FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58  
59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   >>   >|  
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. 2. Bell, Dr Blair. The Sex Complex. London, 1916, p. 98. 3. Paton, D. Noel. Regulators of Metabolism. London, 1913, p. 146. 4. Goodale, H.D. Gonadectomy...Carnegie Pub. 243, 1916, pp. 43f. 5. Wilson, Andrew. Polity of a Pond (essay). Humboldt Lib. of Sc., No. 88--reprint, dated 1888. 6. Hollingworth, L.S. Variability as Related to Sex Differences in Achievement. Am. Jour, of Sociol., XIX., 1914, pp. 510-530. 7. Lowie, R.H. & Hollingworth, L.S. Science and Feminism. Sci. Mthly., Sept., 1916, pp. 277-284. 8. Montague, Helen & Hollingworth, L.S. Comparative Variability of the Sexes at Birth. Am. J. of Sociol. XX, 335-70. 1915. 9. Morgan, T.H. A Critique of the Theory of Evolution. N.Y., 1916, pp. 1-27. 10. Loeb, Jacques. Artificial Parthenogenesis and Fertilization. Chicago, 1913, pp. 3, 51f., 240f, 303. 11. Conklin, E.G. Organ-Forming Substances in the Eggs of Ascidians. U. of Pa. Contrib. from the Zool. Lab. Vol. 12. 1905, pp. 205-230. 12. Loeb, J. The Organism as a Whole. N.Y., 1916, pp. 138f, 151-2. 13. Guyer, M.F. Being Well-Born. Indianapolis, 1916, p. 51. 14. Tower, W.L. (et al.). Heredity and Euge
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58  
59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Hollingworth

 

Sociol

 

feminine

 
Variability
 

London

 
masculine
 

secretory

 

classify

 
Science
 
Feminism

Obviously

 

Montague

 
Comparative
 
Related
 
Andrew
 

Wilson

 

Polity

 

Humboldt

 

Gonadectomy

 
Carnegie

operations

 
Differences
 

performed

 

reprint

 

Achievement

 

Morgan

 
Organism
 
Contrib
 

Presumably

 

Heredity


Indianapolis

 

extreme

 

Artificial

 

Jacques

 

Evolution

 

Goodale

 

Critique

 
Theory
 

Parthenogenesis

 

Fertilization


Forming
 

Substances

 
Ascidians
 
Conklin
 
Chicago
 

intersexes

 

biology

 
intermediate
 
urnings
 

modern