Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

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

So what? Ever hear of rape and murder?

That you can name a bunch of crimes is no proof that any particular person is guilty of them. Ever hear of "evidence"?

And, as for "intellectual honesty", you've put diddly-squat on the table to justify your "arguments" -- maybe apart from "the Bible tells me so" .... And you refuse to address the evidence that I've tabled. Like both Coyne and Myers and the three honchos at Wiley Online -- all five of them biologists -- clearly endorsing the concept of "sexless".

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.

You can't say whether the cases in question are male or female because you haven't any sort of a coherent and consistent definition that would allow you to do so. And you can't say they're neither because you're desperately committed to the "idea", the article of faith that everyone has to be male or female from conception to death, no exceptions.

You might reflect on the concept of monkey traps -- a wan hope, I know, but others might not be so "obstinate" ...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman

 

[Steersman]

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.

I'm not denying that the said woman has some abilities in the reproductive department. But whether she currently qualifies for a membership in the "female" category is dependent on how we define it.

And I don't think you quite understand how definitions work, particularly in scientific and mathematical disciplines. Though it's a too common failing. Y'all might try to rectify that, even if that's another wan hope:

https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm#TopOfPage

There are no intrinsic meanings to the categories "male" and "female" -- we can define them, and specify membership criteria, any way we wish -- pay the words extra. But the problem with the transgender issue is that it is corrupting biology by peddling the idea that sex is a spectrum:

Sex redefined: The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that.

https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a

Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum

https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

The upshot of which is this judgement in the Tickle vs. Giggle case:

55 On the proper construction of s 5, the Commissioner submits, and I accept, the following propositions grounded in logic and long-standing authority. First, sex is not confined to being a biological concept referring to whether a person at birth had male or female physical traits, nor confined to being a binary concept, limited to the male or female sex, but rather takes a broader ordinary meaning, informed by its use, including in State and Territory legislation.

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

If y'all aren't going to defend and promote the strict biological definitions -- regardless of the "collateral" damage -- then I don't see that you have any recourse but to accept that judgement.

 

[smartcooky]

So what? Ever hear of rape and murder?

That you can name a bunch of crimes is no proof that any particular person is guilty of them. Ever hear of "evidence"?

And, as for "intellectual honesty", you've put diddly-squat on the table to justify your "arguments" -- maybe apart from "the Bible tells me so" .... And you refuse to address the evidence that I've tabled. Like both Coyne and Myers and the three honchos at Wiley Online -- all five of them biologists -- clearly endorsing the concept of "sexless".

You can't say whether the cases in question are male or female because you haven't any sort of a coherent and consistent definition that would allow you to do so. And you can't say they're neither because you're desperately committed to the "idea", the article of faith that everyone has to be male or female from conception to death, no exceptions.

You might reflect on the concept of monkey traps -- a wan hope, I know, but others might not be so "obstinate" ...

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman

I'm not denying that the said woman has some abilities in the reproductive department. But whether she currently qualifies for a membership in the "female" category is dependent on how we define it.

And I don't think you quite understand how definitions work, particularly in scientific and mathematical disciplines. Though it's a too common failing. Y'all might try to rectify that, even if that's another wan hope:

https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm#TopOfPage

There are no intrinsic meanings to the categories "male" and "female" -- we can define them, and specify membership criteria, any way we wish -- pay the words extra. But the problem with the transgender issue is that it is corrupting biology by peddling the idea that sex is a spectrum:


https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a


https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

The upshot of which is this judgement in the Tickle vs. Giggle case:


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

If y'all aren't going to defend and promote the strict biological definitions -- regardless of the "collateral" damage -- then I don't see that you have any recourse but to accept that judgement.

Myers is peddling pseudoscience
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/biologist-pz-myers-peddles-sex-pseudoscience

Myers’ attempted critique of Richard Dawkins only revealed the depths of his own scientific ignorance.

 

[stanfr]

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.

I mean, you could have just responded to me directly LOL.

I agree that 'lack of production' does not mean that a producer does not exist, but I think Steersman has a point:
If you consider sex as binary and immutable, then my example should have an easy answer, if you have a 'strict' biological definition of sex.

It's all the 'exceptions' that are driving the debate on this subject. If they weren't publicized, this thread would probably not exist. Even Steersman seems to agree that as a concept, the sexes have an essential usage among scientists. You dismiss the 'exceptions', and there is debate on how common they are, but it sure seems to me that the DSDs are becoming better known and more recognized as not just statistical blips as the issue gets more public attention.

 

[Steersman]

I mean, you could have just responded to me directly LOL.

"LoL", indeed. Though you might be further ahead waiting for pigs to fly ...

I agree that 'lack of production' does not mean that a producer does not exist, but I think Steersman has a point:
If you consider sex as binary and immutable, then my example should have an easy answer, if you have a 'strict' biological definition of sex.

Thanks. And indeed.

It's all the 'exceptions' that are driving the debate on this subject. If they weren't publicized, this thread would probably not exist. Even Steersman seems to agree that as a concept, the sexes have an essential usage among scientists. You dismiss the 'exceptions', and there is debate on how common they are, but it sure seems to me that the DSDs are becoming better known and more recognized as not just statistical blips as the issue gets more public attention.

Exactly. But the "bottom line" -- so to speak -- is the question of what are the criteria that must be met to qualify as members of the "male" and "female" categories, however one wants to define them in law or biology -- which are clearly not the same kettles of fish.

DSDs may well qualify as "statistical blips" -- at best something like 2% in that category, at least according to Fausto-Sterling. But it does draw attention to the brute fact that if we're going to be granting legal rights on the basis of membership in various categories, regardless of the possible wisdom in doing so, then it's kind of essential to clearly specify the "necessary and sufficient" criteria for category membership.

 

[smartcooky]

I mean, you could have just responded to me directly LOL.

I agree that 'lack of production' does not mean that a producer does not exist, but I think Steersman has a point:
If you consider sex as binary and immutable, then my example should have an easy answer, if you have a 'strict' biological definition of sex.

It's all the 'exceptions' that are driving the debate on this subject. If they weren't publicized, this thread would probably not exist. Even Steersman seems to agree that as a concept, the sexes have an essential usage among scientists. You dismiss the 'exceptions', and there is debate on how common they are, but it sure seems to me that the DSDs are becoming better known and more recognized as not just statistical blips as the issue gets more public attention.

This might help

https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/is-sex-bimodal

Sex category is binary, defined by the two, and only two, gamete types that bodies can be structured for. Within the two categories, there is a spectrum of body types for males and a spectrum of body types for females, and this spectrum includes intersex individuals. A graph on the percentage of infants born with differences in sex development shows us that 99.8% of births are unaffected males or females, with typical chromosomal arrangements and typical body structures. Of the 0.2% of births with intersex conditions, most of these infants are also unambiguously male or female.

With such a stark contrast between the bimodal variety of sex differences and the binary nature of sex category, it is clear that sex is not bimodal, but is rather a binary system that is consistent across our species, with plenty of variation within the two categories. Thus, it is the variation of traits within sex category that is bimodal, not sex category itself.
So, do not be fooled by arguments that sex category is bimodal. While traits like height, weight, voice pitch, muscle mass, and even hormonal differences are highly varied, and are therefore bimodal, this variation does not create new sex categories, and it does not make someone more male and less female, or more female and less male. Perhaps we should stop trying to create new categories for people's bodies, and instead, allow for the spectrum of body types within all males and all females.​

To see Steersman's favourite sources as saying what he claims they are saying, requires a special interpretation of the meaning of the word "produces", an interpretation no-one else agrees with. If it were correct, then his interpretation would be unique to this one issue - language doesn't work that way.

But his biggest problem is that none, not one of his sources actually states what he claims they mean...

None of them actually state that
- a prepubescent boy is not male
- a prepubescent girl is not female
- a post-menopausal woman is not female
- a man who has undergone a vasectomy is not male
- a woman who has undergone a tubal ligation is not female
- a pregnant woman is not female

If Steersman were right, then ALL of the examples in the above list would have to be true.

