Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[smartcooky]

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

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

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 ...



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).


"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


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


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


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

 

[Hlafordlaes]

You're being far too charitable ...

To my earlier comment, I would add: Ditto for refuseniks who do not examine counterpoints.

 

[smartcooky]

To my earlier comment, I would add: Ditto for refuseniks who do not examine counterpoints.

I for one, examine all counterpoints, and I dismiss them if they are wrong.

When those same counterpoints are repeated a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth time etc ad infinitum, while the proposer of those counterpoints continually dodges, evades and ducks others' counterpoints, there is nothing left to examine.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I for one, examine all counterpoints, and I dismiss them if they are wrong.

When those same counterpoints are repeated a second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth time etc ad infinitum, while the proposer of those counterpoints continually dodges, evades and ducks others' counterpoints, there is nothing left to examine.

Comment meant for refuseniks only. Never knew you to be one.

 

[lionking]

Comment meant for refuseniks only. Never knew you to be one.

You are backing the wrong side. No great surprise.

 

[Steersman]

To my earlier comment, I would add: Ditto for refuseniks who do not examine counterpoints.

Indeed. Reminds me of a fairly famous quote by Jonathan Swift:

Quote Investigator: In 1721 a slim volume titled “A Letter to a Young Gentleman, Lately Enter’d Into Holy Orders by a Person of Quality” was published. The author was Jonathan Swift, and the following salient phrase was included:

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.​

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/10/reason-out/

Seems to be something of an article of faith in this rather benighted neck of the woods -- or, equivalently, theater balcony for Muppets as the case may be ... -- that "sex is immutable" (!!11!!), and that everyone has to have one from birth to death. And anyone gainsaying that is taken to be engaging in egregious "dehumanization (!!11!!)" The horror -- where is my fainting couch ... .

Though I'm happy to note that at least some people are looking somewhat sympathetic to the idea that many if not most of the intersex are, by the standard biological definitions, neither male nor female. Even if they're apparently not yet ready to consider who else might be in that same boat.

But most still seem rather "obstinately" incapable of even countenancing the idea that whether someone is a member of a particular sex category is entirely contingent on how we define the categories.

Which is really the crux of the matter -- particularly as illustrated by the case of Imane Khelif in women's boxing. The defacto standard there boils down to the Kindergarten Cop definitions: boys (males) have penises, and girls (females) have vaginas -- "how dare you deny that Khelif is a female!!11!! " But a bunch of scientific illiterates and "scientism-ists" have gotten the "idea" that karyotypes are the tickets to the promised land: boys (males) have XYs, and girls (females) have XXs -- "so let it be written, so let it be done!"

However, those standard biological definitions STIPULATE an entirely different set of criteria: (pubescent) boys (males) have functional testicles, and (pubescent) girls (females) have functional ovaries.

Who qualifies for category membership is entirely contingent on which definition one takes as "trump" -- so to speak. By the Kindergarten Cop definitions, Khelif is "manifestly" a female; by the scientism-ists' karyotype definitions "she" is a male. But by the standard biological definitions "she" probably doesn't have either type of functioning gonads so is probably neither male nor female -- certainly the case for many of the intersex.

But the whole transgender "contretemps" reminds one of Swift's tale of the prototypically small-minded Lilliputians' "civil war" over which end to open a soft-boiled egg.

I, and many others including Paul Griffiths, wouldn't be terribly concerned about that "clown show" -- except that it is part and parcel of the rather problematic bastardization and corruption of biology where those definitions and uses are pretty much foundational to the whole field. You in particular might "enjoy" -- even if as a bit of gallows humour -- my open letter to the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell which had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":

"Is ‘sex’ a useful category?”
Cell magazine's Lysenkoism and repudiation of biology

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category

You might also like Griffiths' Aeon article, particularly the closing paragraphs which underlines that point:

“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

 

[smartcooky]

Indeed. Reminds me of a fairly famous quote by Jonathan Swift:


https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/07/10/reason-out/

Seems to be something of an article of faith in this rather benighted neck of the woods -- or, equivalently, theater balcony for Muppets as the case may be ... -- that "sex is immutable" (!!11!!), and that everyone has to have one from birth to death. And anyone gainsaying that is taken to be engaging in egregious "dehumanization (!!11!!)" The horror -- where is my fainting couch ... .

Though I'm happy to note that at least some people are looking somewhat sympathetic to the idea that many if not most of the intersex are, by the standard biological definitions, neither male nor female. Even if they're apparently not yet ready to consider who else might be in that same boat.

But most still seem rather "obstinately" incapable of even countenancing the idea that whether someone is a member of a particular sex category is entirely contingent on how we define the categories.

