I'm trying to create a humanoid species where all members can both impregnate each other and carry children. Each member would be sort of interchangeably male and female, in the sense that they could preform the function of both sexes. Is this scientifically possible? Are there any known species ...
I'd suggest you look into hermaphrodites, as they (at least simultaneous hermaphrodites) seem to be exactly what you're looking for. You can absolutely hand-wave the difficulties of such an adaptation, but if you want realism.....well, there are very good reasons why the vast majority of animals on Earth do not do this, and you should make sure to do your research accordingly.
A necessary piece of research: Read The Left Hand of Darkness, by Ursula K Le Guin. It's 55 years old, but it's an establishing treatment of this kind of thing in science fiction.
@Palarran hermaphrodites have both genders, and as gender is inseparable from sexual reproduction for "no gender" you have to default to something that reproduces without sex and perhaps without sex anywhere in it's ancestry, numerous real species of both plant and animal do that, though the 'animals' in question are normally of the single cell variety reproducing by cell division.
@alkahest that's what gender means, it refers to the characteristics of one or other sex, so if gender is a social construct in this context so to must "characteristics" of sexes be, maybe try not relying on silly dictionaries printed after 2016 by illiterate pushers of political agendas, you just lost any of the default credibility I might normally extend to a random stranger.
I'm not sure what dictionary you're reading, my point was that gender is irrelevant in the context of this question, as it was about reproduction method.
@Pelinore one could also explore the effects of all species being the same sex on gender identity and gender roles, but that's a different question for a different time
@alkahest You're "not sure". I refer you back to my last comment, you say gender is a social construct, then offer up a reasonably accurate definition of gender as an alternative to using the word, clearly you don't know what the word means .. as for which dictionary, all of them (before 2016) .. there is only one single sex all species could be if they are going to have only one sex and that is female (with parthenogenesis), if they were anything else that actually had a sex they would be extinct, so you fail basic biology as well as basic english and the meaning of words.
@alkahest Yes precisely, a post 2016 "definition", that as you'll notice (if you actually read it) doesn't actually define what it means or what about it is socially constructed but instead goes on at length about it being a social construct, there's a reason they waffle on, skirt around and avoid defining what the word actually means and simply deliver the 'received wisdom' that it's a social construct, and that's because if they did define what it means it would be obvious that the social construct bit is just silly rubbish.
@alkahest "Gender n 1 state of being male or female. 2 Grammer classification of nouns in certain languages as ,masculine, feminine, or neuter." Collins English Dictionary published 2007 .. in the context of this question it is used as defined in 1 as a noun, there is no room for any social construct in that definition, it simply means male or female which are simply biological realities .. I have another dictionary on the shelf I can use if you like, it will be essentially the same, and matches your "characteristics of .. sexes" just fine, you were just defining the word gender.
@alkahest "you were just defining the word gender" so if you are happy using that description of yours of the thing being talked about there's no reason not to use the word itself.
@alkahest do I see it? not really :) but I guess I should leave off there (OK, I should probably have left off way earlier), I've some manga to finish watching for a start ;p
Discussion on question by J. Rubio: I…
Discussion on question by J. Rubio: I…