Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Emily's Cat]

Nope.



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



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

"range" and "spectrum" are more or less synonymous; being able to order those "different things" by some common quantifiable property is NOT a necessary property of either term.

One can have a set of "different things" - of the "thing" type - that have nothing in common that might provide an intrinsic order. They're "artificial kinds" as opposed to "natural kinds":



https://iep.utm.edu/nat-kind/

For example, a set - the "thingy" set - of, say, an apple, a book, a clown suit, and a picture (say of a pipe)

Nothing in common, that's immediately evident but still an order imposed by their position in the set from first to last such that we can say that "clown suit" > "book".

A spectrum, a range.

Your entire reasoning is pseudomath. It's completely and irrevocably wrong.

We cannot say "clown suit" > "book". It's not a thing. It's so far from a thing that it's not even wrong.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A discrete spectrum: motor vehicles, perhaps? Some have two wheels, some have three, some four, some 6 and so on, up past 18 for the big ones. But I think you will wait a long time for one with seven and a half wheels to roll by.

Discrete spectrum, yes. However, it's important to note that the variable under consideration is the number of wheels... and numbers are unquestionably ordinal. 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 6 < 18... etc.

 

[Steersman]

I'm extremely familiar with the concept of necessary and sufficient conditions. I'm quite confident that I have a better understanding of it than you do.

Really doesn't look like it all. You apparently refuse to address what I've quoted about them in the context of intensional definitions and how the apply to the standard biological definitions.

In fact, I've explicitly addressed your arguments from that perspective a number of times, which you seem to have ignored. Specifically... the active production of a specific gamete is a SUFFICIENT condition to be categorized as either male or female... but it is NOT a NECESSARY condition. One can be male while not actively producing sperm. One cannot be a fertile male without actively producing sperm, but one can still be male.

The NECESSARY condition is the presence of the anatomical organs associated with the production of gametes.

You don't quite seem to get that that is based on your own quite idiosyncratic definition for the sexes. Do show us any dictionary definition, do show us any reputable journal that says anything of the sort. For bonus points, show how it - if it exists - refutes the standard biological definition, a salient example of which is the Lexico definition:

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

You see ANYTHING at all there about ANY anatomical organs? Much less any "associated with the production of gametes"?

I've made several good faith arguments and analogies attempting to address your misunderstandings. So far, you've either completely ignored those posts... or you've responded with condescension and arrogance even when the topic is outside of your area of expertise and well inside mine.

What a joke; you might try going back and look for my responses to you - which I have yet to see you address. Hard not to express some exasperation in the face of such pigheadedness.

Your entire reasoning is pseudomath. It's completely and irrevocably wrong.

We cannot say "clown suit" > "book". It's not a thing. It's so far from a thing that it's not even wrong.

I generally put the terms in quotes to suggest that they really weren't commensurable - as my argument underlined; which you might try unbunching your knickers long enough to actually read and think about.

Discrete spectrum, yes. However, it's important to note that the variable under consideration is the number of wheels... and numbers are unquestionably ordinal. 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 6 < 18... etc.

So are the positions in the ordered set {apple, book, clown suit, picture}, i.e., {1,2,3,4}

Position of clown-suit > position of book.

And one can do the same sort of thing with properties that determine membership in other polythetic categories - as in Regenmortel's example. We can give a binary representation to the sets of sufficient but not necessary properties that define the category which encompasses individuals 1 through 4:

A-B-C = 1110
A-B-D = 1101
A-C-D = 1011
B-C-D = 0111

Even if the properties are categorical, even if there's diddly-squat that allows us to say they're commensurable, we can still arbitrarily order them. The 4 sets of mutually exclusive - and orderable - combinations constitute and define entities in a discrete spectrum. Necessary property set A-B-D has a mapped index of 1101 which is greater than the mapped index (1011) of property set A-C-D.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...n-the-case-of-8-individuals-18_fig1_309889266

 

[Steersman]

You can stop right there. We don't. We do NOT define sexes that way. Your premise is fatally flawed, and thus it is rejected.

Who's "we"?

You may wish to contact the editors of Lexico, Google/OED, the Journals of Theoretical Biology and of Molecular Human Reproduction, of Wikipedia and a raft of others too numerous to mention who apparently didn't get the memo that they've been cast into the outer darkness ...

You're really not covering yourself in any sort of glory or even much credibility by refusing to address their definitions.

 

[d4m10n]

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

You see ANYTHING at all there about ANY anatomical organs?

You see anything about "male children" in there? Maybe they have some specific organs in common with the males doing the gamete production.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Steersman]

Okay, so a qualitative spectrum which cannot be plotted out with an underlying variable the way wavelengths are.

Exactly - more or less . Though as with my recent response to Emily - or her cat which seems to have a hairball stuck somewhere ... - we can generally use any arbitrary order we want - as long as the mapping is unique, a bijection in fact and if I'm not mistaken:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bijection,_injection_and_surjection

Lots of different ways of doing that, some better than others. I had thought of ordering the "karyotype-sex" spectrum by corresponding population size, but that could be "problematic" if two or more "karyotype-sexes" had the same population size.

I think you pasted in the wrong definition from Lexico, though, since the range of EM wavelengths is very much quantifiable. You might well consider definition 2.

Quite possibly, although I think I was thinking more about how the wavelengths definition had used the term "range" as a way of arguing that "spectrum" and "range" were more or less synonymous.

But another useful definition is this one:

spectrum (noun): 2) Used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points.

Emphasizing again something between two end points. But there again, the scale isn't explicitly calling for or suggesting any sort of ordinal variable common or intrinsic to all the elements in the spectrum.

 

[Steersman]

You see anything about "male children" in there? Maybe they have some specific organs in common with the males doing the gamete production.

I'm talking about the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership; you're trying to talk about a sentence that Lexico used as an example which conflicts with the conditions that are described in the definition.

Entirely different kettles of fish.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm talking about the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership; you're trying to talk about a sentence that Lexico used as an example which conflicts with the conditions that are described in the definition.

Almost as if the lexicographers themselves don't seem to think the defintion does what you think it does.

I wonder whom to trust more... [emoji56]

 

[d4m10n]

More example sentences using "male" from Lexico.

[Spoil]

[/spoil]

 

[Steersman]

Almost as if the lexicographers themselves don't seem to think the definition does what you think it does.

I wonder whom to trust more... [emoji56]

Oh ye of little faith ...

As I've mentioned before, it seems that lexicographers use some automated processes to acquire examples. Which are probably not designed to check for contradictions with the defining premises. Or maybe flunkies with the same limitations selected them.

But I've periodically wondered at the provenance of Lexico's & OED's definitions for the sexes. I've just used Google's NGram Viewer to search for "produces gametes" which gives zero results, at least for the quoted string. The unquoted version starts showing up about 1900 but haven't the foggiest idea how to interpret the results, or how to use the tool more effectively:

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

Not sure how else I can find that information, at least apart from subscribing to OED which probably has something.

But Parker at least more or less created a stipulative definition that goes back at least as far as 1972. Moot whether the dictionaries had virtually the same before then or whether Parker started the ball rolling.

 

[Steersman]

More example sentences using "male" from Lexico.

"boys" isn't much of a problem, at least if we define "boy" as "prepubescent XYer".

"male" is the problem. Unless you want to define it as a gender or gender identity ...

 

[bruto]

Discrete spectrum, yes. However, it's important to note that the variable under consideration is the number of wheels... and numbers are unquestionably ordinal. 1 < 2 < 3 < 4 < 6 < 18... etc.

True enough, just noting hastily that you can have a spectrum that is not a continuum.

 

[Steersman]

A discrete spectrum: motor vehicles, perhaps? Some have two wheels, some have three, some four, some 6 and so on, up past 18 for the big ones. But I think you will wait a long time for one with seven and a half wheels to roll by.

Sure - works for me ...

But curious and/or illuminating comment from the Wikipedia article:

A physical quantity is said to have a discrete spectrum if it takes only distinct values, with gaps between one value and the next.

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

Most if not all of the examples they talk about are, in fact, related to physical quantities of one sort or another.

But the Lexico examples - which should, of course, be accepted as gospel truth in this neck of the woods ... - show usages that pertain to applications which don't seem to have any such requirements:

spectrum (noun): 2.1) A wide range.
‘self-help books are covering a broader and broader spectrum’

‘The budding writers touched upon a wide spectrum of issues ranging from suspense, fantasy, ghosts, sporting rivalry to philosophy and science fiction.’

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

 

[Aber]

And the element that's common - in ALL those 7 million or species including the human species - is that sexual reproduction takes place as a result of "the union or fusion of two gametes [sperm and ova] that differ in size and/or form"; anisogamy:

Yes

What qualifies ANY member of ANY sexually-reproducing species - plants, fish, birds, insects, and mammals - as male or female is the type of gamete they produce; if they produce sperm then they're male, if they produce ova then they're female, and if they produce neither then they're sexless.

In reality if you extend it to all species then definition of the sex of an organism gets very complicated, as some species can change sex, in others sex is not set by chromosones but by size, or by temperature etc etc

Can you make it clear whether you are looking for a definition which works for ALL species (which will need to take account of all those exceptions) or one for humans, which will be MUCH simpler as it does not have to take into account all the exceptions found in other species?

 

[Steersman]

Yes
In reality if you extend it to all species then definition of the sex of an organism gets very complicated, as some species can change sex, in others sex is not set by chromosomes but by size, or by temperature etc etc.

Nope. You're conflating the criteria for membership in the sex categories which are pretty simple indeed - i.e., produces sperm or ova - with all of the different mechanisms of chromosomes and genitalia that are part of how actual sexual reproduction operates in all of those 7 million species.

The essential property of the categories "male" and "female" is "produces gametes"; all those other mechanisms are "accidental properties" that have no bearing whatsoever on sex category membership.

Fairly decent article on the topic below though it gets pretty convoluted pretty quickly. But the first couple of paragraphs should be sufficient to get the gist of the difference:

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

Can you make it clear whether you are looking for a definition which works for ALL species (which will need to take account of all those exceptions) or one for humans, which will be MUCH simpler as it does not have to take into account all the exceptions found in other species?

The existing definition does in fact "work for all species", for all sexually-reproducing species. There's no need at all to address any "exceptions", any differences between the species because they're irrelevant to the definition.

Does one need to address all the differences between different races, ethnicities, heights, weights, and sexes of teenagers to realize that they're irrelevant to the question of what makes them all members of that category in the first place?

But you might be interested in this recent, fairly decent article that discusses both those biological definitions and some history of sexual reproduction.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/how-our-shoes-can-help-explain-the

Though, as I've argued there, the article still winds up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory with another variation on the structure-absent-function definition.

 

[Lplus]

Show your work. I probably said that it worked for me as criteria for adjudicating competing claims to access various venues like toilets, change-rooms, and sports leagues.

Probably, but I really can't be bothered to go back through all your posts to find it. You claim to be trying to prevent the "transloonies" (your word) from blurring the presently used definitions of male and female for their own purposes but are only succeding in blurring those definitions for the purposes of philosophical rigor. Bizarre.

Roll your eyes as much as you want, the real world is the world that uses the definitions during it's daily life as part of that life, not the biologists lexicographers and philosophers who continue to argue over the definitions themselves in order to impress each other with their academic purity.

 

[Steersman]

Probably, but I really can't be bothered to go back through all your posts to find it. You claim to be trying to prevent the "transloonies" (your word) from blurring the presently used definitions of male and female for their own purposes but are only succeeding in blurring those definitions for the purposes of philosophical rigor. Bizarre.

It's not just "philosophical rigor" for its own sake. It's because sloppy thinking causes no end of problems.

Not much of problem in some cases, but in others - as in the transgender "debate" - it can have lethal consequences. Which the traditional definitions that you're defending or touting are contributing to.

Roll your eyes as much as you want, the real world is the world that uses the definitions during it's daily life as part of that life, not the biologists lexicographers and philosophers who continue to argue over the definitions themselves in order to impress each other with their academic purity.

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds

https://www.amazon.ca/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1539849589/

Kind of get the impression that if you had your druthers you would prefer that we were all back in the Dark Ages.

I'm no great fan of Academia - figure far too much of it has been rotted out by postmodernism, feminism, and transgender dogma. Case in point from Shermer's Substack on Walsh's documentary:

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.”

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

But there's also a great deal of value in the fields of science, philosophy, biology, and logic - much of which came out of Academia - which is hanging in the balance because of the pigheaded ignorance and scientific illiteracy of great swaths of the hoi polloi - part and parcel of that "real world" that you seem rather too quick to defend.

 

[Lplus]

It's not just "philosophical rigor" for its own sake. It's because sloppy thinking causes no end of problems.

Not much of problem in some cases, but in others - as in the transgender "debate" - it can have lethal consequences. Which the traditional definitions that you're defending or touting are contributing to.




Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds

https://www.amazon.ca/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1539849589/

Kind of get the impression that if you had your druthers you would prefer that we were all back in the Dark Ages.

I'm no great fan of Academia - figure far too much of it has been rotted out by postmodernism, feminism, and transgender dogma. Case in point from Shermer's Substack on Walsh's documentary:



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

But there's also a great deal of value in the fields of science, philosophy, biology, and logic - much of which came out of Academia - which is hanging in the balance because of the pigheaded ignorance and scientific illiteracy of great swaths of the hoi polloi - part and parcel of that "real world" that you seem rather too quick to defend.

That last paragraph of yours really does indicate a seriously distorted view of the world. The hoi polloi for whom you show such disdain are not driving these changes, they have no interest or part in discussing these changes and they would be quite happy to stop these changes which are affecting their lives - just as you would. Does that also make you someone who would return to the dark ages?

Do I defend the hoi polloi? In so far as I don't think they are even vaguely responsible for the "postmodernism, feminism, and transgender dogma" you complain about then yes I do. I don't believe they have any part in developing what you call "transloony" dogma, unlike certain sectors of academia and politics. So stop whinging about the great unwashed and start gathering a consensus of academics to find usable definitions for male and female that might achieve your aims, even if it means holding your nose at the stink of philosophical heresy.

 

[d4m10n]

"boys" isn't much of a problem, at least if we define "boy" as "prepubescent XYer".

You skimmed the examples too fast; I'll excerpt a few of the relevant ones here.

‘Brit Milah, or circumcision, is performed on a Jewish male eight days after he is born.’

‘Infant male circumcision as practised by the Jews occurs on the eighth day after birth.’

From the above-mentioned entry on circumcision.

And here are some more examples from Lexico:

'Researchers studying male infertility now have a new way of studying sperm function.'

From the entry on infertility.

‘The procedure identifies and sorts sperm into two types determining whether a fertilised egg develops into a male or female embryo.’

‘There are many reasons for male infertility, including low sperm count, inactive or incompletely formed sperms and other factors that hamper fertilisation.’

From the entry on sperm.

‘The cause of male infertility according to the medical model of infertility is due to abnormal sperm parameters, azoospermia and antisperm antibodies.’

From the entry on azoospermia.

‘This means that when females cannot detect costly mates, the strength of selection on females increases with the frequency of sterile males in the population.’

From the entry on sterile.

‘the disease can cause sterility in males’

From the entry on sterility.

You would have us believe that Lexico may be trusted in spelling out all the necessary and sufficient conditions of maleness, but also that their editors get their own definitions wrong over and over whenever they refer to what you'd prefer to call "pre-males" or otherwise sterile males. I don't think this is a sensible approach at all, since the examples are chosen to illustrate usage.

 

[Steersman]

You skimmed the examples too fast; I'll excerpt a few of the relevant ones here.

Yeah, I got the picture. And I said so:

"male" is the problem. Unless you want to define it as a gender or gender identity ...

Why your later examples are largely a case of missing the point.

You would have us believe that Lexico may be trusted in spelling out all the necessary and sufficient conditions of maleness, but also that their editors get their own definitions wrong over and over whenever they refer to what you'd prefer to call "pre-males" or otherwise sterile males. I don't think this is a sensible approach at all, since the examples are chosen to illustrate usage.

Clearly a case of the left-hand not knowing what the right is doing - lotta that goin' round these days.

Again, usage is no guarantee of accuracy or logical coherence. Not much of a problem if we recognize many of those uses as cases of sloppy or motivated "thinking", ellipsis, or synecdoche. A serious if not fatal one if we try to use them as the basis for any sort of reasoned argument; the results are often little better than equivocation, intentional or not:

A feather is light [not heavy].
What is light [bright] cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.

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

It's now "common use" to use "male" and "female" to refer to gender or gender-identity, the editors at Merriam-Webster having given their blessings to the latter:

female (adjective): 1b: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

And Wikipedia to the former:

In humans, the word female can also be used to refer to gender.[5][6]

5) L. Gordon, "On difference", in Genders (1991), p. 95
6) Laura Palazzani, Gender in Philosophy and Law (2012), page v

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

If you have no criteria at all, no rational or justifiable principles for determining which uses are justified or not then you really don't have a leg to stand on when political opportunists take advantage of ones that aren't.

"First they came for our logical, scientific, and philosophical principles ..."