some of the murkiness begins to clear.
>> No more than 20% I'd say.
> The rest is genetic.
> Maybe that's enough to give the genders enough 'slack' so they won't feel
> constricted ?
Well, I guess my point is that the binary sex classification system works
quite well for the majority, but it begins to break down when you really
look carefully at the diversity that exists out there in the real world.
Nature is rarely a nice neat binary proposition ;-)
>> In mind this person is a male, while an unfertile female externally.
> Was this a trick-question ? LOL ;)
Yeah, sort of. Intended to (hopefully) demonstrate how difficult it can
sometimes be to place a person definitely into the either/or dyadic
male/female taxonomy. There are many intersex people who possess both
ovaries and testes, not to mention ovo-testis. It can get complicated.
>> I read your webpage, and I realised that I unadvernantly might have stepped
> on somebodies toes.............if so I'm sorry.
Well, my toes are okay :-) If you mean that I'm a trans-person, don't worry
about it -- I don't have any particular ideology when it comes to this
stuff, nothing that can get offended or insulted. I only stopped by this
neuro forum for a little while so that I might learn something from you guys