Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Steersman]

Seriously, you keep asserting that scientists are "unscientific" because they don't use your definition.

By what authority and expertise do you demand that YOUR definition is the one that should be adopted? What relevant background and experience do you have that would convince anyone at all to take your word for it?

Fer Christ's sake. Or for His Noodleness' sake as the case may be.

Elliot quotes that gamete article by Parker and Lehtonen which has the SAME definition as Lexico, Google/OED, Wikipedia, Griffiths, and a whole raft of other sources.

Exactly where are your equivalently credible sources explicitly stating that structure-absent-function definition that Hilton and company have been peddling? You think a letter published in the UK Times qualifies as some sort of credible biological journal promulgating gospel truth?

Try looking at them and actually THINKING about them:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/male
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female


You DON'T get to make up your own definitions. As none of us gets to drive on any side of the road we want whenever we want.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm just looking in to say hi. No time to post tonight. Finished the Gaelic course and I'm back on to writing the book I'm working on. (My brain is slightly fried because the subject of the book has a German text - one day half the words I nearly said on the Zoom sessions were bloody Deutsch.)

I'm intermittently musing on the historical context of human beings being thought of as neither male nor female. I'm also musing on the huge amount of heavy lifting being required of the word "nominally" in an earlier post.

 

[Steersman]

I'll supply my own rejoinder: Once you eliminate the idiotic, everything makes more sense.

What you're proposing isn't "improbable", it's irrational and useless.

Try convincing Parker and Lehtonen of that. Paul Griffths too. All of the authors of those definitions in Wikipedia, Lexico, OED; all the editors of the Journals of Theoretical Biology and of Molecular Human Reproduction ...

https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1459925709426728961

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm still waiting for your citations of the statistics literature as to why that can't be done.

I'm also waiting for you to actually look at and think about that joint-probability distribution I've posted before of karyotypes & heights. You might reasonably quibble about the order,

You answered your own question. The "assigned" order is EXACTLY why you can't get a bimodal distribution from categorical data. It only superficially looks bimodal, as an artifact of an arbitrary and artificial order.

Imagine a fruit basket, containing:
30% Apples
20% Oranges
10% Bananas
15% Grapes
25% Mangoes

If you were to "order" the fruit as I've listed them (A, O, B, G, M), you'll have something kind of like a bathtub distribution.

If, on the other hand, you order them (B, G, O, M, A) you get something more resembling an exponential distribution

If you decide to plot them (B, O, A, M, G) you get a slightly skewed but relatively normal-looking distribution.

And if you plot them (B, A, O, M, G) you'll get something that looks like a bimodal distribution.

And THAT'S entirely the point. Because the data is categorical, it has no inherent order. You cannot say that apples are > bananas. The sentence has no meaning, because there is no ordinal criteria under discussion. You could potentially say that the weight of apples > the weight of bananas - because weight is an ordinal variable. You could say that the number of apples is > the number of bananas, because number is an ordinal variable.

But apple has no ordinal value. What a plot looks like is 100% entirely dependent on an artificially imposed order that has nothing at all to do with the elements on the x-axis.

The same is true with your multidimensional speculation - it does not work when you mix ordinal and categorical data. It makes one of your n-dimensions meaningless.

There are methods for integrating categorical data into statistical analysis, so that you don't **** up the whole thing. But it is NOT done by assigning some random "order" to them. That biases the analysis beyond redemption.

but don't see how you reasonably deny that there IS a family of probability distributions for heights for EACH of the karyotypes listed. All of which might reasonably be put into the joint probability distribution shown.

I 100% deny that there is a family of probability distributions for the height of each karyotype. If you wish to argue about that, I will need you to tell me WHAT you are MEASURING that shows VARIANCE AROUND the karyotype. Let's make it simple: How would you calculate the mean of karyotype 46XXY? How would you determine the standard deviation?

 

[Steersman]

I'm just looking in to say hi. No time to post tonight. Finished the Gaelic course and I'm back on to writing the book I'm working on. (My brain is slightly fried because the subject of the book has a German text - one day half the words I nearly said on the Zoom sessions were bloody Deutsch.)

I'm intermittently musing on the historical context of human beings being thought of as neither male nor female. I'm also musing on the huge amount of heavy lifting being required of the word "nominally" in an earlier post.

You might also "muse" on the time it took to get the heliocentric view accepted, to get evolution accepted.

Also on "produces" being a case of the "habitual tense" ...

Your cases of wild animals ovulating only once a year - your point if I'm not mistaken - being cases of that.

"regular" is somewhat context dependent. But, again, bit of stretch to argue that that word and tense can be applied to the prepubescent or to those who've had their gonads removed ...

 

[Emily's Cat]

In case anyone is wondering, I have a degree in Fine Art.

Wonderful! So does my house-husband!

 

[Rolfe]

You might also "muse" on the time it took to get the heliocentric view accepted, to get evolution accepted.

Also on "produces" being a case of the "habitual tense" ...

Your cases of wild animals ovulating only once a year - your point if I'm not mistaken - being cases of that.

"regular" is somewhat context dependent. But, again, bit of stretch to argue that that word and tense can be applied to the prepubescent or to those who've had their gonads removed ...

Actually I'm waiting for you to clarify your position. I listed a lot of situations where individuals would not be reproducing at a particular time, for various reasons. I cannot tell which ones fit on the "sexed" side of your divide and which fit on the "no sex" side, from what you have posted so far.

I'd also like to know what a prepubescent trans child is transitioning from or to. And what embryologists are doing when they select either male or female embryos.

I also have no intention of contacting an academic to ask what he meant by a definition I am not relying on. I think the person who is relying on it need to do that.

 

[Steersman]

<snip>

I 100% deny that there is a family of probability distributions for the height of each karyotype. If you wish to argue about that, I will need you to tell me WHAT you are MEASURING that shows VARIANCE AROUND the karyotype. Let's make it simple: How would you calculate the mean of karyotype 46XXY? How would you determine the standard deviation?

A two-parter, in part because I think you're barking up wrong tree with the first half of your argument.

But the second half is more important since you're clearly missing my point.

It is that FOR EACH karyotype there's a population distribution of heights that has a mean and a standard deviation; try looking at each "slice" back behind each individual karyotype. If you actually look closely, EACH of those karyotypes has separate means and, probably, standard deviations for that range of heights.

Try thinking of the analogous case of TWO population distributions of heights for men and women. Which is what I showed with the two distributions of "agreeableness" by sex. All I'm doing with the karyotypes is "hypothesizing" a "sex spectrum" of greater than two possibilities. If we can use the categorical variable of a binary for comparison then I fail to see why we can't do so for a categorical variable with a dozen or more "levels".

But you can't reasonably say that EACH height has a mean and standard deviation - those are measures applicable only to the WHOLE population.

Likewise with the karyotypes: no individual karyotype has a mean and standard deviation. The whole set might have one, although that's probably dependent on which particular height you select and how you order the karyotypes.

Think you really need to take a close look at that multimodal article I mentioned earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution

Although I'll readily concede to being somewhat in the dark how one calculates the standard deviations and means in such cases.

 

[Steersman]

Actually I'm waiting for you to clarify your position. I listed a lot of situations where individuals would not be reproducing at a particular time, for various reasons. I cannot tell which ones fit on the "sexed" side of your divide and which fit on the "no sex" side, from what you have posted so far.

Think you really need to take a close look at my recent response to you about habitual and present-tense indefinite. You brought up the idea - a useful one - but don't seem ready to consider the ramifications I've described.

I'd also like to know what a prepubescent trans child is transitioning from or to.

Probably sexless of one form to sexless of another.

And what embryologists are doing when they select either male or female embryos.

Sorting those which will likely become females into one bin and sorting those likely to become males into another.

Genitalia - the most likely basis for that sorting - is only a proxy variable; Emily - or her Cat - may provide some clarification if necessary:

In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)

 

[Emily's Cat]

A two-parter, in part because I think you're barking up wrong tree with the first half of your argument.

And I think you are statistically innumerate.

But the second half is more important since you're clearly missing my point.

It is that FOR EACH karyotype there's a population distribution of heights that has a mean and a standard deviation; try looking at each "slice" back behind each individual karyotype. If you actually look closely, EACH of those karyotypes has separate means and, probably, standard deviations for that range of heights.

Try thinking of the analogous case of TWO population distributions of heights for men and women. Which is what I showed with the two distributions of "agreeableness" by sex. All I'm doing with the karyotypes is "hypothesizing" a "sex spectrum" of greater than two possibilities. If we can use the categorical variable of a binary for comparison then I fail to see why we can't do so for a categorical variable with a dozen or more "levels".

But you can't reasonably say that EACH height has a mean and standard deviation - those are measures applicable only to the WHOLE population.

Likewise with the karyotypes: no individual karyotype has a mean and standard deviation. The whole set might have one, although that's probably dependent on which particular height you select and how you order the karyotypes.
Think you really need to take a close look at that multimodal article I mentioned earlier:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution

Although I'll readily concede to being somewhat in the dark how one calculates the standard deviations and means in such cases.

You do not understand what you're talking about. You're so far away from how statistics actually works that you're into the realm of pseudomaths. Yes, I just coined a new term for the type of completely wrong speculative argument that you're making.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorting those which will likely become females into one bin and sorting those likely to become males into another.

So... If they select an embryo that is likely to become female... how likely is that embryo to become male?

