Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[mumblethrax]

Colin Wright doesn't make the argument that mumblethraz has made, so it's not really relevant.

He does.

There is a difference, however, between the statements that there are only two sexes (true) and that everyone can be neatly categorized as either male or female (false). The existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous. But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a “spectrum” or a “social construct.” Not everyone needs to be discretely assignable to one or the other sex in order for biological sex to be functionally binary. To assume otherwise — to confuse secondary sexual traits with biological sex itself — is a category error.

So does Jerry Coyne, for whatever that's worth.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Obviously, if I'm talking about the sex of individuals being ambiguous, I am not talking about sex itself being ambiguous.

You're not actually talking about the sex of individuals being ambiguous. You're talking about the sex of individuals being difficult to classify in some cases, and then conflating that with the idea of their sex being ambiguous.

"Hard to figure out" <> ambiguous

"In-between sex" is ill-defined, but trioecious species do exist.

None of which are mammals or birds so... What's your point? Some algae have six formations, and several combinations of mating pairs are possible. So what? That's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. There are several species of mollusk that are true hermaphrodites. There are many species of plant that are internally hermaphroditic, and can self-pollinate if needed, although cross pollination is preferred. There are several fish that are sequential hermaphrodites. So what?

Humans aren't mollusks or plants or fish.

And it remains true that all mammals and all birds are anisogomous reproductive species with two discrete sexes. [/QUOTE]

 

[Emily's Cat]

Then your central claim that sex is definitionally distinct from sexual determination is false, given that reproductive anatomy is sexually determined.

No.

Go read this. It's not super long, but it's very clear.

Defining vs Determining Sex

I think you're using a different meaning of "determined" than I am. Sex determination is the mechanism by which an individual is sent down a developmental pathway toward one sexual phenotype or the other. Sex definition is the phenotype.

Phenotypes vary by species, although they're largely similar among mammals. Our common evolutionary ancestor was already sexually reproductive when mammals branched off.

Determination mechanisms vary a lot among different sexually reproductive species. Among mammals, the determination mechanism is genetic, based on which genes are carried on which haploids, and how those two distinct haploids are carried by each sex. In humans, we can broadly say it's X vs Y chromosomes, but in reality, it's a specific gene - the SRY gene. This is normally carried on the Y chromosome, but there are genetic mutations that can disable that gene partially or completely, or can transpose it onto an X chromosome. That gene contains the instructional "prompt" that triggers an undifferentiated fetus to develop a male reproductive anatomy. If that gene isn't present, the fetus follows a Mullerian path and develops a female reproductive anatomy.

Things can - and do - go wrong with the instructions. Sometimes things get confused and bunged up.

But it still doesn't result in any individuals who are both male and female, or who are part male and part female. It can be very difficult to distinguish in some cases, but that doesn't mean they end up on some spectrum between male and female, creating a bimodal distribution of sex. It just means that you have to do more work before you can figure out which discrete box they belong in.

Sex is binary, it is not bimodal. Having individuals in a population that are hard to classify doesn't change that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He does.



So does Jerry Coyne, for whatever that's worth.

Not at all in the way you're making the argument. Neither Colin Wright nor Emma Hilton (one of the names I couldn't recall) would support your argument that sex is bimodal. Both of them take the position that sex is absolutely binary.

 

[mumblethrax]

You're not actually talking about the sex of individuals being ambiguous. You're talking about the sex of individuals being difficult to classify in some cases, and then conflating that with the idea of their sex being ambiguous.

"Hard to figure out" <> ambiguous

Ambiguous does, in fact, mean unclear (among other things), but I don't agree that the ambiguity can be clarified in every instance.

None of which are mammals or birds so... What's your point? Some algae have six formations, and several combinations of mating pairs are possible. So what? That's entirely irrelevant to this discussion. There are several species of mollusk that are true hermaphrodites. There are many species of plant that are internally hermaphroditic, and can self-pollinate if needed, although cross pollination is preferred. There are several fish that are sequential hermaphrodites. So what?

So it's not the case that there are no "in-between sexes" in any species (depending, of course, on what you mean by "in-between sexes").

Humans aren't mollusks or plants or fish.

Who said they were?

And it remains true that all mammals and all birds are anisogomous reproductive species with two discrete sexes.

