Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[smartcooky]

Edited by jimbob: 

rule 0/12 violation removed

Firstly, you put a lot of store in the opinions of philosophers. I don't. I regard their opinions as being not worth Jack ****. Even Douglas Adams understood that philosophers were next to useless when it comes to dealing in facts and evidence. Their expertise lies in "rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty"

Secondly, I read the sentence "on the basis of their reproductive functions" differently from the way you read it.

You are reading it as if it is referring to the current status of each individual.
I read it as referring generally to the species as a whole.
I disagree with your reading, and I will continue to disagree with your reading.

I regard the statement as referring the the general biology of the species, therefore, I take that sentence to mean...

Those members of the human race whose biological functions are consistent with the ability to produce large gametes (even if at any time they do not do so for any reason) are female.
Those members of the human race whose biological functions are consistent with the ability to produce small gametes (even if at any time they do not do so for any reason)are male.

This is the definition I use, and the one I will always use, regardless of any minority of backward thinkers you quote.

If you don't share the particular characteristic that defines the category then you don't get a category membership card. Why you can't qualify as a teenager unless you're actually between the ages of 13 & 19 inclusive.

And? What has this to do with anything?

The Definition of Human is "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)" .
By your definition, a human who was born with a genetic defect that resulted in them being born without one or both legs is not human. Same goes for someone who has had one or both legs amputated. They are no longer bipedal, and since, "If you don't share the particular characteristic that defines the category then you don't get a category membership card."

I've had a vasectomy - so I don't produce small gametes anymore. Does that mean I'm not a male? Not a man? By your logic, that dehumanizes me in the exact reprehensible way that you misogynistically dehumanize post menopausal women.

 

[Myriad]

And back around we go:

"Please use my preferred definition instead of the established one. It would solve many serious problems."

"What problems would it solve?"

"Mainly, the problem that no one is using my preferred definition."

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Round and round and round we go.
"Pandas eat bamboo. Look! That one's not eating! So, it's not a panda!"
Ridiculous.

 

[Myriad]

Round and round and round we go.
"Pandas eat bamboo. Look! That one's not eating! So, it's not a panda!"
Ridiculous.

“Hair color is rigorously defined by the frequency distribution's of reflected light. If you’re wearing a hat that blocks light reflection then your hair has no color. I know it offends you snowflakes but this definitional rigor somehow helps prevent the confusion and turmoil caused by people dyeing their hair and then falsely claiming to be redheads.”

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... 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.

Language is a social construct and tends to develop the tools to express ideas via changed meanings, new words, metaphors and euphemisms. Language use and evolution are often not according to personal taste.

And don't you mean "mutable"; i.e., the word meanings are subject to change? That is what syntax, morphology and phonology, apart from sociolinguistic nuances, all do; change and evolve. An immutable use of language would be artificial. The closest you get to that is a dead language (eg, Latin), which by reason of being dead, no longer changes. Only a few "meaningless" terms used in grammar tend to be highly stable over time ("the", "a", etc).

If your beef is with language use, and that the terms used to refer to preferred sexual identity employ the same words as those for biology, be patient. That's what the confusing emergence of cis-this, trans-that, pronoun debates and LGBQT+ is all about: disambiguation.

Personally, I find all that far less confusing that how I should address a female I don't know, if "Miss", "Ms, "Maam", "Dude", "You, there" or "Hey, Bub" is more correct in English usage. Not up with the lingo among today's native speakers. Spanish is easier in that regard, as "señorita" is normally a complement and only the wrong intonation can get you in trouble. I like to call old ladies "señorita"; they get a real kick out of it.

Or was your beef not with language, but with the observation that sexual identity is more fluid than in times past? So, btw, is our current understanding of genetics, which happens to show biological gender is a spectrum, not a binary. Genitals alone are not the whole story, so dropping trou doesn't work.

 

[p0lka]

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.

Thanks for replying to my question. i'm not clear on what you think is the problem just by reading your post, but what do you think would be the solution?

 

[stanfr]

I bowed out of these sex/gender debates a while back cause I don't know enough to have any hard opinions, but I am curious about the below linked case (fairly recent publication)
It's a quick read, but basically a 'true' hermaphrodite with predominantly male sex organs who was treated and because he was raised male and identified as male, along with the physical attributes, he was treated as male. But he had XX chromosomes, and based on his DSD, if I'm not mistaken, the majority here would consider him to be biologically female. Am I correct? (it's so confusing...)
HeSheThey

 

[Steersman]

Thanks for replying to my question. i'm not clear on what you think is the problem just by reading your post, but what do you think would be the solution?

Education? Though I'm reminded of Proverbs 1:22

How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

https://biblehub.com/kjv/proverbs/1.htm

But you at least might derive some benefit from my post, "What is a Woman?":

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman

 

[Steersman]

Language is a social construct and tends to develop the tools to express ideas via changed meanings, new words, metaphors and euphemisms. Language use and evolution are often not according to personal taste.

Sure -- definitions change all the time. Up until the 1880s no one had ever heard of gametes but now they're central to the standard biological definitions. Which most people, except for those few in various benighted backwaters ..., more or less accept.

And don't you mean "mutable"; i.e., the word meanings are subject to change? ....

Whole bunch of people have been blathering on forever -- like demented parrots and trained seals -- on how "sex is immutable!!11!!

In Humans, Sex is Binary and Immutable

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable

We can, of course and as you suggest, change the definitions as we wish -- pay the words extra. As various transloonie nutcases and their fellow-travelers insist on doing. In which case people's membership in the categories change -- which is, of course, why they're trying that gambit, somewhat successfully as illustrated by the Khelif and, now, the Tickle vs. Giggle cases.

But most of the feminists and their white knights "think", by way of that "immutable", that our status as either male or female right from conception is unchangeable. Which is incoherent and quite antiscientific claptrap. They might just as well insist that "teenager" is immutable -- the definition generally doesn't change, but our membership in the category certainly does.

So, btw, is our current understanding of genetics, which happens to show biological gender is a spectrum, not a binary. Genitals alone are not the whole story, so dropping trou doesn't work.

Kinda think you're still conflating sex and gender. See the above quotes from Scalia and Merriam-Webster.

 

[Steersman]

Firstly, you put a lot of store in the opinions of philosophers. I don't. ...

Secondly, I read the sentence "on the basis of their reproductive functions" differently from the way you read it.

Well, bully for you. But mainstream biology -- and, lately, Emma Hilton -- says otherwise.

This is the definition I use, and the one I will always use, regardless of any minority of backward thinkers you quote.

ROTFL "backward thinkers"? Like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology?

The Definition of Human is "a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)" .
By your definition, a human who was born with a genetic defect that resulted in them being born without one or both legs is not human. Same goes for someone who has had one or both legs amputated. They are no longer bipedal, and since, "If you don't share the particular characteristic that defines the category then you don't get a category membership card."

False analogy, though a rather too common one -- a failing which even Richard Dawkins is guilty of:

Dawkins: "Homo sapiens is a bipedal ape. Freak babies are occasionally born with three legs. Does this mean they are not human?"

Steersman: False analogy. Bipedality is an "accidental" property of all humans, a typical one, not an "essential" one -- a fairly durable philosophical principle that you may wish to read up on:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/accidental-and-essential-properties

Clearly there are people who are not "bipedal" -- bipedality is an accidental property of the category "human". The essential one is, to a first approximation, compatible karyotypes -- which those missing a leg or two presumably still have ...

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/the-delegates-tale/comment/66256507

I've had a vasectomy - so I don't produce small gametes anymore. Does that mean I'm not a male? Not a man? By your logic, that dehumanizes me in the exact reprehensible way that you misogynistically dehumanize post menopausal women.

Yep, not a male; sorry to break that news to you. Though I'll concede you probably still qualify as human. See the above discussion on accidental and essential properties.

And that "dehumanizes me" is the same type of pretentious twaddle that the transloonie nutcases are peddling:

Echoing the party line with hyperbolic flourish, the op-ed of one Laurier activist proclaimed—

We need to acknowledge that debates that invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us based on gender are both a form of transphobia and gendered violence. There is no neutral way to demand that someone defend their very existence and their right to a safe school and work environment.​

https://quillette.com/2017/12/13/words-lose-meaning-wilfrid-laurier-university/
Archive link: https://archive.ph/rKKcl
NowToronto archived: https://archive.ph/BtDEf

 

[Orphia Nay]

I bowed out of these sex/gender debates a while back cause I don't know enough to have any hard opinions, but I am curious about the below linked case (fairly recent publication)
It's a quick read, but basically a 'true' hermaphrodite with predominantly male sex organs who was treated and because he was raised male and identified as male, along with the physical attributes, he was treated as male. But he had XX chromosomes, and based on his DSD, if I'm not mistaken, the majority here would consider him to be biologically female. Am I correct? (it's so confusing...)
HeSheThey

Very interesting! I don't know what a lot of those medical terms in the paper mean, but my initial opinion will be one the usual suspects in here won't like: It's complicated.

 

[Steersman]

I bowed out of these sex/gender debates a while back cause I don't know enough to have any hard opinions, but I am curious about the below linked case (fairly recent publication)
It's a quick read, but basically a 'true' hermaphrodite with predominantly male sex organs who was treated and because he was raised male and identified as male, along with the physical attributes, he was treated as male. But he had XX chromosomes, and based on his DSD, if I'm not mistaken, the majority here would consider him to be biologically female. Am I correct? (it's so confusing...)
HeSheThey

Definitely "confusing" -- why the standard biological definitions -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads -- are so useful.

That article of yours wasn't particularly clear, but I get the impression from various bits and pieces that in such cases the gonads are non-functional; their owners are technically sexless, neither male nor female:

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

 

[smartcooky]

Well, bully for you. But mainstream biology -- and, lately, Emma Hilton -- says otherwise.



ROTFL "backward thinkers"? Like the Oxford Dictionary of Biology?




False analogy, though a rather too common one -- a failing which even Richard Dawkins is guilty of:





https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/the-delegates-tale/comment/66256507


Yep, not a male; sorry to break that news to you. Though I'll concede you probably still qualify as human. See the above discussion on accidental and essential properties.

And that "dehumanizes me" is the same type of pretentious twaddle that the transloonie nutcases are peddling:



https://quillette.com/2017/12/13/words-lose-meaning-wilfrid-laurier-university/
Archive link: https://archive.ph/rKKcl
NowToronto archived: https://archive.ph/BtDEf

Your post is just a load unmitigated bollocks!! Its also wrong.

- The function of a hammer is to drive in nails. It doesn't stop being a hammer just because its not being used to drive in nails at this moment.
- The function of a screwdriver is to put in and remove screws. It doesn't stop being a screwdriver just because its not being used to put in and remove screws at this moment.
- The function of a widget factory it to manufactured widgets, It doesn't stop being a widget factory just because its not being used to manufacture widgets at this moment.

Or, if you would prefer I use humans as examples...

- The function of the quarterback in American Football is to be the leader of the offense, and to be responsible for calling the play in the huddle. He/She doesn't stop being the Quarterback just because the defence is on the field.
- The function of a Minister of the Crown is determining and promoting policy, defending policy decisions, and answering in the House on both policy and operational matters. He doesn't stop being a Minister of the Crown just because he's at home cooking dinner for his wife.

Or if you would prefer I use bodily functions as examples...

- The function of your eyes is to capture visible light from the world around you and to turn it into a form your brain uses to create your sense of vision. They don't stop being your eyes while you are sleeping, or if you are blind.
- The function of your bowel is to help the body absorb nutrients and fluids from the foods you eat and drink, and then to expel the leftover waste. It doesn't stop being your bowel just because you are constipated.
- The function of your legs is to help you move, carry the weight of your body and support you when you stand. They don't stop being your legs just because you are paralyzed or pissed out of your tree.

Therefore, it logically follows with an elegant inevitability, that...

- The function of the human sexual reproductive system is to produce gametes for the purpose of human reproduction. It doesn't mean it stops being the human sexual reproductive system just because it doesn't work for some reason.

In short, the fact that a person's reproductive system hasn't yet started to function, or no longer functions does not mean that person is not male or female. YOU are the only person here who believes that to be true, and you are in a tiny, insignificant minority outside this forum.

YOU keep quoting the same old lines from various dictionaries, but you are misreading the meanings those definitions (which does make me wonder about your language skills). When you can come back here with a dictionary definition that unambiguously supports your view, then I will accept it.

NOTE: By unambiguously, I mean it must clearly contain the following words or something so similar there can be no doubt as to its meaning

A prepubescent boy is not male
A prepubescent girl is not female
A post-menopausal woman is not female

In the meantime, I'll leave you this to ponder...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

a male person : a man or a boy. b. : an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

a female person : a woman or a girl ; b · an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs.

 

[smartcooky]

Education? Though I'm reminded of Proverbs 1:22

Bible quotes eh?

Now I'm beginning to see where the misogyny comes from!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

...
[AGAINST:] Whole bunch of people have been blathering on forever -- like demented parrots and trained seals -- on how "sex is immutable!!11!!
[FOR:]
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable
[AGAINST:]
But most of the feminists and their white knights "think", by way of that "immutable", that our status as either male or female right from conception is unchangeable. Which is incoherent and quite antiscientific claptrap. They might just as well insist that "teenager" is immutable -- the definition generally doesn't change, but our membership in the category certainly does.

You appear to argue for and against the same position. At least, I cannot discern the nature of your complaint. Having perused the cited text, I find this:

True hermaphrodites possessing both sets of functional gonads and genitalia have never been observed in Homo sapiens. ... Therefore the “intersex” argument against the sex binary is simply not valid. Intersex individuals exist only because of continuous de novo reintroduction of the relevant mutations in the population, recessive genes becoming unmasked, or disruptions of normal embryonic development. ... Sex in mammals is on a fundamental level binary and immutable, and claims that “intersex'” individuals disprove that can only be made in the absence of any consideration of the biological nature of humans and how our evolutionary history has shaped our biology. Which brings us to the most worrying aspect of the widespread adoption of such denial.

Accepting the above as valid is a distinction without an important difference in terms of social policy, in that regardless of the immutability of sex (gametes produced), the most important genetic and epigenetic factors in terms of personal identity (gender) are not gametes, or there would be no issues regarding matching sex to gender. We would also not observe homosexual behavior anywhere in the non-human animal kingdom (which we do).

Bottom line: Immutable sex does not determine gender, and so therefore is not the primary factor to consider when dealing with gender identity in society. Granted, to defend transgenderism does not require espousing a non-binary view of birth sex, but that is a finer point I care less about. Let gays be gay, trans be trans. Little to be gained here.

 

[Steersman]

...

< incoherent & antiscientific blathering snipped ...>

In the meantime, I'll leave you this to ponder...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

a male person : a man or a boy. b. : an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female.

...

Do show me -- and all of those following along from home in the peanut galleries -- EXACTLY where any reputable biological journal, encyclopedia, or dictionary says ANYTHING about "typically". For reference, you might try reading, if that isn't too much of a challenge for you, Emma Hilton's latest tweet which endorsed the standard biological definitions.

But that "typically" still leaves hanging the question as to EXACTLY what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male and female. Maybe simply a vagina for "female" in Khelif's case? And a neovagina in "Ms." Roxanne Tickle's?

And I wouldn't put much weight on Merriam-Webster since your own links show "male" and "female" to be "gender identities" -- particularly problematic since they're circularly defined, "no there, there":

"male : having a gender identity that is the opposite of female"
"female: having a gender identity that is the opposite of male"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

If they are endorsing the biological definitions then they have some credibility, and if they aren't then they don't.

There are some sound reasons for the biological definitions -- they're foundational to all of biology. Reasons which you simply don't want to listen to since apparently all you can hear is your own "I don't care (!!11!!)" as you run off to stick your head in the sand.

 

[Steersman]

You appear to argue for and against the same position.

Appearances can be deceiving ... I'm NOT arguing in favour of "immutable". It is flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions.

At least, I cannot discern the nature of your complaint. Having perused the cited text, I find this:

True hermaphrodites possessing both sets of functional gonads and genitalia have never been observed in Homo sapiens ...

Thanks -- I missed that. But if those "true hermaphrodites" have neither type of functional gonads then they are, ipso facto, sexless.

Accepting the above as valid is a distinction without an important difference in terms of social policy ...

We are NOT, in the first instance (see the first post in this thread), talking about "social policy". We are talking about the strict definitions for the sexes, and the fact that they're used that way in much of mainstream biology. If various scientific illiterates, grifters, charlatans, and political opportunists want to use folk-biology, at best, then that's a separate issue.

You might want to take a close look at another article by Paul Griffiths:

Sex Is Real: Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other. ....

On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition [e.g., in law], the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity

That's what too many of those scientific and philosophical illiterates are trying to do, whether they realize it or not: bastardize and corrupt those definitions to the point where the "essence" of male and female (i.e., functional gonads) is lost. A "tragic mistake", indeed.

Bottom line: Immutable sex does not determine gender, and so therefore is not the primary factor to consider when dealing with gender identity in society. Granted, to defend transgenderism does not require espousing a non-binary view of birth sex, but that is a finer point I care less about. Let gays be gay, trans be trans. Little to be gained here.

Sex is, by standard biological definitions, most certainly NOT immutable. Though I'm most certainly NOT arguing in favour of a "non-binary view of birth sex". Too many people have some difficulty with the concept that binary categories are not necessarily exhaustive, that many people and other anisogamous organisms can be neither male nor female. See Griffiths above.