 

[Steersman]

So... If they select an embryo that is likely to become female... how likely is that embryo to become male?

Maybe 2%? Genuflecting to the thread topic, same sort of ballpark for intersex in humans?

Certainly don't know the details of all the variations, but I get the impression that more than a few human intersexers are often "assigned" one sex at birth and later develop into the other.

 

[Steersman]

And I think you are statistically innumerate.

And I kinda think that we're talking at cross-purposes here. I maybe muddied the waters with my joint probability distribution by karyotype and height. And I'll even concede something of your point that IF sex were a spectrum with a dozen or more sexes THEN we might just have a 2-dimensional bar-chart of each sex on the horizontal axis and the percentage of the total population on the vertical axis.

And I'll even concede your point that how we ordered those "sexes" would give very different shapes.

But that really wasn't my point. It was that REGARDLESS of how you ordered those sexes, you would STILL get the same number of peaks - at least as in my graph where there "valleys" between each adjacent karyotype value.

You really might try looking at what I actually said, not go off the rails on what you THINK I said:

And if you were to mentally rotate the image so that you were looking directly at the "box" from the karyotype side then you would see - mirabile dictu - several peaks, several "modes". But there are several smaller or lower peaks off to the side so technically we have "sex" being multimodal.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13867720&postcount=185

You do not understand what you're talking about. You're so far away from how statistics actually works that you're into the realm of pseudomaths. Yes, I just coined a new term for the type of completely wrong speculative argument that you're making.

Rather doubt that "how statistics actually works" in actuarial science is the be-all and end-all of statistics. Rather many different ways of using that tool. You really might want to take a closer look at my graph, at what I've actually said, and at what the Wikipedia article has to say about joint probability distributions - which you don't seem to have much of a clue about.

 

[Lplus]

I do like this argument;-

I have an automobile

Is it moving?

Not at present

So it isn't an automobile.

On the basis that it is defined by the action, not the possibility of action in the past present and future, it is quite correct, but at the same time ******* useless.

Technically correct - the best kind of correct.

 

[Steersman]

I do like this argument;-

I have an automobile

Is it moving?

Not at present

So it isn't an automobile.

On the basis that it is defined by the action, not the possibility of action in the past present and future, it is quite correct, but at the same time ******* useless.

Technically correct - the best kind of correct.

False analogy. You might try picking up a dictionary and learning how to use it which might preclude making such bogus and clueless arguments.

car (noun): A four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/car

It's not the current action of carrying "a small number of people" that is the "necessary and sufficient condition" for category membership, but the ability to do so. A "car" that has had it's engine, wheels, and transmission removed no longer qualifies as one. It is at best, a "car" in name only, for reference purposes only, not in fact:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/nominal

 

[Rolfe]

Think you really need to take a close look at my recent response to you about habitual and present-tense indefinite. You brought up the idea - a useful one - but don't seem ready to consider the ramifications I've described.

Probably sexless of one form to sexless of another.

Sorting those which will likely become females into one bin and sorting those likely to become males into another.

Genitalia - the most likely basis for that sorting - is only a proxy variable; Emily - or her Cat - may provide some clarification if necessary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)

Oh, I saw your recent moving of your goal posts. Having now figured out what the present habitual means, you no longer insist that a sexed individual has to be producing viable gametes right this minute. That's an advance. Presumably females are allowed to be female even when they're not actually ovulating, which presumably includes those of species who only cycle for part of the year? Or are they not female during the months when they're not cycling? There's a lot you haven't clarified. (Women naturally cycle continually except when pregnant or - possibly - lactating, but many species only cycle during a breeding season.)

If a vasectomised man (or ram or boar or whatever) isn't male, then what about the man who always uses a condom? If an infertile woman isn't female, what about a woman who is on the pill? Or has an IUD fitted? Under what circumstances are they regarded as having a sex, and why?

Sexless of one form and sexless of another form. Do we have words for these forms (and remember this isn't just about human beings) and if not why not? Likely to become male and likely to become female? Do we really use such language? Does anyone at all? What about the embryologist sorting embryos?

And what about the children with DSD conditions, which I think is where this started. I pointed out that people with DSD conditions are all male or female, and that many if not most DSDs are sex specific. For example Klinefelter's is a condition of males and Turner's is a condition of females. When these people are children we recognise them as boys and girls. They will never become fertile (OK, find me the rare cases, I dunno) so according to you they will never become one sex or the other. They're still boys and girls though, not equivalent beings.

The reason nobody is taking your conditions seriously is that we've thought about them and think you're talking nonsense. It's not for lack of considering your point of view that we reject it. It's because, having considered it, we can see the holes in the logic, the cases that can't be readily explained, the unnecessary complications, and, frankly, the howling misunderstanding that the whole thing is based on.

As I said before, I think you have become too invested in this misunderstanding and have gone too far down the rabbit hole dug by other people who share this misunderstanding (deliberately or inadvertently) to change your mind now. So we will probably go on talking past each other.

And I will go on referring to spayed and castrated pets as male and female. To boys and girls and puppies and kittens as male and female. To post-menopausal women as female. To men with Klinefelter's as male and to women with Turner's as female. Like pretty much 100% of all the people in the world, both in normal social discourse and in scientific communication.

 

[Myriad]

I do like this argument;-

I have an automobile

Is it moving?

Not at present

So it isn't an automobile.

On the basis that it is defined by the action, not the possibility of action in the past present and future, it is quite correct, but at the same time ******* useless.

Technically correct - the best kind of correct.

False analogy. You might try picking up a dictionary and learning how to use it which might preclude making such bogus and clueless arguments.

car (noun): A four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/car

It's not the current action of carrying "a small number of people" that is the "necessary and sufficient condition" for category membership, but the ability to do so. A "car" that has had it's engine, wheels, and transmission removed no longer qualifies as one. It is at best, a "car" in name only, for reference purposes only, not in fact:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/nominal

"Powered by an engine," so it's not a car when the engine is turned off and not powering anything? After all, the all-important dictionary definition says "powered by" not "equipped with" or "able to be powered by."

If the engine fails and I'm broken down by the side of the road, my vehicle is not only not being powered by the engine, it's not even able to be. So it's not a car then? If I call a tow company will they be confused by my wanting them to tow a four-wheeled vehicle that's not a car?

When my car is in the shop with its engine, transmission, and wheels removed for repair, it's not a car? Then what is it?

If the shop burns down while my (former?) car is in that condition, will my car insurance refuse to cover the loss because the policy only covers cars?

This is actually a quite good analogy to your arguments in this thread.

 

[Rolfe]

This is getting back to the point I was trying to make earlier. What is the purpose of this definition Steersman is relying on? If the objective is to describe how the words male and female are actually used by speakers of the language, then clearly it is a huge fail. Speakers of English do not use these words exclusively to refer to fertile individuals during their years of fertility. And that applies to biological and medical scientists just as much as it does to ordinary lay conversation.

(Of course the original 1972 definition was not really a huge fail, the problem is that "philosophers" have decided to apply a meaning to the words of the definition which was certainly not intended, and Steersman has become their disciple.)

The usage being touted now diverges hugely from actual usage in the scienctific and medical communities and the community as a whole. So what is the purpose of this? Has something new been discovered that needs new words? No. We've always known that mammals are not fertile before puberty, that some individuals are never fertile for various reasons, and that human females cease to be fertile in middle age. We've never needed any particular language to cope with this other than adding a descriptor to the words male and female. Castrated, spayed, pre-pubertal, post-menopausal, fertile, infertile and so on. (One point is that we often don't know whether a particular individual is fertile or not without specialist testing. Do I regard this bull or this man as male when he's never been tested? That's where the veterinary and farming term of "proven fertility" comes in - that is, this individual has reproduced already. Do we refrain from regarding all individuals who have not proven their fertility in this or another way as male or female?)

Our language as it has been used and has naturally evolved to handle the concepts of male and female being categories, and to qualify individuals within these categories according to their fertility status. That is a simple fact. We've coped fine that way and are still coping fine that way.

So why do we suddenly need words that exclusively belong to fertile individuals and can't be used for non-fertile individuals? Frankly, we don't. And if we did, we should be looking for new words, not re-defining words that are already in common use, to the general confusion of all.

This is a pointless rabbit hole. There are two sex categories of mammal, male and female. The debate as it has been conducted concerns whether there is a third category (no there isn't), whether there are individuals which cannot be properly allocated to either category, and whether individuals can switch categories.

The second is interesting, but has only ever concerned a small minority of individuals, in the DSD class. The third is the TRA's obsession.

I fail to see how redefining basic terms to exclude about 70% of all individuals from either box is anything but a pointless distraction.

 

[theprestige]

The best part is I know Steersman isn't confused at all, either. I guarantee when someone refers to a prepubescent child as "male", he doesn't run around tearing his hear out ranting about how the dictionary says the kid can't possibly be male.

 

[Rolfe]

Good point.

Embryos are male or female. Sex is fixed at conception. Everybody who knows anything about mammalian reproduction knows this. If Cardhu hadn't been a male embryo and then a male foetus, he couldn't have screwed up his sister's development as he did. If his sister hadn't been a female foetus, her development couldn't have been screwed up by her brother's hormones.

Just suppose I had to give a lecture to veterinary students or even to farmers on how freemartin heifers occur. (It's quite possible I could have been asked to do that before I retired.) I wonder what language Steersman would have me use?