You're clearly incapable of recognizing that religion-less is not a religion ...
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
You're clearly incapable of recognizing that religion-less is not a religion ...smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
You're clearly incapable of recognizing a false analogy
How do you know that Tickle doesn't produce sperm? Are you privy to their medical history? And if so, have they consented to it being disclosed here?
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,565
No comment about the articles I linked to mentioning infants having a sex?
In your entirely unevidenced opinion. Which is worth substantially less than diddly-squat.You say:
You can't even admit -- in a clearly defined "thought experiment" -- the existence of the religionless. You're grabbing at straws there mate. Being charitable -- to a fault ...
Saying that there are only two religions that people can be members of is not the same as saying everyone has to be in one or the other. Which you simply refuse to accept because of its logical consequences.
It's not the analogy that's "false" ...
Fine. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't.
But how do you know he does? You privy to his medical history?
You're the one who claimed he was a male. Where's your evidence?
But you might also note that Emma Hilton has suggested he has 5ARD, many of whom seem to be infertile, ergo sexless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5α-Reductase_2_deficiency#Fertility
Links to Hilton's interview:
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/ffs-friday-developmental-biologist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9rynD9KlU0
"male (prepubescent) children" is at best something of an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. IF "male" is "produces sperm" and since prepubescent XYers don't produce sperm THEN one can't very well have a "producing sperm" and "not-producing sperm" child.
Just because you attach an adjective to a noun doesn't mean it fits or makes sense. Like talking about a ten pound musical note. A category error:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,565
"male (prepubescent) children" is at best something of an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. IF "male" is "produces sperm" and since prepubescent XYers don't produce sperm THEN one can't very well have a "producing sperm" and "not-producing sperm" child.
Just because you attach an adjective to a noun doesn't mean it fits or makes sense. Like talking about a ten pound musical note. A category error:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
The pertinent point of those examples of articles from PubMed was that they were articles in which infants were considered to have a sex, contra your position that infants don't have a sex. It's not an oxymoron nor a contradiction if they are not using your definition of male as "produces sperm," which is the whole point.
That was 3 out of the first 5 articles that did not - could not - rely on your definition. I presume that there is no percentage of articles that mention infants having a sex out of the total, and there is no n great enough such that you would reconsider your definition, but correct me if I'm wrong.
So flaming what? As I pointed out just recently, transwoman Riley Dennis has his own definition for the sexes -- by which he is "considered to be a female" -- where it's just a matter of best three out five.
The contradiction is in the definitions for the sexes. There are solid reasons for the biological ones as opposed to those peddled by the NCBI and Anne (five sexes!!) Fausto-Sterling. Since you seem to be something of a philosopher, at least according to the somewhat misnamed ISF, you might try giving some thought to my post on the topic:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas
The "whole point" is the question of which definition qualifies as trump.
You're barking up the wrong tree. Not even in the right forest.
Whatever definition they're using for the sexes it is clearly not those endorsed by mainstream biology, and promulgated in any number of reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries all across the land. Including by, more recently than those in the OP, Emma Hilton.
For details, you might try reading the OP and Hilton's later abandonment of it.
"male (prepubescent) children" is at best something of an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. IF "male" is "produces sperm" and since prepubescent XYers don't produce sperm THEN one can't very well have a "producing sperm" and "not-producing sperm" child.
Just because you attach an adjective to a noun doesn't mean it fits or makes sense. Like talking about a ten pound musical note. A category error:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
You do realize that within biology, there are multiple definitions of sex depending on context right?
Reproductive sex
Phenotypic sex
Chromosomal sex
Nuclear sex
Gonadal sex
Biology is a broad field. Please don't over simplify it.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Are nuclear sex and chromosomal sex different?
Paul2
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2004
- Messages
- 8,565
Is the number of reputable biological journals, etc., that you have cited in this thread greater than, say, 15? Let's let their geographic distribution ("all across the land") slide for now.
The only context that's relevant to the OP is ALL anisogamous species -- including the human one. No exceptions.
All of those -- with the possible exclusion of your "reproductive sex" -- are no more than operational definitions. Which have any number of contradictions -- Khelif and "Ms." Tickle are phenotypically female, but chromosomally male. Likewise CAIS people -- you might take a close look at the photos there:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome#Physical
So which are they? "male"? "female"? Or "sexless"?
If your "reproductive sex" means "produces large and small gametes" -- the standard biological definition -- then Tickle and those CAIS people are certainly sexless and Khelif is probably so since they (probably) can't produce either type of gamete.
You might try reading Griffiths' paper, particularly his comments about operational definitions:
See -- readily accessible PDF:
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
THAT is the context, i.e., biology. Period. What the NCBI and Colin Wright are peddling is hardly more than folk-biology. Entirely different kettles of fish.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
Not really sure as I focused more on ecology than genetics. (I have a B.S. in biology.) I think there is a bit of a distinction, though, as nuclear sexing looks at Barr bodies (inactive X chromosomes).
Yes, I know your stance. You use it to state that respected scientists whose research use differing definitions in a different contexts is wrong. But, in my opinion, you are incorrect.
There is no central repository or authority that certifies research, definitions, and theories. Nor is there some golden context that outweighs other contexts.
Biology, like all sciences, is made up of an amorphous, ever changing collection of (hopefully) peer-reviewed works. Conclusions that are accepted today can be superseded tomorrow. Along with definitions. That's the beauty of science. It's not hard and fast. Nothing is so established that it is immune to correction should better information become available. (Though some things are entrenched enough to require extremely compelling evidence to do so.)
Your definition is no less an operational definition than any of the others. The important thing in any research or paper is that the meaning is clear within the context of the paper.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
... in your unqualified, unevidenced opinion, which ain't worth diddly squat...
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I'd go further that that. I would say the important thing in any discussion is that the meaning is clear within the context of that discussion. The claim has been made that "the only context that's relevant to the OP is ALL anisogamous species" I would vehemently disagree with that characterization. If you look at the actual post made by d4m10n he says
A mammal. That is the context... and it is the only context that matters here....not crocodilia, not seahorses, not clownfish. No-one in a human or mammalian biology discussion gives a fat rat's arse about the latter three!!
The image d4m10n quoted included the word "anisogamous", but notwithstanding that, the use of the word really is not relevant to the reasons WHY this discussion is being had, which is a discussion about claims made by transgender activists that transwomen are women and should have all the same rights as a female woman.
To that end, I think that the following statements are correct, and are sufficient for the context of this debate.
1. When biologists claim that “sex is binary,” they mean something straightforward: there are only two sexes.
2. The sex of a mammal is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce.
3. Male mammals have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of small gametes (sperm)
4. Female mammals have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of large gamtetes (ova)
5. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary.
Now, I personally don't give a flying **** about other anisogamous species. Only humans interest me in this discussion, and no amount of sea-lioning makes any difference to me.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Seahorsing is the new sea-lioning.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,941
To claim that infants (post-natal humans under 1 year old) have no biological sex because they don't produce gametes is the most obvious nonsense I have come across in a long time.
This would imply that a study to look at the differences in infant mortality of male and female infants, and their reasons, is by definition an impossibility and unscientific. And should therefore not be undertaken.
However it IS a reality that male infants (infants with visible penises) have a higher mortality due to biological reasons than female infants (those with visible vaginas), while at the same time, cultural differences in the way female and male infants are regarded and treated often tend to favor survivability of male infants (and sometimes favor females).
To deny the reality that infants, in fact, come (largely) as either one of two sexes (a minority may come as "both", "neither" or "undetermined") is a recipe to deny newborns the sex-specific medical and social care that is best to ensure their very survival.
