Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[theprestige]

Practical applications, Steersman. What confusion am I letting myself in for, by using the structural definition?

 

[Steersman]

Steersman, does it bother you that nobody is using your 'system'? In everyday life, medicine, general science ... You're alone here. Isn't that a worry?

Does it bother you that several billion people believe that Jehovah or Allah is the Grand High Poohbah of the Universe?

That a large percentage of the population use systems of "thinking" that are so much antiscientific moonshine means diddly-squat. Except depressing evidence that most of us are scientifically illiterate. And you want to champion them?

Besides which, Griffiths, Parker (FRS), Lehtonen, Wikipedia, Del Giudice, and Google/OED clearly endorse the biological definitions. Think I'm in rather good company - hardly "alone".

 

[theprestige]

Wikipedia isn't good company, Steersman.

What confusion?

 

[Steersman]

Wikipedia isn't good company, Steersman.

Philistine ...

https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

 

[theprestige]

What confusion, Steersman?

 

[Myriad]

Meant to suggest that you seem to have a rather "parochial" attitude - if something isn't within your sight then it doesn't exist.

But I said quite the reverse of that. To summarize, I said I have no problem with the existing definitions as typically applied, so if you or others had a problem with it you'd have to explain what it is. Which, I note, you haven't done.

Drawing a comparison between your "I've explained dozens of times..." and those peddling religious dogma. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true - particularly where you've offered diddly-squat in the way of evidence.

And I was drawing the same comparison for your claim of having explained something dozens of times, which also doesn't mean it's true.

LoL; whotta thigh-slapper. Only in your own mind ...

Perhaps it's escaped your notice, but between the two of us the state of my mind is the only one that matters here. You claim to want to get me to do something; that is, change the usage of words I use. You have no authority to compel me or anyone to do it, so your only option is to try to persuade me. If I am not persuaded, and others in the same role here and elsewhere are not persuaded, then you have failed in your claimed goal. In that case the status quo, which I'm content with and everyone else seems to be content with, prevails. Your only hope in that case is to learn through this discourse to make a better case.

On my part, my only goal is to amuse myself by engaging with you. The moment it stops being sufficiently amusing, I'll stop, having lost nothing and gained some brief amusement. At this point there appears to be no chance that you will ever convince anyone, here or anywhere, now or ever, so I don't even have to worry about the minor inconvenience of having to learn a new definition.

For one thing, the HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female.

Why is that (which would apply only to a vanishingly small number of humans) any more of a problem than redefining a very significant fraction of humans as neither male nor female?

For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window and will have to be anathematized and expunged from the lexicon. All of the journals and biologists writing about the phenomenon will have to get visits from the Ministry of Truth and the Minister-in-Charge, Emma Hilton Dolores Umbridge, explaining the errors of their ways:

This is your fantasy of how language works. You're the one purporting to explain to everyone else the error of their ways, so how does that comparison reflect on you?

 

[d4m10n]

It's there in Hilton's tweet, as bold as brass: past, present, or future functionality.

An individual either has "past, present, or future functionality" as a producer of gametes or else they don't have it. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the large immobile gametes are female. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the small motile gametes are male. I'm not seeing a (continuous) spectrum here, are you?

ETA: Will you please answer theprestige re: potential confusion? I'm not replying to you again until you do so, since that would make me complicit in helping you dodge the question.

 

[theprestige]

Unlike a teenager, who is temporarily a teen, a structural male always has the genetic structure of a male.

Does nobody understand how analogies always fail to change minds?

 

[Steersman]

An individual either has "past, present, or future functionality" as a producer of gametes or else they don't have it. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the large immobile gametes are female. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the small motile gametes are male. I'm not seeing a (continuous) spectrum here, are you?

Fer Christ's sake.

I am NOT saying the HHWH is a continuous spectrum. I AM saying that it's a discrete spectrum, a polythetic category with THREE - count 'em, THREE - discrete and mutually exclusive conditions for category membership: future XOR present XOR past.

The SAME way that Sally's polythetic family has four discrete and mutually exclusive conditions for membership in her family. Try looking at, and thinking about the illustrations and explanations provided:



http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13901859&postcount=7

ETA: Will you please answer theprestige re: potential confusion? I'm not replying to you again until you do so, since that would make me complicit in helping you dodge the question.

Heaven forefend ...

Think I've already answered the question - several times, directly or indirectly, here or in previous threads. Don't think he's listening - kind of hard to do that with one's head in the sand - or paying attention.

More particularly:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13903162&postcount=32
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13903363&postcount=60

If he's incapable of reading between the lines, or unwilling to address what I've already said to the question then I don't see that I have any further obligations on that score.

 

[Steersman]

But I said quite the reverse of that. To summarize, I said I have no problem with the existing definitions as typically applied ....

LoL - "typically applied". What I mean by a parochial mind-set - an inability or unwillingness to look outside of your narrow focus.

Though I'm glad you at least concede something in the way of a problem - some possible "confusion" - as far as human hermaphrodites are concerned ...

... so if you or others had a problem with it you'd have to explain what it is. Which, I note, you haven't done.

Of course I've done so - in chapter and verse, 3 cases only one of which you've conceded might be "problematic", the other two of which you've dismissed outright or ignored.

And I was drawing the same comparison for your claim of having explained something dozens of times, which also doesn't mean it's true.

Sure. But I've quoted chapter and verse to support my arguments; you've put diddly-squat on the table to "justify" yours.

Perhaps it's escaped your notice, but between the two of us the state of my mind is the only one that matters here.

Except the issue or the scope isn't just "the two of us".

Not terribly concerned about "persuading you". All I have to do, or want to do is show - for all and sundry who happen to traipse through these environs - that you haven't got a leg to stand on, that you've put nothing on the table to justify your position while I get to read into the record all sorts of evidence to justify mine.

...HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female. ...

Why is that (which would apply only to a vanishingly small number of humans) any more of a problem than redefining a very significant fraction of humans as neither male nor female?

Sure, as far as the number of people directly affected. But I expect that's only the tip of the iceberg - rather doubt all of the biologists who work in that area, and the authors of the Wikipedia article on the topic will be much impressed by Hilton and Company insisting they have to change their essays, articles, or working definitions for the sexes.

For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window ...

This is your fantasy of how language works. You're the one purporting to explain to everyone else the error of their ways, so how does that comparison reflect on you?

What horse crap. Sure would like to see Hilton stick-handle around a question of how their "hypothesis" might work with sequential hermaphrodites. Don't see how their "hypothesis" doesn't nullify the whole concept which is predicated on the idea that to change one's sex is to change the function exhibited or manifested - i.e., from producing (present tense indefinite) one type of gamete to producing the other.

But hardly a "fantasy of how language works". Apart from previous links to Wikipedia articles on stipulative, and extensional & intensional definitions, I had linked, in my last comment, to another article on the venerable principle of explosion to emphasize the problems of contradictions in one's premises - and definitions:

In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion.

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

 

[theprestige]

What confusion, Steersman?

 

[Rolfe]

No human being produces both sperm and ova. And don't come out with that dodgy paper where they claim a man with a vestigial ovary might once have ovulated, they talk a lot of crap in it.

 

[Myriad]

Of course I've done so - in chapter and verse, 3 cases only one of which you've conceded might be "problematic", the other two of which you've dismissed outright or ignored.

Sure. But I've quoted chapter and verse to support my arguments; you've put diddly-squat on the table to "justify" yours.

You have mentioned some usages that you've opined could cause "confusion." You have not stated the nature of that confusion, nor any adverse consequences of that confusion, nor how your own preferred definition would correct that confusion or ameliorate those consequences. Despite being repeatedly asked.

Except the issue or the scope isn't just "the two of us".

Not terribly concerned about "persuading you". All I have to do, or want to do is show - for all and sundry who happen to traipse through these environs - that you haven't got a leg to stand on, that you've put nothing on the table to justify your position while I get to read into the record all sorts of evidence to justify mine.

You've showed your show, but haven't persuaded anyone. So then what?

Sure, as far as the number of people directly affected. But I expect that's only the tip of the iceberg - rather doubt all of the biologists who work in that area, and the authors of the Wikipedia article on the topic will be much impressed by Hilton and Company insisting they have to change their essays, articles, or working definitions for the sexes.

Do you have evidence Hilton and Company are insisting anyone change essays, articles, or working definitions? Emails they've sent to biologists, letters to the editor they've published, online manifestos, Wikipedia edits, photos of them picketing biology labs? Do they post on forums arguing against expert consensus about the strict biological definitions of "male" and "female"? Do you know anyone who does that?

 

[Rolfe]

As far as I can see, nobody at all would have to change the definition of "male" and "female" they currently use to bring them in line with the definition Emma Hilton favours.

I have also read her on the subject of sequential hermaphrodites, and she is perfectly clear. They change sex. They are male when they produce sperm and they are female when they produce ova. I don't think any of what she says is at all controversial. She is simply clarifying long-standing usage, which didn't need clarification in the past because we weren't being assailed by the "sex is a spectrum" morons.

 

[d4m10n]

If I use the structural definition in everyday life, what things might leave me confused? What things might confuse others? Give an example. Confusion about what?

I'd like to hear an answer to this as well, Steersman, one that doesn't require "reading between the lines." I'm happy to admit that the OP definition (or the past/present/future version) might well cause confusion, but can you think of a specific situation in which that confusion would prove problematic? Like, maybe, the queue at a sperm bank?

But, more importantly, I kinda think you're barking up the wrong tree. That old definitions and uses may conflict with newer stipulative definitions pretty much means diddly-squat.

I'm > 99% confident you will never find anyone at OED claiming that they are promulgating stipulative definitions.

So what if there's a conflict?

So it may well be that your interpretation of "female" is what's causing the conflict.

 

[Steersman]

No human being produces both sperm and ova. And don't come out with that dodgy paper where they claim a man with a vestigial ovary might once have ovulated, they talk a lot of crap in it.

Pray tell, where did I ever say that some humans produce both? Don't think you're paying attention. Or are very honest in your responses.

The point is that by Hilton's "thesis", those humans with ovotestis are BOTH male AND female. All that's required by her "definition" is "developed anatomies" that may, or may not, in the fullness of time - gawd willing and the creek don't rise - produce sperm or ova.

That is, by their definitions, they are both male AND female, ergo, hermaphrodites. Which means that the Wikipedia article on the topic will have to be changed, and their authors, and those responsible for the citations, will have to be sent to the gulag, or at least the re-education camps:

In recent years the term hermaphrodite applied to humans has fallen out of favor since there have been no identified cases of a human reproducing as both male and female,[10] with some biologists saying hermaphroditism does not occur in humans.[11][12]....There are no hermaphroditic species among mammals[18][19] or birds.[20][21]

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

It doesn't matter how many cases there are - it only takes one to upset the applecart. And sow confusion ...

En passant, you might try quoting the comment you're referring to, though that's maybe difficult on smartphones ...

 

[GlennB]

I'd like to hear an answer to this as well, Steersman, one that doesn't require "reading between the lines."

Careful what you wish for - you're likely to get 5 lengthy paragraphs and several links to websites plus extracts from them.

 

[theprestige]

As far as I can see, nobody at all would have to change the definition of "male" and "female" they currently use to bring them in line with the definition Emma Hilton favours.

I have also read her on the subject of sequential hermaphrodites, and she is perfectly clear. They change sex. They are male when they produce sperm and they are female when they produce ova. I don't think any of what she says is at all controversial. She is simply clarifying long-standing usage, which didn't need clarification in the past because we weren't being assailed by the "sex is a spectrum" morons.

And even with sequential hermaphrodites (seqherms?), the structural definition works just fine. Since obviously any organism performing the function has the structure to do so.

The structural definition has the rare advantage of being more expansive and more inclusive, without losing any clarity or consistency of thought.

 

[theprestige]

Confusion about what, Steersman?

 

[Steersman]

What confusion, Steersman?

Think I've already answered that question - several times, directly or indirectly, here or other threads. Don't think you're paying attention or are particularly honest in your responses - or the lack of them. See here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13903162&postcount=32
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13903363&postcount=60

But since there's new information on the table relative to my response to your earlier comment (#32) - and of course to keep Damion happy ... - it may be worth a bit of elaboration. More particularly, you had said:

"This woman must have been impregnated by a functional male."

But I see the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites uses the same terminology:

Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female. .... A flower is protogynous if its function is first female, then male, and protandrous if its function is male then female.

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

So I guess if we wanted to follow suit, and at least genuflect to the HHWH, then we should say, more precisely, that a protogynous organism switches from functional female and non-functional male to non-functional female and functional male? That prepubescent humans are non-functional males and non-functional females? That menopausees are non-functional females, that transwomen who cut their nuts off are non-functional males? Terms that we might shorten to non-males and non-females? ....

What tangled webs we weave .... All to avoid saying "sexless" ...

But I might also emphasize again that I had said in that comment, "See the 'confusion'?" Which you didn't respond to. Hence the "not particularly honest" - being charitable - and civil.

But for the sake of completeness, you might note this section from the second comment of mine which also speaks to your "question":

For one thing, the HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female.

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

Maybe not a big problem in itself, but it conflicts rather badly with the claim that there are no human hermaphrodites:

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

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window and will have to be anathematized and expunged from the lexicon. All of the journals and biologists writing about the phenomenon will have to get visits from the Ministry of Truth and the Minister-in-Charge, Emma Hilton Dolores Umbridge, explaining the errors of their ways:

Sequential hermaphroditism (called dichogamy in botany) is a type of hermaphroditism that occurs in many fish, gastropods, and plants.

Besides which, there will have to be separate definitions for high school biology classes and those for "social justice" ones ... rank insanity.

Let me know when you're ready to take an honest run at responding to my answers to your question ...