Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[theprestige]

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.

Okay, let's start fresh. What's the premise you have in mind? Tell me that, and I'll tell you fresh whether I accept it or not, and why.

 

[theprestige]

If you want to give any credibility to your role as Courtier-General then you might want to provide relevant links ...

Here you go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359425

ETA: So I will give some context, since I haven't really been fair to you on this point.

One of the major lines of discussion in that thread has been a clear and consistent definition of sex that properly segregates transmen with other males, rather than with females. All of this stuff about SRY developmental pathways, and their binary nature in mammals, has been the result of those discussions.

All of the disingenuous objections about post-menopausal women, and castrated men, have been considered in those debates, and accounted for in the binary sexual development pathways definition of sex. From the perspective of those of us here who have participated in those discussions, you're trying to re-invent the wheel. You're also trying to solve a problem the rest of us are already well aware of, and have already solved to our satisfaction. The problems you're trying to avoid are already avoided by the binary sexual development pathways definition of sex. Rejecting that definition actually causes the problems you're trying to avoid.

This thread was originally spun off from that thread, to discuss developmental sex disorders outside the context of the trans rights debate in public policy.

Personally I don't take Myers or Novella seriously. If they're hosting their own versions of this controversy, it doesn't surprise me, but neither does it interest me.

As far as I'm concerned, being set on one of the two sex development pathways available to mammals is what defines a person's sex. This definition encompasses everyone everywhere on each of the two pathways. People who are anywhere on the female pathway are female. This includes active ovulators, prepubescents, post-menopausals, and everyone else who isn't on the other pathway. It excludes everyone who is on the other pathway, regardless of what gender - or sex! - they self-identify as.

As which they self-identify.

Anyway, yeah. I've got a good definition. I don't need to follow the slapfight in Novella's comment section. I don't need to consult Myers's opinion. I certainly don't need to kowtow to any mere philosopher.

If you want to discuss your beliefs about how my definition makes it more difficult to craft sane public policy for trans rights, the thread for that discussion is linked at the top of this post. Have at it.

 

[porch]

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.

Why are you talking about karyotypes, when they have nothing to do with "the biological definition" of sex (according to you)? Why spend so much time and effort to convince everyone to adopt your stupid definition when you don't even use it yourself?

 

[Steersman]

Okay, let's start fresh. What's the premise you have in mind? Tell me that, and I'll tell you fresh whether I accept it or not, and why.

Think I've pretty clear and prolific if not verbose about what are the two competing premises - the two theses or hypotheses - on the table. Difficult to summarize all of that in 25 words or less, but this passage seems a reasonable starting point and careful delineation of that dichotomy:

"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Emma Hilton and Company] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"

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

The biological definitions that I've quoted at length - the premises I have in mind - are clearly and explicitly based on a "functional rationale" - i.e., produces gametes as "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership.

Your definitions, the ones you apparently subscribe to, and the ones peddled by Hilton and Company lack that "functional rational". They are thereby more or less completely disconnected from the actual processes of reproduction - except maybe through some rather tenuous "hypnotic gestures" that do justice more to Mandrake the Magician than anyone claiming to be an actual biologist. You're basically saying that many individuals - of all sexually-reproducing species - can lay claim to being members of the sex categories while not actually being able to reproduce.

You can SAY that - as we can SAY that "2+2=5". But if such statements lead to contradictory statements - as I've shown to be the case in some detail, clownfish in particular - then Houston, we have a problem.

You and Rolfe throw stones at me for pushing definitions that are "logically coherent". Not sure that you aren't shooting yourselves in the feet right out of the chute by rejecting that principle, by endorsing those definitions which lead to manifestly incoherent and contradictory "conclusions". Which I've already given chapter and verse on.

I've posted this several times here, but it might be useful to consider it as an important signpost:

No one has any idea why mathematics works so well to describe nature, but it is arguably an empirical fact that it works. …. The maybe most important lesson physicists have learned over the past centuries is that if a theory has internal inconsistencies, it is wrong. By internal inconsistencies, I mean that the theory’s axioms lead to statements that contradict each other.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-laws-of-nature-are-not-inevitable.html

 

[Steersman]

Why are you talking about karyotypes, when they have nothing to do with "the biological definition" of sex (according to you)? Why spend so much time and effort to convince everyone to adopt your stupid definition when you don't even use it yourself?

Christ in a sidecar.

I've said dozens of times, Griffiths has said dozens of times that sex is generally the RONG tool for the job that society is trying to shoehorn it into doing:

"The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity

Of course karyotypes have nothing to do with biological definitions for the sexes; that's their claim to fame and fortune - they make karyotypes, of all species, into "accidental properties"; they emphasize "produces gametes" as THE essential property:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/

But that's not the effen point. It is that karyotypes - or maybe genitalia - will be more useful to adjudicate competing claims to access toilets, change-rooms and sports leagues.

You need to ask yourself, what exactly are our objectives? Clearly, it's to give some measure of privacy and safety for vagina-havers by excluding penis-havers from those venues. Reproductive abilities - past, present, or future - generally have diddly-squat to do that objective. Much of the "debate" over the biological definitions for the sexes is something of red herring, and serves only to muddy the waters, corrupt the biological definitions, and give free rein to the transloonie nutcases.

 

[porch]

Compassion for vagina-havers noted.

 

[Steersman]

Here you go:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359425

Thanks. Is that thread still/currently under moderation? Seems an earlier version was - kind of a pain to comment in that case

ETA: So I will give some context, since I haven't really been fair to you on this point.

Thanks.

One of the major lines of discussion in that thread has been a clear and consistent definition of sex that properly segregates transmen transwomen with other males, rather than with females. All of this stuff about SRY developmental pathways, and their binary nature in mammals, has been the result of those discussions.

I expect you meant "transwomen" and not "transmen".

All of the disingenuous objections about post-menopausal women, and castrated men, have been considered in those debates, and accounted for in the binary sexual development pathways definition of sex.

Except that "development pathways" is NOT the biological definition.

Anyway, yeah. I've got a good definition. I don't need to follow the slapfight in Novella's comment section. I don't need to consult Myers's opinion. I certainly don't need to kowtow to any mere philosopher.

"mere" philosopher?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Griffiths

Given his co-authorship of Genetics and Philosophy, one might reasonably infer that he's anything but chopped liver in either department.

If you want to discuss your beliefs about how my definition makes it more difficult to craft sane public policy for trans rights, the thread for that discussion is linked at the top of this post. Have at it.

Will probably do so. Though offhand, shooting from the hip, you might want to take a gander at the Electric Agora article that Rolfe referred to recently:

https://theelectricagora.com/2020/0...ves-from-biology-neuroscience-and-philosophy/

And consider that too many are conflating gender and gender identity - entirely different kettles of fish; further elaboration on one of my Substack articles:

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

 

[Steersman]

Compassion for vagina-havers noted.

Grudgingly or not, still progress ...

 

[porch]

Thanks. Is that thread still/currently under moderation? Seems an earlier version was - kind of a pain to comment in that case

I am going to accept my share of blame for perpetuating this misplaced discussion, but it's kinda not cool to flood a separate thread with off topic posts for the purpose of avoiding moderation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not quite sure where you get that "70%" figure from - I've generally only argued for 33% based on typical demographics; see below:

About a third of the world's population is pre-pubertal children. About 6% is menopausal females. About 5% of males have had vasectomies. About 10% of pre-menopausal females have had hysterectomies. That's about 50% right there. That's not including people who are sterile for various other reasons.

70% might be a bit too high, but your 33% is far too low for the huge number of people that you, all by your lonesome, have declared to not have a sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Christ in a sidecar. What's the point of responding if nobody is willing to listen to what I've already dealt with

Because your "definitions" are inane, confusion, useless, and frankly offensive. They also have no utility in real life, in medicine, in society, or in biology. They are humpty-dumpty definitions.

That's why.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 theoretical and philosophical demands of a perfect system of formal logic while avoiding any sort of applicability to the real world in any fashion.

Fixed that for you...

 

[d4m10n]

m,

Which "inference"?

From genitalia to "male" or "female"?

That's the one.

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.

Whereas you've managed to create consensus around your own narrow definitions of male and female, that is, everyone here has rejected them for broadly similar reasons.

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...

I've explicitly rejected this idea (repeatedly) upthread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I mind of want to see a debate between Steersman and pondering turtle on whether or not a menopausal female is actually a woman or not.

 

[Steersman]

About a third of the world's population is pre-pubertal children. About 6% is menopausal females. About 5% of males have had vasectomies. About 10% of pre-menopausal females have had hysterectomies. That's about 50% right there. That's not including people who are sterile for various other reasons.

70% might be a bit too high, but your 33% is far too low for the huge number of people that you, all by your lonesome, have declared to not have a sex.

I'll readily concede that my numbers may be somewhat wide of the mark. Though that might be because I had used US demographics which may not be reflective of the world's population:

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

But they indicate something like 18% of the US population below the age 14, somewhat above the median age for the onset of puberty if I'm not mistaken. So that 1/3-1/3-1/3, at least for the US, didn't seem all that unreasonable.

As for your, "you, all by your lonesome, have declared to not have a sex", you may wish to try reading up on the concept of "necessary and sufficient conditions":

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

Bit of a murky concept which many philosophers may have made more out of than is justified, but it is part and parcel of the concept of "intensional definitions" which is precisely what the biological definitions ARE:

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

Those definitions stipulate that the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership is functional gonads, is the habitual production of gametes of either of two types. It's not necessary to say that those who don't produce them are neither male nor female; that conclusion is a logical consequence of the definitions.

As it's not necessary to say that those younger than 13 or older than 19 are not teenagers; that is the definition's logical consequence.

It's not me that's saying that some 30-50% of the world's population is sexless, it's the biological definitions which are doing so.

Because your "definitions" are inane, confusion, useless, and frankly offensive. They also have no utility in real life, in medicine, in society, or in biology. They are humpty-dumpty definitions.

That's why.

But they are also the ones that have been endorsed, more or less, in a PubMed article, as well as by Lexico, Google/OED, Wikipedia, and a whole raft of other quite credible sources. Still waiting for citations of the same number and quality of sources that similarly endorse that structure-absent-function "definition" of yours and Hiltons and others here ...

But you may be amused or interested in a thread on that point over at (Junk)-Science-Based Medicine:

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

 

[Steersman]

I am going to accept my share of blame for perpetuating this misplaced discussion ....

For shame!

... but it's kinda not cool to flood a separate thread with off topic posts for the purpose of avoiding moderation.

Not sure that it's entirely off topic. Which "d4m10n" has more or less conceded:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13871219&postcount=306

I would say that the rabbit hole isn't entirely pointless, since it's generally good to clarify what we mean by "male" or "female" in threads like this one.

Even if he's reluctant to consider the biological definitions which conflict rather profoundly with his own.

 

[Steersman]

I mind of want [??] to see a debate between Steersman and pondering turtle on whether or not a menopausal female is actually a woman or not.

Define "is" ...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...publicans-waged-war-women-says-Rand-Paul.html

If you start from the premise, from the definition, "adult human female (habitually produces ova)" then no. Something the inimitable PZ Myers - Himself - once endorsed - before turning turtle when his own oxen were being gored:

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342

But if you define the word as a gender - anyone with any passing "family resemblance" to those who are actually "adult human females (habitually produce ....)" then sure, more the merrier ...

 

[porch]

you may wish to try reading up on the concept of "necessary and sufficient conditions"

You know, throughout your postings, you have been interchangeably using two separate and contradictory definitions of sex. There is the Griffiths definition that says current gamete production is necessary and sufficient. Then there is the Steersman definition, which says that current gamete production is necessary but not sufficient. Do not cross out not. You had something to say about a production floor? Idunno, you didn't define it clearly. But by Griffiths' definition, someone who has had a vasectomy or tubal ligation, but is still currently producing gametes, has a sex. In Steersman world, they do not. This will be the third time I have pointed out your internal inconsistency on this matter. I guess I don't really expect you to understand it this go round, either, but thanks for the links to Plato and Voltaire.

 

[Steersman]

Whereas you've managed to create consensus around your own narrow definitions of male and female, that is, everyone here has rejected them for broadly similar reasons.

"Come together, right now, over me"

Hardly just "my" definitions though, are they? Y'all seem pretty desperate to avoid facing that fact. Have I, perchance, stumbled into a fundamentalist revival site?

Originally Posted by Steersman
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...

I've explicitly rejected this idea (repeatedly) upthread.

As a billion or so Muslims have rejected Jesus as the Son of God - Himself! (Take it away, Jehovah!!).

But bully for you. All you're doing is expressing an article of faith; you haven't given any credible reasons why you insist that everyone - of every sexually-reproducing species - has to be either male or female. Nor have you given any credible argument - if any argument at all - why the standard biological definitions should be declared null and void.

 

[Steersman]

You know, throughout your postings, you have been interchangeably using two separate and contradictory definitions of sex.

How so? Where? Show your work ...

There is the Griffiths definition that says current gamete production is necessary and sufficient. Then there is the Steersman definition, which says that current gamete production is necessary but not sufficient. Do not cross out not. You had something to say about a production floor? Idunno, you didn't define it clearly. But by Griffiths' definition, someone who has had a vasectomy or tubal ligation, but is still currently producing gametes, has a sex. In Steersman world, they do not. This will be the third time I have pointed out your internal inconsistency on this matter. I guess I don't really expect you to understand it this go round, either, but thanks for the links to Plato and Voltaire.

Still trying to understand or see your justification for arguing for any sort of "internal inconsistency", for suggesting that my own definition is based on "necessary but not sufficient". Although I'll concede the matter is a bit murky - honest folks may disagree ...

But neither Griffiths nor the Lexico and Google/OED definitions explicitly say anything about "necessary and sufficient"; the conclusion of "sexless" is more or less implicit in the concept of intensional definitions. Why I've maybe belabored that topic.

But consider Griffiths first:

Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless].

https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity

He doesn't actually SAY that those who don't "make eggs or make sperm" are thereby sexless. Though he clearly acknowledges that it doesn't necessarily follow from the "biological definition of sex" that every organism is male or female. But even his "DEFINING [my emphasis] by the ability to do [either]" clearly alludes to the concept of intensional definitions.

Similarly with Lexico definition, for "male" for example:

male (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

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

Again, the definition doesn't actually SAY - in so many words - that those who don't produce sperm AREN'T males; that conclusion is implicit in the concept of intensional definitions. Lexico hasn't, maybe unfortunately, labelled that definition as "herewith an intensional definition". But it's kind of implicit in the structure of the definition:

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

As I and Wikipedia have argued or suggested, neither the definition for "teenager" nor "bachelor" explicitly say that neither those outside the range of 13 to 19 (inclusive) nor those who are married or female qualify as teenagers or bachelors, respectively. Those conclusions implicitly follow from the way the definitions are structured.

Seems to me that both Lexico and Griffiths are saying the same thing: "produces gametes (habitually)" are the necessary AND sufficient conditions for sex category membership.