Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[porch]

I agree with the definition - particularly since it is more or less exactly what many other sources say - despite Rolfe's unwillingness to consider them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male
https://theparadoxinstitute.com/blog/2022/01/15/defining-sex-vs-determining-sex/

The latter starts out with the definitions from the Parker and Lehtonen article on gametes.

What I disagree with is that one example sentence, largely because, as I've argued, it's contradicted by the definition itself.

I certainly don't understand how dictionaries acquire those examples, but I recently saw one dictionary indicate that the process of doing so is largely automated, and that people shouldn't get their knickers in a twist if some uses "offend" them. Not surprising then that in that case many of them will be inconsistent with the definitions.

You don't understand dictionaries. The usage clarifies the definition.

 

[Steersman]

It seems the crux of the problem is that Steersman certainly understands the physical disparity between men and women, but refuses to acknowledge it without a definition that satisfies the demands of a perfect system of formal logic.

"Nice" that you acknowledge that I "understand the physical disparity" , but not sure that "refuses to acknowledge it" is really the case.

For one thing, I readily, and frequently, acknowledge that "disparity" in championing the standard definitions for "man" and "woman", i.e., "adult human male (sex)" and "adult human female (sex)". Though there are a few devils in the details there.

And for another it really isn't a question of a "perfect system of formal logic", particularly since it isn't a matter of any "system", but of simple definitions. Do you think that the definition for "teenager", as a "person between the ages of 13 to 19, inclusive", isn't "perfect" and perfectly clear? Isn't "perfectly" able to distinguish between those who are and are not teenagers? Regardless of whether they "self-identify" as such or not?

Same thing with the biological definitions for the sexes: perfectly able to distinguish between those who are male or female or neither - as opposed to the "patchwork definitions of the social-sciences" many of whose proponents generally don't know whether they're on foot or horse back, ditto those, like Novella, peddling the sex-as-a-spectrum schlock.

That's the problem - too many "definitions" in play, and no or little understanding of, or willingness to grapple with the principles that might reasonably adjudicate between their competing claims. That's more or less my focus, my objective - to promote something in the way of a better understanding of the processes and principles we use to create various definitions.

ICYMI, you might be interested in my "opening salvo" on that score, particularly the section on Sex: Binary, Spectrum or "Socially Constructed?":

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/welcome

 

[d4m10n]

Steersman,

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

 

[Steersman]

You don't understand dictionaries. The usage clarifies the definition.

Horse crap. Not quite sure how much "clarification" you think examples that contradict the definitions actually provide.

If they do then they might just as well say that black is white:

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

Since the mid-20th century some dictionaries and style guides, which are prescriptive works by nature, have increasingly integrated descriptive material and approaches.

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

 

[Steersman]

Steersman,

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

Think I've already answered that ...

 

[Elaedith]

I agree with the definition - particularly since it is more or less exactly what many other sources say - despite Rolfe's unwillingness to consider them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male
https://theparadoxinstitute.com/blog/2022/01/15/defining-sex-vs-determining-sex/

The latter starts out with the definitions from the Parker and Lehtonen article on gametes.

What I disagree with is that one example sentence, largely because, as I've argued, it's contradicted by the definition itself.

I certainly don't understand how dictionaries acquire those examples, but I recently saw one dictionary indicate that the process of doing so is largely automated, and that people shouldn't get their knickers in a twist if some uses "offend" them. Not surprising then that in that case many of them will be inconsistent with the definitions.

How does the latter source you have cited support your claim? It outright contradicts it.

"Biologically, sex is defined with respect to gamete type.[1] Because there are only two gamete types, there are only two sexes"

I assume this is what you are saying supports your approach. However, it then goes on to state:

"Based on this definition, we know whether an individual is male or female by looking at the structures that support the production (gonads) and release (genitalia) of either gamete type.[5] In other words, we look at whether the individual develops a body plan organized around small gametes or large gametes.[6] In humans, sex is binary and immutable. Individuals are either male or female throughout their entire life cycle.[7]"

Category membership is determined by the presence of structures that developed according to one of two pathways to support a particular function (production of one gamete type). This makes function central to the existence of the category and distinguishes features that are important for defining sex from those that are simply associated with it (something which gender identity activists try to obfuscate). It doesn't follow from this that the structures must currently be functional for category membership.

 

[Rolfe]

Hadn't known that; learn something new every day ...

I only explained that that was the case in two separate posts, when I was explaining to you that when looking for a way to understand the difference between male and female that accounted for edge cases, the SRY definition had already been used by a major organisation.

I also explained at length why they stopped doing the tests.

Didn't say that at all. Because I criticize one aspect of your position that means I think you and your credentials are so much chopped liver?

Seems you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas - which apparently precludes, or which provides a ready excuse for evading dealing with what I'm actually saying.

I have no chip on my shoulder. I have nothing to prove, here or anywhere else. I merely respond to your repeated assertion that this nonsense you're promoting is the "biological definition of male and female" with the information that no it is not.

When you repeatedly ignore me, or post sneering put-downs, I naturally wonder why you give so much reverence to people with no meaningful qualifications in biology, but repeatedly disrespect someone who does have these qualifications, and worked an entire career in the biological sciences.

 

[Rolfe]

Category membership is determined by the presence of structures that developed according to one of two pathways to support a particular function (production of one gamete type). This makes function central to the existence of the category and distinguishes features that are important for defining sex from those that are simply associated with it (something which gender identity activists try to obfuscate). It doesn't follow from this that the structures must currently be functional for category membership.

It doesn't even follow that the structures need ever have been functional, or need ever have been complete. It's a question of defining the two pathways, and then looking at each individual to see which pathway they have developed on, or in a few cases which pathway they have predominently developed on.

 

[bruto]

When they were little my sons always went to the men's room. I guess they got a bum steer.

 

[d4m10n]

Think I've already answered that ...

I don't believe so..

Can you quote your answer?

 

[Rolfe]

I'm beginning to wonder if there's not some sort of cognitive idiosyncrasy at play here. I don't think this degree of Alien Space Robot often manifests, except as a rhetorical gambit or a real confusion about how language conveys meaning.

I did ask about Asperger's/autism. I've known a number of people on the spectrum who grasped hold of what they understood as the literal meaning of something and then refused to let go of it no matter what.

I had an autistic student once with whom I had to be extraordinarily careful about how I phrased an instruction. If I just said, "draw what you see under the microscope", which worked for everyone else in the class, she would refuse to stop drawing and move on to the next task until she had drawn every single little detail she could see. If she was asked to stop and do something else she got very agitated. I had to say "spend ten minutes drawing as much as you can of what you see under the microscope." That usually did it.

It's also quite common for people on the spectrum to be obsessed with categories and classifications.

There are certainly some very fundamental misunderstandings going on here, and the usual ways of explaining to someone that they have latched on to the wrong end of the stick don't seem to be working.

On the other hand, it's also common for people who have invested a lot of time and energy in a concept they think is new and important and that they have a unique understanding of which the world needs to take on board to be very reluctant to concede error. Especially if they have already written a lot and published it. In my experience that is something you grow out of, when you have enough experience of realising you've been wrong and facing up to that.

 

[porch]

There are only two parties that promote current gamete production as necessary for "the biological definition of sex": Prof. Griffiths and Steersman. There is only one party that says gamete production alone is not sufficient, and that would be Steersman.

Regarding Griffiths:

Using my next level web skills, I checked out Griffiths' wikipedia page. There I am told:

Griffiths, together with Russell Gray developed a theoretical perspective on biological development, heredity, and evolution known as developmental systems theory (DST).

Following that link, we get this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_systems_theory

Developmental_systems_theory Developmental systems theory (DST) is an overarching theoretical perspective on biological development, heredity, and evolution.[1] It emphasizes the shared contributions of genes, environment, and epigenetic factors on developmental processes. DST, unlike conventional scientific theories, is not directly used to help make predictions for testing experimental results; instead, it is seen as a collection of philosophical, psychological, and scientific models of development and evolution. As a whole, these models argue the inadequacy of the modern evolutionary synthesis on the roles of genes and natural selection as the principal explanation of living structures. Developmental systems theory embraces a large range of positions that expand biological explanations of organismal development and hold modern evolutionary theory as a misconception of the nature of living processes.

Just to give an indication of where he is coming from. He's an ideas man. Griffiths' main point about defining sexes, in the Aeon essay, is that if we try to come up with a universal definition for the sexes based on anything else but gamete production, we run into "problems" with, eg, worms that produce one gamete, then the other, then both, or something like that. But I don't think any biologist working in a specific field has the "problem" of coming up with a universal definition. They need a definition that's functional for their work. I mean, it's a practical definition for a philosopher, because generating ideas that may or may not be relevant is part of the gig. As for his claim that his definition is the one that biologists use, there are no citations to be found.

