Man makes stupid amount of sense explaining human sexuality

Posted on October 12, 2012 by

I didn’t even realize I was slightly confused about human sexuality, until I watched this video. Then suddenly, everything made sense. This guy goes into detail about the origins of our sex, gender, hearts and even our brains. He describes how each of those are unique and all work together to produce our unique sexuality. All this, in under four minutes = Β Mind blown!

Related Posts

29 Responses to “Man makes stupid amount of sense explaining human sexuality”

  1. Elizabeth Darcy says:

    was just stumbling through the internet when i came across hank’s video that i had seen a few days before. Nerdfightaria, we have taken over the internet.

  2. Mary-J says:

    Wow, I really felt like taking a deep, deep breath after this video. My god that dude speaks fast! Good video though πŸ™‚

  3. allysparrow says:


  4. this man, is hank green πŸ™‚

  5. “This Guy” is Hank Green. Linking back to sources and doing research on your subject is always a good thing.

  6. The Old Wolf says:

    I swear if I were blind I would think this was Matthew Gray Gubler (i.e. Spencer Reid on “Criminal Minds”) talking. The similarity in voice and intonation is uncanny.

  7. Elsa says:

    Nerdfighters, you’ve managed to hook yet another innocent bystander into your awesome-sauce.


  8. Men Discontinued says:

    Or you know, you could visit A Voice for Men where we discuss human rights all the time. http://avoiceformen.com Something that the Feminists have a hard time grasping, how human sexuality works and what makes us different.

  9. moop says:

    what’s up with that term “biological female” at 1:48. I thought female referred to a gender identity. (confused). couldn’t you just say “a hypothetical person female assigned at birth” ?

    • kokopelli says:

      Female does not refer to gender, but rather biological sex… so saying “biological female” could be seen as redundant, but in such a video for understanding, I think the intention is to make a distinction; female, male, and intersex are the common terms for *biological* sex (genitalia between the legs or what our chromosomes/DNA are), whereas woman, man, and trans* are some possible terms for gender identity

    • Trevor says:

      Moop, I completely agree with you. The guy in this video oversimplifies the term sex and in doing so gets it wrong. (For example, if you were assigned female at birth but take testosterone, your sex ceases to be female as your ovaries shut down, your body fat redistributes, your body and facial hair patterns change in a way that most people see as male, and what people sometimes call the clit grows a large amount. In other words, your secondary sex characteristics become quite male. Combined with the fact that you also have male hormone levels, your sex is not exactly female at this point. Some would say that it’s not male either, but it certainly is closer to male than female.)

      • You make a good point about him oversimplifying sex. However, I think he tried to acknowledge that he wasn’t going into how biological sex works in detail. As for your ovaries shutting down making you more male… bullshit. I’m sorry, but that’s like arguing that barren cissexual women are somehow less female. It is also like arguing that a transgendered person who chooses not to take hormones and/or get surgery has less of a right to identify as gender that doesn’t match their biological sex.

      • Ash says:

        I wouldn’t say he’s wrong, Trevor. You’re absolutely right, but he states that he’s trying NOT to overcomplicate things. Think of it as a “Sex” for dummies kind of video. Getting into the processes of how a person can change their biological gender and then getting into more detail about all the other aspects he mentioned would make it confusing to the people from the shiny boxes mentioned at the beginning of the video.

        Also a side note, one of the rules to videos on that particular channel is that they cannot go over 4 minutes.

        So yes, oversimplified “sex” for dummies so they might understand the people that can not or will not conform to their preset ideas. If you are already aware that there is so much more to this than Hank mentioned, then this video was not meant for you. Give yourself a pat on the back for being (at the very least) open-minded and hope that this helped someone not so open-minded understand and maybe even accept differences in human sexuality a little better.

    • Trick Barrett says:

      Correct me if i’m wrong, but i believe the implication is not what one’s birth sex was/is but what biological sex that person currently is. It seems obvious to me that if one has taken hormone injection therapy and it has been successful, then their biological gender has changed. This isn’t really a PC term or something that’s open to discussion because it’s a scientific term, just as “intersex” is a scientific term. Dependent on where one falls on the spectrum of biological gender–regardless of how one got there, be it by birth or other, later means–there is a scientific, biological assignment for the person. As further clarification: i’m not talking about a set of terms reserved exclusively for humans: animals can be biologically male, female, intersex or some variation thereof through birth. If you have a hermaphroditic animal whose physical, biological form leans more toward the male end of the spectrum, then you have a hermaphroditic specimen that favours the male sex. The issue of true gender, as Hank points out, is an aspect of one’s personality and mind, not one’s body. I think that if would be even more confusing to make such a gray area of seeming interdependence between gender and sex rather than treating them as things that are exclusive of one another.

  10. Jesse Raymond says:

    Nice presentation!