Similarly, if I, who is working as a nurse in a long-term care residence for the elderly, considered that my customers and care recipients are sexless because they (may) no longer produce (or have) functional gametes, and consequently denied treating them differently - as males, as females, or, if applicable, as any instance in the two- or more-dimensional space of biological, cultural, behavioral, subjective-personal continua of sex expressions, I'd do a great disservice to them, including denying them due respect, denying their dignity.
I find it disturbing that seemingly intelligent people in 2024 do not get this.
In case you did not get this, here is a hint: I described two different contexts that call for the application of two different concepts of the term "sex", neither of which is adequately captured by Steersman's inflexible, almost useless puritan definition of "male/female" as "currently produces small/large gametes".
In #1490, TomB provided a useful list of various different biological definitions of "sex" useful in various different contexts. To this, we could add various social and cultural definitions that are of use in contexts other than merely biological. This explains why people who had their testicles removed or otherwise rendered unproductive may have been allowed to vote in former times, while people who had their ovaries removed or rendered unproductive may have been prevented from voting. Or from passing on their family name to children (conceived prior to the loss of gonadal function, or adopted). Or from inheriting the farm. Or from using this or that bathroom. Etc. There are real differences between social concepts of "sex" not captured by Steensman that have real consequences in the real world.
Steensman is probably correct that all definitions of "sex" ultimately go back to the reproductive necessity of two persons joining up their gametes, one of which has to be a sperm, the other an ovum, in order to procreate and contribute to the survival of a population.
But to present this as the beginning and end of the concept of "sex" is totally obvious nonsense.
Do I get a price for being the Nth person to say what almost everybody else has already been saying in this thread?
This would imply that a study to look at the differences in infant mortality of male and female infants, and their reasons, is by definition an impossibility and unscientific. And should therefore not be undertaken.
However it IS a reality that male infants (infants with visible penises) have a higher mortality due to biological reasons than female infants (those with visible vaginas), while at the same time, cultural differences in the way female and male infants are regarded and treated often tend to favor survivability of male infants (and sometimes favor females).
To deny the reality that infants, in fact, come (largely) as either one of two sexes (a minority may come as "both", "neither" or "undetermined") is a recipe to deny newborns the sex-specific medical and social care that is best to ensure their very survival.
Similarly, if I, who is working as a nurse in a long-term care residence for the elderly, considered that my customers and care recipients are sexless because they (may) no longer produce (or have) functional gametes, and consequently denied treating them differently - as males, as females, or, if applicable, as any instance in the two- or more-dimensional space of biological, cultural, behavioral, subjective-personal continua of sex expressions, I'd do a great disservice to them, including denying them due respect, denying their dignity.
I find it disturbing that seemingly intelligent people in 2024 do not get this.
In case you did not get this, here is a hint: I described two different contexts that call for the application of two different concepts of the term "sex", neither of which is adequately captured by Steersman's inflexible, almost useless puritan definition of "male/female" as "currently produces small/large gametes".
In #1490, TomB provided a useful list of various different biological definitions of "sex" useful in various different contexts. To this, we could add various social and cultural definitions that are of use in contexts other than merely biological. This explains why people who had their testicles removed or otherwise rendered unproductive may have been allowed to vote in former times, while people who had their ovaries removed or rendered unproductive may have been prevented from voting. Or from passing on their family name to children (conceived prior to the loss of gonadal function, or adopted). Or from inheriting the farm. Or from using this or that bathroom. Etc. There are real differences between social concepts of "sex" not captured by Steensman that have real consequences in the real world.
Steensman is probably correct that all definitions of "sex" ultimately go back to the reproductive necessity of two persons joining up their gametes, one of which has to be a sperm, the other an ovum, in order to procreate and contribute to the survival of a population.
But to present this as the beginning and end of the concept of "sex" is totally obvious nonsense.
Do I get a price for being the Nth person to say what almost everybody else has already been saying in this thread?
Last edited: