Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Steersman]

That silly pie chart. Is it only meant to refer to human beings? I thought you were the one who didn't want to confine the discussion only to mammals.

Yes, I created it some 4 years ago for Twitter discussions on sex in humans. That it is more or less is specific to them hardly precludes its applicability to other species - many farm animals are neutered. But, being based on human demographics, the size of the pies would most likely change accordingly.

It doesn't seem logical as regards a vasectomy. Don't they know vasectomies are reversible? Even if you reject the rather obvious point that men still produce sperm if they have been vasectomised, your belated recognition of the present habitual would suggest that a vasectomised man is still male if he gets the vasectomy reversed. What's the difference between a vasectomy and habitual condom use anyway?

You seem to have the idea that membership in categories is "immutable", once in one, in it forever. Were you a teenager at some point? Did you survive the transition out of that category without too much untoward "trauma"?

If a guy with a vasectomy gets it reversed then he's changed his state from sexless to male. As for "habitual condom use", male then not-male then male then not .... Like being "hungry" at breakfast, full shortly thereafter, hungry before lunch, full thereafter, etc., etc., etc.

Y'all seem to be making rather too much of categories and the names for them - turning them into identities - while losing sight of the often quite tangible though often transitory traits that are the "membership dues". Straining at the gnat while swallowing the camel whole.

There are all sorts of edge cases implied by that chart but not addressed. It seems to have been put together by someone who knows little of human reproductive biology and nothing of the reproductive biology of other species, even other mammalian species. No serious biologist or medical researcher or practitioner would produce something like that.

For the purposes of that graph, what more should I have known? Other than that the biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads - which habitually produce sperm or ova for reproduction - of either of two types? And that those with neither are thereby sexLESS?

 

[Rolfe]

.... the biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads - which habitually produce sperm or ova for reproduction - of either of two types? And that those with neither are thereby sexLESS?

You are mistaken. These are not the definitions used by biologists. We would hardly be able to have a meaningful conversation or write meaningful articles if that were the case.

We refer all the time to male and female embryos, male and female foetuses, male and female puppies and kittens etc. Castrated animals are recognised as male and ovariohysterectomised animals are recognised as female.

I literally cannot imagine a context where the word "male" would be used to mean only currently sperm-producing males, and be understood as such, and be understood to explicitly exclude pre-pubertal and castrated males.

(I might once again point out your inconsistency here, that vasectomised males still have functional gonads. By your definition above they are therefore male, but you classify them as sexless. Conversely, if retaining functional testes but blocking off the delivery system makes a male sexless, how is a man not rendered sexless every time he puts on a condom?)

You really are floundering here. You seem very invested in all this, for reasons I don't understand. You remind me of the woman who wrote and published an entire book about the execution of homosexuals in a particular historical period. In fact the men she referred to had not been executed. Nobody had been executed for homosexuality. She had misunderstood the legal form of words used to describe the proceedings. As soon as her book came out several more knowledgeable historians, with some incredulity, pointed out the actual situation. She tried to explain away her mistake as I recall, but it was hopeless.

You're heading the same way. How many biology texts do you need to read referring to male and female embryos, male and female foetuses, male and female puppies and kittens, castrated males, infertile males and females - and indeed fertile males and females (because fertility is not implied or assumed from the use of male and female alone) before you will finally get this into your head?

 

[Rolfe]

Here we go. Google is your friend.

Naomi Wolf admits blunder over Victorians and sodomy executions

According to Sweet, who first challenged Wolf on Radio 3’s Arts and Ideas, her error concerning Silver stems from a misunderstanding of “the very precise historical legal term, ‘death recorded’, as evidence of execution, when in fact it indicates the opposite”.

The historian Richard Ward agreed, adding that the term was a legal device first introduced in 1823. “It empowered the trial judge to abstain from formally pronouncing a sentence of death upon a capital convict in cases where the judge intended to recommend the offender for a pardon from the death sentence. In the vast majority (almost certainly all) of the cases marked ‘death recorded’, the offender would not have been executed.”