Which is really the crux of the matter -- particularly as illustrated by the case of Imane Khelif in women's boxing. The defacto standard there boils down to the Kindergarten Cop definitions: boys (males) have penises, and girls (females) have vaginas -- "how dare you deny that Khelif is a female!!11!! " But a bunch of scientific illiterates and "scientism-ists" have gotten the "idea" that karyotypes are the tickets to the promised land: boys (males) have XYs, and girls (females) have XXs -- "so let it be written, so let it be done!"

However, those standard biological definitions STIPULATE an entirely different set of criteria: (pubescent) boys (males) have functional testicles, and (pubescent) girls (females) have functional ovaries.

Who qualifies for category membership is entirely contingent on which definition one takes as "trump" -- so to speak. By the Kindergarten Cop definitions, Khelif is "manifestly" a female; by the scientism-ists' karyotype definitions "she" is a male. But by the standard biological definitions "she" probably doesn't have either type of functioning gonads so is probably neither male nor female -- certainly the case for many of the intersex.

But the whole transgender "contretemps" reminds one of Swift's tale of the prototypically small-minded Lilliputians' "civil war" over which end to open a soft-boiled egg.

I, and many others including Paul Griffiths, wouldn't be terribly concerned about that "clown show" -- except that it is part and parcel of the rather problematic bastardization and corruption of biology where those definitions and uses are pretty much foundational to the whole field. You in particular might "enjoy" -- even if as a bit of gallows humour -- my open letter to the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell which had asked, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?":


https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category

You might also like Griffiths' Aeon article, particularly the closing paragraphs which underlines that point:



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

 

[lionking]

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/cle8a3q1arq0iws9jnh17/BrokenRecord.jpg?rlkey=pblzas8eyhu4umkzpyhmc99b8&raw=1[/qimg]

I also think that English is not his first language. Too many complex and meaningless words.

 

[Steersman]

...broken record meme

Such a brilliant "examination of all counterpoints", and a well-evidenced rebuttal of them. I stand in awe ...

Those ARE the standard biological definitions for the sex categories, and that is how reputable biologists and philosophers of science use the terms. You can die mad if you want, but, either way, it won't change those facts in the slightest.

 

[smartcooky]

Such a brilliant "examination of all counterpoints", and a well-evidenced rebuttal of them. I stand in awe ...

Those ARE the standard biological definitions for the sex categories, and that is how reputable biologists and philosophers of science use the terms. You can die mad if you want, but, either way, it won't change those facts in the slightest.

A broken record meme is all your postings deserve. This is because all of your bull-**** has been repeatedly addressed and repeatedly invalidated over the 1400 or so posts and two years of this thread, and yet you continue to present the same repeatedly debunked and flawed arguments over and over again - like a broken record, or an endless tape loop.

Your interpretation of the word "produces" as having a special, one-off meaning in the context of a single aspect of biology, when that interpretation never applies to any other usage of the word in any other context (including in other contexts within biology itself) is as stupid and as preposterous as it is wrong. You cannot find even ONE, not a single text book definition (other than those written in the fringe, crackpot ravings of some lunatic philosophers), which directly goes on to spell out that the word "produces" in this one context means what you say it does, the result of which would mean the exclusion of humans not actually in the act of producing gametes from the categories of either male and female..... NOT . A . SINGLE . ONE !!

Furthermore, your worldview as regards the definition of male and female are not only dead wrong, they run counter the whole of history. Humans were able to define which other humans were males, and which other humans were females long before the discovery of the existence chromosomes and gametes. Those crackpot philosophers you place so much store in can't account for that, can they!?

Your whole worldview hinges upon your unique interpretation of the meaning of one, single word. That interpretation has been clearly demonstrated here by multiple posters to be utterly flawed - the word "produces" never means what you say it does, even in the context you are claiming... and without that, your whole worldview collapses like a house of cards.

 

[Agatha]

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 ...

I am not agreeing that people with DSDs or prepubescent children are "sexless". I also deplore your stigmatising language. People with DSDs are not "the intersex".

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).

The end product is still a car, no matter what happens to it subsequently. Your definitions hinge on a narrow and non-standard interpretation of the English word "produce".

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

I am unconcerned with what trans rights activists might say and this isn't the thread for that.

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

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

No, the primary oocytes are still gametes. Immature, but still gametes. There's no definition of gametes that say they must only be fully functional. From your link:

An oocyte, oöcyte, or ovocyte is a female gametocyte or germ cell involved in reproduction. In other words, it is an immature ovum, or egg cell.

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

No, that's a bizarre interpretation of the word "produce". There's no connotation of an end-use within the word. If I make a cake and immediately chuck it in the bin, I've still produced a cake. If I write a poem but throw the paper on the fire, I've still produced a poem.

 

[smartcooky]

No, that's a bizarre interpretation of the word "produce". There's no connotation of an end-use within the word. If I make a cake and immediately chuck it in the bin, I've still produced a cake. If I write a poem but throw the paper on the fire, I've still produced a poem.

Is so bizarre that Steersman must think that

a. if a couple executes the "coitus interruptus" technique, then the man is not a male because none of the male's wrigglers were "made available for use in the reproductive process"

b. a women who wears a diaphragm, or takes contraceptive is not a female because her gametes are not "made available for use in the reproductive process"

c. a man who wears a condom is not a male because his gametes are not "made available for use in the reproductive process"

d. if he jerks himself off before sex (or at any time) then none of his wrigglers were "produced" since they were not "made available for use in the reproductive process"

This new, never before mentioned condition he has pulled out of his arse is clearly yet another goalpost move because he's getting cornered.

 

[Agatha]

One would think that anyone espousing a doctrine that holds that a pregnant woman is sexless (despite her female reproductive system being in the process of performing the function that it has evolved to do) would reconsider whether that doctrine is reasonable.

 

[Ziggurat]

One would think that anyone espousing a doctrine that holds that a pregnant woman is sexless (despite her female reproductive system being in the process of performing the function that it has evolved to do) would reconsider whether that doctrine is reasonable.

It's particularly bizarre since his primary motivator seems to be to push back on the whole "sex is a spectrum" thing, but none of his opponents in this thread believe in that anyways. It's like he cannot envision that there's any possible alternative to "sex is a spectrum" except his really strange approach, and that if we don't agree with him, then we must be in the "sex is a spectrum" camp. I don't get it.

 

[Paul2]

It's particularly bizarre since his primary motivator seems to be to push back on the whole "sex is a spectrum" thing, but none of his opponents in this thread believe in that anyways. It's like he cannot envision that there's any possible alternative to "sex is a spectrum" except his really strange approach, and that if we don't agree with him, then we must be in the "sex is a spectrum" camp. I don't get it.

Yes, that's a particularly odd strategy when Steer could just make it a scientific definition vs common, everyday usage issue (which Steer has mentioned in the past). It's still crazy (despite a few supporting citations - which, I guess, mostly rely on the interpretation of the verb "to produce").

The more angles and approaches you take on an issue, the more fodder you give for your opponents and the more confusion can be sown (although, maybe that's a feature, not a bug for some). Better to take one line of attack at a time and drill down into it.

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, that's a particularly odd strategy when Steer could just make it a scientific definition vs common, everyday usage issue (which Steer has mentioned in the past). It's still crazy (despite a few supporting citations - which, I guess, mostly rely on the interpretation of the verb "to produce").

His entire shtick is solely bases on that unique-to-him interpretation of the word "produces". He need that to bridge the gap between reality and his fantasy worldview. The people he cites don't say what he thinks they say... because he is relying on that crazy interpretation, and just look at the ridiculous conclusions that his unique interpretation results in...

- Post-menopausal women, prepubescent girls, women who wear a diaphragm, woman on contraceptives, pregnant women, and women who cannot conceive due to some accident, illness or disease, are not female - he considers them sexless

- Prepubescent boys, men who wear a condom, men who've had a vasectomy, men who are otherwise sterile due to an accident, illness or disease and men who pull out before ejaculation are not male - he considers sexless.

These viewpoints are as preposterous as they are wrong.

The more angles and approaches you take on an issue, the more fodder you give for your opponents and the more confusion can be sown (although, maybe that's a feature, not a bug for some). Better to take one line of attack at a time and drill down into it.

Ah, but you see, just taking just one line of attack makes it much harder to move the goalposts around when your worldview gets hammered.

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
<snip>
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)

Crickets ... I certainly didn't hear any drums along the Mohawk ...

Kinda think he lacks the intellectually honesty to deal with the issue, and probably hopes it will blow over if he ignores your point. But it's the crux of the matter and illustrates the problem with the folk-biology & Kindergarten Cop definitions, particularly in cases like women's sports -- all sorts of exceptions that are rather difficult to deal with.

In particular, if one insists that XXers are females then one is obliged to accept that some females have penises. Given that penises are no barrier to womanhood then who's to say that "Ms. Tickle" -- of Tickle vs. Giggle -- isn't really a woman?!

https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2024/2024fca0960

But you might also be interested in many other cases of such "XX males", though that term is, by the standard biological definitions, not true at all since most are infertile and therefore sexless:

SRY-negative 46,XX male with normal genitals, complete masculinization and infertility

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/12/5/341/1005702

XX Male Syndrome ....
They lack the azoospermia factor (AZF) region of the Y chromosome, which is essential for spermatogenesis; thus, they are incapable of producing sperm and are infertile.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/xx-male-syndrome

Don't think that "smartcooky" -- and too many others -- quite understand the principles that undergird much of science, particularly in how definitions work:

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

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

In particular, the biological definitions stipulate that, as per the above, the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a male is to have functional testicles, and to qualify as a female is to have functional ovaries. And since those "XX males" lack those, they don't qualify as males. And since they also lack ovaries then they don't qualify as females. Ergo, sexless.

But because too many balk at "sexless" -- "dehumanization", doncha know? -- they're obliged to stick-handle around some sticky exceptions to their "rules". And create idiotic "oxymorons" -- being charitable -- like "More Women Than Expected Are Genetically Men":

https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/

But relative to your, "I do think that succinct classification to be somewhat problematic if you then have to deal with the social questions", the point is that the biological definitions are NOT designed for use in those "social questions". They're designed to help biologists understand the "essence" of what it means to be male and female, one which is ubiquitous across literally millions of species. Griffiths again:

“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

 

[Steersman]

I am not agreeing that people with DSDs or prepubescent children are "sexless". I also deplore your stigmatising language. People with DSDs are not "the intersex".

Even when a "reputable" biologist like Jerry Coyne says they are? Tsk, tsk, how unscientific of you ...

But you might consider this rather common link between "intersex" and "DSDs":

The World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD), the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and many medical journals classify intersex traits or conditions among disorders of sex development (DSD).[40]

A common adjective for people with disorders of sex development (DSD) is "intersex"

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

<snip>

No, the primary oocytes are still gametes. Immature, but still gametes. There's no definition of gametes that say they must only be fully functional.

Horse feathers. See:

A gamete (from Ancient Greek γαμετή (gametḗ) 'wife', ultimately from Ancient Greek γάμος (gámos) 'marriage') is a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell during fertilization in organisms that reproduce sexually.

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

The dictyates, the precursors to ova, cannot "fuse with any other haploid cell during fertilization". They're missing a bunch of bits and pieces that aren't "bolted on" until later stages.

Do you seriously think that a bare car frame sitting on the first stages of a car manufacturing line is really a "car"? You would pay full price for it? Drive it home and proudly show the wife/husband and kiddies?

It is only the fully functional stage that qualifies for the terms "car", and "ovum".

You might wish to at least try understanding the philosophical and biological principles that undergird the standard biological definitions -- see my article on Mechanisms in Science for something of a primer:

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

No, that's a bizarre interpretation of the word "produce". There's no connotation of an end-use within the word. <red herrings snipped

We're not talking about colloquial (mis)understandings and (mis)interpretations of words. The "produces gametes" -- present tense -- in standard biological definitions stipulate that the presence of functional gonads are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify individuals as "referents" of the terms "male" and "female":

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

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

No gametes, no sex category membership cards.

You really might want to try getting a handle on those principles instead of relying on scientific illiterates to do your thinking for you.

 

[smartcooky]

Even when a "reputable" biologist like Jerry Coyne says they are? Tsk, tsk, how unscientific of you ...

Jerry Coyne? Reputable? Bwahahahaha!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne

"Jerry Coyne has successfully transitioned from respected senior scientist to angry, bitter crank finding common cause with the worst right-wing academic grifters. It’s sad to see.
—P. Z. Myers"
​

I rarely agree with anything Myers says, but I wholeheartedly agree with him here

You might wish to at least try understanding the philosophical and biological principles that undergird the standard biological definitions -- see my article on Mechanisms in Science for something of a primer:

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

1. You argument from (claimed) authority is summarily dismissed.

2. We see enough of your ill-informed, sanctimonious claptrap in this thread. Why on Earth would anyone want to seek out and read any more of your bull-****?

We're not talking about colloquial (mis)understandings and (mis)interpretations of words. The "produces gametes" -- present tense -- in standard biological definitions stipulate that the presence of functional gonads are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify individuals as "referents" of the terms "male" and "female":


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

No gametes, no sex category membership cards.

Your entire laughable shtick is founded on a grade school level error in interpretation of the meaning of "produces" and NO, that Wikipedia link does NOT say what you are claiming it says, and does NOT support any of your claims.

You really might want to try getting a handle on those principles instead of relying on [hitlite]scientific illiterates[/hilite] to do your thinking for you.

Pot, meet kettle!
‎
‎

 

[smartcooky]

Crickets ... I certainly didn't hear any drums along the Mohawk ...

Kinda think he lacks the intellectually honesty to deal with the issue, and probably hopes it will blow over if he ignores your point.

You are a fine one to be talking about the lack of intellectual honesty in others. Ever heard of "projection"?

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

Stanfr asked a question that I didn't know the answer to, and unlike you, I decided I would not try to bull-**** my way to an answer, using bluff and bluster and self-aggrandizing claims about my alleged knowledge. therefore I made no attempt to answer it his question.... this is what I think of as intellectual honesty.