Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

d4m10n said:
I'd likely be interested in discussing such attempts at redefinition (assuming you have one in mind) in the thread about trans issues.
Click to expand...
Haven't got a clue what you're getting at ...

d4m10n said:
Yes, but the criteria for eligibility to undertake surrogate motherhood are different than the criteria to compete in women's sport, and each of those are different than the criteria to visit MichfestWP.
Click to expand...
So ******* what?

You're missing the point or refusing to engage with it. Use the criteria, ditch the definitions - at least those incompatible with the biological ones.

d4m10n said:
People with de la Chapelle syndromeWP probably shouldn't be in women's sport; karyotype isn't enough information here.
Click to expand...
WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy? Methinks you too need to learn how to read past the first sentence in a paragraph ...

In 90 percent of these individuals, the syndrome is caused by the Y chromosome's SRY gene, which triggers male reproductive development, being atypically included in the crossing over of genetic information that takes place between the pseudoautosomal regions of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father.
Click to expand...

Cause of the balance seems genetically murky.

d4m10n said:
Already asked and answered.
Click to expand...
LoL. "Because the Bible tells me so" ... :rolleyes:

d4m10n said:
None of the credible lexicographers, encyclopedists, or biologists have adopted your habit of calling newborns with 46, XY karyotype "pre-males," though. Either they misunderstand what "male" means in English, or you do.
Click to expand...
So ******* WHAT?

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_conan_doyle_134512

But lots of people champion principles but then balk and turn turtle when they find themselves hoist by their own petards. You & PZ for examples ...

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove rule 10 breaches. As has been explained to you previously, do not disguise or misspell swear words in the public sections. Type them out in full and allow the autocensor to work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steersman said:
Haven't got a clue what you're getting at
Click to expand...
This isn't the thread where you can reasonably expect people to reply on trans issues, because they know what happens to off topic posts.

Steersman said:
WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy?
Click to expand...
Why bother mentioning karyotype if you know it's not the relevant criterion?

Steersman said:
"Because the Bible tells me so"
Click to expand...
You asked for my criteria in "discussions about sexual reproduction," I've already told you that upthread.

Steersman said:
So ******* WHAT?
Click to expand...
So I've concluded that you've misunderstood what they were trying to say. Had they really meant what you think they do, we'd see evidence of that meaning in their usage (e.g. when they talk about pre-pubertal males).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steersman said:
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
Click to expand...
I don't care what you think about me, and you're not even addressing my argument.

Once again, my argument is this: You don't have examples of other people refusing to call infants "male" or post-menopausal women "female" and so it appears you are using those words in a manner entirely unique to yourself.

Words are for communication with other people though.

If you cannot find examples of lexicographers or scientists using these words as you do, you might should stop and ask why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steersman said:
But I've clearly been championing any number of individuals and sources - Griffiths, Parker & Lehtonen, Lexico, Google/OED, Wikipedia, the Journals of Theoretical Biology & of Molecular Human Reproduction, etc., etc. - who I'm clearly thinking are anything but "ignoramuses".
Click to expand...
Which of those sources refer to 46, XY newborns (without DSDs) as sexless pre-males?

Sent from my Grotti Brioso using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand why all y’all are getting so frustrated with Steersman for wanting to work with a novel definition when his whole entire line of argument is that a novel definition (one that is connected to very definite, well delineated, straight up logical attributes) would be helpful in these trying times.

If we don’t have one then we continue with the current situation where we sing half of ‘modern major general’ every time we want everyone in the room to know exactly what kind of person we are talking about (without getting vulgar or missing out edge cases).

Getting such a thing adopted into the general lexicon might indeed be a non starter, but that doesn’t make the idea itself impossible to hash out.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
I don’t understand why all y’all are getting so frustrated with Steersman for wanting to work with a novel definition...
Click to expand...
Because he doesn't recognize his definition as novel or stipulative, he sincerely believes that Lexico was wrong in their example usage sentences that incorporate phrases such as "female embryo" or "infant male."

ETA: I'm also skeptical of the idea that a stipulative definition which hinges on active gamete production will indeed "be helpful in these trying times." Which social or political or metaphysical issues would be solved by lumping a huge number of hitherto sexed people into the category of sexless?
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
I don’t understand why all y’all are getting so frustrated with Steersman for wanting to work with a novel definition when his whole entire line of argument is that a novel definition (one that is connected to very definite, well delineated, straight up logical attributes) would be helpful in these trying times.

If we don’t have one then we continue with the current situation where we sing half of ‘modern major general’ every time we want everyone in the room to know exactly what kind of person we are talking about (without getting vulgar or missing out edge cases).

Getting such a thing adopted into the general lexicon might indeed be a non starter, but that doesn’t make the idea itself impossible to hash out.
Click to expand...
Steersman has been repeatedly invited to explain how his definition solves the problem he purports to be solving. He has so far declined to do so. Meanwhile, his proposed solution actually appears to make the ostensible problem worse not better. If you believe you can explain how his proposed solution actually solves anything, please do so. If you think you can get Steersman to explain it, where others have tried and failed, please remonstrate with him.
 
Steersman said:
:rolleyes:

You might have had a point IF I was saying that everyone I've met is an ignoramus. But I've clearly been championing any number of individuals and sources - Griffiths, Parker & Lehtonen, Lexico, Google/OED, Wikipedia, the Journals of Theoretical Biology & of Molecular Human Reproduction, etc., etc. - who I'm clearly thinking are anything but "ignoramuses".

So you don't - just some butthurt by the look of it.
Click to expand...
Griffiths is a philosopher, but in his defense he says his definition is impractical.

The various lexicons you've appealed to don't actually agree with you. Nor do the scientific journals.
 
porch said:
I'm just gonna drop this quote here and give appropriate thanks for your furthering of scientific literacy.
Click to expand...


This was the one about a man ceasing to be male when he puts on a condom and reverting to male when he takes it off. (I think that information might surprise the female half of the transaction.)

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how a man (not vasectomised) who is sitting quietly watching TV is male, whereas a vasectomised man sitting quietly watching TV is not. Both are producing sperm. Neither is delivering them. Both are equally capable of delivering them in the future.
 
Lithrael said:
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?
Click to expand...


Just to add a dissenting opinion. There is no such thing as an "intersex human [being] who is neither male nor female".

Most anomalies of development of the genital organs are sex specific. Klinefelter's men are male, Turner's women are female and so on. These people will not thank you for opining that they're not "real" men or women. Chimeras and mosaics get a bit more complicated, but to take an example from cattle, freemartins are female even though they have male cells in their bloodstream - if they weren't female they wouldn't have been affected by the freemartin disorder. (Their twin brothers don't have any apparent disorder at all and are fully fertile, despite having female cells circulating in their bloodstream.)

Even where a developmental anomaly has caused tissues of both sexes to develop, one sex is clearly predominant and the tissue of the opposite sex is an anomaly that is often best removed.

There's a reason why birth certificates and passports and so on have only two options for "sex" (or they did until the non-binary nutters got going), and that is that there are only two, and we don't have people who can't be classified as one or the other. Mistakes have happened in the past but these are becoming increasingly rare and usually confined to deprived societies with poor neonatal healthcare. The fact that people occasionally get their sums wrong doesn't invalidate counting.
 
Lplus said:
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.
Click to expand...


Actually that's quite a pertinent question. I suspect these males are largely a figment of the trans imagination. Multiple transwomen with a reasonable grasp of reality have reported using the Gents' without any problems at all. (The very feminine-presenting Blaire White has reported doing so, and getting no more than some very strange looks.) However, whenever we suggest that male people should simply use the Gents' we are subjected to a barrage of invective that we can't possibly condemn these poor fragile trans flowers to going in the Gents' because they would inevitably be assaulted and beaten up.

So in a sense my post was directed at these hypothetical men who would surely beat up a transwoman and are the reason "she" has to impose "her" male presence in the Ladies'. Maybe normal decent men could make it clear that this isn't something that's going to happen - as indeed it seems to be a very rare occurrence if it happens at all.
 
So it all depends on the time required before the man might be in a position to deliver viable sperm. This gets more complicated by the minute. It also seems to depend on the fertility status of his wife, which is a new one. Once a woman passes the menopause, is her husband then by your definition sexless?

Remind me again what problem your novel definition is supposed to solve and how it will solve it?
 
Rolfe said:
So it all depends on the time required before the man might be in a position to deliver viable sperm. This gets more complicated by the minute. It also seems to depend on the fertility status of his wife, which is a new one. Once a woman passes the menopause, is her husband then by your definition sexless?

Remind me again what problem your novel definition is supposed to solve and how it will solve it?
Click to expand...

Don't think you're paying much attention either. Or are being particularly intellectually honest. My opening salvo was directed at, as I had emphasized, your untenable "Both are equally capable" - which is clearly not the case.

The rest of my comment - the bulk of it which you seem surprisingly unwilling to address - was directed at the puzzling if rather ridiculous "cognitive distortions" that apparently undergird the "definitions" promoted by "folk biology".

The problem is that no one has clue these days about what qualifies people - and members of other sexually reproducing species - as "male" or "female" because pretty much every man and their dogs has different and conflicting definitions for the sexes. Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is to fallback on the biological definitions - which you, and most others here, seem rather unwilling to address. Not particularly commendable, credible, or constituting much in the way of any evidence of intellectual honesty ...
 
Steersman said:
LoL. Honorable mention in the "How Many Angels?" debate ... ;)

Though you might try reading and thinking about what followed after the "Super Bowl" comment, a point at which you seem to have stopped doing that ...
Click to expand...

I did read it all the way through. In fact, I read it twice, just to make sure I had it right. You present us with three men:

The first is ready to have sex immediately when offered, and therefore is male.

The second is not ready to have sex because he has to reverse a vasectomy first, and therefore is not male.

The third is not ready to have sex because he'd rather watch the Superbowl instead, and is therefore __________________.

Following the logic of the first two men, the proper thing to fill in the blank for the third man is "not male".

What about if the man is traveling overseas for business? His wife face-times him and says she's ovulating and wishes he was home to give her the business. But he's still going to be on the other side of the world for another two weeks. Is he not male for those two weeks?

Does he become male again if he goes out looking for one of those happy ending massage parlors that are so common overseas? Does he stop being male if he mistakenly ends up in a vanilla massage parlor that works out the knots in his lower back but doesn't, you know? Or did he never actually become male in the first place, since it wasn't one of those other parlors after all?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom