Infertile humans are still humans?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Blake

Asuuming that you think of a virus as a species, which almost nobody does. Viruses are often not even considered alive and never designated as species. They’re just molecules.

Viruses are’t “alive” in the independent sense, and they certainly don’t reproduce (or more properly, replicate) sexually, but they are classified taxinomically.

Stranger

[35340]

@vetbridge

So, according to their statement post menopausal human females are a species unto themselves? (just another brick in the wall)

Don’t forget those ke-razy transgendered folks! Some stupid legislation (need to find it) was trying to define a woman as a person with a uterus who is capable of reproduction - probably trying to outlaw gender re-assignment surgery. They were doing so, I think, in the context of creating a “This is the way I think you should be married protection” bill - to disallow the marriage of gays, folks going through SRS and probably eventually anyone else they don’t like. ::: rolleyes :::

[alice_in_wonderland]

@kimera

Someone who just took a biology final…

Not really on topic, but I’m assuming that she failed…

[kimera]

@alice_in_wonderland

Not really on topic, but I’m assuming that she failed…

No, she passed. She doesn’t consider herself human because she doesn’t intend on having children and I told her I didn’t think it worked like that.

Thanks to everyone who answered! I will look into taking more biology so I don’t have to ask these stupid questions.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@kimera

Thanks to everyone who answered! I will look into taking more biology so I don’t have to ask these stupid questions.

It’s not a dumb question! Looking back through the thread, it stimulated several interesting sidebars on top of discussing the definition and qualification of the term “species”. It was, honestly, the most interesting thread I’ve read today.

Plus, I got a laugh about your friend’s reason for not considering herself to be human. Ah, these kids…

Stranger

[flood]

@Stranger On A Train

Infertile or marginally fertile animals created by crossbreeding animals of two species (the donkey, for instance) are considered hybrids and are not properly a species at all.

You mean the mule, right?

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@flood

You mean the mule, right?

Er, yeah. Donkey and horse–> mule (or hinny, depending on which parent is what).

I stand corrected.

Stranger

[John_Mace]

Interestingly, the “standard” nominclature for hybrids is to create a word from the common species name of both parents, with the father’s part coming first. Liger = Lion x Tiger (with dad being a lion). A horse x donkey would then be a honkey?

[ScoobyTX]

@John Mace

Or ask them of people of the same sex are the same species. It’s easy to take that “layman’s definition” to ridiculous conclusions.

Hell, infertile “persons” aren’t even alive, since most laymen’s definitions of life include the ability to reproduce.

[John_Mace]

Oh, and I guess we can now say that children aren’t human either. I knew it!!!

[Conan_the_Librarian]

Originally Posted by Blake
I get the impression that what’s causing most of your confusion is that you aren’t fully considering that species is a self-sustaining population.
The other problem is that heterosexuals and homosexuals routinely interact sexually.

Yea, I suppose I missed that part about being a self-sustaining popluation.

And I know that homosexuals sexually interact, but isn’t that becoming a bisexual, and not a homosexual? I was thinking about homosexuals who are physically unable to have sex with a female, because they simply aren’t aroused and interested.

Originally Posted by John Mace
No one knows the cause of homosexuality.

I wasn’t sure about this part, or how prevailant the genes in the twin study were. (I saw an article on that, just wasn’t able to read it)