Thyme @Thyme@computerfairi.es

This chart is fascinating to me. Note: A is Money's theory, while B is what the author favors. Note at least the following:

a) That this concept of "physchosexuality" (basically both gender and sexuality) is clearly shown as a spectrum, and

b) That social and cultural factors play a role in imposing limits on this spectrum.

Diamond, M. (1965). A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology

@OCRbot

Here's a 1948 lecture describing a natural basis for homosexuality. Interesting especially for referencing the presence of homosexual behavior in other mammals.

BEACH, F. A. 1948a. Sexual behavior in animals and men. Harvey Lect. Ser.

Quoted in:

Diamond, M. (1965). A Critical Evaluation of the Ontogeny of Human Sexual Behavior. The Quarterly Review of Biology

@OCRbot

Actually that's the same author who introduced to the world the idea of a distinction between "sex" and "gender". Well, here he is later explaining the reasoning behind this distinction. I suppose we have the "strain" on the "etymological stem" of "sex" to thank for it?

Money, J. (1973). Gender Role, Gender Identity, Core Gender Identity: Usage and Definition of Terms. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis.

@OCRbot

Here's a section from a 1957 paper explaining the five different biological aspects of "sex", based on studies of intersex people.

Interesting because I often see people treat this as if it's recent knowledge, when it's not. In an earlier paper the author even treats it as well known to experts, but to my annoyance I cannot access that paper anymore.

MONEY, J. (1957). Imprinting and the Establishment of Gender Role. Archives of Neurology And Psychiatry.