Wolf has committed a “pretty basic error”, Ward added. “If all the people who were mentioned in the Old Bailey records as ‘death recorded’ were subsequently executed, there would have been a bloodbath on the gallows,” Ward said, “yet anyone who has a basic knowledge of crime and justice in the 19th century would know that that wasn’t the case.”

It almost seems understandable in her case, because to the lay person the wording is ambiguous at best. But the problem is that she wasn't a lay person, she was writing a book about the subject, but she simply assumed that her take on the meaning of the words was correct and went right on with her thesis on that basis, oblivious to the sheer impossibility of what she was proposing (as explained in the last paragraph quoted). Also, apparently, without even asking anyone else working in the field to confirm that she was on the right track.

Steersman, you're in a very similar position to Naomi Woolf here. You have latched on to a particular interpretation of certain definitions which is simply not supported by any observation of how the words are used in practice, not only by the general public (and bodies like the passport office), but biologists themselves. Or you've latched on to the writings of others who have chosen to present this mistaken interpretation, for whatever reason.

And all you can do when people explain to you in very different ways how it is obvious you're wrong, is say "this is the definition, suck it up buttercup".

Sigh.

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I created it some 4 years ago for Twitter discussions on sex in humans. That it is more or less is specific to them hardly precludes its applicability to other species - many farm animals are neutered. But, being based on human demographics, the size of the pies would most likely change accordingly.

I noticed you never answered my question: Are you actually confused by the common usage of the terms?

If someone refers to a male child (or a male kitten), are you actually unsure of what they mean? Are you actually unsure of what genetic pattern they inherited and were born with? Do you have any doubts or confusion at all about what role they'd play in reproduction, if and when their sex organs mature?

Elsewhere you said that this doctrinaire insistence on defining sex according to a perfect system of formal logic was necessary to address the problem of forcing trans-activists to deal the reality of binary sex in mammals. I think you're going about it all wrong, for reasons best discussed in the Other Thread. Feel free to take that argument over there, if you'd like me to address it.

 

[theprestige]

Nice to know which side of the believe-know divide that you at least come down on ... : rolleyes :

I don't think you do know.

Courts are real. Courtiers are real. Specific subcultures and venues have real jargon, real shibboleths, real conventions and customs that are sometimes (and sometimes necessarily) opaque to outsiders. Getting to know your audience before you start to lecture them is a reasonable and often necessary practice. Taking the time to learn and understand what has already been said is often very important to making contributions to a conversation already in progress. Sometimes the courtier's reply is indeed a fallacious dismissal. Other times, you're actually at court, and need to learn and mind your manners before mouthing off.

Nobody is obligated to hold your hand and give you a guided tour. Expecting you to take your time and learn the discussion a bit before jumping in, is totally reasonable.

 

[Rolfe]

It would be nice if Steersman could engage seriously and constructively with the various points that have been rained down on him, instead of simply resetting his argument back to "this is the biological definition, you need to accept it". No it isn't, so no we won't.

I thought I had saved an image of the table which classifies DSD conditions according to whether they affect males or females, but it doesn't seem to be in my files. If I come across it again I will save it. The fact is that it is universally recognised that Klinefelter's is a condition of males and Turner's is a condition of females. The importance of this for the trans debate is that TRAs frequently (and insultingly) insist that these people are neither male or female.

Steersman seems to be carrying this mischaracterisation of the situation even further by insisting that whole swathes of the population who have perfectly normal sexual development and function for their entire lives are neither male nor female at certain times in their lives, and moreover that anyone with normal reproductive anatomy who is not producing gametes for some medical or surgical reason is also neither male nor female. How this might assist the argument against the trans agenda so far escapes me.

 

[d4m10n]

If someone refers to a male child (or a male kitten), are you actually unsure of what they mean?

I'd like to hear an answer to this one as well, Steersman.

Also, if you had to task someone with purchasing a neutered male puppy, how would you phrase the request?

 

[theprestige]

It would be nice if Steersman could engage seriously and constructively with the various points that have been rained down on him, instead of simply resetting his argument back to "this is the biological definition, you need to accept it". No it isn't, so no we won't.

I thought I had saved an image of the table which classifies DSD conditions according to whether they affect males or females, but it doesn't seem to be in my files. If I come across it again I will save it. The fact is that it is universally recognised that Klinefelter's is a condition of males and Turner's is a condition of females. The importance of this for the trans debate is that TRAs frequently (and insultingly) insist that these people are neither male or female.

Steersman seems to be carrying this mischaracterisation of the situation even further by insisting that whole swathes of the population who have perfectly normal sexual development and function for their entire lives are neither male nor female at certain times in their lives, and moreover that anyone with normal reproductive anatomy who is not producing gametes for some medical or surgical reason is also neither male nor female. How this might assist the argument against the trans agenda so far escapes me.

My take is that such lapidary obtuseness can only help the transsexual agenda.

 

[Myriad]

My take is that such lapidary obtuseness can only help the transsexual agenda.

It does appear designed to, whether it actually could or not. On the one hand: "Transwomen aren't female because they don't produce female gametes, so they have no inherent right to access women's spaces." On the other hand: "My mother doesn't produce female gametes any more, and she's allowed to access women's spaces, so obviously the categories are useless and arbitrary and everyone should just be allowed to do what they want."

 

[theprestige]

It does appear designed to, whether it actually could or not. On the one hand: "Transwomen aren't female because they don't produce female gametes, so they have no inherent right to access women's spaces." On the other hand: "My mother doesn't produce female gametes any more, and she's allowed to access women's spaces, so obviously the categories are useless and arbitrary and everyone should just be allowed to do what they want."

That exact argument has been tried in the Other Thread, once or twice.

 

[Rolfe]

It does appear designed to, whether it actually could or not. On the one hand: "Transwomen aren't female because they don't produce female gametes, so they have no inherent right to access women's spaces." On the other hand: "My mother doesn't produce female gametes any more, and she's allowed to access women's spaces, so obviously the categories are useless and arbitrary and everyone should just be allowed to do what they want."

That's the way I was thinking, but you put it so much more succinctly.

 

[Rolfe]

I just remembered my cat's vaccination certificate. He was the only male kitten in a litter of three. He hadn't been named at the time he got his first vaccination so all that bit was left blank. The certificate just has the word "boy" scribbled on the front, presumably by the vet, to match the paperwork with the right kitten.

He could have written "male", but he didn't. Was that because he, as a biologist, believed that this two-month-old scrap of feline potential was sexless? No, he was being a bit twee. And since there aren't different colloquial words for male kittens and female kittens, he appropriated the word for a male child to identify the male kitten.

Why did he write "boy" and not "girl" on a cat's paperwork? What on earth was it about these kittens that made him feel that "boy" could be applied to the one with the openings slightly further apart, while (presumably) "girl" could be applied to the ones with the openings closer together?

Boys and girls are sexless, two-month-old kittens are sexless, how could he have used these words to differentiate the kittens?

 

[Rolfe]

A perfectly reasonable and worthy objective. But don't think either you, or Rolfe or Hilton are ready or able, much less willing, to deal with the fact that the SRY gene is, apparently, only applicable to mammals. That's the whole point of the biological definitions - they apply to ALL of the 7 or 8 million sexually-reproducing species on the planet. Will you all, as I argued above, push for definitions to be endorsed by Lexico and OED that apply only to mammals?

You're the one who produced a pie chart that only seems to be applicable to human beings, never mind other species.

Emma has dealt with non-mammalian species, that you don't like how she's done it is your problem.

You also seem to think you're talking to people who want to engage in activism. We don't. We're not TRAs. Dictionary compilers can get on with what they're doing, which is describing how words are actually used in current speech.

You're pet interpretation leads to the definitions you want to endorse not actually describing the way the words are actually used, at all. So either the dictionary compilers are spectacularly incompetent, or you misunderstand their definitions.

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by theprestige
If someone refers to a male child (or a male kitten), are you actually unsure of what they mean?

I'd like to hear an answer to this one as well, Steersman.

Also, if you had to task someone with purchasing a neutered male puppy, how would you phrase the request?

Do cats have a prepubescent stage? One would assume so - mammalians and all that, really the only game in town ...

But if so then how about picking up a very young prepubertal cat who has been fixed and who would have become a male otherwise?

Fairly convoluted answer and probably unnecessarily so for most situations. But I don't see, offhand, how it is logically contradictory, how any underlying premises and (biological) definitions are contradicted - which is the issue at hand.

I understand what is meant by a "male kitten" - as I understand what is meant by "the sun rises at 7:02 tomorrow". But NEITHER of those constructions are logically coherent or consistent with facts or a priori definitions.

There's often a whole bunch of ellipsis in colloquial conversation:

In linguistics, ellipsis (from Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis 'omission') or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis seek to explain its syntactic and semantic factors, the means by which the elided elements are recovered, and the status of the elided elements. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis can vary greatly depending in part upon whether a constituency-based or a dependency-based theory of syntactic structure is pursued.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)

But the problem is in failing to understand what's under the hood, and reaching - or peddling - untenable conclusions; in engaging in politically motivated equivocation; in changing horses in midstream for fun or profit:

Since only man [human] is rational.
And no woman is a man [male].
Therefore, no woman is rational.[1]

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

 

[theprestige]

Do cats have a prepubescent stage? One would assume so - mammalians and all that, really the only game in town ...

But if so then how about picking up a very young prepubertal cat who has been fixed and who would have become a male otherwise?

Fairly convoluted answer and probably unnecessarily so for most situations. But I don't see, offhand, how it is logically contradictory, how any underlying premises and (biological) definitions are contradicted - which is the issue at hand.

I understand what is meant by a "male kitten" - as I understand what is meant by "the sun rises at 7:02 tomorrow". But NEITHER of those constructions are logically coherent or consistent with facts or a priori definitions.

There's often a whole bunch of ellipsis in colloquial conversation:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis_(linguistics)

But the problem is in failing to understand what's under the hood, and reaching - or peddling - untenable conclusions; in engaging in politically motivated equivocation; in changing horses in midstream for fun or profit:



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

No. You're just misunderstanding the definition used by the dictionary, by biologists, and by everyone else*.

There are two sexes in mammals these are distinguished by the genetic combination that sets up each of the two developmental paths. Anyone who inherits the male combo is male, regardless of where they are on that path. Only one path produces male gametes. Being anywhere on that path makes you male, even if you're not presently so producing. That's what "of the sex that produces male gametes" means. Everyone* but you understands this.

You're indulging in crackpottery.

 

[Rolfe]

The sun doesn't "rise" at 05:29 tomorrow only if you insist that the word "rise" can only and exclusively be used in English to denote an object moving further away from the centre of the earth. Your problem is that in English, "rise" does not only mean that. It has a variety of meanings, one of which is that the notional easterly horizon intersects with the position of the sun at that particular time.

I'll tell you something else, the sun won't become visible here at 05:29 tomorrow morning even if the sky is absolutely cloudless. For the fairly obvious reason that there are some hills in the way. Should I therefore tell the Met Office that its sunrise time is bollocks?

You seem unable to comprehend that words can be used in different ways and with different meanings in different contexts. That does not make one of these meanings incorrect. I can use the word "rise" in relation to the morning sun with just as much validity as I can use it to describe what I hope is going to happen to a cake I'm baking, because that's how the language works. Any dictionary will give several meanings for many commonly-used words to reflect this.

You also seem not to comprehend that nobody actually working in biology uses the words male and female in the way you want to interpret the definitions you're looking at. Nobody uses them that way in normal conversation and nobody uses them that way in actual biological discussions or writing.

In fact the use of "male" and "female" in ways you don't like is probably more common in academic biological discourse than it is in normal conversation. In the interests of clarity we're more likely to describe a horse as a castrated male than as a gelding, as I mentioned. We talk about male and female embryos and foetuses and calves and lambs and kittens and puppies all the time. We talk about infertile males and vasectomised males all the freaking time.

Never do we imagine that when someone says "that animal is male" that they are specifically stating that the animal is actively able to produce sperm at the time. If they want to convey that information they will have to be more specific.

So "the sun will rise" passes the test because that is one normal, commonly understood meaning of the word "rise" in English and a good dictionary will include this among its given meanings for the word.

"Male" used in the sense that the listener will understand it only refers to individuals currently producing small motile gametes isn't something that actually happens. So I repeat, if you think a dictionary compiler's wording implies that, then either the dictionary compiler is incompetent, or you have misunderstood.

