• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

Elaedith said:
I think one of Steersman's posts I wanted to respond to is now in AAH, but I was curious to know if discovering a way to reverse a vasectomy easily and rapidly would make men with a (not yet reversed) vasectomy male? If I recall, the issue was the time needed to reverse it.
Click to expand...

In Steersman-speak, a person contemplating a vasectomy reversal would have to be 'One who was previously male and might become male once again'
 
GlennB said:
In Steersman-speak, a person contemplating a vasectomy reversal would have to be 'One who was previously male and might become male once again'
Click to expand...
Presumably, too, although the process of reversal does take time, there is some tipping point at which some pre-determined level of fertility is reached. We are presuming that, since in real life fertility is variable, such a tipping point can be determined. Thus, a person, in the theoretical sexual steerage, would be sexless at one moment, and male a moment later. I wonder if there might even be an uncomfortable period of oscillation, if some specific number of viable sperm is required for full standing. I suppose the same would be true of adolscents. Which raises a somewhat problematic issue of when and how such a transition would be determined. Our puritanical society might balk at periodic testing.
 
Among the more bizarre consequences of Steers' novum lexicon has to be that I don't know whether I'm male anymore, at least not with any certainty. Haven't fathered a child for over a decade now, perhaps I've been shooting blanks these days.

If I was designing language to enhance uncertainty, I'd maybe give this idea more serious consideration.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Presumably, too, although the process of reversal does take time, there is some tipping point at which some pre-determined level of fertility is reached. We are presuming that, since in real life fertility is variable, such a tipping point can be determined. Thus, a person, in the theoretical sexual steerage, would be sexless at one moment, and male a moment later. I wonder if there might even be an uncomfortable period of oscillation, if some specific number of viable sperm is required for full standing. I suppose the same would be true of adolscents. Which raises a somewhat problematic issue of when and how such a transition would be determined. Our puritanical society might balk at periodic testing.
Click to expand...

I'm old and don't do a lot of 'full standing' these days.
 
theprestige said:
Originally Posted by Steersman:
And "male child" MEANS, presumably, "the child OF an eventual male". If it was actually a male then it would presumably be no longer a child.
Click to expand...
Says the guy who also said:

Originally Posted by Steersman:
Don't think you quite get - or want to get - that you don't get to make up your own definitions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Where, pray tell, have I done anything of the sort? :rolleyes:
 
Steersman said:
In your entirely unevidenced and clearly biased opinion ...

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/daniel_patrick_moynihan_182347

But still waiting for you to provide any evidence at all that I'm "making up my own definitions".

And for any evidence that that structure-absent-function schlock of Heying, Hilton, & Wright has any credibility at all in ANY reputable dictionary, encyclopedia, or biological journal.



What unmitigated horse crap.


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

"produces" is an ongoing process. No process, no membership card; no tickee, no washee.

Bit of a wan hope, but y'all might try reading a very good essay at Psychology Today by Robert King on that point:



https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hive-mind/202003/terf-wars-what-is-biological-sex
Click to expand...

The idea that people need to be producing sperm or eggs to meet the definition of male or female is laughable. The number of people who accept definitions like this is so small that the definitions can be safely dismissed.
 
Steersman said:
"produces" is an ongoing process.
Click to expand...
So is "conceives" in the "sex which conceives and brings forth young," but no one thinks you have to be actively conceiving (or birthing) young to be a member of that sex.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what the lexicographers are trying to tell you, bro. The members of class "female" are the ones who ovulate, conceive, and give birth. They don't have to be literally in the act to be a member of the class, they need to be the sort of animals who could do those things or who could have done so.

In no possible universe (Everett branch) did Jazz Jennings ovulate, concieve, or give birth, so we can safely say Jazz is not female under the usual definitions.
 
Last edited:
Steersman said:
So exactly where's your definition and source?
Click to expand...
I've already told you that.

Steersman said:
Then you have to accept Wikipedia's assertion that Laurel Hubbard "transitioned to female"
Click to expand...
I've also already told you that I don't discuss trans issues in the thread which I created to make it clear that DSDs are something else entirely. There is already a thread about Laurel Hubbard, as you well know.
 
Last edited:
Steersman said:
The issue is the definitions for the sexes which undergird your OP question.
Click to expand...
We've already established that Hubbard was born sexless for purposes of the OP question, given your idiosyncratic interpretation of what "male" should be taken to mean.

We also have no idea whether Hubbard is male or sexless today, again, given your idiosyncratic interpretation of what "male" should be taken to mean.
Steersman said:
The biological ones for which you clearly and adamantly refuse to accept, much less even consider.
Click to expand...
None of the reputable biologists accept your idiosyncratic interpretation of what "male" should be taken to mean. They would happily point out that Hubbard was born male, rather than sexless or intersex.
 
Last edited:
I’d be completely on board for a set of terms that boils down to identifying ONLY people who have the relevant gametes to contribute to a fertility clinic. But I can tell you firsthand that 99% of everyone does not want ‘male or female’ to be that set of terms, many to the point of deep insult at the suggestion. Even with animals, we call a boy dog whose puppy makers were removed “neutered male,” not “ex-male” or “sexless” etc.