I have challenged him a few times now to quote credible biologists among his sources actually making statements that clearly state this (and by "clearly state" I mean using those actual words, and not some jibber-jabber requiring Steerman's unique interpretation in order to decipher them). His response is always dodging, equivocation, goal-post moving and endless blather - often followed by linking to one of his own worthless articles on the issue rather than linking to anything said by the sources he worships.

 

[stanfr]

"Of the 0.2% of births with intersex conditions, most of these infants are also unambiguously male or female"

Now, this is not a 'gotcha' question cause I don't have an 'expected' response in mind--Im not even sure I could give a confident response! But based on your highlighted, would it be fair for me to assume that you would agree with the statement:
"there are a small percentage of infants born with an Intersex condition who are *not* unambiguously male or female"?

 

[smartcooky]

Now, this is not a 'gotcha' question cause I don't have an 'expected' response in mind--Im not even sure I could give a confident response! But based on your highlighted, would it be fair for me to assume that you would agree with the statement:
"there are a small percentage of infants born with an Intersex condition who are *not* unambiguously male or female"?

Yes, and much, much fewer than that 0.2%. Infants born intersex who are not unambiguously male or female are exceedingly rare.

 

[smartcooky]

Do you seriously think it is necessary to "clearly state" in the definition for, say, "teenager" that those who are not 13 to 19 are not teenagers? .

Its not unreasonable to expect, and some sources actually do so

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenager

Read it and weep chum!!

"A person becomes a teenager when they become 13 years old. It ends when they become 20 years old."

 

[Steersman]

Its not unreasonable to expect, and some sources actually do so

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenager

Read it and weep chum!!

"A person becomes a teenager when they become 13 years old. It ends when they become 20 years old."

"some sources" are tailored for toddlers, or those slow on the uptake, or simply clueless about fundamental principles ...

And I notice that that article is clearly specified as such: "From Simple English Wikipedia".

But here's some light reading for you -- if it's still too much maybe I can find something more suitable ...

https://www.amazon.com/See-Spot-Run-Books/s?k=See+Spot+Run&rh=n:283155

 

[smartcooky]

"some sources" are tailored for toddlers, or those slow on the uptake, or simply clueless about fundamental principles ...

And I notice that that article is clearly specified as such: "From Simple English Wikipedia".

But here's some light reading for you -- if it's still too much maybe I can find something more suitable ...

https://www.amazon.com/See-Spot-Run-Books/s?k=See+Spot+Run&rh=n:283155

Dodge and goalpost move... as usual

It is perfectly reasonable to expect that when someone or some organization publishes a definition (particularly a controversial one that likely runs counter either public expectations or accepted scientific practice) they also publish some of the consequences of that definition. This is what real scientists and real science-based organizations do. For example. when the IAU published their new definition of a planet in 2006, they also made it clear that Pluto would no longer meet that definition. Not only that, they created a new definition (Dwarf Planet) that would include Pluto.

So far, you have not presented any evidence from the sources you worship, that they have commented on the consequences of what you claim they mean. Nor have they made a definition for the people you claim they exclude from the male and female categories. You, and only you are making this claim.

 

[Agatha]

I'm not denying that the said woman has some abilities in the reproductive department. But whether she currently qualifies for a membership in the "female" category is dependent on how we define it.

And I don't think you quite understand how definitions work, particularly in scientific and mathematical disciplines. Though it's a too common failing. Y'all might try to rectify that, even if that's another wan hope:

Is English your first language? Because the adjective "wan" only means feeble or faint as applied to people or light.

https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm#TopOfPage

There are no intrinsic meanings to the categories "male" and "female" -- we can define them, and specify membership criteria, any way we wish -- pay the words extra. But the problem with the transgender issue is that it is corrupting biology by peddling the idea that sex is a spectrum:


https://www.nature.com/articles/518288a


https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/

The upshot of which is this judgement in the Tickle vs. Giggle case:


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

If y'all aren't going to defend and promote the strict biological definitions -- regardless of the "collateral" damage -- then I don't see that you have any recourse but to accept that judgement.

Why are you trying to bring trans issues into this? I don't believe that sex is a spectrum; I believe it to be binary. That does not mean I agree that either side of the binary can be "sexless", because that is adding a category that doesn't fit the binary. You are arguing for a trinary via a strange and non-standard interpretation of the phrase "of the sex that produces". If English isn't your first language (as in the non-standard usage of the word "wan"), that might explain where the confusion lies.

 

[Darat]

Some posts have been moved to AAH for breaching the Membership Agreement. Please stop with the personalisation and petty bickering and keep to your Membership Agreement. Ignoring this mod box warning may result in further moderation action which may include edits, moves, suspensions and even bans.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Steersman]

Is English your first language? Because the adjective "wan" only means feeble or faint as applied to people or light.

In spite of the lovingly detailed suburban ambience, interiors, gardens and clothes, the atmosphere feels torqued beyond time and history into a fairy tale theater of desire and wan hope.
—Marina Warner, New York Times, 2 Feb. 2018

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/wan

Why are you trying to bring trans issues into this? I don't believe that sex is a spectrum; I believe it to be binary. That does not mean I agree that either side of the binary can be "sexless", because that is adding a category that doesn't fit the binary. You are arguing for a trinary via a strange and non-standard interpretation of the phrase "of the sex that produces". If English isn't your first language (as in the non-standard usage of the word "wan"), that might explain where the confusion lies.

Because the problem is that the transgender "issue" is corrupting the standard biological definitions for the sexes. Which can't really be dealt with without defending those definitions and the reasons for them.

But I am NOT arguing that sex is a trinary. THAT is your misunderstanding of how categories work.

I've explained it several times now -- that a category is a binary does NOT mean that every entity is a member of either of the subcategories in the binary.

"male" and "female" are in the binary category "sex" which is, in turn, comprised of those two -- count them, two -- subcategories.

Consider an analogy: IF religion was a binary -- say Christianity and Islam -- then atheists are "religion-less", neither Christian nor Muslim. Neither religion nor the sexes are "exhaustive" -- there can be entities outside those binaries. "atheists" in the case of religion who are then "religion-less". And the prepubescent and most of the intersex who are then "sex-less". "sexless" is NOT a sex.

-less; adjective suffix
1: destitute of : not having
witless
childless

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

You might actually try reading and thinking about this post in Aeon magazine, particularly the title and subtitle:

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

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

 

[smartcooky]

Because the problem is that the transgender "issue" is corrupting the standard biological definitions for the sexes. Which can't really be dealt with without defending those definitions and the reasons for them.

Yes it is, exactly, and what you are failing to understand is that YOUR definitions not only do not help with that, but they actually make the problem worse, and make it easier for them to do. They would simply be able to point to your defintions and say...

See? There's nothing special about pregnant women, because pregnant women are not female, so that means a transwomen can be woman too.

See? All those prepubescent people are sexless, so we can groom them to become trans-sexual as they mature.

But I am NOT arguing that sex is a trinary. THAT is your misunderstanding of how categories work

You may not think you are arguing that sex is a trinary, but it is nonetheless the only logical inference that can be drawn if we follow your definitions to their ultimate conclusion

I've explained it several times now -- that a category is a binary does NOT mean that every entity is a member of either of the subcategories in the binary.

Its doesn't matter how many times you try to explain it... you are still WRONG!

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

1 something made of two things or parts
2 mathematics : a number system based only on the numerals 0 and 1
3 a division into two groups or classes that are considered diametrically opposite​

Binary ONLY has two possibilities. Binary digits, for example, are either 1 or 0

If one of the digits is not a 1 it MUST be a 0
If one of the digits is not a 0, it MUST be a 1
There are NO other possible digits. There is no condition for any non-binary digit to exist in binary enumeration. If there were, it would not be binary.

"male" and "female" are in the binary category "sex" which is, in turn, comprised of those two -- count them, two -- subcategories.

NO, that is emphatically not how categories work.

Sex is not a category, its a biological descriptor based on reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics. There are TWO and only TWO categories belonging to that descriptor, Male, Female. Membership of any given individual in either of the TWO categories is defined by those descriptor characteristics.

With a minuscule number of exceptions (less than 0.2%) ALL humans are either in the Male category or the Female category. If a person is not a male, then they are a female - if they are not a female, then they are a male. There is no other category for them to be in, nor is being a member of neither category a possibility either.

Consider an analogy: IF religion was a binary -- say Christianity and Islam -- then atheists are "religion-less", neither Christian nor Muslim. Neither religion nor the sexes are "exhaustive" -- there can be entities outside those binaries. "atheists".

This such a poor analogy, that it isn't even an analogy at all. You clearly haven't thought this through.

If religion was truly a binary (in your example, Christian or Muslim) then there could not be any such thing as an atheist, or for that matter a Jew, a Hindu, a Taoist, a Buddhist, a Polytheist or a Pagan etc. Why? Because other religions, or indeed, NO religion, is a condition that cannot exist in a binary religious setting - by your own definition!!.

Its worth noting another flaw in your "religion as a binary" analogy.... people can convert between Christian and Muslim... Ooops!

You might actually try reading and thinking about this post in Aeon magazine, particularly the title and subtitle:

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

That's a very interesting article, but it has nothing to do with this topic, which is about the definitions of male and female in HUMANS!
Nematode worms are not humans
Saltwater crocodiles are not humans
Seahorses are not humans

The sexual characteristics of other species in the animal kingdom have absolutely NO relevance whatever to Humans!

 

[Steersman]

You may not think you are arguing that sex is a trinary, but it is nonetheless the only logical inference that can be drawn if we follow your definitions to their ultimate conclusion

That is YOUR entirely incoherent inference. You can't blame someone else if your sums don't add up because you're insisting that 2+2=5.

Griffiths explicitly says that sex is a binary. But that not everyone is a member of either subcategory.

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

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

Its doesn't matter how many times you try to explain it... you are still WRONG!

In your entirely unevidenced opinion. Which ain't worth diddly-squat.

Sex is not a category, its a biological descriptor based on reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics.

More clueless and quite antiscientific BS. See:

sex 2) 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.
"adults of both sexes"

https://www.google.com/search?q=sex...IMjk2NmowajeoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[smartcooky]

That is YOUR entirely incoherent inference. You can't blame someone else if your sums don't add up because you're insisting that 2+2=5.

And you are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3

Griffiths explicitly says that sex is a binary. But that not everyone is a member of either subcategory.

As always, Griffiths is talking through the brown hole between his butt cheeks.

Sex is not a category, its a biological descriptor based on reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics. There are TWO and only TWO categories belonging to that descriptor, Male, Female. Membership of any given individual in either of the TWO categories is defined by those descriptor characteristics.

More clueless and quite antiscientific BS. See...

Oooh, antiscientific huh? Dear oh dear oh dear!!

https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/sex-gender-sexuality

"Sex is a biological descriptor based on reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics. Typical sex categories include male, female, and intersex.

Sex is used when describing anatomical, gonadal, chromosomal, hormonal, cellular, and basic biological phenomena. E.g., sex development, sex hormones, sex characteristics."

 

[Steersman]

And you are insisting that 1 + 1 = 3

No, I'm not. You simply can't count.

https://www.nih.gov/nih-style-guide/sex-gender-sexuality

"Sex is a biological descriptor based on reproductive, hormonal, anatomical, and genetic characteristics. Typical sex categories include male, female, and intersex.

So what? Still doesn't say anything at all about exactly what it takes to qualify as male or female or intersex. And for all anisogamous species.

Makes the words kind of useless as category names. In notable contradistinction to how the words are used by reputable biologists and philosophers:

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

 

[Agatha]

Flavours of religion isn't a binary, though. There are about 4200 extant religions plus no religion. If you were trying to make an analogy with religion (as inapplicable as it is given that belief is extrinsic and mutable), surely atheism vs theism would be a better analogy?

 

[Ziggurat]

As always, Griffiths is talking through the brown hole between his butt cheeks.

You give Steersman too much credit in assuming that he is correctly representing the Griffiths quote. And he isn't.

Griffiths explicitly says that sex is a binary. But that not everyone is a member of either subcategory.

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

Everyone implies humans. Every living thing absolutely does not. No sensible reading of this Griffiths quote implies that any humans don't belong to one category or the other. If he has said so elsewhere, then yeah, that's garbage, but this quote? Nope, it doesn't mean what Steersman is claiming it means.