Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Matthew Best]

The last 11 words of that post are unnecessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steersman]

The clownfish rebuttal need not concern us when deciding on public policies for sex-segregated spaces in human societies. Nor need it concern us in a discussion of DSD conditions arising in humans. If that's where you have to go to find your contradictions, then you will end up far outside the problem space you started in, and have nothing useful to say about problems and solutions within that space. As we have seen.

No true Scotsmen ....

Little better than sticking your head in the sand. "Nothing to see here, move along ..."

 

[theprestige]

No true Scotsmen ....

Little better than sticking your head in the sand. "Nothing to see here, move along ..." : rolleyes :

Clownfish aren't Scotsmen. We don't need to worry about solving for clownfish, when we're trying to solve for Scotsmen.

Am I correct in understanding that you believe that defining sex in mammals in terms of the binary developmental pathways for reproduction in mammals works just fine for mammals, but must be rejected because it doesn't also work for clownfish?

 

[d4m10n]

Because you can't possibly unhorse people like Novella if you haven't a clue where they're coming from or how to interpret what they're saying.

I thought the Quack-O-Meter takedown of Novella et. al. was quite effective, though. Your objection to that piece appears to be that it uses terms like "male" in a way that you don't, even though you're the only one who uses them as you do.

 

[Steersman]

Clownfish aren't Scotsmen. We don't need to worry about solving for clownfish, when we're trying to solve for Scotsmen.

Am I correct in understanding that you believe that defining sex in mammals in terms of the binary developmental pathways for reproduction in mammals works just fine for mammals, but must be rejected because it doesn't also work for clownfish?

I'd like to see how you could rationalize having one definition for 99.9% of the 7 million sexually-reproducing species on the planet and another quite contradictory one for one of them .... Some fancy footwork, indeed; championship quality special pleading:

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

Would you have the latter one for the kiddies in their social-studies classes, and a contradictory one in their biology classes?

Think you need to give your head a shake.

 

[Steersman]

I thought the Quack-O-Meter takedown of Novella et. al. was quite effective, though. Your objection to that piece appears to be that it uses terms like "male" in a way that you don't, even though you're the only one who uses them as you do.

He's still desperately committed to that structure-absent-function definition of the so-called social sciences:

On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences 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

You - all - might try reading that article of Del Giudice's on "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender".

But not impressed either that Andy deleted/blocked my last two comments - hardly better than PZ. At least Novella hasn't done so ...

 

[porch]

That's because of your premise, because of your article of faith. Because you're dogmatically committed to the idea that every one, every member of every last sexually-reproducing species is either male or female - from birth to death. And probably beyond too ...

Where do you get that from? That's not my position at all, let alone my dogma. My position is that one word can have different definitions that are useful for different situations. For example, I think Griffiths' definition is just fine. It's just fine for his tiny academic niche, and getting paid to write articles for feelgood internet magazines. For just about anything else, it's stupid and useless. He even says that it's useless for human affairs. And if you want to clownfish, then sure it makes sense to talk about undifferentiated juveniles. It's also my position that your definition is 1) unclear, 2) stupid, and 3) useless for absolutely everything.

Any thoughts on Lehtonen and Parker's usage of male and female that I pointed out in post 573?

 

[d4m10n]

You - all - might try reading that article of Del Giudice's on "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender".

You might try addressing Lehtonen and Parker's usage at #573, before we move on to Del Giudice.

 

[theprestige]

I'd like to see how you could rationalize having one definition for 99.9% of the 7 million sexually-reproducing species on the planet and another quite contradictory one for one of them .... Some fancy footwork, indeed; championship quality special pleading:

Restricting solutions to a particular problem space or domain is not special pleading.

We need not address clownfish in a discussion of sexual development in humans. We need not address clownfish in a discussion of defining sex categories for humans. We need not address clownfish when discussing public policy for sex-segregation in human societies. It is not special pleading to exclude clownfish from these contexts.

It is a dishonest and irrational gambit by trans-rights activists to try to insist we should consider clownfish in these contexts. The simplest solution is to point out that clownfish aren't relevant to these questions about humans. You refuse to accept this solution, though. Why?

 

[Steersman]

<snip>
It's also my position that your definition is 1) unclear, 2) stupid, and 3) useless for absolutely everything.

AKA, "entirely unevidenced opinion" ....

Any thoughts on Lehtonen and Parker's usage of male and female that I pointed out in post 573?

A "blonde moment"? Who knows.

You have any dictionary or journal articles that explicitly endorse that structure-absent-function schlock that you, Hilton and others are peddling?

 

[Steersman]

You might try addressing Lehtonen and Parker's usage at #573, before we move on to Del Giudice.

See above.

But those intersex people you said were neither male nor female - they a third sex in a spectrum of three or more, or are they sexless?

 

[Steersman]

Restricting solutions to a particular problem space or domain is not special pleading.

Trying to insist that the biological definitions that apply to some 7 million sexually-reproducing species shouldn't apply to one of them - which, mirabile dictu, happens to be us - IS.

The simplest solution is to point out that clownfish aren't relevant to these questions about humans. You refuse to accept this solution, though. Why?

In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion.[2][3]

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

 

[d4m10n]

You have any dictionary or journal articles that explicitly endorse that structure-absent-function schlock that you, Hilton and others are peddling?

Where "others" should be taken to include Lehtonen and Parker, regardless of their hair color.

But those intersex people you said were neither male nor female - they a third sex in a spectrum of three or more, or are they sexless?

I've already answered this, but once again, spectra require something you can measure as a continuous or discrete variable, like wavelength or hair follicles per mm².

 

[porch]

Regarding definitions and utility, Steersman, let's review your goals for a moment. My understanding, from what you've said, is that you have two goals.

1) To clear up confusion.
2) To compassionately protect "vagina-havers", as you say.

Now, you've given us a lot of citations about various internet conflicts you've had with different parties, and all the places you've been blocked or banned in the course of your proselytizing. If one had different goals, say using words as some kind of misanthropic weapon, and generally being an insufferable twat, that might be good evidence of utility. Of course, that's not what you're going for. Do you have any self-citations of conversations where, Idunno, you convinced someone to adopt your definition? Or maybe if they didn't outright adopt your definition, it nonetheless led to a productive discussion? Do you have any examples from anywhere on the web where you cleared up confusion? Any examples where you successfully advanced the cause of protecting women through your usage of words? And do you have any examples of where you showed compassion to anyone?

 

[theprestige]

Trying to insist that the biological definitions that apply to some 7 million sexually-reproducing species shouldn't apply to one of them - which, mirabile dictu, happens to be us - IS.


: rolleyes :

The biological definition I'm applying to humans (to address a uniquely human problem, mind you) actually applies to all mammals.

You're the one who says we should reject it because it doesn't also apply to clownfish and nematodes.

 

[Lithrael]

I don’t know, but I’m certainly enjoying his posts. I think it’s a fascinating approach.

What are you coming to a forum like this for if diving into the semantics and peculiars of a hot-button issue to see what you can find at the bottom, strikes you as obnoxious and rustles your jimmies?

 

[porch]

I don’t know, but I’m certainly enjoying his posts. I think it’s a fascinating approach.

What are you coming to a forum like this for if diving into the semantics and peculiars of a hot-button issue to see what you can find at the bottom, strikes you as obnoxious and rustles your jimmies?

You're right, in that I should probably step away from the internet for a while to reduce inflammation. Maybe I am so into semantic dissections that I just can't stand it when someone is doing it all wrong.

 

[porch]

But one more thing!

A "blonde moment"? Who knows.

Well, I have a hunch that they understand that the same word can be used in different ways in different contexts. Again, I will refer you to Lehtonen and Parker's glossary:

The definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘sexes’ vary.

 

[Steersman]

Where "others" should be taken to include Lehtonen and Parker, regardless of their hair color.

Examples don't count for much, particularly where they contradict the premise or definition in play.

I've already answered this, but once again, spectra require something you can measure as a continuous or discrete variable, like wavelength or hair follicles per mm².

No, it doesn't:

spectrum (noun):

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

‘the left or the right of the political spectrum’

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.’

‘You've seen their work in a wide spectrum of venues ranging from Fast Forward to Time magazine, and now you can see it in person.’

‘Economic geography supposedly has a wide spectrum of subjects, ranging from agrarian and pastoral economies to resource utilization and changes in land use.’

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=13875404

 

[theprestige]

Examples don't count for much, particularly where they contradict the premise or definition in play.

Counter-examples that falsify a premise count for a lot, actually. In fact, one might say that in terms of the arguments founded on that premise, the counter-examples count for everything.