And it also remains true that there are ambiguous individuals, and that it's not actually a problem to understand sex as bimodal (if you want to).

 

[d4m10n]

It can be very difficult to distinguish in some cases, but that doesn't mean they end up on some spectrum between male and female, creating a bimodal distribution of sex.

Why not? If I'm looking at the Quigley scale^WP correctly, there appears to be a literal spectrum in genital morphology. Seems unlikely to me that only external traits ever do this when we're talking about partial insensitivity to androgens.

 

[mumblethrax]

Go read this. It's not super long, but it's very clear.

I already have.

I think you're using a different meaning of "determined" than I am. Sex determination is the mechanism by which an individual is sent down a developmental pathway toward one sexual phenotype or the other.

That's the same sense I'm using.

But it still doesn't result in any individuals who are both male and female, or who are part male and part female. It can be very difficult to distinguish in some cases, but that doesn't mean they end up on some spectrum between male and female, creating a bimodal distribution of sex. It just means that you have to do more work before you can figure out which discrete box they belong in.

There is no way in principle to do this with chimeric individuals with ambiguous reproductive anatomy. Any move you make to classify such an individual as male or female will be by fiat, and not a matter of description, precisely because they are neither phenotypically male nor female.

Sex is binary, it is not bimodal. Having individuals in a population that are hard to classify doesn't change that.

I would say sex is both binary and bimodal. Because I think there are actually two definitions at work here, it's just that one of them is not being acknowledged.

 

[TomB]

Experts can make bad arguments. And you haven't even presented his argument, so there's nothing for me to evaluate. Hell, I'm not confident that you are even accurately conveying what his position even is.

Just so people know, the person he mentioned, Colin Wright, asserts that sex i binary. The reference by Mumblethrax makes it easy to assume tht he holds the opposite position.

If you are interested in his position, try this article in which he counters an article by Ash Zemenick: https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/dont-take-pride-in-promoting-pseudoscience

Jerry Coyne also states that sex is binary: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/02/14/a-defense-of-the-binary-in-human-sex/

Having a degree in biology myself, I find myself in their camp on this issue. Though I'm not a researcher by any means, I find that their definition of sex makes sense biologically.

 

[mumblethrax]

Not at all in the way you're making the argument. Neither Colin Wright nor Emma Hilton (one of the names I couldn't recall) would support your argument that sex is bimodal. Both of them take the position that sex is absolutely binary.

I'm aware. But that's not the argument we were talking about.

Both Hilton and Wright are unambiguously taking the position that there are ambiguously sexed individuals.

Jerry Coyne, meanwhile, takes the position that we can understand the sex of individuals as bimodal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So it's not the case that there are no "in-between sexes" in any species (depending, of course, on what you mean by "in-between sexes").

I have at no point suggested that there are no "in between" sexes in ANY species. I have (correctly) states that there are no in between sexes among mammals or birds.

 

[mumblethrax]

Jerry Coyne also states that sex is binary: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/02/14/a-defense-of-the-binary-in-human-sex/

From your link:

To be a bit more precise, biological sex in humans is bimodal: if you do a frequency plot with “sex” on the X axis and “frequency of individuals conforming to that sex” on the Y axis, you get a huge peak at “male”, another huge peak at “female”, and then a few tiny blips in between that conform to hermaphrodites or intersexes.

I will say that I don't think Coyne is always very clear on this topic.

 

[d4m10n]

Just so people know, the person he mentioned, Colin Wright, asserts that sex i binary. The reference by Mumblethrax makes it easy to assume tht he holds the opposite position.

I believe Colin Wright thinks that it is possible for individuals (in extremely rare instances) to prove indeterminate between male and female developmental pathways: https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/02/14/a-defense-of-the-binary-in-human-sex/#comment-1812739

 

[mumblethrax]

I have at no point suggested that there are no "in between" sexes in ANY species. I have (correctly) states that there are no in between sexes among mammals or birds.

There's also no in-between sex. That would imply the existence of an in-between reproucrtive role. There isn't one, at least not among any mammalian or avian species. Not among any sexually reproductive species.

You two should get together and sort this out.

 

[d4m10n]

I will say that I don't think Coyne is always very clear on this topic.

Treating sex as a scalar quantity sure didn't help.

 

[mumblethrax]

If there are only two sexes (which I presume you agree with, as you are not arguing there are three sexes), then we can’t have three different kinds of fruit given that the kind of fruit equals the kind of sex in the analogy.

But we can surely say that C can be classified neither as A nor B. That is, it's not quite an apple, and not quite a banana.

I would say there are only two sexes in the abstract (or maybe only two gametes, more concretely), but it's clear that there are unclassifiable individuals (which can form a distinct category, if not a new sex). I would also say there's no real problem in understanding sex in individuals as a statistical clustering of reproductive phenotypes, at which point a bimodal distribution will emerge.

 

[smartcooky]

Of course the word 'or' isn't necessarily exclusive.
The task of classification is.

No... just no!

A Granny Smith is "green apple" (one classification) an "apple" (2nd classification) and a fruit (third classification). That's three valid classifications for one individual.

I can't plot the same individual twice

I can... and I just did!


By your logic, I could only ever classify a Granny Smith as one one of the three and never as either of the others.

The lengths that people will go to to deny the existence of sexually ambiguous individuals is startling.

The amount of sophistry some individuals will go to to claim that transwomen are indistinguishable from biological females is beyond astonishing!

 

[mumblethrax]

A Granny Smith is "green apple" (one classification) an "apple" (2nd classification) and a fruit (third classification). That's three valid classifications for one individual.

Now graph it, plotting each individual only once.

The task, as I alluded to earlier, is to sort individuals into exclusive categories. You can't chuck the same apple into two bins.

The amount of sophistry some individuals will go to to claim that transwomen are indistinguishable from biological females is beyond astonishing!

Again, I am not claiming anything of the sort. In addition to being sophistical, you are also just being dishonest.

 

[smartcooky]

Now graph it, plotting each individual only once.

Please explain the need to graph sex determination?

The task, as I alluded to earlier, is to sort individuals into exclusive categories.

No, that's your shtick.

Posted by Emily's Cat
Every individual in the class mammalia can be classified as male or female.

Posted by mumblethrax
No, they can't.

Not a single mention of "exclusive categories" there. The word "or" in Emily's post is not exclusive in this context.

You can't chuck the same apple into two bins.

But you can include it two (or more sets) which is the only criteria that matters

Again, I am not claiming anything of the sort.

Well a lot of your posts sure look like you are arguing for it.

In addition to being sophistical, you are also just being dishonest.

Ad hominem... the last refuge of the desperate!

 

[Graham2001]

As always the contrarians at Spiked find their own way to 'stir the pot', in this case by focusing on the various 'Trans Celebrities' who've attached themselves to the Biden White House...

In the US, the month of June hosts a number of important celebrations. It is ushered in by Memorial Day, the bank holiday on the last weekend of May, which solemnly commemorates America’s war dead. It also includes Father’s Day, Flag Day and the anniversary of D-Day. Yet for the Biden administration, all of these events pale in significance to that other all-important June event – namely, Pride Month.

Enter trans-identified model and social-media influencer Rose Montoya, who posted a video on Instagram and TikTok this week of him meeting Joe and Jill Biden. The video then cuts to a shot of Montaya, where he pulls down his dress and flashes his breast implants.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/16/what-was-a-topless-trans-tiktoker-doing-at-the-white-house/

 

[mumblethrax]

Please explain the need to graph sex determination?

Have you not been reading the thread at all?

Not a single mention of "exclusive categories" there. The word "or" in Emily's post is not exclusive in this context.

Why would there need to be? It's the nature of the beast. Do you think an animal can be a reptile and a mammal at the same time?

But you can include it two (or more sets) which is the only criteria that matters

You're putting things into categories in different domains. Obviously we can be members of multiple categories at once. You can be "male" and "French" and "Protestant" and "deaf", some of which are exclusive, and some of which are not. But we're talking about sex categories, here. Membership in categories in other domains is irrelevant.

Well a lot of your posts sure look like you are arguing for it.

This could only possibly be true is if you think refuting a tenet of your dogma means I am supporting the tenets of the counter-dogma. Which is the kind of Manichaean thinking that dogmatism tends to produce. You're either one of us or you're one of them.

Ad hominem... the last refuge of the desperate!

It is not an ad hominem to note that you are being dishonest. Particularly when it's so flagrant that there's no other way to describe it.