Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[smartcooky]

Seahorsing is the new sea-lioning.

Indeed!!

 

[Steersman]

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.

"respected scientists" ... in your [entirely unevidenced] OPINION.

There is no central repository or authority that certifies research, definitions, and theories. Nor is there some golden context that outweighs other contexts.

The species taxon was introduced in virus classification as late as 1991 when it was endorsed by the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). The official definition of virus species was as follows: “A virus species is a polythetic class of viruses that constitute a replicating lineage and occupy a particular ecological niche”.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tes_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species

Bit unfortunate that there isn't something equivalent for biology in general though one might reasonably argue that the Oxford Dictionary of Biology is a reasonable stand-in. Do let me know when they endorse the claptrap that you and others here have been peddling.

Along with definitions. .... It's not hard and fast.

Yeah, it is. No gametes, no sex. Can't get much "harder and faster" than four words and two punctuation marks. Don't think you have a clue about the principles that undergird much of biology. This might shed some light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

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.

Nope. IF the definition was talking about "gonads of past, present, for future functionality" -- as so-called biologists Hilton, Heying, and Wright once argued (see the OP) -- THEN you might have had a point. But Hilton at least changed her mind and now endorses the standard biological definitions by which the "essential" and defining property is "produces gametes".

 

[Steersman]

... in your unqualified, unevidenced opinion, which ain't worth diddly squat...

You've put diddly-squat on the table in the way of any evidence at all.

And you can't even admit that atheists are "religion-less".

You can die mad if you want to but "produces gametes" -- present tense -- IS the defacto standard for the definitions for the sexes. Applicable to ALL anisogamous species -- NO exceptions.

 

[lionking]

"respected scientists" ... in your [entirely unevidenced] OPINION.





https://www.researchgate.net/public...tes_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species

Bit unfortunate that there isn't something equivalent for biology in general though one might reasonably argue that the Oxford Dictionary of Biology is a reasonable stand-in. Do let me know when they endorse the claptrap that you and others here have been peddling.



Yeah, it is. No gametes, no sex. Can't get much "harder and faster" than four words and two punctuation marks. Don't think you have a clue about the principles that undergird much of biology. This might shed some light:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)


Nope. IF the definition was talking about "gonads of past, present, for future functionality" -- as so-called biologists Hilton, Heying, and Wright once argued (see the OP) -- THEN you might have had a point. But Hilton at least changed her mind and now endorses the standard biological definitions by which the "essential" and defining property is "produces gametes".

Do you realise you are arguing with an actual biologist? Your attempts to find a handful of allies with a Google search is pretty paltry by comparison.

 

[Steersman]

Do you realise you are arguing with an actual biologist? Your attempts to find a handful of allies with a Google search is pretty paltry by comparison.

I really don't give much of a rat's tush. Whole bunch of so-called biologists have been claiming that sex is a spectrum:

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

To Understand Sex, We Need to Ask the Right Questions
The answer to the question of how many sexes exist differs depending on the context

Archive link: https://archive.ph/Qmnq1
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-understand-sex-we-need-to-ask-the-right-questions/

Sex is usually defined by several biological attributes, including genetic and anatomical features and hormone levels. It doesn’t exist as a binary but rather represents a spectrum—with typical male and female individuals on either side.

https://x.com/sciam/status/1526281910812655617

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

And so-called biologists Hilton, Heying, & Wright insisted -- see the OP -- that the ticket was "[gonads] of past, present, or future functionality". Hilton at least had the sense and integrity to subsequently repudiate that claptrap by endorsing the standard definitions I've just quoted above.

And Anne -- "Five Sexes!!" -- Fausto-Sterling has a "Ph.D. in developmental genetics":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Fausto-Sterling

Whole pile of so-called biologists don't know their arses from holes in the ground.

 

[smartcooky]

You've put diddly-squat on the table in the way of any evidence at all.

And you can't even admit that atheists are "religion-less".

You can die mad if you want to but "produces gametes" -- present tense -- IS the defacto standard for the definitions for the sexes. Applicable to ALL anisogamous species -- NO exceptions.


[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_77127632185d00a632.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7712766809978902f2.jpg[/qimg]

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

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_77127632a2bd57555e.jpg[/qimg]

As usual, you have completely ignored all context, and cherry picked only tiny part you want to endlessly drone and waffle on about.

I don't care what you say - its only your OPINION
I don't care what PZ Myers says, it only his OPINION

Opinions are like sphincters... everybody has one. Opinions are NOT evidence of anything. Other biologists opinions differ from his. Who is to say the opinions of one biologist are any more scholarly than those of another. Certainly NOT YOU!!

I will use the definitions of male and female that fit the context of the discussion at hand. Anisomagous species other than mammals have no bearing whatsoever in any discussion about humans.
‎
‎

 

[Steersman]

...

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.

Yeah, well, bully for you. But the OP was clearly talking about ALL anisogamous species. And Hilton's subsequent repudiation of it didn't say anything at all about being exclusive to humans:

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

I certainly didn't see anything of the sort there, but maybe you can take a look in between the lines? Particularly since you seem so good at that sort of thing ...

But insisting that the definitions don't apply to humans just proves you to be a scientific illiterate -- being charitable. Biological definitions, particularly those for the sexes, work, and have uses, because they're applicable to all anisogamous species -- it's a foundational principle that undergirds the whole field:

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

The standard biological definitions are universal because they identify a trait -- "produces large and small gametes" -- that manifests itself across literally millions of species. And make that the necessary and sufficient condition for sex category membership.

 

[Steersman]

... Who is to say the opinions of one biologist are any more scholarly than those of another. Certainly NOT YOU!!

‎

LoL. What joke. Being charitable.

So why should your "opinion" trump that of RationalWiki and transwoman Riley Dennis who apparently think that being female is just a matter of best three out of five?

Rational(?)Wiki: "On biological sex: [Dennis] '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

An "opinion" clearly endorsed by any number of "reputable" biologists:

New Paper Argues for ‘Multimodal’ Model of Sex

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/new-paper-argues-for-multimodal-model

Multimodal models of animal sex: breaking binaries leads to a better understanding of ecology and evolution

The first two authors contributed equally to this work.
*Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Department of Biology, Loyola University Chicago, IL, USA

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1.full.pdf

If we're going to adjudicate such conflicting claims then one either needs to go with the credentials of the claimants and/or go back to first principles. Kinda think a fellow with an FRS to his name -- Geoff Parker, the co-author of this paper -- has a bit more credibility than the trio of grifters, one of whom redeemed herself, who started this thread:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Parker
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

Certainly a helluva lot more than what you can put on the table.

 

[smartcooky]

<irrelevant blather snipped.

<irrelevant blather snipped.

 

[Myriad]

Bloggers’ opinions don’t matter. Posters’ opinions don’t matter. Politicians’ opinions don’t matter. Even biologists’ opinions only matter a little.

You know whose opinions do matter? Insurance companies’! Because they stake big money on the terminology of their policies and they don’t like to lose it.

And what does that terminology say? My wife, who currently produces no gametes, pays the rate listed for FEMALE in the actuarial tables. There is no separate category in those tables for “sexless” and they’ve made no inquiries regarding adding such a category for her. They, and the entire multi-trillion dollar industry they’re part of, classify her as female. That’s a documented fact, not anyone’s opinion.

If you disagree, go convince Aetna to change their rules and terminology accordingly. When you’ve accomplished that I’ll care about your opinion.

Note that this is a non-fallacious appeal to relevant authority. Defining and categorizing is at least as fundamental to actuarial science as it is to biological science.

 

[d4m10n]

Well now it's a bit late to change the thread title to "Strict actuarial definitions..."

 

[smartcooky]

Bloggers’ opinions don’t matter. Posters’ opinions don’t matter. Politicians’ opinions don’t matter. Even biologists’ opinions only matter a little.

You know whose opinions do matter? Insurance companies’! Because they stake big money on the terminology of their policies and they don’t like to lose it.

And what does that terminology say? My wife, who currently produces no gametes, pays the rate listed for FEMALE in the actuarial tables. There is no separate category in those tables for “sexless” and they’ve made no inquiries regarding adding such a category for her. They, and the entire multi-trillion dollar industry they’re part of, classify her as female. That’s a documented fact, not anyone’s opinion.

If you disagree, go convince Aetna to change their rules and terminology accordingly. When you’ve accomplished that I’ll care about your opinion.

Note that this is a non-fallacious appeal to relevant authority. Defining and categorizing is at least as fundamental to actuarial science as it is to biological science.

I agree. This is yet another example which shows that Steersman's definitions (ones that are shared by no-one other than the few pseudo-biologists and crackpot philosophers he shills for) are wholly impractical, and not fit for purpose in the world we live in.

There would be consequences (such as that explained by you Myriad) were his shtick to be taken seriously. Steersman claims to be someone who insists sex is a binary system, and who also insists that sex is not a spectrum. The best and easiest way to understand what a binary system is and how it works, is to look at the numerical binary system. In the binary numbering system, only two numbers exist, 1 and 0, every number is a 1 or a 0, if a number is NOT 1 then it MUST be 0 and if a number is NOT 0 then it MUST be 1. If numbers other than 1 or 0 exist, then the system is not binary. If sex is binary, then the same rules MUST apply... the only sex categories that exist are male and female, everyone is either male or female, if a person is NOT male, then they MUST be female, and if a person is NOT female, then they MUST be male. If there are any sex categories other than male or female then the system is not binary.

However, the definitions he insists are correct, actually create a third mammalian/human sex category which he calls "sexless", so we now have more than two categories in a binary system... which is not possible.

Furthermore, we would then have a situation where every human could now be in one of three categories - Male, Sexless and Female. Three categories rather than two categories moves the categorization sex closer to being a spectrum.

 

[Steersman]

... (I don't care meme) ...

As he runs off to stick his head in the "sand", "I don't care" echoing behind him ...

Let me know when you find enough intellectual honesty to admit that atheists are "religion-less". I won't be holding my breath ...

 

[Steersman]

Well now it's a bit late to change the thread title to "Strict actuarial definitions..."

Another "merger" in the works?

 

[Steersman]

Bloggers’ opinions don’t matter. Posters’ opinions don’t matter. Politicians’ opinions don’t matter. Even biologists’ opinions only matter a little.

Really isn't a matter of opinion, but one of brute facts, particularly in the case of biologists. From the BioRxiv site I linked to earlier:

In sexually reproducing species, the common assumption is that there are two sexes, strictly classified as female or male (Fisher 1930; Hurst 1996; Jaffe 1996). This assertion is supported by the cellular mechanisms of sexual reproduction, in which multiple (usually two) parental gametes combine genotypes to create an offspring with a novel genetic makeup. In animals, these gametes are of different sizes (e.g., large ova and small sperm), a condition called anisogamy.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1.full.pdf

Do note the "mechanisms", a binary phenomenon which is ubiquitous across literally millions of species. Though, of particular note, not all members of all anisogamous species manifest or exhibit that particular "mechanism" at all stages of their lives. See my further elaboration on the theme of mechanisms in science here:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/rerum-cognoscere-causas

But that fact justifies the further brute fact that reputable biologists have stipulated -- passed a "law" that all biologists in good standing MUST follow -- that what they MEAN by "male" and "female" is "produces large and small gametes". No gametes, no sex. Period.

If people -- including various so-called biologists -- want to use "male" and "female" as labels for other traits then they're welcome to do so -- but it ain't biology.

.... My wife, who currently produces no gametes, pays the rate listed for FEMALE in the actuarial tables. There is no separate category in those tables for “sexless” and they’ve made no inquiries regarding adding such a category for her. ...

Kinda think you're missing the point, intentionally or otherwise. To insurance brokers "female" means "likely to have certain driving patterns or mortality rates typical of the category which justifies particular insurance rates". It is immaterial to them her current reproductive abilities -- a potential "accident" of a different sort. "female" is then being used in a "nominal" sense, not an actual one:

nominal: 3a) existing or being something in name or form only
nominal head of his party

Something nominal exists only in name. So the nominal ruler in a constitutional monarchy is the king or queen, but the real power is in the hands of the elected prime minister. In the United Kingdom, the British monarch is also the nominal head of the Church of England; and those baptized in the Church who aren't really churchgoers might be called nominal Christians.

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

Your wife is only "nominally" a female, even if she still exhibits traits that are more or less typical of the category.

 

[hecd2]

But that fact justifies the further brute fact that reputable biologists have stipulated -- passed a "law" that all biologists in good standing MUST follow -- that what they MEAN by "male" and "female" is "produces large and small gametes". No gametes, no sex. Period.

If people -- including various so-called biologists -- want to use "male" and "female" as labels for other traits then they're welcome to do so -- but it ain't biology.

This shows just how utterly and abysmally ignorant you are when it comes to the conduct of science. There isn’t a single science in which the relevant professionals have passed a "law" that all their colleagues in good standing MUST follow. That is not how science is conducted. Certain terms have certain meanings according to convention but not following that convention on its own never entails losing one’s position of good standing within that discipline. Scientists within a disclipline are perfectly able to have disagreements about the definition of terms (and anything else within the discipline), and the consensus is always open to change. The idea that there is some immutable law is a matter of religion not science.

Your proposition is absurd on the face of it, and, as others have noted, relies entirely on your schoolboy misinterpretation of English syntax. It is certainly not scientific.

 

[Steersman]

This shows just how utterly and abysmally ignorant you are when it comes to the conduct of science. There isn’t a single science in which the relevant professionals have passed a "law" that all their colleagues in good standing MUST follow.

Nobody in this rather benighted neck of the woods ever hear of scare quotes?

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

Of course I wasn't saying that "The Don" was going to send Luigi around to break someone's kneecaps if they didn't comply. But, as you say, there is something of a convention in various definitions. And those for the sexes look pretty solid, and quite well-accepted -- see the Oxford Dictionary of Biology for example.

But a bit of a clown-show that so many so-called biologists haven't gotten the memo. How else are so many insisting sex is a spectrum? Only gives free rein to the transloonie nutcases and their ilk. You might consider this bit from "philosopher" Alex Byrne in a post over in Reality's Last Stand:

AB: "Leaving aside whether this ['Sex is defined in a lot of ways in science'] fits actual practice, as a recommendation it is wrong-headed. Research needs to be readily compared and combined. A review paper on sexual selection might draw on studies of very different species, each asking different questions. If the definition of sex (male and female) changes between studies, then synthesizing the data would be fraught with complications and potential errors, because one study is about males/females-in-sense-1, another is about males/females-in-sense-2, and so on."

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/exposing-sex-pseudoscience-in-american

Rather important to be singing from the same page in the hymn book.

Your proposition is absurd on the face of it, and, as others have noted, relies entirely on your schoolboy misinterpretation of English syntax. It is certainly not scientific.

Hardly my own "schoolboy misinterpretation" when so many more or less reputable biologists endorse it, one way or another:

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

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

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

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

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

Sex is hardly "immutable" or something infused at conception. Entirely contingent on functioning gonads.

 

[smartcooky]

As he runs off to stick his head in the "sand", "I don't care" echoing behind him ...

I haven't "run off" anywhere. I merely treat all your pathetic, flawed ravings with the contempt they deserve.

Let me know when you find enough intellectual honesty to admit that atheists are "religion-less". I won't be holding my breath ...

It is your characterization that is intellectually dishonest.

If you apply a binary to religion, its not Christians ≈ 1, Muslims ≈ 0 and Atheists are religion-less. What you are describing is a trinary!

The correct characterization of religion as a binary is Theists ≈ 1, Atheists ≈ 0. This would be a true binary, with no option that is not one or the other.

 

[Steersman]

If you apply a binary to religion, its not Christians ≈ 1, Muslims ≈ 0 and Atheists are religion-less. What you are describing is a trinary!

Yes, there are three categories there. But two of them are included within the category "religion" -- which makes religion itself into a binary category. People outside that binary are "religion-less".

"Religion" and "religion-less" themselves comprise two members of a binary category. But that doesn't mean that each of those subcategories can't be binaries, trinaries, or a whole spectrum of subcategories.

For example, you might try thinking, as painful as that is likely to be for you, about taxonomy, particularly in the context of species, phyla, and kingdoms. Each of many kingdoms (6 in fact) is each a category, is in turn comprised of many phyla. And each phylum -- a category -- is comprised of many species:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

There's a hierarchy there. A simple example -- too complicated for some apparently -- is religion (Christianity & Islam, a binary) and not-a-religion (Atheism).

You may wish to try reading, and thinking about, this:

https://www.dummies.com/book/body-mind-spirit/philosophy/logic/logic-for-dummies-282362/

 

[hecd2]

But a bit of a clown-show that so many so-called biologists haven't gotten the memo. How else are so many insisting sex is a spectrum? Only gives free rein to the transloonie nutcases and their ilk.

There is no memo. Read my lips: there is no memo. In science, definitions are based on consensus, and if they are a lot of biologists who disagree with your idiosyncratic misinterpretation, that just goes to show that whatever consensus there happens to be isn't very strong. There are disagreements. That's how science works.

You, of course, dishonestly and incorrectly claim that the biologists whom you fondly and incorrectly imagine agree with you have some sort of authority to dictate to those who do not, and if those who do not agree with you fail to change their minds they are no longer in good standing. It ain't so, it has never been so, and it never will be so.

You might consider this bit from "philosopher" Alex Byrne in a post over in Reality's Last Stand:

I don't give a rat's arse what a philosopher has to say about the definition of scientific terms. It's obvious and trivial to say that scientists should use the same definition for the same type of study. That doesn't mean that using a different definition for a different type of study is wrong, nor does it mean that your idiosyncratic and idiotic definition is correct.

Hardly my own "schoolboy misinterpretation" when so many more or less reputable biologists endorse it, one way or another:

Yeah, you define reputable by "appears to agree with my interpretation". You arbitrarily choose to represent as the authority those most convenient to your hopeless case, but the irony is that there is no authority, and moreover that your lack of familiarity with the English language leads you to misinterpret even those whom you regard as authorities.

Even if the definition you are promoting were to achieve consensus among biologists as the only technical definition of biological sex, it would still be almost entirely useless in any practical biological or medical research.