You're terribly invested in this misunderstanding. Can you possibly explain why?

 

[Steersman]

It does appear designed to, whether it actually could or not. On the one hand: "Transwomen aren't female because they don't produce female gametes, so they have no inherent right to access women's spaces." On the other hand: "My mother doesn't produce female gametes any more, and she's allowed to access women's spaces, so obviously the categories are useless and arbitrary and everyone should just be allowed to do what they want."

Sure.

IF we define "woman" as "adult human female (habitually produces ova ...)", and IF we stipulate that "women's spaces" are for the exclusive use of "adult human females (habitually ... ova ...)" THEN, of course, it necessarily follows that neither transwomen nor your mother can be "allowed to access women's spaces".

But it most certainly does NOT follow that "categories [in general or 'female' and 'male' in particular] are useless and arbitrary". The most that one MIGHT conclude is that membership in those categories is not particularly useful for gatekeeping access to "women's spaces". You HAVE to ask and answer the question about what objective it is that you have in mind - the sine qua non or claim to fame and fortune of categorization right out of the chute:

Categorization is the ability and activity of recognizing shared features or similarities between the elements of the experience of the world (such as objects, events, or ideas), organizing and classifying experience by associating them to a more abstract group (that is, a category, class, or type),[1][2] on the basis of their traits, features, similarities or other criteria that are universal to the group. ....

Objects are usually categorized for some adaptive or pragmatic purposes.

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

Which is more or less exactly what I and Griffiths have been beavering away at from square one: the biological definitions for the sexes are the RONG tool for the jobs that society is trying - rather unsuccessfully - to force into doing.

Reproductive status - basically what the biological definitions for the sexes encompass and entail - is largely useless for controlling access to "womens' spaces". It's a red herring the size of Moby Dick to be conflating the biological definitions with the criteria that are, in effect, what are actually being used to control access to those spaces: genitalia for toilets and change rooms, karyotype for sports - for those of "women's", no XY need apply.

If society had more intellectual honesty and weren't so crippled with prudery, those are the criteria that we would explicitly stipulate as the requirements for access to "womens' spaces".

 

[Rolfe]

Do cats have a prepubescent stage? One would assume so - mammalians and all that, really the only game in town ...

But if so then how about picking up a very young prepubertal cat who has been fixed and who would have become a male otherwise?

Fairly convoluted answer and probably unnecessarily so for most situations. But I don't see, offhand, how it is logically contradictory, how any underlying premises and (biological) definitions are contradicted - which is the issue at hand.

I understand what is meant by a "male kitten" - as I understand what is meant by "the sun rises at 7:02 tomorrow". But NEITHER of those constructions are logically coherent or consistent with facts or a priori definitions.

You don't know enough about biology to know whether cats go through puberty. Oh dear.

It's quite common to castrate male kittens before puberty. I prefer not to and all my cats have been allowed to go through puberty before castration, but most vets will perform the operation pre-puberty if requested as long as the kitten has descended testicles.

They're still male. They were male when they were conceived and were male embryos. They became male foetuses. They became male kittens and they will then grow into male cats. All without at any point having produced spermatozoa.

This is commonplace. It's how the word is used in biology. If all you are going to do is keep falling back on dictionary definitions you are misinterpreting, we're not going to get any further with this. One of these definitions you quoted to support your position actually gave the phrase "male child" as an example of the usage of the word.

 

[theprestige]

Steersman, how would you define male and female in a way that preserves access to sex segregated spaces for females, such as women's shelters, women's sports, and women's prisons?

 

[Rolfe]

... what I and Griffiths have been beavering away at from square one: the biological definitions for the sexes...

You and "Griffiths" need to understand that what you are punting as "the biological definitions of the sexes" are in fact no such thing. That the words are not used in biology in the way you imagine they are. That your interpretation of the wording of the definitions gives you a usage that doesn't exist.

So either you and Griffiths have misunderstood, or the dictionary compilers have made a terrible mistake. The thing is, I and everybody else here seem to understand the dictionary definitions no problem. We think they're a reasonable account of the meanings of the words in normal usage.

So, as Oliver Cromwell once said, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."