Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Ex woman?
Mmmm, and youngsters could be man-to-be and woman-to-be.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
None of the mainstream biologists you've quoted so far have affirmed that mammals cannot be meaningfully classified as male or female at—or even before—birth.
Sent from my Maxwell Asbo using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Mainstream biologist here, with the paperwork to prove it.
Mainstream biology continually refers to male foetuses and female infants and castrated males and so on. Absolutely nobody in mainstream biology recognises this as sloppy usage for "convenience". If that were indeed the case the situation would have been rectified long ago by the coining of new terms to describe such individuals.
Nowhere at all in biology is the use of the words "male" or "female" assumed, without qualification, to refer only to individuals currently producing viable gametes and in a position to deliver them. (This last is a particularly ludicrous stipulation, not only as regards a vasectomised male, but in that Steersman even wants to exclude someone wearing a condom from the classification of "male".) On the contrary, if we want to refer only to fertile individuals, we will say so, explicitly.
This is particularly important as regards female mammals, all of whom are only fertile in the sense of being able to conceive if they are impregnated at that moment, for a tiny fraction of their lives. We talk about females in oestrus, or pro-oestrus, or metoestrus, or anoestrus, and this describes exactly their fertility status. (I don't know what the equivalent terms are in human medicine, possibly follicular and luteal phases.)
This has been explained to Steersman multiple times. It's a sign of a bad-faith argument in my opinion that he continually re-asserts such a falsehood.
Mainstream biology continually refers to male foetuses and female infants and castrated males and so on. Absolutely nobody in mainstream biology recognises this as sloppy usage for "convenience". If that were indeed the case the situation would have been rectified long ago by the coining of new terms to describe such individuals.
Nowhere at all in biology is the use of the words "male" or "female" assumed, without qualification, to refer only to individuals currently producing viable gametes and in a position to deliver them. (This last is a particularly ludicrous stipulation, not only as regards a vasectomised male, but in that Steersman even wants to exclude someone wearing a condom from the classification of "male".) On the contrary, if we want to refer only to fertile individuals, we will say so, explicitly.
This is particularly important as regards female mammals, all of whom are only fertile in the sense of being able to conceive if they are impregnated at that moment, for a tiny fraction of their lives. We talk about females in oestrus, or pro-oestrus, or metoestrus, or anoestrus, and this describes exactly their fertility status. (I don't know what the equivalent terms are in human medicine, possibly follicular and luteal phases.)
This has been explained to Steersman multiple times. It's a sign of a bad-faith argument in my opinion that he continually re-asserts such a falsehood.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Someone just retweeted a recent tweet of mine which reads, "Caster Semenya is and always has been male."
If that someone knew how to search way back through someone's tweets, they would find quite a few from several years ago in which I vehemently asserted that Caster Semenya was a woman, was female, and vociferously defended [his] right to be included in women's sports and intimate spaces. I expressed these opinions before I was aware that Caster Semenya was a 46XY male with 5ARD. Once that crucial fact was revealed I changed my opinion - obviously opening myself up to allegations of inconsistency and shilly-shallying.
When facts emerge that demonstrate that my previous opinion was wrong, I change my opinion to accommodate the new facts. Is this not what everyone does?
If that someone knew how to search way back through someone's tweets, they would find quite a few from several years ago in which I vehemently asserted that Caster Semenya was a woman, was female, and vociferously defended [his] right to be included in women's sports and intimate spaces. I expressed these opinions before I was aware that Caster Semenya was a 46XY male with 5ARD. Once that crucial fact was revealed I changed my opinion - obviously opening myself up to allegations of inconsistency and shilly-shallying.
When facts emerge that demonstrate that my previous opinion was wrong, I change my opinion to accommodate the new facts. Is this not what everyone does?
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
The only way to become less wrong is to allow the evidence to change one's mind. That's not inconsistent, that's self-improvement.
Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Menopausee.
Like employee, like murderer & murderee - as Flip Wilson once discoursed on. Perfectly reasonable suffix, perfectly reasonable word. One might even create something in the way of a "prescriptive definition"; We define:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/-ee
Attachments
So ******* WHAT?No mainstream biologists have "affirmed" that people who've had their 20th birthdays no longer qualify as teenagers. And no mainstream aeronautical engineers have affirmed that aircraft with engines aren't gliders.
That's the nature of intensional definitions - they specify the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership. If entities don't meet those conditions then, ipso facto, they don't qualify for membership cards.
You might try reading and thinking about the concept ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I dunno. Singling women out for lack of function seems pretty misogynistic.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Point of information. Does this "intensional" spelling constitute a specific technical term?
Righto. Lets remove "infertile" from the Lexicon. Heaven forefend that we should draw any attention at all to those who lack specific functions.
I can see you have a future in the Ministry of Truth ...
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I just think there's more to being female than menopause. There's a lot of important, significant structure, with significant implications in personal life and public policy, that are part of being female. Even if certain specific functions aren't always present.
You COULD always try reading the article ...
But a cited reference to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - a fairly credible resource - provides this:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emily-elizabeth-constance-jones/#ObseInteExte
Fairly credible set of chops has our Ms. Jones:
You too might give some thought - particularly and supposedly being a skeptic and all that ... - to the differences between accidental and essential properties:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Bully for you. Here's another "mainstream biologist" who avers that transwomen aren't females - Apostasy! Ready the fainting couches! - nor are some "ciswomen" (ditto):
https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
And some "mainstream biologists" and supposedly credible scientific journals have claimed that sex is a spectrum.
"The quality goes in before the name goes on".
So WHAT?
You're putting the cart before the horse, putting various uses and misuses of language before the definitions for the words which those uses and misuses are comprised of.
You might also take a gander at another SEP article - yea, I know, another wan hope ... - on natural kinds:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
Of particular note:
"female" is, maybe arguably, such a natural kind, though that depends greatly on the definition one subscribes to.
But also of particular relevance to the current conversation is this passage:
And Google/OED provides this definition:
So we could say that "mainstream chemists (circa 1750) continually referred to phlogisticated substances".
But that does not mean that such substances actually existed or that such phrasing was at all justified. SAME thing with "male foetuses and female infants".
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The essential properties of a female athlete have nothing at all to do with her accidental properties of function.
And those "essential properties" are not particularly relevant to qualifying for participation in "women's sports".
Why I've been saying from square one that "sex" per se is the RONG tool for the job, that karyotype is probably a better bet.
Though it looks like you're still unclear on the concept - function IS THE essential property - no function, not a female. Q.E.D.
Try re-reading, or reading for the first time that article ...
Thanks. Have you ever actually used that word apart from here, just now?
Now you'll need a number of other words/phrases to describe embryos, foetuses, pre-pubescent (and other) humans who are not able to produce gametes.
What are those words? Thing is, that something truly clumsy like 'pre gameticious foetus' is daft, because we already know that a foetus isn't producing gametes, and we know that the baby boy or toddler girl aren't either.
Seems to me you've painted yourself into a terminological corner here, whereby you're virtually unable to discuss the subject without inventing a new branch of English.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The essential properties of female structure are in fact supremely relevant to qualifying for participation in women's sports. Indeed, they are both necessary and sufficient. The accidental properties of female function don't even enter into consideration.