    Hank describes gender as malefemale + intensity/neither/both. Gender is much more complicated than that. Many genderqueer and other identities would be boxing themselves severely to fit on that graph. Hank took two boxes and made a coordinate plane whereby people can describe where they are… but only in relation to those two boxes. That’s not enough, and it is important. Gender (and sexuality) are near-infinite dimensional spaces, not just a line or plane with a lot of points on it.

    Consider this strategy: Each person gets to define their gender using whatever terms and variables they like. If their definition doesn’t fit into your model of gender, it’s time to update your model.

    Because the rest of the video is quite good, this really stands out.

    Thank you!

    • dillydally says:

      I agree with you, however I think for the purpose of the video he was just trying to show a visual representation of what he was trying to explain. Maybe, like you said he just needs to update his model

    • Maybe Hank’s model is not quite as encompassing and inclusive as your own model, but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. It opens up far more possibilities than a binary model, and if it can help even a handful of people adjust their own understanding of gender *in under 4 minutes*, I’d say it might work out as is and encourage those people to delve deeper in future. Baby steps . . .

  11. Jamie James says:

    1) You’re not immune to the hate. You only has to be perceived as violating a gender or sexuality norm, without actually doing it, to experience it yourself (seen it happen right in front of me — pretty unsettling for us both). Being a straight white guy isn’t a golden ticket to a perfect life.

    2) Being mis-sexed isn’t what makes a trans person hate themselves. Transphobia and ciscentrism is what makes a trans person hate themselves. It also makes them feel that people are forcing them into a box, and very tragically, sometimes that box feels an awful lot like a coffin — or turns out to be one. Gender dysphoria on the other hand may be an intense emotion that sounds like self-hatred when the person experiencing it is venting it, but this really isn’t the same thing.

    3) Gender identity isn’t entirely internal. I guess you’ve never heard of non-consensual gendering, and if you have, you think you’re immune from that too, but you’d be fooling himself. Just because someone is non-consensually gendered in a way that turns out to be accurate, does not mean that this process never took place.

    4) Gender identity isn’t quite a spectrum ranging from man to woman, masculine to feminine, or male to female. Where in the world would you mark that clever little graph for people who are agender, pangender, bigender, two-spirit, etc?

    Otherwise fairly significantly more progressive than a lot of other people seem to think of gender. It’s nice to see genderfluidity and asexuality (which is itself a spectrum, btw) acknowledged.

    • Ashy says:

      1) Point. Miss. You. He doesn’t receive hate for his gender identity or sexual orientation. You know, the topic. He said nothing about having a perfect life, just that he isn’t persecuted for certain things.
      2) Mis-sexed/mis-genered is being labelled wrong (ie, being called “she” instead of “he” because of genitalia), and he said that doesn’t help. It makes it worse. He said what can lead to hating yourself is feeling like everyone should fit into boxes when you don’t, which is true. If you think everyone who is born a man should feel like a man and you don’t, that can lead to self-hatred. What he said.
      3) Is this about intersex people who are assigned a sex at birth? That’s sex selection. That can be matched or mismatched with gender identity just the same. It can interfere with the process of gender identity, but it’s still internal, as external is sex. If you’re not talking about that, then I’m not sure what you are talking about.
      4) Those usually fit into “non-binary”, which was labelled there, but I agree it’s not a spectrum. It is hard to represent everything in a neat visual way.

    • Jason says:

      I’m sure that he’s overcome with remorse that your supremely correct and definitive viewpoint doesn’t precisely coincide with his. πŸ™‚

      It’s a 4-minute video designed to get people to think more on this subject. It’s great, and good on him for putting it this way.

  12. dichotomies are not false, they are simple artifacts of perception.. much like a rainbow, that only looks that way from your very vantage point, so to with a dichotomy. It is because we are looking at a multi dimensional infinite thing from a finite, 3 dimensional viewpoint, that it appears to be a ditchotomy. Meaning both parts are actually serving a whole. However , it is, none the less a dichotomy from the viewers perspective, just like a rainbow. CB

  13. shreddd says:

    Nice @jsmooth995 impression.

  14. John says:

    bullshit. breaks down infinite continuum into only several categories, one of which he calls “heart,” by which he does not refer to the physical organ but something else that he doesn’t bother to define.

  15. Luke says:

    Hank Green for public office!

  16. Dear people who are complaining about this video being inadequate. I thought of this video as a primer… a guide for people trying to understand who have little to no conception of the range of gender identities and sexual identities that are possible outside the generally used idea of the more socially normative idea of discrete binaries.

  17. Angela says:


  18. Heather says:

    Refutable, maybe, but if you tried to explain things YOUR way, or more accurately, to someone who just doesn’t get it, they still won’t get it. Sometimes you have to use lamens terms to explain some things that the general public just can’t wrap their heads around.

  19. Jarret says:

    Nothing new

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *