Editing Human variability (section)

==Controversies of sociocultural and personal implications==
Possession of above average amounts of some abilities is valued by most societies. Some of the traits that societies try to measure by perception are intellectual aptitude in the form of ability to learn, artistic prowess, strength, endurance, agility, and resilience.

Each individual's distinctive differences, even the negatively valued or stigmatized ones, are usually considered an essential part of self-identity.
Membership or status in a social group may depend on having specific values for certain attributes. It is not unusual for people to deliberately try to amplify or exaggerate differences, or to conceal or minimize them, for a variety of reasons. Examples of practices designed to minimize differences include [[sun tanning|tanning]], [[hair straightening]], [[Skin whitening|skin bleaching]], [[plastic surgery]], [[orthodontics|orthodontia]], and [[growth hormone treatment]] for extreme shortness. Conversely, male-female differences are enhanced and exaggerated in most societies.

In some societies, such as the [[United States]], [[circumcision]] is practiced on a majority of males, as well as [[sex assignment#Reassignment of sex or gender|sex reassignment]] on [[intersex]] infants, with substantial emphasis on cultural and religious norms. Circumcision is highly controversial because although it offers health benefits, such as less chance of urinary tract infections, STDs, and penile cancer, it is considered a drastic procedure that is not medically mandatory and argued as a decision that should be taken when the child is old enough to decide for himself.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16776931|title=To cut or not? Circumcision controversy flares|last=Clayton|first=Victoria|date=2007-03-09|newspaper=NBC News|access-date=2016-11-13}}</ref> Similarly, sex reassignment surgery offers psychiatric health benefits to transgender people but is seen as unethical by some Christians, especially when performed on children.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/13/transgender-children-the-parents-and-doctors-on-the-frontline|title=Transgender children: the parents and doctors on the frontline|last=Adams|first=Tim|date=2016-11-13|newspaper=The Guardian|language=en-GB|issn=0261-3077|access-date=2016-11-13}}</ref>

Much controversy surrounds the assigning or distinguishing of some variations, especially since differences between groups in a society or between societies is often debated as part of either a person's "essential" [[Nature (innate)|nature]] or a socially constructed attribution. For example, there has long been a debate among sex researchers on whether [[sexual orientation]] is due to evolution and biology (the "[[Essentialism|essentialist]]" position), or a result of mutually reinforcing social perceptions and behavioral choices (the "[[Social constructionism|constructivist]]" perspective). The essentialist position emphasizes [[inclusive fitness]] as the reason homosexuality has not been eradicated by natural selection. Gay or lesbian individuals have not been greatly affected by evolutionary selection because they may help the fitness of their siblings and siblings' children, thus increasing their own fitness through inclusive fitness and maintaining evolution of homosexuality. Biological theories for same gender sexual orientation include genetic influences, neuroanatomical factors, and hormone differences but research so far has not provided any conclusive results. In contrast, the social constructivist position argues that sexuality is a result of culture and has originated from language or dialogue about sex. Mating choices are the product of cultural values, such as youth and attractiveness, and homosexuality varies greatly between cultures and societies. In this view, complexities, such as sexual orientation changing during the course of one's lifespan, are accounted for.<ref>{{Cite journal|author-link1=John DeLamater|author-link2=Janet Shibley Hyde|last1=DeLamater|first1=John D.|last2=Hyde|first2=Janet Shibley|date=1998|title=Essentialism vs. Social Constructionism in the Study of Human Sexuality|journal=The Journal of Sex Research|volume=35|issue=1|pages=10–18|jstor=3813161|doi=10.1080/00224499809551913|url=http://people.upei.ca/sgreer/Psych%20102/DeLamater.Essentialism%20vs%20Soc%20Con.pdf|access-date=10 December 2017|archive-date=10 December 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171210232755/http://people.upei.ca/sgreer/Psych%20102/DeLamater.Essentialism%20vs%20Soc%20Con.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Controversy also surrounds the boundaries of "[[Wellness (alternative medicine)|wellness]]", "wholeness," or "[[normality (behavior)|normality]]." In some cultures, differences in physical appearance, mental ability, and even sex can exclude one from traditions, ceremonies, or other important events, such as religious service. For example, in India, menstruation is not only a taboo subject but also traditionally considered shameful. Depending on beliefs, a woman who is menstruating is not allowed to cook or enter spiritual areas because she is "impure" and "cursed".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-29727875|title=100 Women 2014: The taboo of menstruating in India|last=Jha|first=Rupa|date=2014-10-27|newspaper=BBC News|language=en-GB|access-date=2016-11-13}}</ref> There has been large-scale renegotiation of the social significance of variations which reduce the ability of a person to do one or more functions in western culture. Laws have been passed to alleviate the reduction of social opportunity available to those with [[disability|disabilities]]. The concept of "differently abled" has been pushed by those persuading society to see limited incapacities as a human difference of less negative value.