smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong. You can't even do basic primary school arithmetic!
Its 8 in every 10,000, so about 50,000
Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
- Status
Wrong. You can't even do basic primary school arithmetic!
Its 8 in every 10,000, so about 50,000
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited:
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
...
Last edited:
My sentiments exactly ...
Yes? And? The definitions are designed to apply to ALL sexually-reproducing species, not just the human one. Unless you maybe think Jehovah created us in a special act of creation?
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/daniel_patrick_moynihan_182347
You actually have a definition published in reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias and biological journals that would justify your later claim about some 99.8% of us being either male or female?
Too many people seem not to have clue that creating definitions isn't a free-for-all. Unless we're maybe having a contest to create the weirdest ones for Urban Dictionary. There IS some rhyme and reason to the best of them, particularly those from science and mathematics.
Oh braVoh. Though, pray tell, what is "normal medical circumstances".
Almost as subjective as gender-identity. But what are you going to do about the other 7-odd million of sexually-reproducing species? Create separate definitions for each of them? And what happens when or if they conflict with your brand-spanking new definitions for humans? Will we use the latter for social-studies classes for the kiddies and the former for their science studies?
If there's any benefit to be had in biological definitions for the sexes it's only from covering as wide a range as possible - which the current ones already DO.
The current problem is too many making up their own idiosyncratic definitions to comport with their ideological dogmata - that "definition" of yours doesn't help at all, except maybe to underline the problems with ideology trying to trump science.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
My sentiments exactly ...
Yes? And? The definitions are designed to apply to ALL sexually-reproducing species, not just the human one. Unless you maybe think Jehovah created us in a special act of creation?
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION.
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/daniel_patrick_moynihan_182347
You actually have a definition published in reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias and biological journals that would justify your later claim about some 99.8% of us being either male or female?
Too many people seem not to have clue that creating definitions isn't a free-for-all. Unless we're maybe having a contest to create the weirdest ones for Urban Dictionary. There IS some rhyme and reason to the best of them, particularly those from science and mathematics.
Oh braVoh. Though, pray tell, what is "normal medical circumstances".
But what are you going to do about the other 7-odd million of sexually-reproducing species? Create separate definitions for each of them? And what happens when or if they conflict with your brand-spanking new definitions for humans? Will we use the latter for social-studies classes for the kiddies and the former for their science studies?
If there's any benefit to be had in biological definitions for the sexes it's only from covering as wide a range as possible - which the current ones already DO.
The current problem is too many making up their own idiosyncratic definitions to comport with their ideological dogmata - that "definition" of yours doesn't help at all, except maybe to underline the problems with ideology trying to trump science.
Either you completely missed t that I was agreeing with you, or I've just been "Cained".... again!!
What a bunch of ignorant blathering.
You can have said "2+2=5" a hundred times "earlier" - still as wrong the 100th time as it was the first.
The ONLY thing that's part of, essential to the biological definitions is having functional gonads of either of two types.
Try actually looking at and thinking about the biological definitions, "male" for example:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/male
You see ANYTHING at all there about your "sociological factors"? About "psychological factors"?
What you're creating is basically a definition for gender which is an entirely different kettle of fish from sex. See the British Medical Journal:
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735
Who the hell are you to try creating new biological definitions for the sexes when they're pretty much essential to all of biology?
You somehow "think" that calling a transwoman a female changes the fact that he has a dick and balls?
Didn't look like it. Maybe the first sentence but after that? ...
You said:
Completely antithetical to the biological definitions and the conclusions that follow therefrom.
They specify that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types. And that those with neither - the prepubescent, eunuchs, vasectomees, intersex, menopausees, etc. - are therefore, ipso facto, sexless.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
So let me be clear if I understand this correctly. You are saying that once my wife goes through menopause, she stops being female? Once I have passed andropause, I'm no longer a male?
Yup. Though it's really not a case of just me - all by my little own lonesome - saying that.
It's a case of that being what follows logically from the biological definitions - they're the axioms of our discourse. Like the axioms of Euclidean geometry - accept those, and the rules of inference, and the theorems inexorably follow.
Look again at the definition for male:
https://www.lexico.com/definition/male
That is basically one of the stipulative definitions of biology, the other of course being for female. The authors of it are asserting, that, by definition, to be a male is to have functional testicles. And that those without them therefore don't qualify as males:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
It's basically the same with the definition for "bachelor" - it stipulates that, by definition, to be a bachelor is to be an unmarried and never married man, and that if one is currently married or has been married then one can't possibly be a bachelor.
Such definitions basically assert the equivalence of the name and the condition that qualifies individuals to "wear the colours".
We CAN create other definitions for "male" and "female". But biologists have apparently found solid reasons for those ones. Definitions which I don't think should be thrown overboard - as much as people like Vixen apparently want to see that happen - without a lot more thought and consideration than has been shown so far.
"Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa ..."
Yes, "of the sex...". This doesn't mean that the idividual has to be producing spermatozoa, or capable of it, to be male. Basically you've either misunderstood or twisted the word 'definition'.
At a recent sporting event an elderly woman won a gold medal in the women's lawn bowls. Should she not have been allowed to take part?
If my car has broken down is it no longer a car?
Yes, it does. Basically, "male" is the name of a category and members of it. And to qualify as a member one has to produce gametes, to have functioning gonads; functional gonads are the "membership dues" for the categories, male and female. Look at the article on intensional and extensional definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
They're saying pretty much the same thing as what I've said about categories.
The definitions for "male" and "female" are intensional definitions. They specify the "properties" that males and females MUST have to be counted as a referent of those terms - that is, have functional gonads of either of two types.
You COULD, for example, CALL your toaster a female. But it really can't reasonably be "counted as a referent of the term" since it doesn't have, one assumes, functional ovaries. No ovaries, not a female.
Hardly. How do you figure? See the above ...
I guess then the de facto criteria was for anyone who was a woman or who is a woman. Or maybe just an XXer.
Seems to me that you - and a great many others - are confused about the nature of words and how definitions work. There are no intrinsic meanings to any of our words; Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z. We decide what they mean and what consequences follow from them, even if implicitly.
But if the definitions are inconsistent then, Houston, we have a problem.
In name only, for reference purposes only. You could call it your "snraphslpz" - and if you told your mechanic to fix your "snraphslpz" and pointed to your "car" then he probably wouldn't give a rat's ass what you called it as long as you paid him for fixing your "snraphslpz".
Words are just labels - what they denote is a matter of convention, of collective agreement. But it's kind of important to be consistent - changing horses midstream tends to cause no end of problems.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, this is a load of dingo's kidneys.
You are assuming that the definitions you gave were extensional definitions, which is to say, they list the objects that a term describes, whereas in fact they are intensional definitions - incapable of explanation solely in terms of the set of objects to which they are applicable, i.e. they try to give a sense of what a term means. In effect, your definitions are general, NOT specific and NOT exclusive. A pre-pubescent girl is still a female and so is a post-menopausal woman, even though neither produce gametes.
Exactly... an intensional definition.
Look at this definition of spider:
"Spiders are air-breathing arthropods that have eight legs, chelicerae with fangs generally able to inject venom, and spinnerets that extrude silk. "
According to you, it would seem that if a spider loses one of its 8 legs it is no longer a spider?
Or if its spinnerets are not extruding silk right now at this very moment. Look a the definition, it says 'spinnerets that extrude silk'. Its only a spider when it's actually making a web.
Of course it is. This has now become the most ridiculous thread on the forum thanks to Steersman.
IsThisTheLife
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2019
- Messages
- 1,233
And a certain other - credit where it's due. I've been reading it periodically for quite a while but it's turned into a mess that I haven't been able to keep patience with recently.
Second most ridiculous, after the other thread where Steersman has been doggedly engaged in the same sophistry over the same wrong definitions of "male" and "female."
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Rolfe
Adult human female
As far as I know there are chromosomal abnormalities which are quite common but which don't have much (if any) effect on the person who carries them. If a man finds out that he has Jacob's syndrome (XYY) for example, he might get a bit of a shock. But he's still a man.
Another red herring thrown down by Vixen to obscure the argument.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I perceive her as entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different if it were actually about women with fused labia and clitoris. But it's not. Get on my level.
- Status