Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

Let me go back to basic principles sprinkled with a little latin and share some 'brute facts' about fertility in mules and hinnies.

Hinnies and mules that will never become male or female are usually castrated to help control their behavior by eliminating their interest in mules and hinnies that have a slight chance of becoming female. The hinny or mule that will always remain sexless can and will mate, but the emission is not fertile. There are no recorded cases of male hinnies or male mules.

Hinnies and mules that have a slight chance of becoming female are not customarily spayed, and may or may not go through estrus. Sexless mules of this type have been known to become female when mated to a purebred horse or donkey, though this is extremely uncommon.
Click to expand...

See how clear this is, and forces the transloonies to "give up the ghost on the gangplank", so to speak.;) If you want to check out me kicking kittens, then I think you need to look more closely at this post over and over again, butterscup. Bogus scientifically illiterate dogmatists and their gerbils atizzy would probably use some social science coat of many colours definition and churn out some nonsense like this:

Male hinnies and mules are usually castrated to help control their behavior by eliminating their interest in females. The male hinny or mule can and will mate, but the emission is not fertile. There are no recorded cases of fertile male hinnies or male mules.

Female hinnies and mules are not customarily spayed, and may or may not go through estrus. Female mules have been known to produce offspring when mated to a purebred horse or donkey, though this is extremely uncommon.
Click to expand...
https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Hinny.html

To which I reply "mythical essence" :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • Tweets_RadfemBlack_Vertebrate1A.jpg
    Tweets_RadfemBlack_Vertebrate1A.jpg
    101.2 KB · Views: 7
So presumably, in Steersman's world, there should be no designation of sex on birth certificates. The most one might say is something like "appears to have a (specify genital type)." Sounds like a win for those who are now advocating retroactive changes to the birth certificate.
 
bruto said:
So presumably, in Steersman's world, there should be no designation of sex on birth certificates. The most one might say is something like "appears to have a (specify genital type)." Sounds like a win for those who are now advocating retroactive changes to the birth certificate.
Click to expand...
Might be an opportune time to consider some of those changes. Particularly, as I've mentioned earlier, some of the intersex seem not averse to being designated "sexless":

https://www.starobserver.com.au/new...les-news/sexless-reforms-on-the-horizon/41079

Not sure what benefits "male"/"female" on birth certificates and driver's licenses confer that would not be more effectively done by karyotype. Possibly with a section for the SRY gene: SRY, not SRY - so to speak.

Karyotype is in fact more or less immutable - at least until, I assume, gene replacement therapy is more fully developed. And none of this silliness about being "assigned a sex at birth", though we might have to assume that genitalia is a pretty solid proxy for either XX or XY - seems that some 98% of us are one or the other. And then options to change them if later developments suggest other karyotypes.

In addition to which, one would think that the transloonie nutcases would have far less credibility in "self-identifying" as XX or XY when clearly they weren't anything of the sort.

And finally, as Rolfe has apparently argued several times, the SRY designation would seem to be the optimal go/no-go gauge to control access to toilets, change-rooms, and women's sports.

Seems like a win-win to me; got my vote ... ;)
 
Steersman said:
LoL : rolleyes :

Only if we accept your premise, your definition - which is very much in dispute and under review.
Click to expand...

Not by anyone I take seriously in this context, so far.

And we should accept my premise, since the results are both internally consistent and actually useful.

Also, why are you using Griffiths as a stand-in for actual biologists, when we have ample evidence from actual biologists?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Not by anyone I take seriously in this context, so far.

And we should accept my premise, since the results are both internally consistent and actually useful.

Also, why are you using Turban as a stand-in for actual biologists, when we have ample evidence from actual biologists?
Click to expand...


Do you maybe mean Griffiths instead of Turban? Could just be me. I said Oliver Sachs instead of Sacks.
 
Steersman said:
Not sure what benefits "male"/"female" on birth certificates and driver's licenses confer that would not be more effectively done by karyotype. Possibly with a section for the SRY gene: SRY, not SRY - so to speak.
Click to expand...
However cheap and quick karyotyping will become, it will still be cheaper and quicker to just look at a newborn and make the usual inferences.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Not by anyone I take seriously in this context, so far.
Click to expand...

By "this context" I assume you mean just the Emperor and his courtiers? :rolleyes:;)

theprestige said:
And we should accept my premise, since the results are both internally consistent and actually useful.
Click to expand...

"internally consistent" seems a stretch - and a long one at that. Particularly when much of the "discussion" here of late seems to be squabbling over whether various intersex people are male or female when the most rational conclusion is that they are neither, that they're sexless.

Say, are you British? Reminds me of a jest about the Englishman who was such a stiff-upper-lip type of fellow that he wouldn't say "◊◊◊◊" with a mouth full of it ...

As for "actually useful", one can often use a screw-driver as a hammer though not without seriously compromising its later use as the former.

theprestige said:
Also, why are you using Griffiths as a stand-in for actual biologists, when we have ample evidence from actual biologists?
Click to expand...
If we're bandying about various "true Scotsmen" then it might help to have some sort of consensus on what qualifies people as such.

And when it comes to discussions on the biological definitions for the sexes - the topic du jour, if I'm not mistaken, then "Scotsmen" with an understanding and appreciation of the principles that undergird such definitions are likely to carry more weight than "actual biologists", many of whom are little better than "scientism-ists".

Not really a shot at Rolfe as there are rather a large number of so-called "biologists" - Jerry Coyne, Colin Wright, Emma Hilton, PZ Myers, etc., etc., ... - who clearly haven't an effen clue about many of the foundational principles that undergird their discipline - and which have some relevance to the transgender "debate".

You really might want to try reading and reflecting on the well-evidenced arguments of biologist-extraordinaire Marc van Regenmortel:

"Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
Click to expand...

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tes_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_H._V._van_Regenmortel

The issue is less one of the nitty-gritties of various biological processes - on which I'll cheerfully concede Rolfe's expertise - than of "areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology" on which I expect Griffiths and van Regenmortel have a bit more "gravitas" and credibility.
 
Steersman said:
By "this context" I assume you mean just the Emperor and his courtiers? : rolleyes : ; )
Click to expand...
I mean in the context of practical applications in biology and public policy. If this were a philosophy discussion, I might feel differently.

"internally consistent" seems a stretch - and a long one at that. Particularly when much of the "discussion" here of late seems to be squabbling over whether various intersex people are male or female when the most rational conclusion is that they are neither, that they're sexless.
Click to expand...
The most rational conclusion is not, in fact, that they're sexless.

<rudeness snipped>
Click to expand...

As for "actually useful", one can often use a screw-driver as a hammer though not without seriously compromising its later use as the former.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not really interested in arguments from analogy. Talk about the thing in its own terms, please.


If we're bandying about various "true Scotsmen" then it might help to have some sort of consensus on what qualifies people as such.
Click to expand...
We do have such a consensus. You and a tiny handful of others are bucking that consensus for some sort of doctrinaire attempt at "logical consistency".

The issue is less one of the nitty-gritties of various biological processes - on which I'll cheerfully concede Rolfe's expertise - than of "areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology" on which I expect Griffiths and van Regenmortel have a bit more "gravitas" and credibility.
Click to expand...
I'm much more interested in nitty-gritty issues of public policy.
 
d4m10n said:
However cheap and quick karyotyping will become, it will still be cheaper and quicker to just look at a newborn and make the usual inferences.
Click to expand...
Which "inference"?

From genitalia to "male" or "female"? Or from genitalia to karyotype?

You really don't have a slam-dunk definition for the former - as evidenced by the rather risible squabbling here and thereabouts over how to categorize the intersex.

Reminds me again of the monkey-trap - desperately committed to the "idea" that everyone - every member of every sexually-reproducing species - has to be either male or female - but unable to face the fact that the intersex knock those definitions of yours into cocked-hats:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap

Not to mention the other conflicts with brute facts (eg., clownfish and other sequential hermaphrodites).

But those are the benefits of karyotypes - objectively quantifiable criteria. And not likely to be all that expensive to use either given that, as I've said, some 98% of us are either XX or XY. Put a marker or section on the passports to indicate whether the karyotype is just assumed or is the result of tests; only do them if later developments justify them.
 
Steersman said:
Which "inference"?

From genitalia to "male" or "female"? Or from genitalia to karyotype?

You really don't have a slam-dunk definition for the former - as evidenced by the rather risible squabbling here and thereabouts over how to categorize the intersex.

Reminds me again of the monkey-trap - desperately committed to the "idea" that everyone - every member of every sexually-reproducing species - has to be either male or female - but unable to face the fact that the intersex knock those definitions of yours into cocked-hats:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap

Not to mention the other conflicts with brute facts (eg., clownfish and other sequential hermaphrodites).

But those are the benefits of karyotypes - objectively quantifiable criteria. And not likely to be all that expensive to use either given that, as I've said, some 98% of us are either XX or XY. Put a marker or section on the passports to indicate whether the karyotype is just assumed or is the result of tests; only do them if later developments justify them.
Click to expand...

DSDs are sex-specific.
 
theprestige said:
I mean in the context of practical applications in biology and public policy. If this were a philosophy discussion, I might feel differently.
Click to expand...
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"? :rolleyes:


theprestige said:
The most rational conclusion is not, in fact, that they're sexless.
Click to expand...
Ipse dixit; begging the question.


theprestige said:
Yeah, I'm not really interested in arguments from analogy. Talk about the thing in its own terms, please.
Click to expand...
Perfectly reasonable principle.

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

At least to those not peddling the Courtier's reply ...

theprestige said:
We do have such a consensus. You and a tiny handful of others are bucking that consensus for some sort of doctrinaire attempt at "logical consistency".
Click to expand...

What a joke. I'm STILL waiting for you or Rolfe or anyone else here to provide the same number and quality of citations - other than in the UK Times, hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal - that endorse the structure-absent-function definitions of Hilton and Company:

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554

You're as bad as many of the commentariat on Novella's misnamed blog that I'm tangling with who likewise refuse to face those standard biological definitions:

http://disq.us/p/2q8lu0y

theprestige said:
I'm much more interested in nitty-gritty issues of public policy.
Click to expand...

"Social Justice Warriors R Us"? :rolleyes:

You might consider that "public policies" that start off on the wrong feet can be alternately amusing or horrific - good intentions and all that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanoi_Rat_Massacre

https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedias-lysenkoism-410901a22da2
 
Steersman said:
Which "inference"?

From genitalia to "male" or "female"? Or from genitalia to karyotype?

You really don't have a slam-dunk definition for the former - as evidenced by the rather risible squabbling here and thereabouts over how to categorize the intersex.

Reminds me again of the monkey-trap - desperately committed to the "idea" that everyone - every member of every sexually-reproducing species - has to be either male or female - but unable to face the fact that the intersex knock those definitions of yours into cocked-hats:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap

Not to mention the other conflicts with brute facts (eg., clownfish and other sequential hermaphrodites).

But those are the benefits of karyotypes - objectively quantifiable criteria. And not likely to be all that expensive to use either given that, as I've said, some 98% of us are either XX or XY. Put a marker or section on the passports to indicate whether the karyotype is just assumed or is the result of tests; only do them if later developments justify them.
Click to expand...

What a pity we don't have words to assign to those karyotypes that can be understood by the 99% of the public who aren't biologists or philosophers.

Hmmmm.

btw, I did read that document by van Regenmortel.
 
Steersman said:
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up"? :rolleyes :
Click to expand...
Not really, no. Here you simply misunderstand the nature of my obejction.

Ipse dixit; begging the question.
Click to expand...
Not really, no. Here you simply ignore (once again) the complete logical argument that leads to this conclusion.

Perfectly reasonable principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
Click to expand...
Not really, no. Inference from analogy may be useful to science, but an argument from analogy will consistently fail to change the mind of anyone who disagrees with the original argument from the thing itself.

You're trying to declare my agreement with A, by analogy with the begged question of my agreement with B. If the two things really are analogous in the way necessary for your argument, you can skip the analogy and the begged question, and just get my agreement on A by arguing for it in terms of A itself.

I'm not going to bother debating the analogy or unpacking the begged question. Maybe you've changed other people's minds with appeals to analogy, but such arguments simply don't do it for me.

Argue the thing in its own terms, if you can. And if you can't, then you don't understand it well enough to craft a valid analogy anyway.

At least to those not peddling the Courtier's reply ...
Click to expand...
You really should take some time to get to know your audience, and familiarize yourself with some of the recent arguments already in progress.

What a joke. I'm STILL waiting for you or Rolfe or anyone else here to provide the same number and quality of citations - other than in the UK Times, hardly a peer-reviewed biological journal - that endorse the structure-absent-function definitions of Hilton and Company:

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554

You're as bad as many of the commentariat on Novella's misnamed blog that I'm tangling with who likewise refuse to face those standard biological definitions:

http://disq.us/p/2q8lu0y
Click to expand...
It sounds like I'm in good company, then.

"Social Justice Warriors R Us"? : rolleyes :

You might consider that "public policies" that start off on the wrong feet can be alternately amusing or horrific - good intentions and all that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hanoi_Rat_Massacre

https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedias-lysenkoism-410901a22da2
Click to expand...
You really should take some time to get to know your audience, and familiarize yourself with some of the recent arguments already in progress.
 
Lplus said:
What a pity we don't have words to assign to those karyotypes that can be understood by the 99% of the public who aren't biologists or philosophers.

Hmmmm.
Click to expand...

So we should dumb-down public discourse to the lowest common denominator?

You might be interested in taking a look at Sagan's Demon-Haunted World - if you haven't read it yet. A copy - pirated or not - at the Internet Archive:

https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709

Couple of relevant passages therefrom:

"The dumbing down of America is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30-second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance. [pg. 28]"

"... science is more than a body of knowledge; it is a way of thinking. I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time … when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness."
Click to expand...


Lplus said:
btw, I did read that document by van Regenmortel.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup::)

Lot to chew through there, much of it well outside my salary range. But I thought the discussions about the differences between polythetic and monothetic categories were remarkably helpful and quite illuminating, particularly pertaining to the transgender "debate".

You might be interested in my further kicks at that kitty on Shermer's Skeptic Substack article on Walsh's documentary:

https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman-anyway/comment/7630788

But of particular note in the article itself is this absolutely gobsmacking passage:

But Grzanka’s dodge is not uncommon in academia today, and in exasperation with Walsh’s persistent questioning in search of the truth, Grzanka pronounces on camera, ”Getting to the truth is deeply transphobic.”
Click to expand...

:eek: Hard to imagine a bigger smoking gun as evidence of the rot that transgenderism has wrought - so to speak. That comment of Grzanka's may well be - or should be - the epitaph for much of Academia, at least for the Mark I version.
 
theprestige said:
<snip>

Not really, no. Here you simply ignore (once again) the complete logical argument that leads to this conclusion.
Click to expand...

It's not the argument that's the problem, it's the premise. Which you refuse to face; you take it as an article of faith and anathematize anyone who says otherwise.


theprestige said:
Not really, no. Inference from analogy may be useful to science, but an argument from analogy will consistently fail to change the mind of anyone who disagrees with the original argument from the thing itself.
Click to expand...

Have I come into the wrong theatre? I'd assumed that we WERE talking about science and not theology. My bad ... :rolleyes:

theprestige said:
You're trying to declare my agreement with A, by analogy with the begged question of my agreement with B. If the two things really are analogous in the way necessary for your argument, you can skip the analogy and the begged question, and just get my agreement on A by arguing for it in terms of A itself.
Click to expand...

My analogy with the screw-driver and the hammer was to illustrate that just because something can be used for a particular task is no guarantee that such uses don't cause other problems. Which you refuse to face.

theprestige said:
It sounds like I'm in good company, then.
Click to expand...

With the commentariat at Novella's blog? :rolleyes:


theprestige said:
You really should take some time to get to know your audience, and familiarize yourself with some of the recent arguments already in progress.
Click to expand...
If you want to give any credibility to your role as Courtier-General then you might want to provide relevant links ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom