Amen to this. That 'menopausee' that won a gold medal at the Commonwealth Games was in the correct category for her event.
Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Amen to this. That 'menopausee' that won a gold medal at the Commonwealth Games was in the correct category for her event.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Aside from this, if actual fertility is required for a person to be included in the ranks of the sexed, does that not mean that every person seeking to particpate in a "sexed" event would have to certify fertility? Women reach both fertility and menopause at quite variable ages. What's the best way to test if your eggs are good? And how can we be sure a man has viable sperm and isn't hiding, for example, a vasectomy or a disability, unless we collect a sample from each one?
Not just stupid, it seems needlessly complicated.
Probably hundreds of times. I created that "Reproductive Function" piechart ages ago and had been tweeting it thither and yon for ages. Frequently using the word.
Don't think so. All we need to do, for example, is to redefine "boy" and "girl" to indicate "potentially male" and "potentially female".
But think you, and no few others here, are straining at the gnat and swallowing the camel whole - to coin a phrase. Think Rolfe - Herself - had a nice summary of the problem some time back:
The problem is the incredibly sloppy, quite ubiquitous, and profoundly unscientific use of biological terminology. And by people who should know better. A case in point is an NCBI Bookshelf book that boldly asserts that "every cell has a sex":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222288/
Though NCBI may have an excuse since Judith Butler seems to have had her dirty ideological mitts all over that book.
But rather doubt that Rolfe would see that claim at least as anything other than "utter dreck". Great deal of outright rot in far too much of "science" - Heather Heying, for all of her many other manifest faults, had a decent summary of the problem:
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/onfraud
Though rather "amused" to see that she's deleted my comment; what a fraud, what a grifter.
The comment link goes to a blank space, but I'd linked to it in another comment on her post of the audio that's still there, that constitutes a smoking gun:
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/onfraud/comment/8582255
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/on-fraud-audio-edition/comments#comment-8604143
Gutless wonders, charlatans & grifters. At least I get a hearing here, even if not a terribly "sympathetic" one ...
Attachments
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
I was wondering when you'd get to the "easiest way to solve the problem is to assume women's sports don't matter" quadrant of the roundy-round.
We should definitely have sex-segregated events. And we should definitely keep using structural definitions to establish the basis of that segregation.
Maybe we shouldn't HAVE "sexed events"?
Yet another willing to sacrifice the enjoyment and even employment of women for stupid ideological reasons.
Where the hell have I said anything of the sort?
Edited by zooterkin:
<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
Edited by zooterkin:
<SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
Your conclusion most certainly doesn't follow from your premise - which is rather shaky in itself.
The only viable conclusion is to use different criteria.
Last edited by a moderator:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's implicit in your proposal that we give up sex segregation in sports.
I think you understand neither my conclusions nor my premises.
Sex-segregated sports are important to our society, for reasons of safety, fairness, and equity. The long-standing structural definitions of sex are demonstrably effective in establishing the necessary segregation. They work for everyone except a small but vocal minority, which has a vested interest in equivocating on definitions in order to transcend sex segregation.
The structural definition is demonstrably viable. Which is more than can be said for your different criteria.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
So they don't appear to be using these key terms the same way you are.
(Except PZM, I suppose.)
Sent from my Maibatsu Manchez using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Biologists are precise in their use of language, and can be very pedantic. It is not unknown for words to be used in a sloppy manner, for example, you try pronouncing "epizootiology" and you'll understand why we tend to say "epidemiology" even when we strictly shouldn't. But this is understood and acknowledged.
In the same vein, the difference between epidemic and epizootic, and between endemic and enzootic, is important. It's not that you won't find people using the former when they ought to use the latter, but someone, somewhere, will be telling students what the correct usage is and to bear that in mind. (And gritting their teeth when someone uses "endemic" when they mean "indigenous", which is a whole new level of annoying.)
So sure, imprecise usage can happen. But professionials know the correct usage and teach the correct usage. Correct usage will generally be editorially enforced in journal articles. There is no biologist in the wide world who uses the terms "male" and "female" to refer to the binary sex development pathways of mammals who believes or understands that they are using these terms incorrectly. There is no journal whose editorial standards require the usage Steersman is trying to enforce.
