Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Emily's Cat]

That's the problem with those who look at the words of so-called experts and then cherry-picking some of those words that support their predetermined conclusions, while pretending the rest of what was said doesn't exist. It must be very annoying to have some stubborn "never going to back down" like me (or you for that matter) coming along and pointing out the inconvenient stuff.

Of course, the argument will be made that I cherry-picked some of Griffiths' words. However, the difference is that I don't regard Paul Griffiths as an authority on biology - he's a philosopher, not a scientist. Unlike actual scientists such as Dr. Emma Hilton, who operate on the basis of facts, observations, experimentation and evidence to reach their conclusions, philosophers rely on feelings and opinions to base their pontifications upon.

As a wiser man than me once said. "Science looks at what is. Philosophy looks at why it is".

Yep.

It's also a matter of looking at the entirety of someone's position, and incorporating context.

We could arguably say that a "leg" is an appendage attached to the hip bone that evolved to support locomotion on land. It covers the core principles of what a leg is. We might also note that human infants can't walk, and neither can paraplegics. But we understand that specific instances of the system not working as evolved doesn't materially change the nature of the system, nor does it change the evolutionary mechanism by which we ended up with legs. I think almost all of us recognize that the legs of an infant are still legs, even if that infant can't walk yet. And we recognize that the legs of a paraplegic are still legs. Heck, I think we'd all recognize that an amputee who has lost their legs completely still at one point had legs, and we can say that humans as a species have legs and still consider that to be a true and factual statement.

 

[d4m10n]

Debate: Is Sex Binary

Possibly of interest to those following this thread:


After the pleasantries, opening statements get rolling around 9:30 or so.

 

[Steersman]

Possibly of interest to those following this thread:


After the pleasantries, opening statements get rolling around 9:30 or so.

Sadly, both main "protagonists" -- Dreger & Byrne -- prove themselves to be no more than scientific illiterates and outright grifters putting 'feelinz' before facts:

Byrne:14:13 female now here the the discourse about the sex binary takes a very regrettable 14:20 turn people with so-called intersex condition conditions certain kinds of 14:25 disorders or differences of sex development dsds are paraded around at this point and I 14:32 should acknowledge that we're talking about human beings here some with serious medical conditions uh who of 14:39 course should be treated with respect ....

Dreger: ... other but it's 22:51 nonsensical to say that gamete production is what makes us male or female I've stopped making eggs but I'm surely 22:57 female a male typical or a female typical child whose gamete producing ability is permanently thwarted by 23:03 trauma or by chemotherapy is still rightly recognized as male or female

SAME thing what Zach Elliott is doing:



Since when do ""morally problematic claims" about "both or neither sexes" -- basically both Dreger's & Byrne's "arguments" -- get to trump scientific facts, theories, and terminology?

 

[Steersman]

Late Breaking News! Extra! Extra! Read All About It!

Given the JPEG that started this thread -- the letter that Emma Hilton had had published in that exemplar of peer-reviewed biology, i.e., the UK Times -- I'm sure y'all will be interested in her later, though quite commendable repudiation of that viewpoint:



https://x.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1488523777042432008

Of particular note is her "not a matter of observation but of definition". Diddly-squat there about gonads of "past, present, or future functionality".

And, given that neither prepubescent "girls" nor menopausees can produce any gametes at all, much less large ones, one might reasonably conclude that she would agree that said individuals are neither male nor female. Q.E.D.

 

[Matthew Best]

No. Because prepubescent girls and menopausees are both of the sex that can produce large gametes.

 

[smartcooky]

No. Because prepubescent girls and menopausees are both of the sex that can produce large gametes.

Now you've done it!

 

[Paul2]

Now you've done it!

INCOMING!

 

[Matthew Best]

I will not be taking questions.

 

[Steersman]

No. Because prepubescent girls and menopausees are both of the sex that can produce large gametes.

You can't be a member of the sex that produces large gametes unless you're actually producing large gametes. The same way that you can't be a teenager unless you're between the ages of 13 & 19.

"male" and "female" are just names for categories and members of them. As is "teenager":



For the sexes, do note the "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"

And you can't be a member of a category unless you can pay the membership dues -- i.e., actually producing small or large gametes for the sexes, or being 13 to 19 for "teenager".

Rather surprising, if rather depressing, how many people stumble over such a low hurdle ...

 

[Steersman]

For any Substackers in the crowd, or for anyone interested in the philosophical underpinnings and justifications for the strict definitions that more or less started this thread, see my latest:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas

Of particular note:

Consequently, as a way of bringing “nature’s laws” to bear on some of the “burning” questions of the day — notably, “What is a woman?” ... it will be useful to review some of the philosophical principles and insights that motivate the standard biological definitions for the sexes. And the text for this (or last) Sunday’s sermon will largely be the Mechanisms in Science article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP).

Somewhat related thereto is a so-far brief exchange I've had with Richard Dawkins who, like Emma Hilton at least in her earlier phase, seems to think that absent or non-functional gonads are no hindrance to qualifying as male or female:

Dawkins: "Turner individuals are unambiguous females with no Y chromosome and only one (functioning) X chromosome. They have a vagina and uterus, and their ovaries, if any, are non-functional. Obviously, Klinefelter (always male) and Turner (always female) individuals must be eliminated from counts of intersexes ...."

https://archive.li/2023.07.29-15143.../biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/the-delegates-tale/comment/66131750

 

[smartcooky]

You can't be a member of the sex that produces large gametes unless you're actually producing large gametes. The same way that you can't be a teenager unless you're between the ages of 13 & 19.

"male" and "female" are just names for categories and members of them. As is "teenager":

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7712765e3bd6342d82.jpg[/qimg]

For the sexes, do note the "either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"

And you can't be a member of a category unless you can pay the membership dues -- i.e., actually producing small or large gametes for the sexes, or being 13 to 19 for "teenager".

Rather surprising, if rather depressing, how many people stumble over such a low hurdle ...

For any Substackers in the crowd, or for anyone interested in the philosophical underpinnings and justifications for the strict definitions that more or less started this thread, see my latest:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas

Of particular note:



Somewhat related thereto is a so-far brief exchange I've had with Richard Dawkins who, like Emma Hilton at least in her earlier phase, seems to think that absent or non-functional gonads are no hindrance to qualifying as male or female:



https://archive.li/2023.07.29-15143.../biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/the-delegates-tale/comment/66131750

Whatever

I think people here are done with your inane and unique-to-you shtick. You're better off posting at SS, RLS or one of your other echo-chambers, because you'll get no traction here.

 

[Matthew Best]

You can't be a member of the sex that produces large gametes unless you're actually producing large gametes.

Yes, you can.

 

[smartcooky]

You can't be a member of the sex that produces large gametes unless you're actually producing large gametes.

Same old misogynistic shtick.

Same old factually wrong.

 

[Paul2]

nvm

you know why

 

[p0lka]

For any Substackers in the crowd, or for anyone interested in the philosophical underpinnings and justifications for the strict definitions that more or less started this thread, see my latest:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas

Of particular note:



Somewhat related thereto is a so-far brief exchange I've had with Richard Dawkins who, like Emma Hilton at least in her earlier phase, seems to think that absent or non-functional gonads are no hindrance to qualifying as male or female:



https://archive.li/2023.07.29-15143.../biological-sex-binary-debate-richard-dawkins

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/the-delegates-tale/comment/66131750

You quoted something that addressed 'what is a woman' then immediately moved on to talk about sex? What's that about?

 

[p0lka]

Whatever

I think people here are done with your inane and unique-to-you shtick. You're better off posting at SS, RLS or one of your other echo-chambers, because you'll get no traction here.

I dunno, some people just like debating.

 

[smartcooky]

I dunno, some people just like debating.

In this case, the mass kind.

 

[Steersman]

Yes, you can.

"No, you can't! Yes, you can!"

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

 

[Steersman]

You quoted something that addressed 'what is a woman' then immediately moved on to talk about sex? What's that about?

You mean this?

Consequently, as a way of bringing “nature’s laws” to bear on some of the “burning” questions of the day — notably, “What is a woman?” ... it will be useful to review some of the philosophical principles and insights that motivate the standard biological definitions for the sexes. And the text for this (or last) Sunday’s sermon will largely be the Mechanisms in Science article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP).

The "burning question of the day" -- the one that has puzzled philosophers, pundits, philanderers, and, more so lately, politicians from time immemorial -- is "what is a woman?" The standard answer, the dictionary one, is "adult human female".

But that's just moving the goal posts and is somewhat more "problematic" since one is then obliged to define "female". And particularly so since many people get their knickers in a twist because the standard biological definitions for the sexes -- the thread topic -- lead to the conclusion that the prepubescent and menopausees, among others like transwomen who cut their nuts off, are therefore sexless. Cue the histrionic and quite pretentious cries of "misogynist!", "how dare you!", and the like.

The problem is that too many people have turned "male" and "female" into "immutable identities" which conflicts fundamentally with the biological definitions which make them into labels for transitory reproductive abilities.

 

[smartcooky]

You mean this?

The "burning question of the day" -- the one that has puzzled philosophers, pundits, philanderers, and, more so lately, politicians from time immemorial -- is "what is a woman?" The standard answer, the dictionary one, is "adult human female".

But that's just moving the goal posts and is somewhat more "problematic" since one is then obliged to define "female". And particularly so since many people get their knickers in a twist because the standard biological definitions for the sexes -- the thread topic -- lead to the conclusion that the prepubescent and menopausees, among others like transwomen who cut their nuts off, are therefore sexless. Cue the histrionic and quite pretentious cries of "misogynist!", "how dare you!", and the like.

The problem is that too many people have turned "male" and "female" into "immutable identities" which conflicts fundamentally with the biological definitions which make them into labels for transitory reproductive abilities.

"No, you can't! Yes, you can!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

You are the one making the assertion, you haven't provided any evidence, only some opinions.

I therefore invoke Hitchen's Razor in dismissing your claim out of hand!