I am terribly sorry RD, I seem to be very ineloquent in this matter. But I will attempt one more time to amend this deficiency.
You initially said a man and a woman are needed to be a full human being. Are you now ammending that to say that there must be a "male" and "female" role reflected? Is it gender or sex that you think is the trait that must be represented dually to come up with a human being, and what is the "proper relationship between the two" as you define it?
I said man and woman, you asked about homosexuals. The implication there was that you saw (or thought I saw) homosexuals as being neither men nor women. This did not seem to be tenable; regardless of sexual preference, homosexual men still have the XY gene pairing, and homosexual women have the XX gene pairing. Thus I concluded that you must have been referring not to sex or gender but rather what traditionally might be referred to as male or female behaviors. It seemed that you, insofar as you appeared to be identifying homosexuals with the opposite gender's behaviors, were then under the impression my proposed... concept? (theory and hypothesis are really both too strong of words to define it) was stating that because of a lack of male behaviors, homosexual men couldn't be considered men and therefore incapable of being part of a human pairing (if men are to be part of a human pairing).
For example, traditionally caring about one's physical appearance has been attributed to women (the entire metro-sexual movement has shown that such a traditional conception is improperly founded, to note). Homosexual men are often characterized as being more concerned about their physical appearance than heterosexual men (a questionable assertion, but the common characterization nonetheless). Your question seemed to imply that you were under the impression that if such a characterization were accurate, and assuming my proposed concept were accurate, homosexual men displaying a heightened degree concern for their appearance were not, in truth, male and therefore excluded from humanity.
My response was then to address this perceived focus on behavior, rather than gender or sex (though I do claim that behavior is a product of gender and sex).
Now, to attempt to clearly state the matter that I am proposing (in a means that I just thought of today, so I am not entirely sure if the categories are properly fitted):
You are probably familiar with the concept of primary sexual characteristic. This forms the first level of what it means to be male or female.
1. Men have testis and a penis, women have ovaries and a vagina (well, there are more than just these few characteristics).
This is the most obvious function of our sex genes; reproduction.
Chances are, you are also familiar with secondary sexual characteristics. This forms the second level of what it means to be male or female.
2. Men have beards, Women have more subcutaneous fat.
These characteristics are not our genes representing themselves in reproduction but in physical abilities (and appearance, those primary traits do that too). The Olympic events are usually separated into male and female divisions because of these differences.
So, then, I am essentially addressing what we might term as tertiary sexual characteristics. This forms the third level of what it means to be male or female. This is still our sex genes expressing themselves, but at the same time it is in manner less subtle than penises or fat. Lay a dead man and a dead woman next to each other and you couldn't tell what the tertiary sexual characteristics are. These sexual characteristics, though still originating from sex genes, expresses itself internally, both physiologically and mentally. So:
3. Boys like certain toys, girls like other toys.
This third level is where I am talking about, where sex and behavior meld to form what is generally called gender (not to be confused with gender roles).
Now, before I proceed, it should be noted that toy preference is sometimes held to be an example of cultural influence on gender development in children. Children observe adult reactions and learn what toys they can play with (and in what way). The claim that is sometimes made is that genes and sex (sex being most strongly defined in the first level, noted above) have nothing to do with play behavior; it is entirely dependent on cultural and social influences.
To respond to such possible statements (hopefully I have not presented it as a strawman fallacy, but please do let me know if I have), allow me to refer you to the following article:
Hassett JM, Siebert ER, Wallen K.
Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children.
Hormones and Behavior. 2008 Mar 25 [Epub ahead of print]
If you have access to PubMed (that being a free search engine for Medline, a database of scientific articles), the PMID is 18452921
You can probably get the thrust of the article from the title. I can provide the abstract, however, if you so desire. Particularly interesting, if I might, is the second to last line of that abstract: "The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization."
Now Lord J, and presumably yourself, seem to be of the belief that actualized-equality between the sexes (or gender, as gender is merely one instance of sexual expression, and hence why it can be used so interchangeably) requires the eradication of the concept of "gender."
I am maintaining that such a goal is inherently flawed, undesirable, and indeed oppressive.
But from tertiary sexual characteristics (“gender”), I am also proposing that those characteristics might be harnessed for the betterment of mankind; specifically, in this instance, in the melding of two "preferences [that] reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes" (the last line of the above noted abstract) in order to achieve the best of both worlds.
So you do believe that sex (or is it gender now?) is an intrinsic part of the decission making process for important decissions? If there is some importance to both a man and a woman (or a male and a female) having a particular relationship together, than surely there must be something that each is deficient in.
That is certainly a particular way to look at it. (though I'd claim it to be an unnecessarily negative way)
When compared to the decision making powers of a male/female team, yes a man alone, and yes a woman alone, will be "deficiency" in their decision making capabilities, specifically deficient of what the other sex (or gender) has. However, to call this a "deficiency" is rather curious, akin to saying that a man is deficient in a vagina and a woman is deficient in a penis. Indeed, it is also akin to stating that sulphur trioxide is deficient of water, or water is deficient of sulphur trioxide. Both are still quite viable in and of themselves, happy to mind their own business and not requiring the other. However, to reach something greater, something more complex, that requires the two come together and form sulphuric acid.
Why do you think that demanding rigid gender roles will benefit humanity?
Curious, as I never said anything about rigid gender roles (and I've attempted to largely ignore gender roles in general). Maybe the statement that men and women need be included on important decision making with what gave you this belief? Yet, I am not even sure decision making (which I did mention as being specifically the domain and men and women) would rightly count as a gender role; gender role has the connotation of limiting a role to a specific gender, whereas the proposition to that the role requires both.
However, I also suspect you are imagining all gender-related behaviors as rigid (and as gender roles).
A classic example of such is that of the "housewife." I think we'd all agree that the "housewife," as conceptualized in the 1950's (or indeed, as conceptualized in the 1920's and 30's) was a rigid (and oppressive) gender role. There were few employment options for women and it was expected that those were specifically for old maids who would never marry or young maidens who were to marry shortly.
Jump forward to the 21st century; now society is fairly accepting of women in the "general workplace" (defined as employment outside of the home). If a woman, with the ability and freedom to choose, decided to forgo the general workplace and instead take on the role of the "housewife," is that now a rigid (or oppressive) gender role? Indeed, if one were to insist that a woman could not take on the role of the "housewife" due to a perceived rigidity of gender roles, that itself would be a rigid gender role (except now, instead of being limited to the role of a "housewife," the woman would be restricted to the role of a businesswoman).
So, then, from this I would conclude that it is not the activity that is rigid (or oppressive), but rather the social limitations that surround it. It seems obvious but it is worth saying, gender roles that are strictly enforced are rigid and oppressive, whereas gender roles that are free and open are neither rigid nor oppressive (though I suppose one might claim that it isn't a gender role if it is free and open).
The entire point of this is to say that a gender, being motivated by their tertiary sexual characteristics, may be suited to this or that task in a different (and potentially more effective) manner, yet such a predisposition need not be a limitation.
It is rather ridiculous to state that all individuals are equally suited to all tasks and activities; this is something that can easily be observed apart from gender. An individual with unsteady hands is ill suited to handle a scalpel while an individual with a head for numbers is well suited to be a mathematician. All people have equal potential, but that potential manifests itself in different ways.
So I am claiming that gender (still, defined as tertiary sexual characteristics) is similar. Gender helps influence the path that one's potential might progress down (not will, but might). By being willing, as a society, to recognize gender differences, we can, as a society, also attempt to foster the strengths of each gender (as one has to identify a strength before one can effectively help develop it).
Not all potential is determined by gender; I am not claiming so. Merely, gender plays an intrinsic role.
As I am stating that these strengths will develop as the result of the impetus of our genes, I am also stating that these strengths will be present in humanity no matter what. So, then, if humanity attempts to remove gender, all it will do is suppress these strengths and oppress both men and women. Genderless equality can only be actualized through the enslavement and restriction of the entire human race.
However, to note specifically, equality minus the requirement of it being genderless is rather free. The individual is free to develop themselves as person, to better themselves through the development of their strengths. And if, in such a world, it turns out that video game sales of first person shooters are comprised of 55% men and only 45% women, meh. Humanity can recognize the difference, look to ensure that oppression isn't sneaking in, and be on our way. In a world of genderless equality, such a difference is cause for great concern. Studies will need to be performed, initiatives passed by the government, funding spend, and the social framework re-examined.
And, because I believe gender strengths are inherent in sex (which is, again, why the two can be interchangeably used), any attempt to create a genderless society will ultimately fail. People will only let society tell them that their strengths don't exist, that they are not unique, so long before they revolt. Acknowledging and celebrating gender is where the future lies. To suppress gender is about as bad as to acknowledge but punish it.
Throwing more people at a problem does not in of itself mean you're more likely to come up with a better solution than an individual could come up with, nor have you adequately explained what merrits you believe are intrinsic to sex (or gender) when it comes to the decision making process.
Depends on the problem (you will note, I have generally tried to maintain that gender duality is beneficial to important decision making, not all decision making), but generally, throwing more people (to a limit) as at problem
does mean that one is more likely to come up with a better solution. You can test this with dice, if you want; roll two six-sided dice and compare that to rolling a single 12 sided die. 1 in 6 chance of rolling a of seven with the pair, vs a 1 in 12 with the single. Compare again, and you have a 1/36 chance of rolling a 2 (or a 12) with the two dice and still a 1 in 12 chance for the single die.
Now, there are a variety of ways of looking at that. On one hand, we might say decisions of "12" are more desirable. Well, for each roll then a single die (or decision maker) has the pair beat. 1:12 is a good bit better than 1:36. Yet, if we say that decisions of 6 are better, two dice win the day.
Lets apply this to the political scale now. Pull two people at random from the American population and make them make a decision. If a decision gets made at all, that decision will be more likely to be nearer towards the center of the political spectrum than if one individual were to make, and for the same essential reason as with the dice. This, of course, assumes that being nearer to the center of the political spectrum is a better option than being an extremist.
Even if I grant that two heads are always better than one, you still have not explained why you think the best results will come if exactly one of those heads can grow a beard on its face.
It is my stance that tertiary sexual characteristics influence behavior (if you'd like more journal articles than the one I provided above to illustrate gender differences in behavior, I am quite happy to provide citations). Behavior influences what one thinks about and considers. Decision making is based on what one thinks about and considers (and the weight one applies to each specific instance of evidence and argument). Therefore, tertiary sexual characteristics influence decision making.
The reason why important decisions made as the result of combining men and women is in the differences of how genders think (what each gender considers as important, how each gender values certain arguments and instances of evidence). On one level, the different considerations of men and women will be more divergent from each other than the different considerations of two men (all other factors being equal). Therefore, the decision making process will involve a greater breadth of considerations than a single gender alone. This allows for a better decision to be made (though, such a statement assumes that understanding a problem to a greater degree allows for better decisions to be made).
On another level, the reason better decisions will be made is similar as to why two heads are better than one. By enhancing the differences between the two individuals, a wider range of options becomes available. Now, instead of rolling 2D6, we're rolling 2dD8. While a moderate decision still might be the desired goal, there are more opportunities to have an "almost as good" decision.
I suppose one might say that I don't want decision-making to be bipolar. In advocating for the increase in the number of those involved (and in turn increasing the diversity of those involved) I am, effectively, proposing that decision-making be put on meds.