But if transwomen want to cut their nuts off then, as far as I'm concerned, they can go big, fill their boots. Probably best that they're no longer even in the gene pool. But they don't get to claim they've changed sex.

 

[stanfr]

Your post is just a load unmitigated bollocks!! Its also wrong.

- The function of a hammer is to drive in nails. It doesn't stop being a hammer just because its not being used to drive in nails at this moment.
- The function of a screwdriver is to put in and remove screws. It doesn't stop being a screwdriver just because its not being used to put in and remove screws at this moment.
- The function of a widget factory it to manufactured widgets, It doesn't stop being a widget factory just because its not being used to manufacture widgets at this moment.

Or, if you would prefer I use humans as examples...

- The function of the quarterback in American Football is to be the leader of the offense, and to be responsible for calling the play in the huddle. He/She doesn't stop being the Quarterback just because the defence is on the field.
- The function of a Minister of the Crown is determining and promoting policy, defending policy decisions, and answering in the House on both policy and operational matters. He doesn't stop being a Minister of the Crown just because he's at home cooking dinner for his wife.

Or if you would prefer I use bodily functions as examples...

- The function of your eyes is to capture visible light from the world around you and to turn it into a form your brain uses to create your sense of vision. They don't stop being your eyes while you are sleeping, or if you are blind.
- The function of your bowel is to help the body absorb nutrients and fluids from the foods you eat and drink, and then to expel the leftover waste. It doesn't stop being your bowel just because you are constipated.
- The function of your legs is to help you move, carry the weight of your body and support you when you stand. They don't stop being your legs just because you are paralyzed or pissed out of your tree.

Therefore, it logically follows with an elegant inevitability, that...

- The function of the human sexual reproductive system is to produce gametes for the purpose of human reproduction. It doesn't mean it stops being the human sexual reproductive system just because it doesn't work for some reason.

In short, the fact that a person's reproductive system hasn't yet started to function, or no longer functions does not mean that person is not male or female. YOU are the only person here who believes that to be true, and you are in a tiny, insignificant minority outside this forum.

YOU keep quoting the same old lines from various dictionaries, but you are misreading the meanings those definitions (which does make me wonder about your language skills). When you can come back here with a dictionary definition that unambiguously supports your view, then I will accept it.

NOTE: By unambiguously, I mean it must clearly contain the following words or something so similar there can be no doubt as to its meaning

A prepubescent boy is not male
A prepubescent girl is not female
A post-menopausal woman is not female

In the meantime, I'll leave you this to ponder...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

a male person : a man or a boy. b. : an individual of the sex that is typically capable of producing small, usually motile gametes (such as sperm or spermatozoa) which fertilize the eggs of a female.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/female

a female person : a woman or a girl ; b · an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs.

Fair enough point--so could you address the journal case I cited? Steersman says the patient is sexless--presumably you disagree. So, female??

 

[d4m10n]

Fair enough point--so could you address the journal case I cited? Steersman says the patient is sexless--presumably you disagree. So, female??

The individual in the case study appears not to have developed anatomy for producing either small or large gametes, even when fully matured. The heuristic from the OP is for classifying individuals whose anatomy could do one or the other, at some point on the timeline.

 

[Steersman]

The individual in the case study appears not to have developed anatomy for producing either small or large gametes, even when fully matured.

So -- "sexless", amirite?

But if you're going to cross that Rubicon then you might as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb: "sexless" is going to encompass the prepubescent, menopausees, vasectomees, and transwomen who cut their nuts off.

The heuristic from the OP is for classifying individuals whose anatomy could do one or the other, at some point on the timeline.

Something of a good point there. See:

A heuristic or heuristic technique (problem solving, mental shortcut, rule of thumb) is any approach to problem solving that employs a pragmatic method that is not fully optimized, perfected, or rationalized, but is nevertheless "good enough" as an approximation or attribute substitution.

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

Of particular note there is that "attribute substitution" which, one might argue, is analogous to the use/misuse of proxies:

In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable.[1] In order for a variable to be a good proxy, it must have a close correlation, not necessarily linear, with the variable of interest. This correlation might be either positive or negative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)

The presence of gonads are certainly a fairly solid proxy for being male or female. But they are not "definitive" -- which Hilton has, in effect, recently conceded.

definitive: 3a) serving to define or specify precisely; e.g., established definitive guidelines for sentencing criminals

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/definitive