Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

As it turns out, though, I stipulated a significantly narrower topic of discussion quite clearly in the OP.

So what? You still SAID "strict biological definitions". None of them - neither Hilton's or Lehtonen's - say anything about being exclusive to mammals. It's the conflict between those two which is the source of the confusion.

You are not measuring anything on the x-axis, you're just throwing categories on there in any order. Have another look at the wiki page for discrete spectrum^WP and notice that the x-axes have quantity labels such as "wavelength (nm)" or what-have-you.

What self-serving horse feathers. Being charitable. And civil.

It is totally irrelevant how you order them - it could be any one of several orderings. Regardless of which one you choose, you still get a spectrum.

You might try looking at my earlier table of Sally's polythetic family - each combination of properties can be enumerated which provides an ordering:

 

[theprestige]

Don't think either of you are playing with a full deck there - surprise, surprise ... - as I clearly qualified that question with my own answer:

Turns out that while karyotypes can certainly erase all doubt in certain ambiguous edge cases, the secondary and tertiary structural indicators are almost always more than sufficient to segregate according to the structural definitions.

 

[d4m10n]

So what?

So...please stay on topic instead of trying to derail the thread. Also, feel free to make a thread about how to define male and female in clownfish.

It is totally irrelevant how you order them

Again, please have a look at the wiki on what makes something a discrete spectrum^WP.

"A physical quantity is said to have a discrete spectrum if it takes only distinct values, with gaps between one value and the next."

Those values are quantities which may be graphed on the x-axis, such as nanometers.

It is possible that the people who say "sex is a spectrum" mean "spectrum" in a much less quantitative way, such as the so-called "political spectrum." I'd say we'd've more luck barking up that tree than proceeding by analogy to mathematics or the physical sciences.

 

[Steersman]

So...please stay on topic instead of trying to derail the thread. Also, feel free to make a thread about how to define male and female in clownfish.

What a joke. No true Scotsmen in spades. You made this thread in response to "debate" in other ones over which "strict biological definition" should qualify as trump. Bit disingenuous - at best - to restrict the "debate" to the one you prefer, that panders to your preconceptions.

Again, please have a look at the wiki on what makes something a discrete spectrum^WP.

"A physical quantity is said to have a discrete spectrum if it takes only distinct values, with gaps between one value and the next."

Those values are quantities which may be graphed on the x-axis, such as nanometers.

It is possible that the people who say "sex is a spectrum" mean "spectrum" in a much less quantitative way, such as the so-called "political spectrum." I'd say we'd've more luck barking up that tree than proceeding by analogy to mathematics or the physical sciences.

So what? What makes you think Wikipedia qualifies as gospel truth?

Many other uses that clearly endorse broader applications:

c. An actual or notional arrangement of the component parts of any phenomenon according to frequency, energy, mass, or the like.

d. figurative. The entire range or extent of something, arranged by degree, quality, etc.

1948 P. R. Halmos Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces ii. 79 The set on n proper values of A, with multiplicities properly counted, is the spectrum of A.

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/186105?redirectedFrom=spectrum&p=emailAeFGXcrvij1Lw&d=186105

The set of Sally's family is clearly a "set on n proper values", however one orders them.

 

[d4m10n]

The set of Sally's family is clearly a "set on n proper values", however one orders them.

Values are ordinal scalar quantities in the example you gave from Paul Halmos, whereas you aren't quantifying anything in the Sally's family example or (AFAICT) in the sex as a spectrum example.

Bit disingenuous - at best - to restrict the "debate" to the one you prefer, that panders to your preconceptions.

The previous two threads were about Homo sapiens in particular, so I'd say I'm being quite generous to broaden the scope to all mammals.

 

[Steersman]

Values are ordinal scalar quantities in the example you gave from Paul Halmos ...

Christ in a side car. So what if the Halmos case used numeric values? The term "proper values" can apply to a broad range of values:

proper (adjective): adapted or appropriate to the purpose or circumstances; fit; suitable:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/proper
https://ludwig.guru/s/proper+values

Besides which, there were three cases quoted from the dictionary which are just as applicable to spectra. [ETA]

... whereas you aren't quantifying anything in the Sally's family example or (AFAICT) in the sex as a spectrum example.

Don't think you're paying attention. Or you have your thumbs - to the elbows - on the scales.

If you'd actually bother to read what I've said about Sally's family then you would see that I assigned a binary value to each member based on the presence or absence of 4 different properties.

The previous two threads were about Homo sapiens in particular, so I'd say I'm being quite generous to broaden the scope to all mammals.

Unbloody believable. More self-serving horse feathers.

The issue was the controversy over two alternative "strict biological definitions" - though rather moot in the case of Hilton's. Both of which can clearly be applied, in all probability, to literally millions of anisogamic species. That you pat yourself on the back for "broadening the scope to all mammals" is only a bit of disingenuous virtue signaling to hide your refusal to address the fact that Hilton's "definitions" conflict rather badly with the "strict biological definitions" of Parker and Lehtonen and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology.

 

[d4m10n]

So what if the Halmos case used numeric values?

So, as I said, you're barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to analogize sex (either definition) to discrete spectra in mathematics or physics. Those fields use ordinal values when they are talking about spectra, but you are just assigning numbers arbitrarily to both sex (male/female/neither) and Sally's family.

Besides which, there were three cases quoted from the dictionary which are just as applicable to spectra.

Which one works best?

If you'd actually bother to read what I've said about Sally's family then you would see that I assigned a binary value to each member based on the presence or absence of 4 different properties.

Anyone can put values on anything, but that doesn't make it a spectrum in the sense that scientists generally use the term.

Allow me to demonstrate:

Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV

631, 514, 284, 585, 170

Behold, a spectrum!

The issue was the controversy over two alternative "strict biological definitions" - though rather moot in the case of Hilton's.

In threads about applying those definitions to human beings, yes.

Both of which can clearly be applied, in all probability, to literally millions of anisogamic species.

You are welcome to make a new thread for each of them.

...disingenuous virtue signaling to hide your refusal to address the fact that Hilton's "definitions" conflict rather badly with the "strict biological definitions" of Parker and Lehtonen and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology.

I've asked this before but it's worth asking once again. What is a good practical example of a situation where we are trying to sort males from females and Parker's (supposed) approach yields significantly better results than Hilton's?

 

[Steersman]

So, as I said, you're barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to analogize sex (either definition) to discrete spectra in mathematics or physics. Those fields use ordinal values when they are talking about spectra, but you are just assigning numbers arbitrarily to both sex (male/female/neither) and Sally's family.

It's immaterial how the numbers are assigned. All that's required is some way of ordering them all such that Z > Y > X > ... > A. If there are three or more then one has a spectrum.

Anyone can put values on anything, but that doesn't make it a spectrum in the sense that scientists generally use the term.

Allow me to demonstrate:

<nsip>

Behold, a spectrum!

Bravo!

But now maybe you can explain what qualifies them all to be members of the same category, what properties they have in common. Sally's family is a polythetic category because they share different subsets of 3 drawn from a set of 4 properties. And Hilton's definition is likewise a polythetic category because the members are characterized by different states of a reproductive ability.

Your example looks to be an arbitrary collection of objects. You can still put them in a spectrum of sorts, but it's not of much use. And that's the issue.

In threads about applying those definitions to human beings, yes.

And you've followed suit in this one by starting off with "strict biological definitions".

You are welcome to make a new thread for each of them.

One for all them will probably be sufficient. And I'll probably do so if you don't want to honestly address my criticisms of your OP. You boldly assert - absent evidence - that Hilton and Company are "essentially correct about what makes a mammal either female or male". And then object when I point out - with solid evidence - that they aren't.

I've asked this before but it's worth asking once again. What is a good practical example of a situation where we are trying to sort males from females and Parker's (supposed) approach yields significantly better results than Hilton's?

Think I've already answered that, several times I expect:

Originally Posted by d4m10n:
Can you come up with a situation (not involving sperm donation) where that 1/3 inference is problematic?

LoL. Apart from all the cases where the ability to actually produce sperm is an essential element - see the above re sequential hermaphrodites - there are no cases where producing them is an essential element, where "that 1/3 inference is problematic" ...

You explicitly exclude the cases where actual functionality is important, and then ask me for evidence in the other ones where it's not present or not an issue. Don't see how that qualifies as anything other than intellectually dishonest.

