Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Steersman]

<snip>
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.

jimmies rustled?

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?

Not quite sure how you think the popularity of a position cuts much ice by itself. How do you fancy your chances of going to, say, Saudi Arabia and trying to convince passers-by that Muhammad, piss be upon his name, was a child molester, a mass-murderer and a psychotic?

Unpopular opinions tend to be - surprise, surprise - rather "unpopular". Apropos of which, something on "What You Can't Say" from a fairly impressive dude:

If you could travel back in a time machine, one thing would be true no matter where you went: you'd have to watch what you said. Opinions we consider harmless could have gotten you in big trouble. I've already said at least one thing that would have gotten me in big trouble in most of Europe in the seventeenth century, and did get Galileo in big trouble when he said it — that the earth moves. [1]

It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)

But, now that you mention "clearing up some confusion", I've garnered a couple of recent likes for this comment of mine:

By the standard biological definitions based on the presence of reproductive functions, on the ability to actually reproduce, "she" is neither male nor female, she is sexless because she's incapable of producing either type of gamete. No gametes, no reproduction, no sex. She probably suffers from "complete androgen insensitivity syndrome [CAIS]", another Wikipedia article you might try reading, but that doesn't grant her membership in either sex category.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HMjnPc_O6M&lc=UgxCOpXABzqX3VIYTRl4AaABAg.9bUppNxyWgO9bcSjvCx68H

"Rome" wasn't built in a day, and won't be torn down in one either.

And do you have any examples of where you showed compassion to anyone?

Generally a two-way street; tit-for-tat and all that.

 

[Steersman]

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.

You're trying to exclude a rather smallish percentage of those 7 million sexually-reproducing species - apparently because it apparently offends the vanity or prior commitments of a smallish segment of one of them.

I'm trying - Lexico, Parker & Lehtonen, Google/OED are trying - to include in two named categories the maximum number of species who happen to share the rather important property of being able to reproduce because, you know, they're able to produce, habitually, one gamete or the other:

In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

Do most mammalian species - including the human one - share that property, that rather important "characteristic" or not?

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.

A rather "artificial" - as opposed to a natural - example. You might just as well say because you found some books that have the passage "2+2=5" that the entire edifice of mathematics should be declared null and void.

Now IF the premise was "all swans are white" and you found a black swan - a natural example - THEN you might have had a case. But it isn't, you didn't and you don't.

 

[Steersman]

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.

Sooo ******* WHAT?

One of the definitions for "male" and "female" is, essentially, "has convex and concave mating surfaces":

Reference to implements with sockets and corresponding parts is from 1660s.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841

You seriously think that that might have some relevance to biology? Maybe Jenner and has ilk now have a solid claim on "female"?

That there are various definitions means diddly-squat. The issue is which ones apply to ALL sexually-reproducing species.

You have one? One that's been published in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and peer-reviewed biological journals that endorse that structure-absent-function schlock?

What a joke.

 

[porch]

That there are various definitions means diddly-squat. The issue is which ones apply to ALL sexually-reproducing species.

I happen to think that Griffiths is successful in coming up with a definition that applies to all sexually reproducing species. It just isn't good for much else. Remember, Griffiths does not want anyone to use his biological definition for social policy. For humans, that is. And remember that you do not use your own biological definition when it comes to human affairs - you start going on about karyotypes for id cards and artificially constructed genitals for locker rooms.

What, exactly, is your point here?

 

[Steersman]

I happen to think that Griffiths is successful in coming up with a definition that applies to all sexually reproducing species.

I rather doubt that he created it out of whole cloth himself. His Aeon article was 2020, but Parker & Lehtonen were 2014 & 1972, while the Wikipedia article on "female" cites two sources in 2005 & 2015.

It just isn't good for much else.

Apart from getting a handle on some 7 million sexually-reproducing species, that is ...

Remember, Griffiths does not want anyone to use his biological definition for social policy. For humans, that is. And remember that you do not use your own biological definition when it comes to human affairs - you start going on about karyotypes for id cards and artificially constructed genitals for locker rooms.

If the biological definitions aren't of much use in adjudicating competing claims to access toilets, change-rooms and sports then maybe something else - like karyotypes - might be a better bet?

Getting stuck in squabbling over the definitions for the sexes seems a classic case of the monkey trap:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman

What, exactly, is your point here?

Good question. Someone once said that when you go to change something you often find it connected to everything else in the universe.

Part of that "monkey-trap" seems to be, as many have said, "the politicisation of the definition of sex":

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13029

Kind of think that the most effective way of rectifying that, to get off the horns of that dilemma, to cut that Gordian Knot is by falling back on the bedrock biological definitions - and letting the chips fall where they may.

Since you seem to be a Canuck also and ICYMI, you might also be interested in my tale of tangling with Statistics Canada over gender and gender identity:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted

May also help to clarify exactly "what is my point here".

 

[Rolfe]

I thought you were retired - every day is a holiday. .

People who are retired also go on holiday you know.

Greetings from a river cruise boat on the Danube, currently moored at Budapest. Do carry on. But I now have only a phone so I'll consider it a spectator sport.

 

[d4m10n]

If the biological definitions aren't of much use in adjudicating competing claims to access toilets, change-rooms and sports then maybe something else - like karyotypes - might be a better bet?

Karyotype won't tell you if an XY individual has complete androgen insensitivity, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that those individuals ought to utilize the men's rooms.

 

[Lplus]

Karyotype won't tell you if an XY individual has complete androgen insensitivity, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that those individuals ought to utilize the men's rooms.

I thought that the problem with rest rooms was with intrusion of certain individuals into the females' rest rooms as opposed to the males'.

 

[theprestige]

I thought that the problem with rest rooms was with intrusion of certain individuals into the females' rest rooms as opposed to the males'.

For me, a lot of the problem is the people who know exactly what we mean, but choose to play dumb anyway for ideological reasons.

This whole rigamarole about finding newer, tighter, less-exploitable definitions for "male" and "female" is made necessary by those people, who are looking to establish a loophole large enough to drive a penis through.

So sometimes in these conversations, I use "men" and "women" as a kind of shibboleth.

 

[theprestige]

A rather "artificial" - as opposed to a natural - example. You might just as well say because you found some books that have the passage "2+2=5" that the entire edifice of mathematics should be declared null and void.

Now IF the premise was "all swans are white" and you found a black swan - a natural example - THEN you might have had a case. But it isn't, you didn't and you don't.

Oof. Such terrible analogies! Let's try talking about the thing itself in its own terms: The actual premise is, "the dictionary agrees with Steersman". We have found examples of the dictionary disagreeing with Steersman. So already we know the premise has been falsified. The dictionary does not actually agree with you. The argument from that premise, "the dictionary agrees with Steersman, therefore Steersman's definition is the correct and widely-used definition" is thus rebutted by the failure of its premise. Your conclusion is falsified by the falsification of your premise, established by counter-examples to your claim.

For me, the most hilarious and also most depressing part of your argument is how vehemently you appeal to the dictionary as an authority for your claims, but how quickly you dismiss its authority whenever it contradicts your claims.

 

[Lplus]

For me, a lot of the problem is the people who know exactly what we mean, but choose to play dumb anyway for ideological reasons.

This whole rigamarole about finding newer, tighter, less-exploitable definitions for "male" and "female" is made necessary by those people, who are looking to establish a loophole large enough to drive a penis through.

So sometimes in these conversations, I use "men" and "women" as a kind of shibboleth.

Yeah, ok, I get it, but I do think it behoves at least a few of us to use the correct words where possible, just to prove it really can be done.

 

[d4m10n]

I thought that the problem with rest rooms was with intrusion of certain individuals into the females' rest rooms as opposed to the males'.

Steersman's proposed system based on karyotype would put CAIS individuals in male spaces and put people with de la Chapelle syndrome^WP in female spaces.

 

[Lplus]

Steersman's proposed system based on karyotype would put CAIS individuals in male spaces and put people with de la Chapelle syndrome^WP in female spaces.

Ok, got it. I seem to remember Rolfe mentioning this at some point in the past as the only downside of using karyotypes.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah, ok, I get it, but I do think it behoves at least a few of us to use the correct words where possible, just to prove it really can be done. : D

"Men" and "women" are the correct words. I only need to resort to "male" and "female" when someone is insisting that gender is a social construct and sex is irrelevant.

 

[d4m10n]

Ok, got it. I seem to remember Rolfe mentioning this at some point in the past as the only downside of using karyotypes.

The other downside is that loads of people don't know their karyotype.

 

[Steersman]

People who are retired also go on holiday you know.

Greetings from a river cruise boat on the Danube, currently moored at Budapest. Do carry on. But I now have only a phone so I'll consider it a spectator sport.

Sounds lovely.

But nice to know that you're there in the background keeping us all honest ...

 

[Steersman]

Karyotype won't tell you if an XY individual has complete androgen insensitivity, and I don't think anyone here is arguing that those individuals ought to utilize the men's rooms.

Probably a fair point.

But I think we need to focus first on the objective. Which seems to be to keep penis-havers - or those previously sporting them - out of more or less public venues that are deemed - rightly or wrongly - reserved for the exclusive use of vagina-havers.

HOW we reach that objective - and actually reaching it - seems far more important than the names we attach to members of those categories. Focusing more on the latter than the former seems a classic case of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel whole.

Need to put the former up to the "Ways and Means" committee; maybe adding sections for genitalia, or SRY gene presence, or more precise specifications on karyotype to include androgen sensitivities. Some solutions might be more practical and cost-effective than others, but that objective may help to "sharpen the mind wonderfully" - so to speak.

 

[Lplus]

Probably a fair point.

But I think we need to focus first on the objective. Which seems to be to keep penis-havers - or those previously sporting them - out of more or less public venues that are deemed - rightly or wrongly - reserved for the exclusive use of vagina-havers.

HOW we reach that objective - and actually reaching it - seems far more important than the names we attach to members of those categories. Focusing more on the latter than the former seems a classic case of straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel whole.

Need to put the former up to the "Ways and Means" committee; maybe adding sections for genitalia, or SRY gene presence, or more precise specifications on karyotype to include androgen sensitivities. Some solutions might be more practical and cost-effective than others, but that objective may help to "sharpen the mind wonderfully" - so to speak.

I understood from previous conversations on this board that it's the penis havers who are the real problem - those who are prepared to surgically remove their male genitalia to pass as women may be sufficiently committed to be accepted by the vagina havers. Perhaps the females on the forum could chime in? A further complication perhaps but maybe one worth considering now rather than later.

 

[theprestige]

I understood from previous conversations on this board that it's the penis havers who are the real problem - those who are prepared to surgically remove their male genitalia to pass as women may be sufficiently committed to be accepted by the vagina havers. Perhaps the females on the forum could chime in? A further complication perhaps but maybe one worth considering.

If we follow Steersman's recommendation, the females can't chime in until we define female in a way that includes clownfish. And even then, they'd still have to prove they were actively in the process of being impregnated, in order to have standing in this discussion.

 

[Lplus]

If we follow Steersman's recommendation, the females can't chime in until we define female in a way that includes clownfish. And even then, they'd still have to prove they were actively in the process of being impregnated, in order to have standing in this discussion.

Dammit where's the smilie for :facepalm: when you want it.