Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Rolfe]

Yeah. Those loathsome men. Those men who demand access to women's intimate spaces. If that's not you, then the cap doesn't fit. Don't wear it.

 

[Steersman]

Nope. I said they wouldn't be males if they never have and never will produce male gametes.

Yes, and you've also agreed that "This thread has already achieved such a consensus: The developmental pathways definition."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13877653&postcount=1778

By which those "who never have and never will produce sperm" qualify as males.

Make up your mind; **** or get off the pot.

People who have a mix of male and female characteristics and cannot be sexed by gamete production are neither male, female, nor a third sex.

So - "sexless" then?

Or maybe you think that category is a physical or logical impossibility? Like unicorns or square circles?

Though I have to wonder at your "gamete production" - you now "think" that "gamete production" (habitually, present tense indefinite) might qualify as a necessary and sufficient condition to qualify humans - and members of the other 99.99999% of sexually-reproducing species - as either male or female?

This thread is about people, not fish. Some rabbit holes go too far down even for me.

That's because you throw away any solid point of reference or anchor for your rope when you go spelunking down those rabbit holes. Point-blank refusing to define your terms with any coherence or consistency or scientific accuracy is the problem. Which you're part and parcel of:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7799868-if-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-define-your-terms

I don't think so. People like Caster Semenya^WP are used as a conversational red herring to distract from people like Andraya Yearwood^WP.

Am I doing so?

 

[Steersman]

Yeah. Those loathsome men. Those men who demand access to women's intimate spaces. If that's not you, then the cap doesn't fit. Don't wear it.

You may have something of a point there.

Reminds me of a passage from Dune that I've just finished re-reading. The scene is the dining hall on Arrakis where Paul has made something of a general comment which one guest has taken "exception" to. Paul's mother, Jessica, responds with:

My son displays a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit? What a fascinating revelation. [pg. 150]

Though I might point out that "men" who've had their nuts removed no longer qualify as such, at least as "adult human males (sex)"; they're just sexless eunuchs.

See the benefits of defining one's terms accurately and scientifically? See the article on the monkey trap

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

But somewhat en passant, and relative to the previously mentioned transman Ben and "his" new "penis", I wonder whether you would be "creeped" out if he were forced to use the lady's loo and you saw him in a cubicle with the door open standing in front of the toilet while peeing ...

 

[d4m10n]

Yes, and you've also agreed that "This thread has already achieved such a consensus: The developmental pathways definition."

Yes, it has, and that definition makes a fair bit more sense in that context (social/policy) than this one (devbio).

By which those "who never have and never will produce sperm" qualify as males.

An example would be illustrative here. Who has a male body habitus but never produces any sperm?

So - "sexless" then?

You seem obsessed with getting people to use precisely the same words you do; it's not productive.

Or maybe you think that category is a physical or logical impossibility?

Maybe I think the word is more likely to engender confusion or anger than clarity or thoughtfulness.

Though I have to wonder at your "gamete production" - you now "think" that "gamete production" (habitually, present tense indefinite) might qualify as a necessary and sufficient condition to qualify humans - and members of the other 99.99999% of sexually-reproducing species - as either male or female?

I'm not commenting on other species here.

Point-blank refusing to define your terms with any coherence or consistency or scientific accuracy is the problem.

This is rich, coming from the only person in the entire Anglophone world who refers to half of newborns as sexless pre-males.

Sent from my Bravado Banshee using Tapatalk

 

[Lithrael]

I haven’t scoured the whole thread; did you have a term of preference for intersex humans who are neither male nor female? Or do you say the whole sentence each time you refer to them?

 

[d4m10n]

I haven’t scoured the whole thread; did you have a term of preference for intersex humans who are neither male nor female?

"Intersex"

 

[Steersman]

Yes, it has, and that definition makes a fair bit more sense in that context (social/policy) than this one (devbio).

Methinks you're evading my point that you've tendered two quite different if not entirely contradictory definitions for the sexes ...

What tangled webs we weave ...

An example would be illustrative here. Who has a male body habitus but never produces any sperm?

Courtesy of an earlier post of yours:

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

You seem obsessed with getting people to use precisely the same words you do; it's not productive.

Not quite sure how you think we can have productive conversations if everyone and their dogs, cats and gerbils has entirely different definitions for the words in play. Or without, at least a "English-Woke" dictionary - and I'd put you in the second group - to translate from one group to the other.

I think I'll just mentally replace your "intersex" with "sexless"; I expect you'd probably choke - have a stroke, an "attack of the vapors" - if you actually had to say the latter word ...

But I wonder how "productive" you think it is that pretty much everyone is engaged in endless and enervating squabbling over contradictory definitions for sex and gender. As of May 2022, some 38% of Amuricans “think” gender can be different from sex assigned at birth while some 60% “think” that “gender is determined by sex assigned at birth”:

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-...ws-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/

And that’s apart from all the nutcases who “think” that “sex is immutable”, "socially constructed" , or a spectrum.

What a joke. It would be funny – like a dog chasing its tail – if it weren’t for the horrific consequences.

Maybe I think the word is more likely to engender confusion or anger than clarity or thoughtfulness.

What causes confusion is contradictory and inconsistent definitions - "from contradictions, anything follows".

But I seriously wonder how you think "anger", or "being offended" should count for anything more than diddly-squat - regardless who it's coming from. You seem to think it should be trump if it's from those who are clearly "offended" at being deprived of their membership cards in the "female" category, but don't seem to express the same degree of "solicitousness" for the transgendered who are likewise "offended" at being deprived of their claim to "woman":

Trans woman is often spelled with a space, with trans as an adjective modifying the noun woman, similar to Asian woman, tall woman, fat woman, etc. The unspaced spelling transwoman is sometimes used interchangeably, including by a few transgender people. However, it is often associated with views (notably gender-critical feminism) that hold transgender women are not women, and thus require a separate word from woman to describe them. For this reason many transgender people find transwoman offensive.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/trans_woman#Usage_notes

Bit hypocritical at best. You might at least reflect on Stephen Fry's pithy comments about getting offended (Coles Notes version: "So ******* what?"):

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

I'm not commenting on other species here.

You remind me of the Englishman who was so stiff-upper-lipped that he wouldn't say **** even with a mouth full of it.

I must have fallen in with a bunch of maiden aunts who seem congenitally incapable of calling a spade an ******* shovel. Dogma, of one sort or another, rots the mind:

Rule 13 of Ignatius' Rules for Thinking with the Church said: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity[...], if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...er_Secondary_School,_Dindigul&oldid=797030740

This is rich, coming from the only person in the entire Anglophone world who refers to half of newborns as sexless pre-males.

You don't seem to have a clue about any of the principles of philosophy and logic on which much of science, biology in particular, is founded - or show much willingness to learn. Though, to be fair, many so-called biologists and philosophers are in the same leaky boat.

It's a logical consequence of the biological definitions that those who don't meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership are, ipso facto, NOT members of those categories. It's NOT necessary that the definitions explicitly say so. As it's NOT necessary that the definitions for the categories "bachelor" and "teenager" SAY that married people - of either or no sex - and that those younger than 13 or older than 19 are, respectively, NOT bachelors and NOT teenagers.

 

[Lplus]

Yeah. Those loathsome men. Those men who demand access to women's intimate spaces. If that's not you, then the cap doesn't fit. Don't wear it.

No, not my bag at at all, but I was also referring to those males who refuse to "take responsibility for gender non conforming males" (aka trans women) who I assume have no wish to be taken care of by males at all, at least in terms of "mens' spaces". You do seem to suggest a certain animosity to them as well.

Does that include me? No idea, never personally been faced with the question.

 

[Aber]

It's a logical consequence of the biological definitions that those who don't meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership are, ipso facto, NOT members of those categories.

And?

Most participants in this thread are aware that trying to have a single definition of sex categories for humans and clownfish is pointless for practical purposes, and a philosophical dead-end.

Have fun with your definitions, but don't expect people to agree that what you're doing is worthwhile.

 

[d4m10n]

Methinks you're evading my point that you've tendered two quite different if not entirely contradictory definitions for the sexes

Your point would be worth addressing if true, but acknowledging an emergent consensus is not the same as tendering a definition.

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

Once again, an example would be illustrative here. That link describes a range of possible conditions, some of which are indeed DSDs.

Not quite sure how you think we can have productive conversations if everyone and their dogs, cats and gerbils has entirely different definitions for the words in play.

And yet you have given us definitions of "male" and "female" which literally no one uses other than yourself. The rest of us are perfectly comfortable with "male infants" and all the other example sentences from Lexico.

Or without, at least a "English-Woke" dictionary - and I'd put you in the second group - to translate from one group to the other.

Why are you bringing up wokeness here? Who has invoked some sort of post-modern (re) definition for the sake of social justice?

I think I'll just mentally replace your "intersex" with "sexless"

Whatever works for you, I'm not about to ask you to use the same words I would.

But I wonder how "productive" you think it is that pretty much everyone is engaged in endless and enervating squabbling over contradictory definitions for sex and gender.

Once again, you've introduced new definitions which no one else cares to use. Has that helped move the conversation along, in your view?

As of May 2022, some 38% of Amuricans “think” gender can be different from sex assigned at birth while some 60% “think” that “gender is determined by sex assigned at birth”

What does this have to do with DSDs?

You seem to think it should be trump if it's from those who are clearly "offended" at being deprived of their membership cards in the "female" category, but don't seem to express the same degree of "solicitousness" for the transgendered who are likewise "offended" at being deprived of their claim to "woman"

Once again, you are trying to drag the trans debate into this thread which I created specifically to keep intersex issues separate from the trans debate.

Bit hypocritical at best. You might at least reflect on Stephen Fry's pithy comments about getting offended

You might want to stop telling other people that they need to take your approach to conversation.

You remind me of the Englishman who was so stiff-upper-lipped that he wouldn't say ◊◊◊◊ even with a mouth full of it.

You remind me of someone who forgets to address the argument instead of the arguer.

 

[Lithrael]

"Intersex"

Ah, ok. Forest for trees, lol. Could I describe your position as:

“people are either ‘one of two sexes’ or ‘that persons stuff that was supposed to do ‘being one of two sexes’ isn’t working’”

aka male, female, or intersex; where intersex is not a third thing but rather just.. idk the pile that is left after you finish putting everyone in box a or box b.(?)

I’m enjoying reading everybody’s posts, please continue.

 

[d4m10n]

Could I describe your position as:

“people are either ‘one of two sexes’ or ‘that persons stuff that was supposed to do ‘being one of two sexes’ isn’t working’”

That is nearly correct. The only problem is that nature isn't "supposed to do" anything, really, it's all just molecules in motion, some of which happened upon a way of making copies. If an individual has some physiological traits from one sexual pathway and some from the other pathway, we can suppose what was "supposed" to happen, but I doubt we can do so scientifically.

Your "AKA" was spot on, though.

 

[theprestige]

aka male, female, or intersex; where intersex is not a third thing but rather just.. idk the pile that is left after you finish putting everyone in box a or box b.(?)

Not the way I see it. Rather, I see "intersex" as a misleading term for conditions arising from either:

(a) failure of full development along one or the other binary development path; or

(b) elements from both developmental paths both trying to develop in the same individual.

It's always Box A (male) or Box B (female). Sometimes the box isn't full. Sometimes it's an inclusive or, in which case neither box contributes a full set.

At no point is there a third sex emerging from any of this. At no point is there a spectrum of sexes. At no point is there anything "left over" after the two developmental pathways are identified. It's always just the two sexual development paths, and failure modes arising from there being two such paths (i.e., failure modes arising from each path on its own, and failure modes arising from unfortunate genetic mixing of the two paths).

 

[Rolfe]

I don’t think there is any way to do it that can make the Rolfes happy. Even if we just straight up say “the ladies’ room is only for people who clearly ping female” the only people who will be excluded would be poorly passing trans women and mannish women, and I suspect the Rolfes would still be second guessing your Bea Arthurs and Michelle Obamas.

To tackle that completely you’d have to go beyond “Karotype plus caveats for CAIS etc” until you had a rule that told you exactly where to put everyone that the internet says “that’s a man!” about. Because people do routinely ping (what we are actually trying to talk about as meaningfully female) people as (what we are actually trying to talk about as meaningfully male).

If Rolfe argues that she has never pinged anyone incorrectly I propose that Rolfe could be in charge of the bathroom gender check. It might put a crimp on her free time. Maybe she could codify her ping.

