Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[d4m10n]

"male sexual organs", and "female cells", and "male brains" - as phrases - are NOT the problem.

Interesting. What definition of "male" do you find non-problematic in the first phrase?



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Myriad]

LoL. You and Humpty-Dumpty:

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

Humpty Dumpty is a fictional character. In the real world eggs don't talk. And in the real world, it is not up to you how people use and define words.

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

Another fictional personage. In the real world, it is not up to you how people use and define words.

You are advocating for a change in definition and usage, but you have failed to persuade anyone. So the change in definition and usage that you are advocating is not going to happen.

 

[Rolfe]

Steersman seems to have a very rigid and literal way of thinking. I'm sensing the problem from his point of view isn't just that he has this mad notion that all the dictionaries are saying something different from what everyone else believes they are saying, but that he believes that words must have one definition and one form of usage only, or else they don't mean anything.

Sex can mean whether the body is arranged around the production of small or large gametes. It can mean having a chromosomal complement that is consistent with a body arranged around small or large gametes. It can mean having an anatomical structure that is consistent with a body arranged around the production of small or large gametes. It can also mean the act of copulation.

Context is everything, as my language tutor is fond of saying (especially in the situation where the future tense and the habitual tense are one and the same).

Different usages, which in this case are perfectly clear and unambiguous, do not render the words ambiguous or meaningless. There is no part of this usage that could expand the word "female" to include Laurel Hubbard, or Rachel McKinnon, or Caitlin Jenner, or Lia Thomas, or Emily Bridges.

However, if one were to restrict the use of the word female to organisms which are currently experiencing some part of a menstrual or oestrus cycle, all bets are off. Many female athletes are suddenly not female, as the stress of training often puts the body into non-cycling mode. If a non-menstruating, non-cycling woman isn't a woman but is still permitted to enter, why are we keeping the poor trans ladies out again?

 

[d4m10n]

Possibly of interest, a tweet from the Skeptic Magazine publisher

https://twitter.com/michaelshermer/status/1564282324048658437



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Rolfe]

Here we go again. More people who don't know what the word binary means.

 

[theprestige]

Steersman seems to have a very rigid and literal way of thinking. I'm sensing the problem from his point of view isn't just that he has this mad notion that all the dictionaries are saying something different from what everyone else believes they are saying, but that he believes that words must have one definition and one form of usage only, or else they don't mean anything.

I know there must be a formal term in grammar for using "produces" to signify a potential act rather than a presently ongoing act, but I can't find it. This is annoying, since I'd love to get Steersman's take on such a grammatical prescription. Are there any deep language nerds following this thread?

 

[Rolfe]

It's what I would call the present habitual. I posted about this point earlier. "I sing in a choir." That doesn't mean that, as I type, I am actually sitting in the village hall belting out the soprano part of Vivaldi's Gloria. It means that this is something I do habitually.

It came up because I'm learning Gaelic and in Gaelic the future tense is used for the same thing. "Bidh mi a' seinn ann an còisir," or "Seinnidh mi ann an còisir." Literally these sentences read "I will be singing in a choir," or "I will sing in a choir." Nevertheless they would be understood, depending on context, as a description of what I do habitually, not a declaration of intent to join a choir next month.

"Nì iad fìon blasta anns an Fhraing." Literally "They will make tasty wine in France," but the correct translation of the meaning is "They make tasty wine in France."

Present habitual in English, but in Gaelic I suppose you'd call it future habitual. Same thing.

 

[d4m10n]

It's what I would call the present habitual.

A friend of mine is a science blogger and lecturer; just at the moment he's lecturing rather than blogging. Still a blogger when he's lecturing; still a lecturer when blogging. (Also, still a male even when he's not actively attempting to impregnate anyone.)

 

[theprestige]

It's what I would call the present habitual. I posted about this point earlier. "I sing in a choir." That doesn't mean that, as I type, I am actually sitting in the village hall belting out the soprano part of Vivaldi's Gloria. It means that this is something I do habitually.

It came up because I'm learning Gaelic and in Gaelic the future tense is used for the same thing. "Bidh mi a' seinn ann an còisir," or "Seinnidh mi ann an còisir." Literally these sentences read "I will be singing in a choir," or "I will sing in a choir." Nevertheless they would be understood, depending on context, as a description of what I do habitually, not a declaration of intent to join a choir next month.

"Nì iad fìon blasta anns an Fhraing." Literally "They will make tasty wine in France," but the correct translation of the meaning is "They make tasty wine in France."

Present habitual in English, but in Gaelic I suppose you'd call it future habitual. Same thing.

A friend of mine is a science blogger and lecturer; just at the moment he's lecturing rather than blogging. Still a blogger when he's lecturing; still a lecturer when blogging. (Also, still a male even when he's not actively attempting to impregnate anyone.)

Thanks!

Here's the Wikipedia entry for the "habitual aspect":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitual_aspect

Which "specifies an action as occurring habitually: the subject performs the action usually, ordinarily, or customarily."

Steersman, that's how everyone else is reading the dictionary usage of "produces" gametes. Not as present continuous, but present habitual. Males are the sex that usually, ordinarily, or customarily produces the smaller gamete.

And, again, it's referring to the sex that habitually produces the gamete, in this context. Males are individuals of that sex.

But all this has been explained to you many times before.

 

[Rolfe]

And, again, it's referring to the sex that habitually produces the gamete, in this context. Males are individuals of that sex.

That is so important. The "habitual" meaning in this context is not that every individual male must be in the habit of producing small gametes, but that males are members of the sex that (habitually) produces small gametes. In other words, it's a structural definition.

Every single person except Steersman seems to understand this readily enough.

 

[Steersman]

That is so important. The "habitual" meaning in this context is not that every individual male must be in the habit of producing small gametes, but that males are members of the sex that (habitually) produces small gametes. In other words, it's a structural definition.

Every single person except Steersman seems to understand this readily enough.

Don't think you - and far too many others - quite get the idea that "male", for example, is the name for a category and members of it. And that to be a member one has to be able to pay the "membership dues", i.e., produce regularly, habitually, small gametes. Kinda doubt that transwomen who've had their nuts removed are going to be doing much of that ...

It's NOT the sex - as a category - that produces gametes, only the members of it do.

Try wrapping your head around the idea that category names are abstractions, they're NOT things in themselves with any causal efficacy. I've said this many times, but apparently no one is paying attention:

Sex in humans isn't a physical quantity, though.

Yes, quite agree.

Classes and categories are generally just abstractions, a perception that different things have properties in common. The only thing that's "really real" are the properties that determine category membership; note the "regarded", i.e., "perceived":

category (noun): A class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/category

And in the case of the sexes - at least as they're sensibly and logically defined by most biologists worth their salt - the "shared properties" that constitute "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership are "produces (habitually) ova" and "produces (habitually) sperm".

Those properties are quite real, but the categories themselves - "male" and "female" - are just abstractions that many people insist on turning into real things - the "sin", the logical fallacy of reification. Nobody HAS a "female" or a "male" - I defy anyone to measure the volume and size of their sexes, locate them so many inches to the east and south of their kidneys.

You might check out that Regenmortel essay which elaborates on those concepts in some detail, this section and the abstract in particular:

2. The logic of hierarchical virus classification
The root of the word classification is class, a term that refers to all the classes of viruses or organisms that have concrete objects as their members. Every membership condition determines a class and since whatever is said about a thing ascribes a property to it, properties and classes are related entities (Quine 1990: 22–24). .... Class membership is the logical relation that makes it possible to establish a bridge between two logical categories, namely an abstract class or taxon which is a mental construct and its concrete members that are objects located in space and time.

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

male persons are concrete entities that are located in space and time; the male category is name for a mental box we put around those entities which share the property "produces sperm".

For a more tangible example outside of the sexes, consider the category "vertebrate" (see below; image to the right of each character is of a spine). NO ONE HAS a vertebrate; we are all - presumably though it may be moot in some cases - members of that category BECAUSE we HAVE spines. Harkening back to your "every cell has a sex ", one couldn't possibly say that your kidneys or lungs or every cell is a vertebrate; serious "cognitive distortion", being charitable.

Entirely different kettles of fish. A fundamental and profoundly important difference which sloppy, and shoddy and inept, if not politically motivated uses of language obscures, obviates, or rides roughshod over. Criminal misuse and abuse of language; you might just as well say "2+2=5".

 

[theprestige]

It's a structural definition, Steersman, not a functional one. The habitual aspect refers to the habits of the structure, not the habitual function that sometimes arises from the structure.

 

[d4m10n]

The dicks themselves are NOT males.

Agreed. I was using male as an adjective rather than a noun.

They're PARTS OF males, or OF people who WERE males, or are TYPICAL OF males.

I really feel like we're making progress here, despite my thick pigheaded reasoning and admittedly short attention span. We've at least gotten to the point where we can agree that certain structures are typical of males, and that's what we usually mean by "male [structure]."

Where we may yet disagree is on what makes something typical. What I mean is that there are two basic developmental pathways and some structures show up on one of those pathways but almost never in the other one. This is why > 99% of human infants can be declared male or female at birth, because they have sex-typical external genitals, which are statistically highly correlated with only one reproductive pathway.

 

[jimbob]

I'll try again. I have moved more posts to AAH for obvious reasons.



Keep it civil. The mods can keep editing or moving disruptive posts that are off topic or uncivil until we get bored and suspend those posting against moderator instructions or the MA

If I deem a post to have sufficient incivility - even if there is a substantive point in it. In this thread, I am probably going to put it in the AAH bin.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Steersman]

Agreed. I was using male as an adjective rather than a noun.

Bit of a stretch .... You SAID:

In what sense, then, are these sex organs in the bucket male?

If I'm not mistaken, words by their lonesome are nouns; adjectives are attached to them; no attachment, not an adjective.

I really feel like we're making progress here, despite my thick pigheaded reasoning and admittedly short attention span. ....

"progress", indeed. Bravo ...

Where we may yet disagree is on what makes something typical.

Try reading, a bit more closely, MacLean's article, the passage I quoted in particular.

You, of all people - if I'm not mistaken, should have some appreciation of the concept of correlation. You can't possibly determine what things correlate with the primary, independent variable if you have got a clue what you mean by that primary variable in the first place.

You first determine if an individual is a member of the category which is that primary variable, and you then count how many of those individuals exhibit the secondary or dependent variable or instance. If the number is "large" then it's a typical trait, and if it's smaller then it's an atypical one.

The starting point is the definition of that primary variable; it's not an afterthought.

What I mean is that there are two basic developmental pathways and some structures show up on one of those pathways but almost never in the other one.

Sure. Why internal and non-functional testes in CAIS people don't make them males.

But "developmental pathways" are NOT the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership - at least not of the biological ones prescribed by Parker & Lehtonen in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction ...

This is why > 99% of human infants can be declared male or female at birth, because they have sex-typical external genitals, which are statistically highly correlated with only one reproductive pathway.

Except they're NOT males or females; they're male babies or female babies. Nouns versus adjectives ...

With a bit of ellipsis thrown in to muddy the mix ...

 

[theprestige]

: rolleyes : Bit of a stretch .... You SAID:


If I'm not mistaken, words by their lonesome are nouns; adjectives are attached to them; no attachment, not an adjective.

You're absolutely mistaken:

In what sense, then, are these apples in the bucket green?

In what sense, then, are these gametes in the bucket small?

In what sense, then, are these people stranded in the desert thirsty?

In what sense, then, are these scriptures in the apocrypha Christian?

In what sense, then, are these sex organs in the bucket male?​

In each of these examples, the final word in the string is being used as an adjective (as described by mainstream online dictionaries).

: rolleyes :

 

[bruto]

Bit of a stretch .... You SAID:


If I'm not mistaken, words by their lonesome are nouns; adjectives are attached to them; no attachment, not an adjective.

I just picked a bunch of repulsant snozzcumbers. My wife asked, "by what measure are the vegetables in that basket edible?" Must be noun? No, because, as is common in the English language spoken by most of us (if not, it seems, all) the interrogative form often reverses subject and adjective. The noun to which the obvious an universally accepted adjective refers, is antecedent and understood in context, just as in the example cited, "male" referred to the sex organs mentioned in the same sentence.

Pardon me if I skipped the rest. I kind of stalled at that point of exit.

 

[Steersman]

You're absolutely mistaken:

In what sense, then, are these apples in the bucket green?

In what sense, then, are these gametes in the bucket small?

In what sense, then, are these people stranded in the desert thirsty?

In what sense, then, are these scriptures in the apocrypha Christian?

In what sense, then, are these sex organs in the bucket male?​

In each of these examples, the final word in the string is being used as an adjective (as described by mainstream online dictionaries).

: rolleyes :

*10 ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjective

A postpositive adjective or postnominal adjective is an adjective that occurs immediately after the noun or pronoun that it modifies, as in noun phrases such as attorney general, queen regnant, or all matters financial.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositive_adjective

 

[d4m10n]

You first determine if an individual is a member of the category which is that primary variable...

You are free to wait for at least a decade until they either ovulate or ejaculate and then run tests to see if the are producing viable gametes are or not; I'm going to go ahead and assign people to one sex or another based on obvious physiological differences.

Except they're NOT males or females; they're male babies or female babies.

If you're comfortable with calling babies either male or female, I'll count that as progress.

 

[Steersman]

You are free to wait for at least a decade until they either ovulate or ejaculate and then run tests to see if the are producing viable gametes are or not; I'm going to go ahead and assign people to one sex or another based on obvious physiological differences.

Isn't your claim to fame and fortune to have some expertise in statistics?

Never heard of proxy variables?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)

In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable.

If a human - of any age - has a vagina then there's probably a 98% chance, at least, of being a female, likely to become a female, or likely was a female - using the biological definitions, of course, as the only rational ones. Unless the secondary variable under discussion is "produces [present tense indefinite] ova" then the difference is likely to be immaterial.

But largely why I've argued that there may be some merit in using karyotypes as that primary variable in various scientific studies and research:

https://medium.com/@pjlavoro/excellent-549ff1cbecaa

If you're comfortable with calling babies either male or female, I'll count that as progress.

As long as you don't try telling me that they actually have a sex ...