• 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")

d4m10n said:
Bear in mind this thread only exists to head off a specific form of red herring from another thread. [emoji14]

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Are red herrings sequential hermaphrodites? I'm confused.
 
d4m10n said:
Did Parker & Lehtonen actually claim their definitions are intensional?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that is necessary? It's implicit in the form.

But note that the Wikipedia article on extensional and intensional definitions uses the example of "bachelor":

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

For example, an intensional definition of the word "bachelor" is "unmarried man". This definition is valid because being an unmarried man is both a necessary condition and a sufficient condition for being a bachelor: it is necessary because one cannot be a bachelor without being an unmarried man, and it is sufficient because any unmarried man is a bachelor.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions

And note the form and structure for the Google/OED definitions for both "bachelor" and, similarly, "teenager":

bachelor (noun): a man who is not and has never been married.

teenager (noun): a person aged between 13 and 19 years.
Click to expand...

Don't think there's anything in "descriptive" that precludes stipulative or intensional definitions in dictionaries.

But if those aren't intensional definitions, then maybe you can provide some evidence of what other conditions might qualify individuals for membership in those categories? Maybe, "teenager" includes blacks between 13 and 25?

Same thing with the definitions of Parker & Lehtonen for "male" and "female". Likewise in Google/OED & Lexico:

https://web.archive.org/web/20170902010637/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female

d4m10n said:
Seems a bit weird, considering their willingness to write about "male offspring," etc.
Click to expand...
They were clearly referring to those past puberty ... ;)
 
Steersman said:
What makes you think that is necessary? It's implicit in the form.

But note that the Wikipedia article on extensional and intensional definitions uses the example of "bachelor":

And note the form and structure for the Google/OED definitions for both "bachelor" and, similarly, "teenager":

Don't think there's anything in "descriptive" that precludes stipulative or intensional definitions in dictionaries.

But if those aren't intensional definitions, then maybe you can provide some evidence of what other conditions might qualify individuals for membership in those categories? Maybe, "teenager" includes blacks between 13 and 25?

Same thing with the definitions of Parker & Lehtonen for "male" and "female". Likewise in Google/OED & Lexico:

They were clearly referring to those past puberty ... ;)
Click to expand...

The problem with your system of definitions is that it reduces our ability to discuss these matters comprehensibly, whether that's in everyday life or in a scientific context. It's worse than just useless, it's a positive hindrance.
 
GlennB said:
The problem with your system of definitions is that it reduces our ability to discuss these matters comprehensibly, whether that's in everyday life or in a scientific context. It's worse than just useless, it's a positive hindrance.
Click to expand...


It would pretty much render the words male and female, and any words that depend on these for their definitions, unusable in normal conversation. How can I know whether someone I perceive as a man has had a vasectomy, which apparently renders him a "sexless eunuch"? How can I know whether someone I perceive as a woman is on the pill, which also apparently renders her sexless?

We don't just need new words for pre-pubertal juveniles, and post-menopausal women, we need words that don't assume a sex for everybody, because without a full fertility exam conducted at the time of speaking, nobody can know whether anyone has a sex or not.

Or maybe we could just continue as we are doing and use the words in their normal meanings, and let Steersman dream up new words where he thinks he needs them.
 
Rolfe said:
Or maybe we could just continue as we are doing and use the words in their normal meanings, and let Steersman dream up new words where he thinks he needs them.
Click to expand...
We could define male☸ & female☸ to conform w/ Steersman's preferred usage, and then ask ourselves whether those new words (with strict intensional definitions) would actually help solve anything.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Not if they don't actually use the words in that way.
Click to expand...

In your entirely unevidenced opinion ...

d4m10n said:
:eyeroll:
Click to expand...

Just the facts, man, just the facts.

Apropos of which and since I seem to recollect you asking about the roots of that extensional and intensional dichotomy which underlies the Wikipedia article, you might take a gander at a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the topic - though I doubt you will but others might:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/port-royal-logic/

It's a review of a book on logic - and the art of thinking - from the mid 1600s, and which was fairly popular for the next several hundred years. They are using "comprehension" instead of Wikipedia's "intension", but other sources (including SEP) emphasize that it encompasses all of the "intensions" associated with the "idea" in question:

The Logic condenses this framework so that the significance of general ideas has two aspects: the comprehension and the extension. The comprehension consists in the set of attributes essential to the idea. For example, the comprehension of the idea “triangle” includes the attributes extension, shape, three lines, three angles, etc. The extension of the idea consists in the particular objects to which it applies, which includes “all the different species of triangles”
Click to expand...

You seem rather desperately committed to an entirely unscientific set of definitions for the sexes, and don't seem particularly willing to consider the relevance, utility, or justifications for the scientific ones. [ETA]
 

Attachments

  • Quotes_Moynihan_FactsOpinions.jpg
    Quotes_Moynihan_FactsOpinions.jpg
    148 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
We could define male☸ & female☸ to conform w/ Steersman's preferred usage, and then ask ourselves whether those new words (with strict intensional definitions) would actually help solve anything.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that Steersman is talking a load of old bollocks? Well, that would explain a lot.
 
d4m10n said:
We could define male☸ & female☸ to conform w/ Steersman's preferred usage, and then ask ourselves whether those new words (with strict intensional definitions) would actually help solve anything.
Click to expand...
Hardly "new words", are they? Particularly since Parker's definitions have been around for some 50 years, and Parker's & Lehtonen's further emphasis from 2014. And I expect the OED definitions which further endorse them have probably been around at least that long if not longer.

Nor are they my "preferred usage" since those ARE the definitions - Heying, Hilton, & Wright being Johnny-Come-Latelys.

Of maybe more than passing interest is that Heying "took exception" to my challenge and summarily deleted my comments about that idiosyncratic and quite unscientific redefinition of theirs:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying

She talks a great game about "fraud" in the sciences, but when push comes to shove she shows herself to be as intellectually dishonest as the worst of them.
 
GlennB said:
The problem with your system of definitions is that it reduces our ability to discuss these matters comprehensibly, whether that's in everyday life or in a scientific context. It's worse than just useless, it's a positive hindrance.
Click to expand...
Hardly just my "system of definitions", are they?

You may wish to reflect on my earlier links to and quotes of the monkey trap.
 
Steersman said:
Hardly just my "system of definitions", are they?
Click to expand...

OK, 'The system of definitions of which you are a adherent'.

Hey, over the years we owned were servants of a number of pet cats, all neutered sooner or later. After their neutering, should we have stopped referring to them as male/female, girl/boy, he/she?

The system you propose is a pile of crap.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
OK, 'The system of definitions of which you are a adherent'.

Hey, over the years we owned were servants of a number of pet cats, all neutered sooner or later. After their neutering, should we have stopped referring to them as male/female, girl/boy, he/she?

The system you propose is a pile of crap.
Click to expand...

Call them anything you want - the square roots and cube roots of cheese sandwiches if you want. But you should realize that calling a dog's tail a leg doesn't actually make it one - which you apparently seem to think is the case:

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

You seem to have some difficulty with the concept that words have meanings.
 
Steersman said:
Particularly since Parker's definitions have been around for some 50 years.
Click to expand...
Came across this line in a fairly recent paper:
...secondary aggregation is probably beneficial since release of the sperm apical hook (necessary for aggregation) within the male could lead to blockage of his excurrent ducts, with resultant infertility.
Click to expand...
Can we safely assume the author is failing to use Parker's definition? Cannot call an organism "male" if it's not producing sperm, right?
 
Last edited:
Nobody uses "Parker's definition" as defined by Steersman. Not even Parker, apparently. That's the point.
 
d4m10n said:
Came across this line in a fairly recent paper
Click to expand...

LoL. I wonder if you bothered to note - in your cherry-picking - who the author was:

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

Apparently still going strong at 76 - at the time of the article's publication.

Or bothered to check out the Glossary:

anisogamy: Occurrence within a species of gametes of two different sizes, resulting in two sexes, males (producing smaller gametes) and females (producing larger gametes).
Click to expand...

Wonder whether Rolfe might consider "producing" to qualify as "habitually" or "regularly" ...

d4m10n said:
Can we safely assume the author is failing to use Parker's definition? Cannot call an organism "male" if it's not producing sperm, right?
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Kinda think "could lead" is something of a hypothetical: IF a male had his nuts cut off THEN he would no longer be one ...

could
verb
past of can.
used to indicate possibility.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom