• 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:
: rolleyes : : rolleyes : *10 ... : rolleyes : ; )

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



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositive_adjective
Click to expand...

I guess those aren't postpositive or postnominal adjectives then. Try predicative adjectives instead.

Side note:
I dislike animations in or near text, so I've blocked all the avatars, signatures, and emoticons on the forum. I don't even see your "clever" glyphs until I quote your post and get the bbcode that triggers their display. So to me the entire first line of your post reads as
*10​
Which just looks like a typo. FYI.


: rolleyes :
 
Last edited:
The daft thing is, "male" and "female" are basically adjectives that have been used as nouns for so long that they're accepted as such. Like "human". (Human is less well accepted. I was always taught in scientific writing to write either "human being" or "man".)

German does it better. It nounifies adjectives all over the damn shop, making translations quite stilted sometimes.
 
Rolfe said:
The daft thing is, "male" and "female" are basically adjectives that have been used as nouns for so long that they're accepted as such. Like "human". (Human is less well accepted. I was always taught in scientific writing to write either "human being" or "man".)

German does it better. It nounifies adjectives all over the damn shop, making translations quite stilted sometimes.
Click to expand...

You might note a section of the Wikipedia article on adjectives:

Nominalized adjectives, which function as nouns. One way this happens is by eliding a noun from an adjective-noun noun phrase, whose remnant thus is a nominalization. In the sentence, "I read two books to them; he preferred the sad book, but she preferred the happy", happy is a nominalized adjective, short for "happy one" or "happy book".
Click to expand...

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

STILL adjectives, NOT nouns. Prepubescent "male children" and "female children" still don't have a sex - at least by the biological definitions prescribed by Parker & Lehtonen in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction ...
 
theprestige said:
Too bad there's evidence, then.
Click to expand...
LoL. And calling a dog's tail a leg makes it one:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_107482

And calling Laurel Hubbard a female makes "her" one:

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

theprestige said:
Yes. You claimed they were nouns, and that damion was wrong to try to use them as adjectives in that position.

So you were wrong, and damion was right to use "male" as an adjective in that position.
Click to expand...

I rather doubt he intended it as such. He clearly wanted - still wants apparently - to make "male children" mean that they actually are males, i.e., those with functioning testicles - according to the standard biological definitions prescribed by Parker & Lehtonen in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction ...

In what sense, then, are these sex organs in the bucket male?
Click to expand...

But - perchance, en passant - do you have any similar prescriptive definitions by credible biologists in credible biological journals that endorse that structure-absent-function schlock of Heying, Hilton, & Wright? :rolleyes:
 
Steersman said:
LoL. And calling a dog's tail a leg makes it one:

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/abraham_lincoln_107482

And calling Laurel Hubbard a female makes "her" one:

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



I rather doubt he intended it as such. He clearly wanted - still wants apparently - to make "male children" mean that they actually are males, i.e., those with functioning testicles - according to the standard biological definitions prescribed by Parker & Lehtonen in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction ...



But - perchance, en passant - do you have any similar prescriptive definitions by credible biologists in credible biological journals that endorse that structure-absent-function schlock of Heying, Hilton, & Wright? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Male is an adjective, my dude. Get used to it.
 
theprestige said:
Male is an adjective, my dude. Get used to it.
Click to expand...
LoL. So what?

Adjectives still aren't magic wands as you seem to think is the case. Attaching them to nouns doesn't automatically bestow any additional properties to those nouns.

If that were really the case then calling Hubbard a "female weight-lifter" would have changed his sex from male to female.

Also, FYI, "male" is also a noun:

male noun
plural males
Definition of male (Entry 2 of 2)
1a: a male person : a man or a boy
b: an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
 
Steersman said:
He clearly wanted - still wants apparently - to make "male children" mean that they actually are males, i.e., those with functioning testicles - according to the standard biological definitions prescribed by Parker & Lehtonen in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction
Click to expand...
Neither Parker nor Lehtonen have disclaimed calling babies male or female.
 
Steersman said:
Adjectives still aren't magic wands as you seem to think is the case. Attaching them to nouns doesn't automatically bestow any additional properties to those nouns.
Click to expand...


Nouns are words. Bestowing additional properties to nouns is exactly what adjectives do.

I think what you might have meant to say is that adjectives don't automatically bestow additional properties to the things nouns might refer to. But, since you're insisting on being all precise about definitions...
 
Steersman said:
LoL. So what?

Adjectives still aren't magic wands as you seem to think is the case. Attaching them to nouns doesn't automatically bestow any additional properties to those nouns.

If that were really the case then calling Hubbard a "female weight-lifter" would have changed his sex from male to female.

Also, FYI, "male" is also a noun:



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
Click to expand...

This is reaching Alien Space Robot levels of failure to understand natural languages among Earthlings.
 
d4m10n said:
Neither Parker nor Lehtonen have disclaimed calling babies male or female.
Click to expand...
"I'll take motivated reasoning for $600 please Alex."

Sure a lotta that in this neck of the woods.

I've already answered that several times. Try searching for and reading my comments on intensional definitions.
 
Myriad said:
Nouns are words. Bestowing additional properties to nouns is exactly what adjectives do.

I think what you might have meant to say is that adjectives don't automatically bestow additional properties to the things nouns might refer to. But, since you're insisting on being all precise about definitions...
Click to expand...

You say po-ta-toe, I say po-tat-oe.

Try saying "that's a red chair" while pointing to a green one, and let me know if it changes colour ... :rolleyes:

Because that's what y'all are basically trying to do. Don't see that as terribly different from Wikipedia saying Hubbard transitioned to female.

Politics, strange bedfellows, and all that ...
 
Rolfe said:
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.
Click to expand...
You're evading the question, more particularly, the difference between nouns and adjectives.

And you fail to understand that there are different ways of looking at "female" such that Laurel Hubbard now qualifies as one ... tsk, tsk ...

"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. Nor does that mean every cell has a sex.

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.

The problem is "many different ways of looking at this" - many of which are logically incoherent and inconsistent, if not flat-out RONG. "Tower of Babel", indeed:
 

Attachments

  • 1024px-Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_(Vienna)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
    1024px-Pieter_Bruegel_the_Elder_-_The_Tower_of_Babel_(Vienna)_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg
    145.2 KB · Views: 1
Steersman said:
LoL. So what?

Adjectives still aren't magic wands as you seem to think is the case. Attaching them to nouns doesn't automatically bestow any additional properties to those nouns.

If that were really the case then calling Hubbard a "female weight-lifter" would have changed his sex from male to female.

Also, FYI, "male" is also a noun:



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
Click to expand...
...goalmove.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom