Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Agatha]

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.

Men who have had vasectomies still produce gametes, they just get reabsorbed. And you missed pregnant women in your list, who by your definition must be sexless, despite their functioning female reproductive system.

 

[Steersman]

Men who have had vasectomies still produce gametes, they just get reabsorbed.

Might be splitting a few hairs, but you might consider this definition from the reputable Oxford Dictionaries:



It's the "making available" for further use that is the issue -- in this case, for the reproductive process. Which vasectomees are clearly unable to do -- by design. Ergo, "sexless". Though if they want to reverse that procedure then I guess they can get their "male" cards reinstated.

Otherwise, you might just as well argue that a car manufacturing plant is still "producing cars" if, before they're delivered to the customer, to the end user, they're all broken down into scrap for other uses.

And you missed pregnant women in your list, who by your definition must be sexless, despite their functioning female reproductive system.

Once those pregnant "women" go back to producing large gametes on a regular basis then they too can get their "female" cards reinstated. Something I've emphasized and argued several times before:

Grammarly: "We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it’s sometimes called present indefinite). Depending on the person, the simple present tense is formed by using the root form or by adding s or es to the end."

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/

And Google/Oxford:

"regularly: with a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual items. 'regularly spaced buildings' ..."

How often that "regularly" happens is somewhat immaterial -- for human females, it's one or two a month. And for human males it's about ten to 100 every second. Largely the consequence of human ova being some 100,000 times the volume of human spermatozoa. The difference between building several Ferraris a month, and building hundreds of Volkswagens a month -- so to speak.

But it is actual presence of that process which is the defining property for the categories "male" and "female". It is ubiquitous across literally millions of species, and provides a common reference point for comparing those species, and for trying to understand how and why that dichotomy developed in the first place.

Of more than passing importance to any biologist worth their salt. From the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:

"The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become."

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

You might also have some interest in my post on the philosophical underpinnings of the standard biological definitions. Of particular note therein is the heavy reliance on the article "Mechanisms in Science" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Rerum cognoscere causas
Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/win2021/entries/science-mechanisms/#toc

 

[smartcooky]

Men who have had vasectomies still produce gametes, they just get reabsorbed. And you missed pregnant women in your list, who by your definition must be sexless, despite their functioning female reproductive system.

Its won't make any difference to him. He'll just adjust or dismiss any inconvenient facts to fit his unique personal worldview!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

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.

This sort of post is quite common on ISF. Whereas it might be an accurate description of reader frustration, I do not believe it adds to discussion, and constitutes in essence an ad-hom. Agree or disagree, I'd advocate for arguing the points or simply moving on if and when there is no engaging in the actual arguments.

Not reported; comment not intended to be aggressive. I just think this is getting too common, making ISF sound a bit like a bunch of cranky old muppets in a theater balcony.

 

[smartcooky]

This sort of post is quite common on ISF. Whereas it might be an accurate description of reader frustration, I do not believe it adds to discussion, and constitutes in essence an ad-hom. Agree or disagree, I'd advocate for arguing the points or simply moving on if and when there is no engaging in the actual arguments.

Not reported; comment not intended to be aggressive. I just think this is getting too common, making ISF sound a bit like a bunch of cranky old muppets in a theater balcony.

Respectfully, there simply isn't anything left to argue. Steersman is simply wrong - logically and scientifically. The idea that something, defined as a "producer" of an item, does not meet the definition of "producer" because it not actually in the act of producing that item at the moment in time you say it, is simply ludicrous on its face. If it were true then, for example, a widget factory would only be a widget factory during the time which it is actually producing widgets. If it shuts down temporarily for repairs, or closes for the weekend, he would have you believe it can no longer be defined as a widget factory (but be never specifies what it actually is) until the moment it starts production again. This is so stupid that even a single-digit grade schooler can tell you its stupid. There is NO usage in the English language that allows this interpretation. Every other example you can think of fails, yet he insists that sex is some kind of special case in which the rules of language change, and that his unique interpretation is the correct one. As I said, ludicrous on its face.

In humans, there are only two sexes... male and female. If, as he insists, a prepubescent boy is not of the male sex, then what sex is he? If a prepubescent girl is not of the female sex, then what sex is she? If a post-menopausal women is not of the female sex, then what sex is she? He has never been able to give a satisfactory answer to this. Since there are only two sexes, the other sex is the only option, which clearly cannot be right.

He arrives at these opinions through a laughable failure to comprehend basic English, and an almost a child-like misinterpretation of common usage of language (which leads me to believe English is not his first language).

But the worst thing is his debate methodology, which takes on the appearance of an endless tape loop, repeatedly spamming the thread with the same useless, incorrect or misinterpreted information, most of which is taken out of its context. Furthermore, he is pretty much the only person who holds his view (other than a few crackpot philosophers).

None of the above is an attack on the poster in question, I'm just explaining why I'm responding the way I have. When a person stubbornly refuses to back down from their views when they have been presented with mountains of evidence by multiple people, multiple times, and when they dodge and evade valid questions about their views, then there comes a time when its pointless to continue. You might as well be bashing your head against a wall.

And I'm done bashing!

 

[Agatha]

Might be splitting a few hairs, but you might consider this definition from the reputable Oxford Dictionaries:

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7712765fb883272159.jpg[/qimg]

It's the "making available" for further use that is the issue -- in this case, for the reproductive process. Which vasectomees are clearly unable to do -- by design. Ergo, "sexless". Though if they want to reverse that procedure then I guess they can get their "male" cards reinstated.

Your first definition fits vasectomised men perfectly; their bodies are still producing sperm. You have added "future" and "further" to the second definition, which not only changes the meaning, it's fairly obvious that you did it to twist the definition to suit.

Otherwise, you might just as well argue that a car manufacturing plant is still "producing cars" if, before they're delivered to the customer, to the end user, they're all broken down into scrap for other uses.

A car plant that produces cars, even if they are subsequently scrapped, is still producing cars.

Once those pregnant "women" go back to producing large gametes on a regular basis then they too can get their "female" cards reinstated. Something I've emphasized and argued several times before:

Yes, we've read your arguments several times. But most people don't agree with an argument that holds that a pregnant woman is sexless for the duration of her pregnancy and for several weeks or months afterwards while breastfeeding. Not even if you dehumanise women by putting "women" in scare quotes, or dehumanise humans in general by suggesting that people have to hold "cards" to be part of a sexually dimorphic species.

How often that "regularly" happens is somewhat immaterial -- for human females, it's one or two a month. And for human males it's about ten to 100 every second. Largely the consequence of human ova being some 100,000 times the volume of human spermatozoa. The difference between building several Ferraris a month, and building hundreds of Volkswagens a month -- so to speak.

Hold on, if it doesn't matter how often it "regularly happens", then the year or so break in actually releasing eggs during pregnancy and breastfeeding doesn't render a pregnant woman sexless, nor would it make post-menopausal woman sexless either. Because they still have eggs, they aren't releasing them once a month or so, but as you said, how often that regularly happens is somewhat immaterial.

But it is actual presence of that process which is the defining property for the categories "male" and "female". It is ubiquitous across literally millions of species, and provides a common reference point for comparing those species, and for trying to understand how and why that dichotomy developed in the first place.

[snip links already spammed several times]

The process of producing gametes or the process of releasing them? And if releasing them, do they have to be released outside the body or can they stay inside the body to count as part of your definition?

 

[smartcooky]

Your first definition fits vasectomised men perfectly; their bodies are still producing sperm. You have added "future" and "further" to the second definition, which not only changes the meaning, it's fairly obvious that you did it to twist the definition to suit.

A car plant that produces cars, even if they are subsequently scrapped, is still producing cars.


Yes, we've read your arguments several times. But most people don't agree with an argument that holds that a pregnant woman is sexless for the duration of her pregnancy and for several weeks or months afterwards while breastfeeding. Not even if you dehumanise women by putting "women" in scare quotes.


Hold on, if it doesn't matter how often it "regularly happens", then the year or so break in actually releasing eggs during pregnancy and breastfeeding doesn't render a pregnant woman sexless, nor would it make post-menopausal woman sexless either. Because they still have eggs, they aren't releasing them once a month or so, but as you said, how often that regularly happens is somewhat immaterial.

The process of producing gametes or the process of releasing them? And if releasing them, do they have to be released outside the body or can they stay inside the body to count as part of your definition?

I don't think you're being fair... you're bound to confuse him with all those facts!

