Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Paul2]

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.

One of the links from that NIH page goes here, which says,

All animals (including humans) have a sex. As is common across health research communities, NIH usually categorizes sex as  male or female, although variations do occur. These variations in sex characteristics are also known as intersex conditions.

My bolding.

 

[Steersman]

One of the links from that NIH page goes here, which says,
My bolding.

So what? Where, exactly, do they say exactly what it takes to qualify as male and female?

My bolding ...

The whole problem and issue with Imane Khelif -- and with the IOC, Tickle vs Giggle, dysphoric children getting butchered, and a great many other manifestation of "gender ideology" -- is that there is no clear, scientifically justified criteria as to what it takes to qualify as male and female.

In notable contradistinction to reputable biologists and philosophers for whom there IS such criteria -- i.e., no gametes, no sex. Which even Emma Hilton has, somewhat belatedly, recognized:

Hilton: “The definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can produce large gametes. This not a matter of *observation*, this is a matter of *definition*.”

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

 

[Steersman]

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

In your entirely unevidenced opinion. Which is worth rather less than diddly-squat.

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed Forum Management content

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.

You might actually try reading that article of Griffiths'. If it's not too painful for you.

And you might also note -- as I've said several times before -- that both Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers have endorsed that position of Griffiths':

PZM: " 'female' is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female."

https://x.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342

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

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


You maybe "think" that Myers in particular is saying those "cis women" are now males?

Clearly an article of faith in this rather benighted neck of woods -- belying the "Skeptics" title -- that everyone has to be either of two sexes from conception to death.

 

[Steersman]

Flavours of religion isn't a binary, though.

Did I say it was? I explicitly said otherwise:

IF religion was a binary -- say Christianity and Islam -- then atheists are "religion-less", neither Christian nor Muslim.

Do note the "IF" -- maybe I should have bolded it? 24-pt? In flashing neon? That was a hypothetical, a thought-experiment. Which you might try reading up on:

A thought experiment is a hypothetical situation in which a hypothesis, theory,[a] or principle is laid out for the purpose of thinking through its consequences.

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

In particular, SC seems to "think" that religion-less is a religion. Hard to imagine a more "illogical" "argument. Though Ignatius Loyola springs to mind as a "worthy" exemplar for him and for many others here:

Rule 13 of Ignatius' Rules for Thinking with the Church [and with the denizens of the ISF ...] said: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity[...], if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...er_Secondary_School,_Dindigul&oldid=797030740

One might be able to take the boy out of the religion, but often rather difficult if not impossible to take the "religion" out of the boy.

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?

My bolding ...

But my point -- and Griffiths' point, and PZ Myers, and thousands of other reputable biologists and philosophers -- is that sex is likewise "mutable". It is how those biologists say that clownfish -- and probably thousands of other species -- change sex: they change the type of gamete being produced -- right NOW, not in ancient history or in some far distant future time in "some galaxy, far, far away" ...

THAT -- according to standard biological definitions, now endorsed by Emma Hilton -- is the criteria to qualify for a membership in the sex categories: no gametes, no sex. Standard operating procedure for any science worthy of the name [ETA] is that such definitions and criteria have to apply to ALL anisogamous species -- no exceptions, no "special creation".

 

[Agatha]

But we are talking about humans, not clownfish.

 

[Steersman]

But we are talking about humans, not clownfish.

So flaming what? And YOU are talking about humans, you're the ones who "think" folk-biology should trump the real version.

Hard to believe how little people here know about biology and the principles that undergird the whole discipline. And how "reluctant", being charitable, they are to do any reading and thinking about those topics.

In particular, try reading the articles on folk-biology and folk taxonomies, the latter in particular, though I rather doubt you've read any of the sources I've linked to:

A folk taxonomy is a vernacular naming system, as distinct from scientific taxonomy. .... Folk taxonomies are generated from social knowledge and are used in everyday speech. They are distinguished from scientific taxonomies that claim to be disembedded from social relations and thus more objective and universal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_biology

The scientific definitions are, by design, "designed" to be applicable to ALL anisogamous species, no exceptions. You can come up with your own definitions, but if you do then you ain't talking about biology.

But you might also note that evolutionary biologist, and transwoman, Joan Roughgarden, has said pretty much the same thing. From Griffiths' paper:

PG: “But no general definition of sexes can rely on these features [chromosomes, sex organs, hormones] because, as Roughgarden puts it, ‘the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.’ ....”

https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2

If you want to go with folk-biology -- a prime example of which is the Kindergarten Cop definitions ("boys have penises and girls have vaginas") -- then you're more or less obliged to accept that Khelif is a female, and that "Ms." Tickle has changed sex.

Your call ...

 

[Paul2]

So what? Where, exactly, do they say exactly what it takes to qualify as male and female?

I don't have a citation (I lost it) but the following definition suffices:
"Biological sex [is] best described by the phenotype organised around facilitating the function of a particular gamete in its sexual reproduction." There are two types of gametes, big small, etc.

 

[Steersman]

I don't have a citation (I lost it) but the following definition suffices:

"The dog ate my homework ..."

"Biological sex [is] best described by the phenotype organised around facilitating the function of a particular gamete in its sexual reproduction." There are two types of gametes, big small, etc.

You might try thinking about the rather profound differences between Hilton's original definition (see the OP) -- basically what you and your "unnamed sources" are peddling -- and her later definition which endorses the standards -- which say absolutely diddly-squat about "organized around":

Hilton: “The definition of female is: of or denoting the sex that can produce large gametes. This not a matter of *observation*, this is a matter of *definition*.”

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


Rather doubt most of the intersex and Ms. Tickle "can produce" either type of gamete -- or will ever do. Ergo, neither male nor female -- i.e., sex-less.

 

[Agatha]

If you want to go with folk-biology -- a prime example of which is the Kindergarten Cop definitions ("boys have penises and girls have vaginas") -- then you're more or less obliged to accept that Khelif is a female, and that "Ms." Tickle has changed sex.

Your call ...

I don't know whether Khelif is male or female; I'm not privy to their medical history.

Roxanne Tickle remains male, and trans issues have their own thread.

 

[Paul2]

"The dog ate my homework ..."

I didn't offer that definition as authoritative, but merely as a logical and sufficient answer to your question. I volunteered that I didn't have a citation anymore in the interests of full disclosure. You're welcome.

You might try thinking about the rather profound differences between Hilton's original definition (see the OP) -- basically what you and your "unnamed sources" are peddling -- and her later definition which endorses the standards -- which say absolutely diddly-squat about "organized around":

Yes, the differences are significant.

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


Rather doubt most of the intersex and Ms. Tickle "can produce" either type of gamete -- or will ever do. Ergo, neither male nor female -- i.e., sex-less.

Defining sex as phenotypes that are organized around the function of gametes accommodates the intersex just fine, thank you.

 

[smartcooky]

I have most certainly NOT been arguing that sex is a trinary. What I have been saying -- what I've said that various reputable or disreputable biologists are saying (Coyne, Wiley Online, PZ Myers, Wright, et. al), and what reputable philosophers (Griffiths) are saying, not that many of you are actually listening -- is that there are TWO sexes, but that not every member of every anisogamous species, including the human one, is one or the other.

"Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist, academic advisor for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, Founding Editor of Reality's Last Stand, and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He writes mainly about science, the biology of sex and sex differences, and gender identity ideology."​

His credentials stack up well against those of Paul Griffiths, who is merely a philosopher.

* * * * *

https://www.city-journal.org/article/understanding-the-sex-binary

When biologists claim that “sex is binary,” they mean something straightforward: there are only two sexes. This statement is true because an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary.​

Note here that Wright says "organized, through development to produce" and "organized around around the production of". He does not say that the gonad in question "produces" gametes, or actually has to be producing gametes, for the person to be male or female.

This is clear, and unequivocal, and furthermore, it does not violate existing rules of grammar with regard to your unique-to-you interpretation of the English language with regards to the meaning of the word "produces"

Now, you can mock, deride and insult me, and those who disagree with you, as much as you like. You can scream "horse feathers" and "diddly squat" as many times as you like and as often as you like until the cows come home. It will make no difference to my opinions on this issue. I choose to believe the writings of actual biologists with degrees in biology and/or medicine such as Wright, Hilton, Roberston and Malone - people who deal in actual scientific objective reality.

If you choose to believe the writings of mere Philosophers - people who pontificate about abstractions and uncertainty, that is you choice. There is nothing I can do about that, and there is nothing you can say that will change my mind.

However, as I said earlier IF you are to quote actual biologists (with degrees in biology, not a mere Philosophers) who 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

...then I would feel compelled to review my opinion. Now, you claim to know some of these people and to be able to write to them (at least you claim to have written to them or sent them your ideas earlier in the thread) so why don't you do that? Ask them, get them to answer this question on one of their blogs or online journals, and then post the link here. I'm sure we'd all be interested to read what they actually say, rather than in simply be expected to believe your personal interpretation of what they say.

 

[Steersman]

...
Roxanne Tickle remains male, and trans issues have their own thread.

Only if you accept the folk-biology definitions for the sexes as opposed to the standard biological ones promulgated in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries all across the land.

By the latter, Tickle is sexless -- unable to produce either sperm or ova, neither male nor female.

You're begging the question:

In classical rhetoric and logic, begging the question or assuming the conclusion (Latin: petītiō principiī) is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion.

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

If in doubt, see the OP ...

 

[Paul2]

Note here that Wright says "organized, through development to produce" and "organized around around the production of". He does not say that the gonad in question "produces" gametes, or actually has to be producing gametes, for the person to be male or female.

This is clear, and unequivocal, and furthermore, it does not violate existing rules of grammar with regard to your unique-to-you interpretation of the English language with regards to the meaning of the word "produces"

Good catch. I can't tell you the number of times that someone online has claimed something that raises my eyebrows and when I go to check it - sometimes via even a very cursory examination - the claim falls apart.

 

[Steersman]

...
Defining sex as phenotypes that are organized around the function of gametes accommodates the intersex just fine, thank you.

Still provides no specific criteria to qualify anyone as either male or female. Hilton's original claptrap at least provide specific phenotypes -- i.e., "gonads of past, present, or future functionality". Even if that makes the sexes into a spectrum -- three different criteria.

But neither your "definition" -- so vague as to be useless, not a bug but a feature -- nor Hilton's original are THE definitions published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.

 

[Steersman]

"Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist, academic advisor for the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine, Founding Editor of Reality's Last Stand, and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. He writes mainly about science, the biology of sex and sex differences, and gender identity ideology."​

His credentials stack up well against those of Paul Griffiths, who is merely a philosopher. ....

As always, [Wright] is talking through the brown hole between his butt cheeks.

To coin a phrase ...

 

[Paul2]

Still provides no specific criteria to qualify anyone as either male or female.

Perhaps that's because it's a definition of sex (overall), not a definition of male or female.

Hilton's original claptrap at least provide specific phenotypes -- i.e., "gonads of past, present, or future functionality". Even if that makes the sexes into a spectrum -- three different criteria.

But neither your "definition" -- so vague as to be useless, not a bug but a feature -- nor Hilton's original are THE definitions published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.

Is the NIH reputable enough for you?
"All animals (including humans) have a sex." How does that fit with your idea that the animals we call prepubescent humans don't have a sex?

 

[Paul2]

Still provides no specific criteria to qualify anyone as either male or female. Hilton's original claptrap at least provide specific phenotypes -- i.e., "gonads of past, present, or future functionality". Even if that makes the sexes into a spectrum -- three different criteria.

But neither your "definition" -- so vague as to be useless, not a bug but a feature -- nor Hilton's original are THE definitions published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.

Steers' position is based on an argument by definition more than anything else and would exclude infants (esp female infants - oops, I'm begging the question!; see Steers' post #414), yet in the first 5 hits from a search on PubMed for "sex of infant" yielded three articles that mention infants having a sex:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9942004/
“Demographic variables from the birth certificate (maternal race, age, and insurance at delivery) and prenatal or delivery (maternal smoking, infant gestational age, infant sex, plurality, and previous live births) were available in the PRAMS dataset.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881046/
“Mean glucose concentration at 1 month was 2.62 mg/dl higher for male infants, but no difference at 3 months was observed. Milk intake and concentrations for the other milk components were similar for males and females at both time points.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10831900/
“Data extracted included publication year, location, design, baseline characteristics of mothers and infants, . . . infant age and sex, and any others reported.”

My bolding. Admittedly it's a small sample size, but I'd take the bet that plenty more examples would be forthcoming.

 

[Steersman]

Perhaps that's because it's a definition of sex (overall), not a definition of male or female.

Yes, well, as the OP emphasizes, the issue is what it takes to qualify as a male and a female.

Is the NIH reputable enough for you?

Most certainly not.

"All animals (including humans) have a sex." How does that fit with your idea that the animals we call prepubescent humans don't have a sex?

It doesn't. But so what? Transwoman Riley Dennis and RationalWiki -- both clearly talking through the brown holes between their butt cheeks, to coin a phrase -- "think" that being a female is just a matter of best 3 out of 5:

On biological sex
“”For example, if someone was assigned male at birth, but took puberty blockers and hormones and had a vaginoplasty, they would have “female” hormones, secondary sex characters, and genitals. So, three of their five ways of determining sex would be “female”... That means three-fifths of the sex criteria point to female, and only one-fifth points to male – and if you believe that sex is an unchanging biological fact, that couldn’t be possible. But it is.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis

Just because someone publishes some statement about having a sex doesn't mean they're not blowing smoke out of their nether regions. The question is who is more authoritative. The Oxford Dictionary of Biology says about the same as does Hilton, at least in her more recent statements:

https://x.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441

But the NIH is also peddling the "idea" that "Every Cell Has a Sex":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/

Rank insanity. Totally clueless about biology. Knocks their credibility into a cocked hat that they would even publish such antiscientific claptrap.

You might also note that "Anne Fausto-Sterling" -- she of the 5 sexes BS, someone else talking out of the brown hole between her butt cheeks, to coin a phrase -- is in there at the NIH like a dirty shirt:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222285/

 

[smartcooky]

As always, [Wright] is talking through the brown hole between his butt cheeks.

To coin a phrase ...

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

To coin a phrase ...


See how that works? You dismiss my source, I dismiss yours

Meanwhile, you dodge everything else I said

I will repeat...

" IF you are to quote actual biologists (with degrees in biology, not a mere Philosophers) who 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

...then I would feel compelled to review my opinion. Now, you claim to know some of these people and to be able to write to them (at least you claim to have written to them or sent them your ideas earlier in the thread) so why don't you do that? Ask them, get them to answer this question on one of their blogs or online journals, and then post the link here. I'm sure we'd all be interested to read what they actually say, rather than in simply be expected to believe your personal interpretation of what they say."


There is an opportunity here for you to evidence your claims... but I know you won't take it, because you are afraid what they will say will debunk your own claim.

Meanwhile folks, expect any reply to my post to be more insults, blather, dodging and goalpost-moving as usual.

 

[smartcooky]

Is the NIH reputable enough for you?

You do understand of course, that his responses seem like that of a conspiracy theorist...

- dismisses any and all evidence that does not match the predetermined conclusions
- refuses to address the content of any post that contradicts claims
- insults any and all posters who don't agree
- demeans any source that he doesn't agree with

Its Conspiracy Theory 101 - I recognize it when I see it!