• 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")

Steersman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning. Yet again.
 
Lithrael said:
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.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: :)

As I put it in a previous comment, maybe you missed my "magnum opus"? ;)

https://medium.com/@steersmann/reality-and-illusion-being-vs-identifying-as-77f9618b17c7

So, in consequence and relative to which, one might tentatively suggest a couple of hyphenated words — based on Latin for some extra pizzazz — to cover all of those bases, to create a set of exhaustive categories, to name them for some as yet unspecified “adaptive or pragmatic purpose”, to wit: parit-ova (produces ova); sperma-facit (produces sperm); and, for the sake of completeness and to remove any possible “wiggle-room”, nec-non-parit-ova-genituram (produces neither ova nor sperm). In addition, since it is more or less a given that the process of sex is, by definition and by common understanding, fundamental to and itself the process of biological reproduction, we might also assert that those first two categories are or can be called the two sexes by virtue of being the only categories of those able to take part in reproduction.
Click to expand...

But if those definitions were adopted, how long do you think it would be before someone came up with a name for "adult human parit-ova"? And laws to segregate people based on membership in those new categories? And before there was a cachet attached to the word that the transloonies would seek to usurp?

Lithrael said:
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.
Click to expand...

So WHAT if they're "offended"? See Stephen Fry's "pithy" comment thereon, and a quote of Jonathan Rauch:

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/706825-it-s-now-very-common-to-hear-people-say-i-m-rather

“Those who claim to be hurt by words must be led to expect nothing as compensation. Otherwise, once they learn they can get something by claiming to be hurt, they will go into the business of being offended.”
Click to expand...

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/5539805-those-who-claim-to-be-hurt-by-words-must-be

But see my recent comment on how there might be some marginal justification for phrases like "female child" as long as it's clearly understood that prepubescent children are sexless.

Lithrael said:
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?
Click to expand...

The crux of the whole transgender "contretemps :rolleyes:" is that transloonie nutcases and their "useful/useless idiots" are bastardizing and corrupting the language to the point that no one has a clue what anyone means by the terms "sex" and "gender" anymore. See this generally quite good essay on the topic by Andy Lewis at the Quackometer:

https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2021/07/on-the-sex-deracination-gambit.html

The biological definitions for the sexes seem the only way of separating wheat and chaff, drawing a line in the sand, calling a spade an *******! (:rolleyes:) shovel, letting the chips fall where they may. To coin a phrase or two ... ;)


Lithrael said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don't think so - sorting out what we mean by "male" and "female" looks like Job One. We can't deal with that "complicated part" if we can't agree on the definitions for those terms, particularly when those parts hinge, unwisely or not, on those definitions.

But somewhat more broadly, a great deal of justification to argue - as I've done - that transgenderism is really only a symptom, not the "disease" itself:

https://randomminds.substack.com/p/a-forbidden-conversation-about-gender/comment/8691460

Some justification to argue, as "biologist" Colin Wright's Substack title suggests, that transgenderism may well constitute "Reality's Last Stand".
 
Wait, that is your magnum opus? Your greatest work of all your works? But somehow you missed out on "sperma-facit" and "ovi-facit"? Do you have no appreciation at all for linguistic symmetry?
 
Erythrocytes don't have a sex as far as I can see.

But do tell. What is this dreadful conclusion we're all intent on avoiding?
 
Rolfe said:
Erythrocytes don't have a sex as far as I can see.

But do tell. What is this dreadful conclusion we're all intent on avoiding?
Click to expand...
So you do agree then that "every cell has a sex"? Except for erythrocytes, of course ... :rolleyes: Not "utter dreck"?

How about "female gametes"? And "male brains"? "female eyebrows"? "male elbows"? Do they each have a sex? :rolleyes:
 
Steersman said:
It's the individuals that have a sex - even by their quite unscientific definitions. It's not the parts of them themselves that do.
Click to expand...
One time during gross human anatomy they handed around a bucket of male sexual organs for study on Bobbitt Labratories® dissection trays. (Still having a giggle about the timely and peculiar juxtaposition there.) When I wrote "male sexual organs" just now that phrase made sense to everyone reading along at home other than Steersman, who understands that the parts themselves cannot be sexed. For his sake, I'm going to mention that it was, in fact, a bucket of dicks.
 
Last edited:
I'm not Emma Hilton.

There is nothing wrong with her definition, but you fail to understand that there are different ways of looking at this.

A forensic archaeologist might look at a pelvic bone and say, that is a female pelvic bone. You can complain that he should have said, that is a pelvic bone that was once part of a female body. Except you can't know that that body every produced ova so I really don't know what you'd want the archaeologist to say.

It's possible to look at a cell that has a nucleus and determine its sex from its chromosomal complement. You can say that cell is male or female. And get this, it might be that that cell is part of a body that is the opposite sex from the body it's part of. See these pesky freemartins again.

This is all perfectly simple and understood by anyone who knows anything about mammalian biology.
 
Steersman said:
What a pile of evasive and intellectually dishonest horse crap.
Click to expand...


It reads as clear and factual to me.

You fail to understand that there are different ways of looking at "female" such that Laurel Hubbard now qualifies as one ... tsk, tsk ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


What intersex condition does Laurel Hubbard have, that makes her relevant to this thread?

"female pelvic bone", as I've said a dozen times or more in several different ways and in many comments, is not the problem. Perfectly reasonable that as meaning "the pelvic bone of a female". But that does not make the bone itself a female.
Click to expand...


You are wrong. The "female pelvic bone" is not called that because it happened to come from a female body. It's called that because it has the characteristic structure of a female pelvic bone instead of the characteristic structure of a male one. In an archaeology or forensic context, there's a good chance that the body it came from is known to be female only because the pelvic bone has those characteristically female characteristics.

The properties of the whole body are not the properties of the individual parts - that a car has a carburetor for mixing fuel, and a transmission for transferring power does not mean that a transmission can mix fuel.
Click to expand...


So what? A Ford F-150 carburetor can't tow a trailer down the highway but it's still a Ford F-150 carburetor, not a Subaru carburetor nor a "model-less" carburetor.
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
It reads as clear and factual to me.
Click to expand...

I guess you too think every cell has a sex? That every brain and kidney does? That each of those organisms and organs has "developed anatomies for producing small or large gametes"? That each of them has hidden within them - heretofore undetected by modern biology - a set of ovaries or testes? :rolleyes:

"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554

Myriad said:
What intersex condition does Laurel Hubbard have, that makes her relevant to this thread?
Click to expand...
Kinda slow on the uptake there mate - you might note the sarcastic winky following that comment ...

Myriad said:
You are wrong. The "female pelvic bone" is not called that because it happened to come from a female body. ....
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

Myriad said:
So what? A Ford F-150 carburetor can't tow a trailer down the highway but it's still a Ford F-150 carburetor, not a Subaru carburetor nor a "model-less" carburetor.
Click to expand...

Where the hell did I say that it could, or that it was from a different make and model vehicle?

Don't think you have a clue about arguments from analogy, or even the concept of analogies to begin with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#Identity_of_relation
 
Steersman said:
I guess you too think every cell has a sex? That every brain and kidney does? That each of those organisms and organs has "developed anatomies for producing small or large gametes"? That each of them has hidden within them - heretofore undetected by modern biology - a set of ovaries or testes? :rolleyes:

Kinda slow on the uptake there mate - you might note the sarcastic winky following that comment ...

:rolleyes:

Where the hell did I say that it could, or that it was from a different make and model vehicle?

Don't think you have a clue about arguments from analogy, or even the concept of analogies to begin with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy#Identity_of_relation
Click to expand...


Whatever. How people define and use words isn't up to you. Neither your weird pretzel logic nor your condescending insults have persuaded anyone anywhere to change their definitions or usage of "male" or "female."

Buttercup.
 
Myriad said:
Whatever. How people define and use words isn't up to you. Neither your weird pretzel logic nor your condescending insults have persuaded anyone anywhere to change their definitions or usage of "male" or "female."

Buttercup.
Click to expand...

LoL. You and Humpty-Dumpty:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty#Lewis_Carroll's_Through_the_Looking-Glass

And the "right-wing-populist commentator" of Colbert's "acquaintance":

A year later, The Colbert Report went on the air. In the first few minutes of the first episode, Stephen Colbert, playing his right-wing-populist commentator character, performed a feature called “The Word.” His first selection: truthiness. “Now, I’m sure some of the ‘word police,’ the ‘wordinistas’ over at Webster’s, are gonna say, ‘Hey, that’s not a word!’ Well, anybody who knows me knows that I’m no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They’re elitist. Constantly telling us what is or isn’t true. Or what did or didn’t happen. Who’s Britannica to tell me the Panama Canal was finished in 1914? If I wanna say it happened in 1941, that’s my right. I don’t trust books—they’re all fact, no heart … Face it, folks, we are a divided nation … divided between those who think with their head and those who know with their heart … Because that’s where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen—the gut.”
Click to expand...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/how-america-lost-its-mind/534231/

Classy crowd you travel with ... :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom