Taboo and Genetics - A Study of the Biological, Sociological and Psychological Foundation of the Family by Melvin Moses Knight;Phyllis Mary Blanchard;Iva Lowther Peters
page 49 of 200 (24%)
page 49 of 200 (24%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
|
Andrews' patient: photographs[2, plate opposite p.243] show a rounded
bodily outline, hairless face, well-developed mammæ--the female sex characteristics in every respect which the ordinary person could detect. Yet an operation proved that the sex glands themselves were male. Presumably extreme cases like the above are rare. Obviously operations cannot be performed on all those with female-type bodies who do not bear children, to determine the primary sex, and conversely with men. This does, however, point the obvious question: Are not some we classify as men _more male_ or masculine than others--some we classify as women _more feminine_ than others? Bearing in mind the fact that the genetic basis for both sexes exists in each individual, are not some women more masculine than others, some men more feminine than others? However much we may object to stating it just that way, the biological fact remains thus. The Greeks called these intermediate types _urnings_--modern biology knows them as "intersexes." Only within the past few years have the general phenomena of intersexuality been cleared up to any considerable extent--naturally on the basis of the secretory explanation of sex. This secretory or endocrine idea has also given us an entirely new view of sex differences. These are best discussed as functional rather than as structural. To correlate this material, we must next give a rude sketch of the quantitative theory of sex. BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR CHAPTER II 1. Goldschmidt, R. Intersexuality and the Endocrine Aspect of Sex. Endocrinology, Vol. I, p. 434, 1917. |
|