That's more or less hilarious from a proponent of the view that a genital inspection is necessary before anyone is permitted into spaces for those who have a penis or a reasonable facsimile thereof, and those who have a vagina or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

All human beings can correctly sex others of their own species to a very high degree of accuracy without requiring them to show their genital configuration. However, as soon as you decide to allow individuals who have had surgery which is invisible when the person is clothed to access the facilities of the opposite sex, how do you propose to police this?

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Steersman:

It's a logical consequence of the biological definitions that those who don't meet the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership are, ipso facto, NOT members of those categories.

And?

Most participants in this thread are aware that trying to have a single definition of sex categories for humans and clownfish is pointless for practical purposes, and a philosophical dead-end.

Have fun with your definitions, but don't expect people to agree that what you're doing is worthwhile.

So?

Many participants in this "debate", particularly outside this echo chamber, are aware that having single definitions for the terms "male" and "female" is pointless for practical purposes and a philosophical dead-end ... See JPGs below for cases in point.

Have fun with your quite idiosyncratic and unscientific definitions, but don't expect others outside this small circle of friends to endorse them. Particularly as no one here has tendered any evidence whatsoever that those definitions of yours have any currency or weight at all in anything that passes for credible scientific journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

 

[Steersman]

That's more or less hilarious from a proponent of the view that a genital inspection is necessary before anyone is permitted into spaces ....

Kinda think you're barking up the wrong tree there. It seems to be less a case of actually enforcing such inspections than in stipulating which types of genitalia - or reasonable facsimiles thereof - are required and which are verboten.

Anyone clearly trans-gressing - so to speak - such requirements can then justifiably have the law put on their tails.

...for those who have a penis or a reasonable facsimile thereof, and those who have a vagina or a reasonable facsimile thereof.

All human beings can correctly sex others of their own species to a very high degree of accuracy without requiring them to show their genital configuration. However, as soon as you decide to allow individuals who have had surgery which is invisible when the person is clothed to access the facilities of the opposite sex, how do you propose to police this?

You seriously think you're going to be able to "correctly sex" Ben and "his" new equipment, particularly when he's standing in next cubicle with the door open while peeing?

Methinks that people who have turned themselves into what anyone with a bit of intellectual honesty would call sexless eunuchs are likely to be far less of a problem than male or female transvestites, the former in particular, than those who are just playing "dress-up".

Kinda think it's rather important to differentiate between those two groups.

 

[Rolfe]

Oh dear. Tell me you don't understand anything about transsexualism without actually saying...

 

[Rolfe]

I don't know how often I have to say this. We can't tell whether any particular man has had his bits cut off just by looking at him. If any man has the legal right to be in our intimate spaces then there is no way to keep any man out. Perverts and all. Because we will be expected to assume any male person in there is there legitimately and not make a fuss. On pain of being accused of a transphobic hate crime.

 

[Steersman]

Oh dear. Tell me you don't understand anything about transsexualism without actually saying...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual#Terminology

Covers a lotta ground but, given my shots at Jenner & Ben with their new equipment, and being sexless eunuchs, one would have thought that that would have been sufficient evidence that I had an idea ...

But you seem to think that I, at least, am some sort of mind reader, that I divine what examples and cases you have in mind.

I don't know how often I have to say this. We can't tell whether any particular man has had his bits cut off just by looking at him. If any man has the legal right to be in our intimate spaces then there is no way to keep any man out. Perverts and all. Because we will be expected to assume any male person in there is there legitimately and not make a fuss. On pain of being accused of a transphobic hate crime.

Don't know how often I have to say this, but if XYers still have their "original equipment" and are in the lady's loos then they're in the wrong lane. At least by the principle I've been pushing of "original equipment or reasonable facsimiles thereof".

Or how often I have to say XYers without that equipment are, in fact, sexless eunuchs. You seem desperately committed to the idea that they're still males - looks like an open-and-shut case of monkey trap to me ...

At least try entertaining that idea ...

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/aristotle_100584
Even if that's something of a misquote.

 

[Rolfe]

Idea entertained. Some time ago actually. Idea rejected as both in contravention of established usage and ludicrous.