Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Myriad]

Funnily enough I did two years of postdoctoral research on categorisation, albeit from a cognitive science and not a philosophical perspective. That was 20 years ago and I didn't continue with that area so my memory is a bit hazy, but I know that monothetic intensional definitions really didn't feature. We have something called the defining attribute approach which corresponds to a monothetic intensional definition. The first thing taught about that is how useless it is for explaining how people use categories in real contexts, and the example given is the one Steersman keeps using: bachelor = unmarried adult male. According to that definition, an 18-year old unmarried male student and a priest who has taken a vow of celibacy are bachelors, but nobody would use that term for them. Intensional definitions can be useful for something like a machine learning algorithm, but also resonsible for the failure of output to resemble human cognition in AI applications. Granted, that is referring to 'everyday' categorisation and not scientific classification. But monothetic definitions are not always possible, and polythetic definitions can be formalised to make intensional definitions and are used that way in many areas (like some diagnostic categories, and in fungal taxonomy for example). In previous posts he seemed to equate polythetic definitions to 'family resemblances'. Family resemblance refers to what in cognitive science is called the prototype approach, which is usually considered the best description of how people do 'everyday' categorisation. The prototype approach is polythetic in that multiple attributes can be considered intuitively in comparing an exemplar to the prototype, but a formal polythetic approach can specify specific numbers or combinations of attributes from a larger set as necessary and sufficient for category membership.

I'm taking a guess as this is way out of my area, but possibly polythetic definitions are used for fungi because they change so much during the life cycle that it might not be possible to have one set of attributes always present for classification? Having several alternative sets of attributes that can be used for classification is quite valid as long as they can be shown to result in correct classification. This could be demonstrated, for example, if there is one feature that is always sufficient for classification when present, the feature is not present at all times during the life cycle, but that other specific combinations of characteristics can be shown to accurately predict this feature.

Excellent post. "The clarity is devastating!" Thank you.

 

[GlennB]

Seconded !

 

[theprestige]

So it seems like Steersman has no objection to structural definitions of binary sex in humans. He just doesn't think "male" and "female" should be the terms used for structural definitions. He rejects these as structural terms because he's convinced that they are lexically and logically functional terms. Therefore, using them to describe structural differences, he believes, causes confusion and obfuscates important truths.

Never mind that "male" and "female" (and the closely related terms "man" and "woman") have been widely used by laymen and experts alike to denote clear structural differences between the two sexes. This is attested by pretty much every lexicon that gives examples of usage, and is also widely attested in scientific literature about sexed organisms. There is in fact no real confusion or obfuscation in the terms. They are perfectly cromulent terms for referencing the two structural sexes found in humans, having been used as such for centuries if not milennia.

 

[d4m10n]

I imagine in real life he equivocates.

I live next door to a kindly divorcée on one side and a warm-hearted widow on the other.

When I look up divorcée in the dictionary, I find the term refers to "a woman who has divorced," and when I look up woman I find it means an "adult human female." When I look up female I find that it means someone who is ovulating at this very moment, according to someone who seems highly confident in his interpretation of common terms.

When I look up widow in the dictionary, I find the term refers to "a woman who has lost her spouse by death," and when I look up woman I find (once again) it means an "adult human female." When I look up female I find (once again) that it means someone who is ovulating at this very moment.

Since these are presumably intensional definitions which include all necessary and sufficient conditions, I'm forced to conclude that I'm going to have to come up with new terms to describe the lovely postmenopausal people who live next door, since they obviously cannot be females or women anymore.

Sent from my Sarcastigator 9000 using Tapatalk

 

[Elaedith]

So it seems like Steersman has no objection to structural definitions of binary sex in humans. He just doesn't think "male" and "female" should be the terms used for structural definitions. He rejects these as structural terms because he's convinced that they are lexically and logically functional terms. Therefore, using them to describe structural differences, he believes, causes confusion and obfuscates important truths.

Never mind that "male" and "female" (and the closely related terms "man" and "woman") have been widely used by laymen and experts alike to denote clear structural differences between the two sexes. This is attested by pretty much every lexicon that gives examples of usage, and is also widely attested in scientific literature about sexed organisms. There is in fact no real confusion or obfuscation in the terms. They are perfectly cromulent terms for referencing the two structural sexes found in humans, having been used as such for centuries if not milennia.

Presumably. In the other thread he posted this:

Fairly decent article at Fourth Wave Now that argues there's really only a 30% overlap between traits typical of adult human females and those typical of adult human males. Moot exactly how much each of those traits are due to biological factors, and how much due to sociological ones - nature versus nurture. But some evidence - that the authors and links go into some detail on - that the contributions of the biological to behaviours, to our personalities (AKA, "gender") are significant and hardly trivial:

The research cited showing overlapping distributions of traits in males and females is all conducted without any check that the participants are producing gametes. Therefore what is being referred to is apparently a 30% overlap between the traits of a group consisting of adult human females plus sexless individuals, and another group consisting of adult human males plus sexless individuals. It seems the only options are a) the research is worthless and should all be thrown away and replaced by research that screens out the sexless individuals or b) the research provides a valid comparison between two groups, but the terms 'male' and 'female' should be replaced with something else. But if b is the answer, then there is an acknowledgement that there must be an intensional definition that allows all the people in each of these groups to be accurately placed in the same category, regardless of current reproductive status, and also that these categories have predictive and explanatory value. Therefore this is just pointless squabbling over the names - as I said before, if we reserved 'male' and 'female' for currently fertile people, we would need to immediately replace these terms.

 

[Elaedith]

I live next door to a kindly divorcée on one side and a warm-hearted widow on the other.

When I look up divorcée in the dictionary, I find the term refers to "a woman who has divorced," and when I look up woman I find it means an "adult human female." When I look up female I find that it means someone who is ovulating at this very moment, according to someone who seems highly confident in his interpretation of common terms.

When I look up widow in the dictionary, I find the term refers to "a woman who has lost her spouse by death," and when I look up woman I find (once again) it means an "adult human female." When I look up female I find (once again) that it means someone who is ovulating at this very moment.

Since these are presumably intensional definitions which include all necessary and sufficient conditions, I'm forced to conclude that I'm going to have to come up with new terms to describe the lovely postmenopausal people who live next door, since they obviously cannot be females or women anymore.

Sent from my Sarcastigator 9000 using Tapatalk

Likewise a never-married adult man who gets a vasectomy can't be a bachelor anymore. The number of terms that need to be replaced is mind-boggling.

 

[theprestige]

Presumably. In the other thread he posted this:



The research cited showing overlapping distributions of traits in males and females is all conducted without any check that the participants are producing gametes. Therefore what is being referred to is apparently a 30% overlap between the traits of a group consisting of adult human females plus sexless individuals, and another group consisting of adult human males plus sexless individuals. It seems the only options are a) the research is worthless and should all be thrown away and replaced by research that screens out the sexless individuals or b) the research provides a valid comparison between two groups, but the terms 'male' and 'female' should be replaced with something else. But if b is the answer, then there is an acknowledgement that there must be an intensional definition that allows all the people in each of these groups to be accurately placed in the same category, regardless of current reproductive status, and also that these categories have predictive and explanatory value. Therefore this is just pointless squabbling over the names - as I said before, if we reserved 'male' and 'female' for currently fertile people, we would need to immediately replace these terms.

Yesterday I had a shower thought about why a structure-absent-function distinction makes more sense than a functional distinction, for our purposes. I came to the thread today to make that argument, in those terms. But looking for a recent post from Steersman to use as a starting point, I realized, he doesn't actually object to the structure-absent-function distinction. He just doesn't think "male" and "female" are the right words to denote it.

 

[Steersman]

Funnily enough I did two years of postdoctoral research on categorisation, albeit from a cognitive science and not a philosophical perspective. That was 20 years ago and I didn't continue with that area so my memory is a bit hazy, but I know that monothetic intensional definitions really didn't feature. We have something called the defining attribute approach which corresponds to a monothetic intensional definition. The first thing taught about that is how useless it is for explaining how people use categories in real contexts, and the example given is the one Steersman keeps using: bachelor = unmarried adult male. According to that definition, an 18-year old unmarried male student and a priest who has taken a vow of celibacy are bachelors, but nobody would use that term for them. Intensional definitions can be useful for something like a machine learning algorithm, but also responsible for the failure of output to resemble human cognition in AI applications. Granted, that is referring to 'everyday' categorisation and not scientific classification. But monothetic definitions are not always possible, and polythetic definitions can be formalised to make intensional definitions and are used that way in many areas (like some diagnostic categories, and in fungal taxonomy for example). In previous posts he seemed to equate polythetic definitions to 'family resemblances'. Family resemblance refers to what in cognitive science is called the prototype approach, which is usually considered the best description of how people do 'everyday' categorisation. The prototype approach is polythetic in that multiple attributes can be considered intuitively in comparing an exemplar to the prototype, but a formal polythetic approach can specify specific numbers or combinations of attributes from a larger set as necessary and sufficient for category membership.

I'm taking a guess as this is way out of my area, but possibly polythetic definitions are used for fungi because they change so much during the life cycle that it might not be possible to have one set of attributes always present for classification? Having several alternative sets of attributes that can be used for classification is quite valid as long as they can be shown to result in correct classification. This could be demonstrated, for example, if there is one feature that is always sufficient for classification when present, the feature is not present at all times during the life cycle, but that other specific combinations of characteristics can be shown to accurately predict this feature.

I've been beavering away at polythetic and monothetic categories for some three weeks now - surprised you haven't seem those comments ...

But here's the first:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13869904&postcount=244

Of some note is the reference to and criticisms of Michael Shermer's review of Walsh's documentary. However, apart from Shermer's rather sloppy if not self-serving applications of the family-resemblances principle, the problem is that he's basically trying to define both sex and gender as polythetic categories. Which boil down into spectra. Which cause any number of problems, not least of which is dick-swingers "self-identifying" as women.

But you in particular might be interested in a couple of sources I've been using, the first of which explicitly applies, apparently, polythetic categories to virus classifications:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tes_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species

https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/i...assification-Convergence-and-Consequences.pdf

 

[Steersman]

Yes, Del Giudice, unlike Steersman, is making the case that 99.98% of humans are either male or female. From my reading, the author endorses the functional pathway definitions. The bulk of the article is criticism of other people's definitions, but here is the entire section where he lays out the biological definition of the sexes:

Don't think he's saying that at all - where exactly does he say "99.98% of us are either male or female"? Your highlighted quote of him certainly doesn't justify the claim:

The sex binary, then, is not a fiction but a basic biological fact: even if a given individual may fail to produce viable gametes, there are only two gamete types with no meaningful intermediate forms (Lehtonen & Parker, 2014; see also Cretella et al., 2019). This dichotomy is not statistical but functional, and hence is not challenged by the existence of intersex conditions (regardless of their frequency), nonbinary gender identities, and other seeming exceptions.

Though he may have been playing his cards close to the vest and have been unwilling to stick his neck out so far as to accept the consequences of his emphasis on "produces":

From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987).

You think the prepubescent can do so?

 

[Steersman]

Here's where we disagree. I expect lexical definitions to describe (rather than prescribe) usage.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/descriptive-vs-prescriptive-defining-lexicography

Interesting article, but clearly there are also prescriptive dictionaries, and it's certainly nice to know which side of the fence MW comes down on.

But rather doubt the descriptive ones are of much use - if not actually useless - when it comes to determining what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership.

You might note MWs definition for female:

female (adjective) 1a) of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs

1b) having a gender identity that is the opposite of male

Nice to know what traits are typical of females, but it kind of leaves hanging the question of whether atypical females might have penises ...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

Nor are you likely to be much illuminated by their definition for female as a gender identity, particularly when you peruse their definition for "male" which states "having a gender identity that is opposite of female" ...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

What a joke ...

 

[GlennB]

You think the prepubescent can do so?

Worthless pedantry. Actually, it's worse than worthless, it's destructive.

 

[d4m10n]

Interesting article, but clearly there are also prescriptive dictionaries, and it's certainly nice to know which side of the fence MW comes down on.

Whereas Lexico...?

Oxford’s dictionaries are descriptive rather than prescriptive: our editors research the way that words are used by analysing vast databases of language such as the Oxford English Corpus, and craft entries to summarize as clearly and accurately as possible how words are really used, rather than how we may think they should be used.

https://www.lexico.com/explore/vulgar-language-in-dictionaries

Sent from my Lampadati Casco using Tapatalk

 

[Rolfe]

Honestly, it's pointless. When someone is so invested in an irrational position and won't reconsider despite having his errors pointed out multiple times by multiple people, after a bit the only thing you can do is move on.

 

[d4m10n]

So ******* WHAT?

So you faulted MW for doing this, why not fault OED & Lexico as well?

Are you going to argue that there are NO prescriptive dictionaries?

Two things here.

1) You haven't mentioned any prescriptive dictionaries or definitions yet

2) You haven't gotten any buy-in from your interlocutors as to whether they feel bound by the same prescriptions you do

You're just desperate to avoid giving any "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify individuals - of all sexually-reproducing species (however defined ...) - as either male or female.

I'm not just desperate, I'm desperate for perfectly understandable reasons having to do with actual usage of these words in everyday life and in academic biology. Since speakers in both domains feel free to employ phrases like "male embryos" and "postmenopausal females" we (descriptivists) have to adjust our meanings to fit actual usage.

Edited by Agatha: 

Rule 10 in quote

 

[Steersman]

So you faulted MW for doing this, why not fault OED & Lexico as well?

Maybe. But you might note a salient difference in the definitions for "female" from Lexico/OED and from MW:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/female
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

There are no qualifications from Lexico, but there is from MW, i.e., "typically". Lexico's form matches that for intensional definitions - specifying necessary and sufficient conditions; MW's merely lists some properties that typical females exhibit - neither necessary nor sufficient; maybe some females have penises ....

Two things here.

1) You haven't mentioned any prescriptive dictionaries or definitions yet

Of course I have - probably dozens of times; you're just not paying attention:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13884793&postcount=782

See also my frequent quotes of the Parker and Lehtonen article, the Glossary in particular:

"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.

Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

Think most reasonable and intellectually honest interlocutors ... would call those stipulative definitions of authoritative biologists in a reputable journal that constitute intensional definitions that stipulate necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership, i.e., functional gonads:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions

But hey - maybe I'm biased ...

2) You haven't gotten any buy-in from your interlocutors as to whether they feel bound by the same prescriptions you do

How much "buy-in" have you gotten from Vixen that transwomen don't qualify as women? From religious fundamentalists that the Earth is older than 6000 years?

I'm not just desperate, I'm desperate for perfectly understandable reasons having to do with actual usage of these words in everyday life and in academic biology. Since speakers in both domains feel free to employ phrases like "male embryos" and "postmenopausal females" we (descriptivists) have to adjust our meanings to fit actual usage.

Don't think you've quite gotten the idea that "actual usages ... in everyday life" are often incoherent twaddle. See MW's "definitions" for "male" and "female" as "gender identities" ...

You might also note this passage from that Wikipedia article on linguistic prescription:

Although lexicographers often see their work as purely descriptive, dictionaries are widely regarded as prescriptive authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription#Authority

Just because some doofus at MW claims something about descriptivism doesn't mean that many "common use" definitions - particularly those from various branches of science - aren't stipulative, intensional, and/or prescriptive ones.

 

[d4m10n]

Of course I have - probably dozens of times; you're just not paying attention

Name one dictionary of English which (1) is explicitly prescriptive & (2) has been linked upthread.

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

That article refers to "male offspring" and "female offspring" so it seems likely that the authors are willing to attribute sex to animals prior to attaining adulthood.

Think most reasonable and intellectually honest interlocutors ... would call those stipulative definitions of authoritative biologists in a reputable journal that constitute intensional definitions that stipulate necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership

The thing about stipulative definitions is that they only bind the stipulators themselves, along with anyone who agrees to use them for purposes of a particular discussion. Not even Lehtonen & Parker would say that those definitions are ones everyone should use at all times; as they wrote in the paper itself: "The definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘sexes’ vary."

Everyone participating in this thread understands that you have stipulated definitions for male and female which require active gamete production, making phrases like "newborn male" and "postmenopausal female" logically incoherent. No one participating in this thread has (as yet) deferred to your stipulated usage, but we understand how you intend to use these key terms.

How much "buy-in" have you gotten from Vixen that transwomen don't qualify as women?

I really try not confuse trans issues and DSDs, so I'm not going down that path here and now.

Don't think you've quite gotten the idea that "actual usages ... in everyday life" are often incoherent twaddle. See MW's "definitions" for "male" and "female" as "gender identities" ...

Words don't have to mean the exact same thing at all times in all contexts, as Parker and Lehtonen have pointed out (bolded above).

You might also note this passage from that Wikipedia article on linguistic prescription

Bandwagon fallacy noted.

Happy to admit that "dictionaries are widely regarded as prescriptive authorities," but I'm not about to use a book for purposes which the authors themselves have disclaimed.

 

[Elaedith]

Everyone participating in this thread understands that you have stipulated definitions for male and female which require active gamete production, making phrases like "newborn male" and "postmenopausal female" logically incoherent.
Happy to admit that "dictionaries are widely regarded as prescriptive authorities," but I'm not about to use a book for purposes which the authors themselves have disclaimed.

Even 'pre-male/female' for children implies that we know they will become male or female under normal circumstances. Presumably we are supposed to pretend that we don't (because if we do, there is obviously a definition that allows us to put them in the same category as males and females).

 

[Rolfe]

It's particularly acute for veterinary medicine, because we have a very large number of patients who are castrated or spayed, and in many of these cases the surgery is performed before puberty. And yet, we still need to know which is which for all sorts of medical reasons as we see them through life.

Hell, we need to know which of them need to be castrated and which spayed in the first place. If they're all sexless beings, how come I got a right bollocking from my boss once for opening up a kitten's abdomen unnecessarily? What were be both basing this decision on?

 

[Rolfe]

I've got a really good idea. Since the words "male" and "female" are already taken and nobody but nobody is going to stop using them in the normal way no matter what Steersman says, and yet he thinks specific words are needed to denote "fertile male" and "fertile female", maybe he could suggest new terms?

Then we can all watch with amusement as he tries to clarify who exactly is covered by these new terms, right down to whether they're wearing a condom at the moment, or are on the pill...

 

[GlennB]

I've got a really good idea. Since the words "male" and "female" are already taken and nobody but nobody is going to stop using them in the normal way no matter what Steersman says, and yet he thinks specific words are needed to denote "fertile male" and "fertile female", maybe he could suggest new terms?
Then we can all watch with amusement as he tries to clarify who exactly is covered by these new terms, right down to whether they're wearing a condom at the moment, or are on the pill...

Yes please. 'A human who doesn't yet/no longer ovulates but will/used to' is such a mouthful.