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Respectfully... [respectfully clipped]

Not really looking to rile, smartcooky. I was commenting that I think desisting is a better choice once one has become fed up and has decided there is no profit in continuing, at least in terms of advancing toward a shared viewpoint with the poster in question. We seem to agree on that, furthermore. Anyway, as for this topic, the whole gamete business is actually moot; it's brain wiring and hormones and other stuff, some of which is not yet clearly understood (genetics and brains). Live and let live.

 

[smartcooky]

Not really looking to rile, smartcooky. I was commenting that I think desisting is a better choice once one has become fed up and has decided there is no profit in continuing, at least in terms of advancing toward a shared viewpoint with the poster in question. We seem to agree on that.

I agree, its pointless carrying on a debate, but I will continue to make statements of fact (I won't be deterred from that), but I'll just not bother addressing his responses until they make scientific, factual sense. That hasn't happened so far, so I won't be holding my breath.

Anyway, as for this topic, the whole gamete business is actually moot; it's brain wiring and hormones and other stuff, some of which is not yet clearly understood (genetics and brains). Live and let live.

Well, I think it should be a combination of genetics (chromosomes) and gamete production. That is...

If you try to argue that a prepubescent boy is not a male because they aren't actually producing small gametes at this precise moment in time, their 23rd pair of chromosomes are still almost certainly going to be 46, XY, which makes them male anyway.

If you try to argue that a prepubescent girl is not a female because they aren't actually producing large gametes at this precise moment in time, their 23rd pair of chromosomes are still almost certainly going to be 46, XX, which makes them female anyway.

If you try to argue that a post-menopausal woman is not a female because she is no longer producing large gametes, their 23rd pair of chromosomes are also still almost certainly going to be 46, XX, which also makes them female anyway.

Now of course the pedants and nitpickers in the room are going to bleat about DSD's such as Trisomy X, Turner's syndrome, Kleinfelter's syndrome, MKRH syndrome and a whole host of other minuscule-percentage edge-cases. I used the term "almost certainly" in order to head that crap off at the pass.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I let the threadizens continue on this one.

 

[theprestige]

Anyway, as for this topic, the whole gamete business is actually moot; it's brain wiring and hormones and other stuff, some of which is not yet clearly understood (genetics and brains). Live and let live.

What about the vast amounts of data recorded by athletic competition over the past century or so? That data shows that we very clearly understand the genetics of binary sex. We know it clearly correlates with gamete production, and with physical ability. We also know it correlates with characteristic hormone production. And we know that the genetics of binary sex doesn't seem to correlate at all with "brain wiring" (whatever that means).

So, for this topic, the whole gamete production business is a sufficient proxy for identifying binary sex in mammals - the genetics of which we understand about as clearly as it's possible to understand such a thing.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

What about the vast amounts of data recorded by athletic competition over the past century or so? That data shows that we very clearly understand the genetics of binary sex. We know it clearly correlates with gamete production, and with physical ability. We also know it correlates with characteristic hormone production. And we know that the genetics of binary sex doesn't seem to correlate at all with "brain wiring" (whatever that means).

So, for this topic, the whole gamete production business is a sufficient proxy for identifying binary sex in mammals - the genetics of which we understand about as clearly as it's possible to understand such a thing.

I am happy to accept that physiological sex is genetically determined, with generally narrow variation around two sexual outcomes. If it's sports that worries you, as I was not around at thread beginning, also fine to state my opinion that only birth sex should determine eligibility, but also that hormonal or genetic testing must allow for natural and narrow bands of variation from norms, and that such variations should be treated as normal and natural, such that the Algerian boxer of late in the news need never have suffered humiliation.

My only take on all this is that, as you say,

the genetics of binary sex doesn't seem to correlate at all with "brain wiring"

...so that in nearly all circumstances, individuals should be free to pursue the identity they choose. Sports competition is possibly the only human endeavor in which biological sex should and does matter, because that is the foundation for separating the two: differing performance means and extremes.

Live and let live.

 

[d4m10n]

Sports competition is possibly the only human endeavor in which biological sex should and does matter, because that is the foundation for separating the two: differing performance means and extremes.

I think it should matter even more when the human endeavors in question are donating gametes or offering surrogacy services; it is vitally important to sort people by sex (in the OP sense) before they undertake such tasks as these. There are also some number of adult females who'd much rather have their intimate exams done by doctors who understand what it is like to undergo such exams as patients.

For a much more mundane example, sleepaway camps for adolescents and teens have historically sorted the cabins based on gamete production, partially in deference to social decorum but also in a pragmatic effort to prevent those gametes from meeting up.

 

[theprestige]

Sports competition is possibly the only human endeavor in which biological sex should and does matter, because that is the foundation for separating the two: differing performance means and extremes.

Sexual intimacy seems like an obvious human endeavor where biological sex should and does matter.

Less obvious: Any human endeavor where physical ability is important to success is probably one in which biological sex should and does matter. Combat. Firefighting. Roustabouting (e.g., on oil rigs). Rescue swimming. Etc.

I'm not saying biological sex should be the only thing that matters, just that it should be one of the things that does matter. Obviously if you're trying to fill a lifeguard position, you have to consider the risk to swimmers from a (statistically) weaker candidate versus leaving the position unfilled. And obviously a motivated and experienced female candidate is probably a better hire than an inexperienced and poorly-conditioned male candidate who happens to be naturally stronger. But it should go without saying that we have no a priori cause for complaint, if males are "over-represented" in lifeguarding.

 

[stanfr]

Sexual intimacy seems like an obvious human endeavor where biological sex should and does matter.

Less obvious: Any human endeavor where physical ability is important to success is probably one in which biological sex should and does matter. Combat. Firefighting. Roustabouting (e.g., on oil rigs). Rescue swimming. Etc.

I'm not saying biological sex should be the only thing that matters, just that it should be one of the things that does matter. Obviously if you're trying to fill a lifeguard position, you have to consider the risk to swimmers from a (statistically) weaker candidate versus leaving the position unfilled. And obviously a motivated and experienced female candidate is probably a better hire than an inexperienced and poorly-conditioned male candidate who happens to be naturally stronger. But it should go without saying that we have no a priori cause for complaint, if males are "over-represented" in lifeguarding.

Interesting that you singled out lifeguarding, which involves way more than physical speed in the water, Many have argued that women make better lifeguards, women tend to dominate long distance swimming, they often are better at complex tasks done in the water, tend to be more attentive and perceptive (possibly due to societal expectations) Anyhow, having grown up near the beach, I would have much preferred to have been rescued (and ressucitated) by some of the local female lifeguards.

 

[stanfr]

I agree, its pointless carrying on a debate, but I will continue to make statements of fact (I won't be deterred from that), but I'll just not bother addressing his responses until they make scientific, factual sense. That hasn't happened so far, so I won't be holding my breath.



Well, I think it should be a combination of genetics (chromosomes) and gamete production. That is...

If you try to argue that a prepubescent boy is not a male because they aren't actually producing small gametes at this precise moment in time, their 23rd pair of chromosomes are still almost certainly going to be 46, XY, which makes them male anyway.

If you try to argue that a prepubescent girl is not a female because they aren't actually producing large gametes at this precise moment in time, their 23rd pair of chromosomes are still almost certainly going to be 46, XX, which makes them female anyway.

If you try to argue that a post-menopausal woman is not a female because she is no longer producing large gametes, their 23rd pair of chromosomes are also still almost certainly going to be 46, XX, which also makes them female anyway.

Now of course the pedants and nitpickers in the room are going to bleat about DSD's such as Trisomy X, Turner's syndrome, Kleinfelter's syndrome, MKRH syndrome and a whole host of other minuscule-percentage edge-cases. I used the term "almost certainly" in order to head that crap off at the pass.

So, since you never responded to my request/question, I will assume you would consider the person with male sex organs who was XX, a biological female. Correct me if I'm wrong. I do think that succinct classification to be somewhat problematic if you then have to deal with the social questions that come up (which sport category, which restroom, which doctor, which prison...etc etc)

 

[Steersman]

Its won't make any difference to him. He'll just adjust or dismiss any inconvenient facts to fit his unique personal worldview!

You should talk. Or maybe you shouldn't ...

What would you call someone who insists on asserting something when they've been shown that it's an "untruth"?

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14285257&postcount=1212

YOU are the one categorizing certain groups of humans has Sexless, YOU and only YOU are doing this.

I've pointed out, probably dozens of times, that the biologists at Wiley Online have done so, as has Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers:

For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis].

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

Coyne: "Those 1/6000 individuals are intersexes, neither male nor female."

https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/the-act-isnt-racially-biased-because/comment/49276174

["Biologist" PZ Myers]:



And you do seem to have some difficulty with the idea that just because a category is a binary that does not mean that it is exhaustive:

Humans MUST fall onto one or other category... if not, then sex is not binary.

"not true" at all -- being charitable.. IF there were only two religions -- say, Christianity and Islam -- THEN atheists are OUTSIDE that binary.

 

[Steersman]

This sort of post is quite common on ISF. Whereas it might be an accurate description of reader frustration, I do not believe it adds to discussion, and constitutes in essence an ad-hom. Agree or disagree, I'd advocate for arguing the points or simply moving on if and when there is no engaging in the actual arguments.

Not reported; comment not intended to be aggressive. I just think this is getting too common, making ISF sound a bit like a bunch of cranky old muppets in a theater balcony.

You're being far too charitable ...

Reminds me of a post by "Scott Alexander" -- originally of Slate Star Codex, but now at the Substack, Astral Codex Ten:

SA: "Topics here tend to center vaguely around this meta-philosophical idea of how people evaluate arguments for their beliefs, and especially whether this process is spectacularly broken in a way that may or may not doom us all."

https://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/20/writing-advice/

 

[smartcooky]

You should talk. Or maybe you shouldn't ...

What would you call someone who insists on asserting something when they've been shown that it's an "untruth"?

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14285257&postcount=1212



I've pointed out, probably dozens of times, that the biologists at Wiley Online have done so, as has Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers:


https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R


https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/the-act-isnt-racially-biased-because/comment/49276174

["Biologist" PZ Myers]:

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7712765eff81140660.jpg[/qimg]

And you do seem to have some difficulty with the idea that just because a category is a binary that does not mean that it is exhaustive:



"not true" at all -- being charitable.. IF there were only two religions -- say, Christianity and Islam -- THEN atheists are OUTSIDE that binary.

Just more inane BS on an endless loop, in a post that is most notable for what has been dodged.

 

[Steersman]

Your first definition fits vasectomised men perfectly; their bodies are still producing sperm. You have added "future" and "further" to the second definition, which not only changes the meaning, it's fairly obvious that you did it to twist the definition to suit.

So what? Look at the definition for "sex":



How much "reproductive function" do vasectomees have? That is the process in question, a recognition of which is intrinsic to the definition for "sex" and for the "sexes".

Though, somewhat en passant, it looks like you're still agreeing that most of the intersex -- as per Jerry Coyne -- and the prepubescent are sexless ...

A car plant that produces cars, even if they are subsequently scrapped, is still producing cars.

Yes, but of what use is that process, that end-product? Job security? You might try taking a close look at both the definitions for "produces" and, again, for "sex" (above).

Yes, we've read your arguments several times. But most people don't agree with an argument that holds that a pregnant woman is sexless for the duration of her pregnancy and for several weeks or months afterwards while breastfeeding. Not even if you dehumanise women by putting "women" in scare quotes, or dehumanise humans in general by suggesting that people have to hold "cards" to be part of a sexually dimorphic species.

"they're dehumanizing us! Run for the hills!" What pretentious twaddle more typical of the transloonie nutcases -- that's their too common complaint.

We are all, more or less, part of a (typically) bipedal species. But that doesn't mean those with a leg or two amputated are not human. You might try reading my earlier comment on the point of accidental and essential properties, a concept that Dawkins is also unclear on:

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14390918&postcount=1390

Hold on, if it doesn't matter how often it "regularly happens", then the year or so break in actually releasing eggs during pregnancy and breastfeeding doesn't render a pregnant woman sexless, nor would it make post-menopausal woman sexless either. Because they still have eggs, they aren't releasing them once a month or so, but as you said, how often that regularly happens is somewhat immaterial.

Menopausees -- and prepubescent girls -- don't have any eggs at all. They have "blanks" that don't become fully functional ova until ovulation:

However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis#Ootidogenesis

The process of producing gametes or the process of releasing them? And if releasing them, do they have to be released outside the body or can they stay inside the body to count as part of your definition?

They have to be made available for use in the reproductive process. THAT is was those definitions for "produces" and "sex" ARE saying.