One line from the Aeon essay, I found kind of funny, cause it seems like Griffiths himself doesn't consistently use his own definition:

Most groper are smaller, brown females. They are all born female and become sexually mature after a few years, when 20 or 30 cm in length.

I understand Griffiths, he's nitpicking on the basis of formal logic. But how is it relevant to anyone else? The Aeon essay uses social issues about trans people as a hook at the beginning, tells us what "the biological definition of sex" is in the middle part, and then bookends his narrative by bringing us back to trans issues, and his takeaway is that we should definitely not use this definition when it comes to social policy.

I don't understand Steersman. He seems adamant that everyone adopt his unique definition of sex (which is even more strict than Griffiths') but then also disregard that definition when it comes to trans issues. Sorry, what is the point of this whole exercise?

 

[Rolfe]

When they were little my sons always went to the men's room. I guess they got a bum steer.

It's optional. Mothers often bring sons up to the age of about eight into the Ladies with them, and nobody objects. Some places have signs authorising that. Even if there isn't a mother nobody will throw them out. We know little boys aren't creepy perverts, and we also know that they might encounter a creepy pervert if they went into the Gents alone.

I've noticed with my friends' sons that once they get to about seven they start to assert their right to go into the Gents', and their mother will usually allow that unless the venue is unusually seedy.

I remember in about 2018 I was in a restaurant waiting for my order, and a family with a boy of about eight and a girl of about five were eating at the table opposite. When I got up to go to the loo I realised that the two children were also heading there in front of me. I saw the little boy protectively indicate the door to the Ladies to his little sister, then proudly walk into the Gents himself. He knew how it worked, and he was proud to do it the grown-up way.

I also knew it was my job to keep an eye on the wee girl in the Ladies, and either help her if she needed anything, or go and call her mother if necessary. She was perfectly competent however, and trotted back off to their table after drying her hands. I don't think she noticed the "aw how sweet" smile I bestowed on her. It was fairly obvious that the parents, who remained sitting at their table all the time, had chosen this family-friendly and quiet restaurant to let the kids start to practise being grown-up.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't understand Steersman. He seems adamant that everyone adopt his unique definition of sex (which is even more strict than Griffiths') but then also disregard that definition when it comes to trans issues. Sorry, what is the point of this whole exercise?

Half the time he's insistent that any definition has to apply to every single species on the planet that reproduces by gamete fusion. The other half of the time he's getting snitty because someone brought up an example of a non-human mammalian species that his pet definition left in an unclear position. And drawing simplistic pie charts that obviously apply only to human beings.

He gives the impression that he opposes the trans agenda, but he's working hard on a project that they'd bite his hand off for.

He insists that "biologists" don't use the words "male" and "female" to refer to individuals not currently fertile, and then when it's shown that they do, he says they're just using the words in a sloppy manner.

He doesn't understand that the entire point of a dictionary entry is to describe actual usage. He thinks the ones he's chosen are laying down some sort of ideal definition that supersedes how the words are universally used in real life.

He thinks the use of the word "gender" instead of sex for non-human animals is some sort of gotcha, rather than being a risible affectation by people who think that gender is the "polite" word and sex is what the coal comes in.

 

[Steersman]

I don't believe so..

Can you quote your answer?

It's there on the previous page. I could suggest that you actually look for it but I'm not one to insist on people playing "20 questions" ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13871896&postcount=354

 

[Rolfe]

This is an interesting article, and I confess I still haven't got to the end. It's long and comprehensive, but the authors are very knowledgeable.

On Sex and Gender Identity: Perspectives from Biology, Neuroscience and Philosophy

I thought I had followed a link to it from this thread, and I probably did, but I don't know who posted it. I had several links Steersman posted open, but I closed most of them because they were obvious wittering nonsense. Including the article of his own he keeps hyping.

This one was left, and I don't think Steersman can have posted it, because it leaves his entire thesis shredded on the floor. (No doubt he can find the odd line to cherry-pick, such as the observation that some people with DSDs choose to identify as neither male nor female, but the article as a whole holes him below the waterline. There are plenty people who choose to identify as neither male nor female, we've all heard of "non-binary", but that doesn't mean these people don't have a sex!)

DSDs represent an enormously wide variety of different conditions, some of which are associated with other health issues. While there are individuals who have characteristics of both males and females, most DSDs affect either males or females specifically. Using the 2006 Consensus Statement definition, the incidence of DSD is approximately 1 person per 100 (Arboleda et al., 2014), and this relatively high prevalence has been widely used as evidence for the assertion that sex is a spectrum. The 1 in 100 figure is based on classification of DSDs to include all anomalies of the reproductive organs, but in the vast majority of cases, there is no doubt about the sex of an individual. Hence, while 1 in 100 individuals has some form of DSD, the incidence of those specific types of DSD leading to any ambiguity about an individual’s sex is substantially lower at approximately 0.02% (1 in 5000), and those individuals with ambiguous anatomies may have both male and female traits, not phenotypes representing other sexes altogether.

Further on we have this quote.

A recent large study of gender change and gender dysphoria, including a total of 1040 people with DSDs (women with Turner’s syndrome, n = 325; men with Kleinfelter syndrome, n = 219, women with XY DSD without androgen effects (n = 107) and with androgen effects (n = 63); men with XY DSD (n = 87); and women with 26 XX congenital adrenal hyperplasia (n = 221)) from various European countries (Kreukels et al., 2018)...

Women with Turner's syndrome, men with Klinefelter's syndrome, and so on. Does it sound to anyone as if these authors think these people don't have a sex? (They're actually talking about the prevalence of transgender identities in these people, and conclude that it isn't significantly different from the prevalence in the population as a whole.)

I suppose we'll be told that this is one more example of real biologists using words in a sloppy, colloquial manner, as opposed to the rigorous logical definitions of Griffiths.

 

[Myriad]

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"

In which case it also necessarily follows that that interpretation of that definition of "woman" (the one in which "habitually" supposedly also implies "presently") is stupid. No one wants or needs, for any purpose, a definition of "woman" that excludes my mother from the category due to her age relative to the human reproductive life cycle. No one uses, for any purpose, any such definition. That is sufficient grounds for declaring that interpretation of that definition simply and absolutely wrong.

 

[Rolfe]

It's there on the previous page. I could suggest that you actually look for it but I'm not one to insist on people playing "20 questions" ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13871896&postcount=354

Oh, it's the post about how the sun doesn't actually rise! In which you don't actually say how you would describe a puppy (or a kitten) which had been castrated before puberty.

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.

Snip a whole lot of navel-gazing stuff from Wikipedia about "ellipsis". Which we should probably reject because he didn't actually type three dots every time.

I'm trying to parse this and I'm getting that he'd probably refer to the kitten or puppy as a neutered male regardless, while being conscious that he's using sloppy language.

Isn't it really weird that the language doesn't actually have a way of describing this class of animal that doesn't involve either a two-line circumlocution or "sloppy language"? This class of animal that is extremely common among the pet-owning public.

In point of fact the correct, non-sloppy term is "neutered male" or "castrated male". These are the terms that would be used not simply when communicating to animal breeders and owners, but in scientific publications in biology journals. There's nothing sloppy about them.

 

[Rolfe]

In which case it also necessarily follows that that interpretation of that definition of "woman" (the one in which "habitually" supposedly also implies "presently") is stupid. No one wants or needs, for any purpose, a definition of "woman" that excludes my mother from the category due to her age relative to the human reproductive life cycle. No one uses, for any purpose, any such definition. That is sufficient grounds for declaring that interpretation of that definition simply and absolutely wrong.

Yes, of course. But look at all the "IF" words. I think I get a sniff of plausible deniability being set up here.

I'm baffled by the attitude that only Griffiths understands the "true" meaning of the words "male" and "female", but somehow he has divined this from dictionary definitions that are intended to describe actual current usage of the words. Nevertheless his "true" definitions, which are the only logically rigorous ones, are nothing like how the words are used either in general conversation or by actual biologists.

Then somehow we go full circle to conceding that we'll probably have to use the normal usage of the words if we're ever going to get anywhere when we're actually talking about real things, but this is really sloppy because Griffiths said so.

It's like talking to a badly-programmed AI.

 

[d4m10n]

It's there on the previous page. I could suggest that you actually look for it but I'm not one to insist on people playing "20 questions"

Just one question; you dodged it.

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