And I’m still in the dark as to its utility. Is it just the first set of terms in a group of many, which will be able to clearly identify various situations of anatomy or behaviour?

Sorting out which people have active gametes of whichever type has been the lowest hanging fruit of the Other Issues Going On, for a while, I think. That’s not the complicated part of any question.
 
Last edited:
Sorting out which people have active gametes is pretty much only useful in situations where you're trying to do active gamete stuff, and looking for qualified candidates.
 
I'm still in the dark as regards how Steersman would classify a femal mammal in anoestrus or pro-oestrus or metoestrus. Are they only female when actually releasing a fertile ovum (oestrus)? Or does the fact that they do that on a regular basis cover the times in between? Even if that time in between is months or even (in some species) a couple of years?

If Steersman can cope with these gaps in fertility seen in all female mammals, and still call them female, I don't understand why a temporary restriction in delivering viable sperm into a female (due to vasectomy, or God help us, putting on a condom) should disbar these individuals from being male.

I'm also not sure whether to be male one actually has to be doing the necessary to deliver that sperm into a fertile female or not. Something about being ready to do so if required, I think?

Nobody needs words that mean these things. Nobody wants words that mean these things. But I don't think he's going to give up.
 
theprestige said:
Sorting out which people have active gametes is pretty much only useful in situations where you're trying to do active gamete stuff, and looking for qualified candidates.
Click to expand...
And tragically enough most of us choose our mates without even bothering to do a gamete check first.

Sent from my Trojan ENZ using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
That's a terrible misinterpretation of how English works.
Click to expand...
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION. Not sure how you think, apparently, that that is worth more than diddly-squat.

Did you bother to read the Psychology Today article that was part of the comment you responded to? Particularly this quoted passage?
"No one has the essence of maleness or femaleness, for one simple reason: Since the 17th century, what science has been showing, in every single field, is that the folk notion of an 'essence' is not reflected in reality. There are no essences in nature. For the last three hundred years or so, the advance of science has been in lockstep with the insight that is what really exists are processes [functions], not essences."
Click to expand...


Processes are fundamental elements in pretty much all of biology - it's the science's sine qua non. Was doing some spelunking through the topic of Philosophy of Biology the other day, and Wikipedia's article underlines the point:

Scientific reductionism is the view that higher-level biological processes reduce to physical and chemical processes. For example, the biological process of respiration is explained as a biochemical process involving oxygen and carbon dioxide. Some philosophers of biology have attempted to answer the question of whether all biological processes reduce to physical or chemical ones. On the reductionist view, there would be no distinctly biological laws.

Holism in science is the view that emphasizes higher-level processes, phenomena at a larger level that occur due to the pattern of interactions between the elements of a system over time. ....

Philosophers of biology have also examined the notion of “teleology.” Some have argued that scientists have had no need for a notion of cosmic teleology that can explain and predict evolution, since one was provided by Darwin. But teleological explanations relating to purpose or function have remained useful in biology, for example, in explaining the structural configuration of macromolecules and the study of co-operation in social systems.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_biology#Biological_laws_and_autonomy_of_biology

Processes are essential elements, they're often the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership. As with the biological definitions for the sexes. Structure by itself is often irrelevant and secondary. A recently dead body has pretty much the same structure as the previously alive one, but it's missing the property of essential processes and functions - like a heart that beats (habitually, regularly, present tense indefinite):

https://www.thoughtco.com/habitual-present-grammar-1690830
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/

Pretty solid expositions of "how English [actually] works" if you ask me ...
 
theprestige said:
I've always admired your taste in hardware, but why is it always the same crappy software?
Click to expand...
You might enjoy Luminous by Greg Egan, in which the software becomes the hardware.

Rolfe said:
I'm also not sure whether to be male one actually has to be doing the necessary to deliver that sperm into a fertile female or not.
Click to expand...
We males see "doing the necessary" as more of an avocation.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I'm still in the dark as regards how Steersman would classify a female mammal in anoestrus or pro-oestrus or metoestrus. Are they only female when actually releasing a fertile ovum (oestrus)? Or does the fact that they do that on a regular basis cover the times in between? Even if that time in between is months or even (in some species) a couple of years?
Click to expand...
Given that you brought up the concept of "habitually", I'm not sure why you would be asking that question. You might take a gander at my latest comment quoting that idea.

But I wonder, as per another recent comment of mine which you apparently didn't read, whether you think that "every cell has a sex" is "utter dreck" or not. You think it's true?

Similarly, "female child" may have some justification - at least as long as it's clearly understood that prepubescent children don't yet have a sex.

But's that the problem, the same as with "male cells" and "female brains" - most people haven't got a clue - and are too pigheaded to even consider that's the case - that those phrases MEAN "cells OF a male" or typical of a male, and "brains OF a female" or typical of a female. Likewise, "female child" can MEAN, at best, the childhood stage OF a female - NOT that they are actually female themselves.


Rolfe said:
Nobody needs words that mean these things. Nobody wants words that mean these things. But I don't think he's going to give up.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Clearly, nobody - or very few people - want definitions for the sexes that deprive them of their sex-category membership cards. Or which "offend" those near and dear ...

But them's the facts - ma'am. And their logical consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom