Scientific American, why do you have to be like this?

Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary

The animal kingdom does not limit itself to only one biological binary regarding how a species makes gametes. Scientifically speaking, animals with the capacity to produce ova are generally called “female” and sperm producers “male.” While most animal species fall into the “two types of gametes produced by two versions of the reproductive tract” model, many don’t. Some worms produce both. Some fish start producing one kind and then switch to the other, and some switch back and forth throughout their lives. There are even lizards that have done away with one type all together. Among our fellow mammals, which are less freewheeling because of the twin constraints of lactation and live birth, there are varied connections between gametes and body fat, body size, muscles, metabolism, brain function and much more.

One might reasonably contend that an anthropologist should know that human beings are not worms, fish, or lizards.

We know that humans exhibit a range of biological and behavioral patterns related to sex biology that overlap and diverge. Producing ova or sperm does not tell us everything (or even most things) biologically or socially, about an individual’s childcare capacity, homemaking tendencies, sexual attractions, interest in literature, engineering and math capabilities or tendencies towards gossip, violence, compassion, sense of identity, or love of, and competence for, sports. Gametes and gamete production physiology, by themselves, are only a part of the entirety of human lives. Plentiful data and analyses support the assertions that sex is very complex in humans and that binary and simplistic explanations for human sex biology are either wholly incorrect or substantially incomplete.

Switching the argument to sexual determinism of behavior and the commonly-observed cultural traits of the binary sexes is dishonest in the extreme.

What a sad joke of an article.

 

The Schist Disk: Egypt and “Advanced” Technology

Since discovered in 1936 in the Egyptian village of Saqqara, the so-called “Schist Disk” has been used to support the widely-held contention that the ancient Egyptian culture acquired technology far superior to their own at some point in their development from an outside source.

And while this disk may not be definitive proof of that contention, considering all that is known about the Egyptian culture after nearly two centuries of concerted study, the Egyptians of 3000 BCE did not have the capabilities to create such a sophisticated piece of technology. Yet, they did.

Uncovered by renowned British Egyptologist Brian Walter Emery while excavating the tomb of Prince Sabu, son of Adjuib Pharaoh, governor of the First Dynasty (circa 3000 BCE), the Schist Disk was found among some common funerary objects (including stone vessels, flint knives, arrows, and a few copper tools) Emery initially cataloged as “a container in the form of a schist bowl.”

The term schist, derived from the Greek word σχ?ζειν meaning “to split” (referring to the relative ease with which this material can be split along the lateral plane), is a category of medium-grade metamorphic rock rich in what are termed “lamellar” minerals, which include mica, chlorite, talc, hornblende, and graphite.

Derived from clay and mud, which have undergone a series of extreme physical-chemical (transitioning from shale to slate to phyllite), most schists are made of mica, but graphite and chlorite are also quite common.

And while the existence of ancient objects made of this hard but brittle material is far from rare, the design and craftsmanship of this disk, in particular, is astounding—if not more than a little eerie.

Not only did it require extraordinary practice and patience to create, but other similarly-crafted pieces also have never been found.

 

I spent $160K on leg-lengthening surgery — it changed my sex life

Surgery has heightened this woman’s modeling career — and sex life.

Theresia Fischer, who starred on Germany’s “Celebrity Big Brother,” has undergone two surgeries to lengthen her legs.

She now stands 6 feet tall when barefoot.

The 31-year-old underwent two operations to insert adjustable telescopic rods into her tibiae (shinbones), adding an extra 5.5 inches to her height.

The total surgery cost was $124,000, but medications and physical therapy bumped her total bill up to $161,000 — all of which she paid with the modeling checks she hopes will increase after these procedures.

The increasingly popular operation reportedly costs $70,000 to $150,000, depending on how many inches the patient wants to “grow,” as well as thousands of dollars more in follow-up costs, GQ reported.

The leg-lengthening process requires a painful procedure in which a doctor breaks the femur in each of a patient’s legs and inserts extendable metal nails.

The nails are gradually extended over the next three months by one millimeter a day — eventually making the recovered patient several inches taller.