But to elaborate a bit, I gather that with clownfish there is only one breeding pair, the rest being either sexless (Lehtonen), or all male and female (Hilton). I'm sure no pro from Dover on the mathematics, but if, for example, one was modeling the population to determine the growth rate then the first assumption is likely to give much more accurate results than the second one.

I see that the article on sequential hermaphrodites has been modified to differentiate between functional and non-functional males and females, but that's a kludge at best:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...type=revision&diff=1091570144&oldid=890717544

Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female.

So they should say that each newly hatched clownfish is a non-functional male and a non-functional female, that some will change into a functional male and a non-functional female, and that some will subsequently change into a non-functional male and a functional female.

What a joke, and a pile of unscientific claptrap. All to avoid saying "sexless" ...

 

[d4m10n]

It's immaterial how the numbers are assigned.

Not in physics and mathematics, and probably not even in political science. Click on the "physical quantity" link from the top of the page here and you'll see that the value has to come from something real and observable in nature.

All that's required is some way of ordering them all such that Z > Y > X > ... > A.

All that is required, according to whom?

If there are three or more then one has a spectrum.

Three or more, according to whom?

But now maybe you can explain what qualifies them all to be members of the same category, what properties they have in common.

Example items from a cognistat exam, as recalled by a famous septuagenarian.

And Hilton's definition is likewise a polythetic category because the members are characterized by different states of a reproductive ability.

Parker's definition is likewise characterized by different states of a reproductive ability. Either (1) small gametes, (2) large gametes, or (3) no gametes.

Your example looks to be an arbitrary collection of objects. You can still put them in a spectrum of sorts, but it's not of much use.

If literally any collection of objects is a spectrum, the term ceases to carry much (useful) meaning.

You boldly assert - absent evidence - that Hilton and Company are "essentially correct about what makes a mammal either female or male". And then object when I point out - with solid evidence - that they aren't.

Your misinterpretation of Google, OED, and Wikipedia is nothing like solid evidence. All of those sources freely use male and female to describe individuals who have yet to attain reproductive maturity, or who have lived beyond it, and that means they are operating on the Hilton's definition rather than yours.

You explicitly exclude the cases where actual functionality is important

No, I explicitly admit that actual functionality is important in the special case where we are trying to sex (verb) mammals for the sake of breeding. That is the one case in which your definition might be more useful than Hilton's, but even then we are usually making inferences from structure to function.

But to elaborate a bit, I gather that with clownfish there is only one breeding pair, the rest being either sexless (Lehtonen), or all male and female (Hilton).

Take it to the clownfish thread.

 

[Steersman]

Not in physics and mathematics, and probably not even in political science.

We're not talking about physics or mathematics. We're talking about enumerating properties that determine polythetic category membership. See Needham for details:

https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/i...AndConsequences/65935-Rodney-Needham-Polythet

Click on the "physical quantity" link from the top of the page here and you'll see that the value has to come from something real and observable in nature.

And the properties that determine membership in Sally's polythetic family and in Hilton's sex categories are, in fact, "real and observable in nature". That you refuse to consider that suggests some degree of intellectual dishonesty. Being charitable. And civil ...

All that is required, according to whom?

Three or more, according to whom?

Google/OD:

spectrum (noun): used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points.
"the left or the right of the political spectrum"

If you have two end points and one or more in between them then, ipso facto, you have three or more. Q.E.D.

And Cambridge says:

scale (noun): a set of numbers, amounts, etc., used to measure or compare the level of something:

Ordering is implicit in a scale - that is whom it is according to ...

Parker's definition is likewise characterized by different states of a reproductive ability. Either (1) small gametes, (2) large gametes, or (3) no gametes.

So what? Then that only means that reproductive ability is not a binary: male, female, & sexless:



But that is not for each sex; Lehtonen's definitions makes each sex a monothetic category - a single necessary and sufficient condition for category membership, i.e., functional gonads of either of two types.

Methinks it's rather intellectually dishonest to ignore that difference. Being charitable. And civil.

If literally any collection of objects is a spectrum, the term ceases to carry much (useful) meaning.

What horse feathers. Being charitable ...

Your misinterpretation of Google, OED, and Wikipedia is nothing like solid evidence. All of those sources freely use male and female to describe individuals who have yet to attain reproductive maturity, or who have lived beyond it, and that means they are operating on the Hilton's definition rather than yours.

So what? See the Wikipedia article on stipulative definitions.

No, I explicitly admit that actual functionality is important in the special case where we are trying to sex (verb) mammals for the sake of breeding. That is the one case in which your definition might be more useful than Hilton's, but even then we are usually making inferences from structure to function.

Bravo. So you accept that your "essentially correct" is false?

Take it to the clownfish thread.

No true Scotsmen ...

You simply refuse to face the facts that the structuralist definition conflicts rather badly and pervasively with the functional one, and refuse to address the problematic consequences. Skeptics? Ha!

 

[d4m10n]

spectrum (noun): used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points.

Scale implies intermediate values, does it not?

 

[Steersman]

I don't know if this had been addressed earlier but per OP, he has limit the scope for a useful answer. The strict biological definition of male/female is already well established.

Which "strict biological definition"? "well established" - where?

My point and argument is that there are two more or less "strict" sets of definitions on the table, and that the issue is which one of them should qualify as trump. We can't very well have both of them in play since they conflict rather profoundly and pervasively; for example, see the principle of explosion:

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

But the first, rather unscientific set are those described in the OP: "past, present, or future (reproductive) functionality:

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

A set of definitions that basically makes each sex into a polythetic category and spectra.

The second and rather more scientific definitions are those of Parker (FRS) and Lehtonen by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, from which it necessarily follows that those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless. See the Glossary in this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:



https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

Their definitions make each sex into monothetic categories which each have single necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership; see this essay for some discussion on those differences:

https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/i...assification-Convergence-and-Consequences.pdf

The difference between night and day, between black and white.

However, the question is whether one should adhere to those characteristics when it concerns man/woman. One differentiation is purely biological the other more socially constructed and psychological in nature. Is it necessary for there to be a one to one binary correspondence one in traditionally acceptable pairing?

The problem is that both "man" and "woman" are defined as both sexes - "adult human male", and "adult human female" - and as genders - anyone who looks like a typical adult human male or a typical adult human female.

Pointless to be using the terms without qualifying them: e.g., "man (sex)", "woman (gender)".

Again, even in the biological realm, the male/female is not a binary category, with variations in between. So should these be accepted or rejected because it makes some people feel icky.

That depends very much on the definitions one starts out from. Which is the crux of the debate - there is no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female"; Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z. We have to decide what we mean by the terms before we can hope to resolve any contentious social issues that depend on membership in those categories, however defined.

 

[d4m10n]

We're not talking about physics or mathematics.

As I recall, you brought up discrete spectra, and those are the fields where that phrase is used. You even quoted from a mathematics text on point.

We're talking about enumerating properties that determine polythetic category membership.

I don't find this new rabbithole clearly relevant to the question of whether sex is a spectrum or not, and I don't remember anyone arguing that sex has to be either polythetic or monothetic.

Lehtonen's definitions makes each sex a monothetic category - a single necessary and sufficient condition for category membership, i.e., functional gonads of either of two types.

Okay, but you end up with three slices in your pie chart either way.

See the Wikipedia article on stipulative definitions.

You have clearly stipulated your definitions, but I've yet to see anyone else adopt your system of calling prepubescent and postmenopausal individuals sexless. Good luck with that, though.

 

[Steersman]

Scale implies intermediate values, does it not?

So?

The values assigned to Sally and to her brother are intermediate between those of Sally's daughter and her nephew:



Sally's daughter (1110) > Sally (1101) > Sally's brother (1011) > Sally's nephew (0111).

A scale and a spectrum: Q.E.D.

 

[Steersman]

As I recall, you brought up discrete spectra, and those are the fields where that phrase is used. You even quoted from a mathematics text on point.

So what? It was an analogy. Arguing that all one needs for a discrete spectrum is a set of discrete entities and some way of ordering them.

I don't find this new rabbithole clearly relevant to the question of whether sex is a spectrum or not, and I don't remember anyone arguing that sex has to be either polythetic or monothetic.

I said so more or less right out to the chute:

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

And many comments - too many to list - since then, even in this thread.

Okay, but you end up with three slices in your pie chart either way.

So what? Given three discrete entities (A, B, C) we can create 6 different "spectra":

A-B-C; A-C-B; B-A-C; B-C-A; C-B-A; C-A-B

Which one makes more sense or is more useful will probably be context dependent. If there's a way of ordering them then, ipso facto, we have a spectrum.

You have clearly stipulated your definitions, but I've yet to see anyone else adopt your system of calling prepubescent and postmenopausal individuals sexless. Good luck with that, though.

Both theprestige and Wikipedia's article on sequential hermaphrodites have clearly endorsed functional and non-functional sections of "male" and "female" - making them at least binaries. Will you prefer defining, for examples, a prepubescent "boy" as a "non-functional male", and a "menopausee" as a "non-functional female"?

Those are the logical consequences of our premises, of the axioms of our discourse, of our foundational and stipulative definitions:

 

[d4m10n]

I said so more or less right out to the chute

You confused polythetic with spectral, right out of the chute. I've no idea why, since you don't show your steps, but I suspect it is b/c you don't mean the same thing I do by the key terms.

Given three discrete entities (A, B, C) we can create 6 different "spectra":

A-B-C; A-C-B; B-A-C; B-C-A; C-B-A; C-A-B

Nope. Every example of spectrum we've seen upthread involves natural rather than arbitrary ordering, and the idea that data are ordered by measured values is built into the definition of both a discrete spectrum and a continuous spectrum in the fields where those distinctions are made. The need for natural ordinality has already been explained to you elsewhere, by someone actually trained in mathematics.

If there's a way of ordering them then, ipso facto, we have a spectrum.

Neither the wiki nor OED support this approach.

 

[Steersman]

You confused polythetic with spectral, right out of the chute. I've no idea why, since you don't show your steps, but I suspect it is b/c you don't mean the same thing I do by the key terms.

I've shown them dozens of times. You're either not paying attention or you simply refuse to look at what I've put on the table. Here it is again, a passage from Needham's article:

Needham: “If the n [the number (of category members)] is very large, it would be possible to arrange the members of K along a line in such a way that each individual resembles his nearest neighbors very closely and his furthest neighbors less closely.”

https://ia802701.us.archive.org/2/i...assification-Convergence-and-Consequences.pdf

And my tables of Sally's family isn't something I've pulled out of my nether regions; they're based on Regenmortel's article on the same topic:

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

Nope. Every example of spectrum we've seen upthread involves natural rather than arbitrary ordering, and the idea that data are ordered by measured values is built into the definition of both a discrete spectrum and a continuous spectrum in the fields where those distinctions are made.

So what? I'm clearly NOT talking about areas where those ideas are typically used; I'm talking about other areas where solid professionals have extended them to other applications.

You're grabbing at straws, refusing to extend fundamental principles into uncommon areas because the conclusions don't comport with your dogma: "sex is immutable!"; "every one, of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"; "Polly want a cracker!"

The need for natural ordinality has already been explained to you elsewhere, by someone actually trained in mathematics.

LoL. "Johnny, as it has been explained to you dozens of times, 'the whole substance of bread [has been changed] into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine [has been changed] into the substance of the Blood of Christ' ..."

I haven't seen this much motivated "reasoning" since challenging the Trinity with Christian fundamentalists.

Neither the wiki nor OED support this approach.

Christ in a sidecar. The principles are the issue; that there isn't a Wiki or an OED item illustrating them in the same sense I, Regenmortel, and Needham are using them proves absolutely diddly-squat.

 

[d4m10n]

“If the n [the number (of category members)] is very large, it would be possible to arrange the members of K along a line in such a way that each individual resembles his nearest neighbors very closely and his furthest neighbors less closely.”

Why are you bringing this up when you know n=3 and they don't resemble each other overmuch?

ETA: I've skimmed through the Needham paper and have yet to find a purported relationship between polythetic classes and (discrete or continuous) spectra. Perhaps you had another paper in mind?

Sent from my Casio FX-9750gii using Tapatalk

 

[GlennB]

I've shown them dozens of times. You're either not paying attention or you simply refuse to look at what I've put on the table. Here it is again, a passage from Needham's article:

 

[Steersman]

I threw in an "or" there, just for you ...