Because Steersman is simply wrong.
In the same vein, the difference between epidemic and epizootic, and between endemic and enzootic, is important. It's not that you won't find people using the former when they ought to use the latter, but someone, somewhere, will be telling students what the correct usage is and to bear that in mind. (And gritting their teeth when someone uses "endemic" when they mean "indigenous", which is a whole new level of annoying.)
So sure, imprecise usage can happen. But professionials know the correct usage and teach the correct usage. Correct usage will generally be editorially enforced in journal articles. There is no biologist in the wide world who uses the terms "male" and "female" to refer to the binary sex development pathways of mammals who believes or understands that they are using these terms incorrectly. There is no journal whose editorial standards require the usage Steersman is trying to enforce.
Because Steersman is simply wrong.
Last edited:
That's just you reading in between the lines again ...
Except yours doesn't work when you apply it to large fractions of the other 7-odd millions of sexually reproducing species on the planet. A point you refuse to address - pretty big elephant that you've swept under the carpet there ...
Pretty sure we're not talking about arthropods or molluscs here. Correct me if I'm wrong ...
You mean apart from those who insist every cell has a sex?
https://medicine.yale.edu/ycci/news-article/13321/
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2013/11/male_and_female_cells_are_not_the_same.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24196532/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/?report=reader
Or maybe you agree with them ...
Guess those "professionals" at the Yale School of Medicine, those responsible for that NCBI book, and the others listed were no true
Apart, of course, from all the "utter dreck" you said was published ...
"So there! Off with his head!"
Pretty sure a foundational principle of biology is to have definitions that apply to the widest range of organisms as possible. For example, see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
But you think they should have separate definitions for "male" and "female" for each of those 7 million species?
Or maybe one set for humans, and another set for the 7 million minus humans? How do you think that would work out in high school? The first set for social studies and social-justice warrioring, and the other set for biology classes?
Correct me if I'm wrong but that seems rather unscientific at best, and more likely to be a disaster from square one ...
From one of those (the first readable, the Yale link filled my screen with crap)
"It may surprise you to learn that -- like humans -- cells can be male or female. The distinction is more subtle at the cellular level, but it can actually affect how cells react in a variety of experiments. "
My bolding. 'Can'
But I thought we had a problem here with labelling things as 'male' or 'female', such as foetuses, small children and so on?
Please explain. Also, my critter who 'would be called a spider if only
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Me: What fraction of humans are not recognizably male or female?
Steers: Before we answer that be sure that everyone agrees to definitions which apply to large fractions of the other 7-odd millions of sexually reproducing species on the planet.
Me: Why? This is a thread about one specific species of mammal.
Sent from my Obey 9F using Tapatalk
Steers: Before we answer that be sure that everyone agrees to definitions which apply to large fractions of the other 7-odd millions of sexually reproducing species on the planet.
Me: Why? This is a thread about one specific species of mammal.
Sent from my Obey 9F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I'm NOT saying that's an acceptable use; in fact it's incoherent twaddle to say, "every cell has a sex". Rolfe was making the more or less categorical statement that "Biologists are precise in their use of language, and can be very pedantic."
And I was showing evidence of a bunch of so-called biologists being very imprecise and inaccurate in their use of language. Cells don't have a sex - even by the rather unscientifically untenable definitions that she apparently subscribes to.
You may wish to try reading up on cells and their nuclei in particular:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell_(biology)
Think I've already answered that question:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13886315&postcount=791
Think you're not paying attention.
YOUR very first post that started this thread asked "what fraction of people born with DSDs are really ambiguous between male and female?"
Not quite sure how you expect we can answer that - divination, perhaps? - if we can't agree on what is required to qualify as male and female in the first place ...
Who constitutes “we”? The only one confused about definitions is you.
YOUR very first post that started this thread asked "what fraction of people born with DSDs are really ambiguous between male and female?"
Not quite sure how you expect we can answer that - divination, perhaps? - if we can't agree on what is required to qualify as male and female in the first place ...
Using your preferred definitions of male and female, what is the answer to the OP question?