Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

... On the other hand, definitions do need to account for all circumstance. On the other other hand, do they?

Yeah, they do. See:

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

Maybe you "think" that the definition for "teenager" only includes white folkz? That some "latinx" "teenagers" are 45-50? Even if they're only 2-3% of the population?

There are principles involved in creating and defining categories. Which most people -- including various so-called "working biologists" and their fellow-travelers or useful/useless idiots -- haven't a flaming clue about.

 

[Steersman]

Also, re: the idea "that sex is an incoherent category, one that has perhaps outlived its use."

I dunno, man, I might want to know if I'm milking the cow or the bull. I suspect that yoghurt from the latter might taste different

Barking mad, aren't they?

Though you might have some interest in a post by Kathleen Stock who said pretty much the same thing about the Radfems for them wanting to "abolish gender":

https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/lets-abolish-the-dream-of-gender

So, wait, by now I'm curious how a biologist answers this: if I were to lop off a cat's dick and balls off, does he become a female cat? ....

But no, that cat becomes sexless. By the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless: no gametes, no sex. Q.E.D.

For the logic challenged in the crowd, a fairly large cohort:

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

But part of the problem there is that far too many clearly haven't a flaming clue how categories work. Bit "disconcerting" as it is rather fundamental to being able to grapple with "reality" -- Steven Pinker put it better than most:

SP: "An intelligent being cannot treat every object it sees as a unique entity unlike anything else in the universe. It has to put objects in categories so that it may apply its hard-won knowledge about similar objects, encountered in the past, to the object at hand." [How the Mind Works; pg. 12]

But to underline the "sexless" category, you might take a gander at an article at Aeon magazine by Paul Griffiths:

“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

A binary category is not necessarily exhaustive. Probably most of them aren't. For those few here who might have some interest in the topic, a Medium post that I ran across recently that is a more or less easy introduction for those who balk at low hurdles:

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Hierarchical Classification
How to classify taxonomic data like a pro.

https://towardsdatascience.com/http...e-to-hierarchical-classification-f8428ea1e076

 

[Steersman]

If I understand how it works around here, I'd like to put in a vote for a "A thread for Steersman to discuss things that catch his interest" thread to contain his monomaniacal drivel.

None so blind as those who will not see. Particularly those who've disappeared up their fundaments ...

 

[Paul2]

Yeah, they do. See:

you quoted what an intensional definition is, and are using it in your approach. Is an extensional definition off the table? Why?

Maybe you "think" that the definition for "teenager" only includes white folkz? That some "latinx" "teenagers" are 45-50? Even if they're only 2-3% of the population?

There are principles involved in creating and defining categories. Which most people -- including various so-called "working biologists" and their fellow-travelers or useful/useless idiots -- haven't a flaming clue about.

What are these principles for creating categories (as opposed to types of definitions, intensional and extensions)?

 

[HansMustermann]

The problem with categories is that they can be as arbitrary as you want. E.g., I could categorize cars into those who have less than 18" rims, and those who are above. Or I can categorize cats into those who are orange and those who aren't. Or classify cars by colour (see, WH40K) Or really a million other gazillion categories.

The question is if it's relevant for the actual argument, not whether you can make that classification. E.g., classifying cars by colour might actually be fully irrelevant to how fast it is in a drag race.

Well, unless you're a WH40K ork. Then go with red. Red is faster

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The problem with categories is that they can be as arbitrary as you want..

The question is if it's relevant for the actual argument, not whether you can make that classification. E.g., classifying cars by colour might actually be fully irrelevant to how fast it is in a drag race.

OTOH, classifying people by sex is actually fully relevant to whether they are in drag.

 

[Steersman]

you quoted what an intensional definition is, and are using it in your approach. Is an extensional definition off the table? Why?

You might actually try reading that article. Generally a bad idea to let others do your thinking for you, to too slavishly follow the herd.

In particular, try reading the section on extensional definitions:

An extensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying its extension, that is, every object that falls under the definition of the term in question.

For example, an extensional definition of the term "nation of the world" might be given by listing all of the nations of the world, or by giving some other means of recognizing the members of the corresponding class. An explicit listing of the extension, which is only possible for finite sets and only practical for relatively small sets, is a type of enumerative definition.

If you tried to create extensional definitions for the sexes then, technically at least, you'd probably have to specify every individual member of each category. For an example of a binary, consider the even and odd numbers. An intensional definition gives the criteria for each category: evenly divisible by two, and not evenly divisible by two. Extensional definitions would have to specify exactly which numbers qualified for each of them. Even: {2, 4, 6, 8, ....}; Odd: {1, 3, 5, 7, ....}

What are these principles for creating categories (as opposed to types of definitions, intensional and extensions)?

Good question, one which is a bit thorny and has bedeviled much of philosophy for the last 2500 years. Though, as a preliminary, intensional definitions, in particular, create categories. "teenager", for example. The necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a member of that category is to be 13 to 19. No "teenager" membership card for those outside that range.

But see:

The problem of universals is an ancient question from metaphysics that has inspired a range of philosophical topics and disputes: "Should the properties an object has in common with other objects, such as color and shape, be considered to exist beyond those objects? And if a property exists separately from objects, what is the nature of that existence?"

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

Though too many philosophers have made a mess of that "problem" -- muddying the waters to make them seem deep according to Nietzsche.

But, more particularly, categories are defined by the properties that must be present for any entity to qualify as a referent of the term being defined. Don't exhibit or manifest the property "produces gametes" then not a member of the sex categories. Easy peasy.

Though that kind of leaves hanging the question as to which properties are the ones that justify creating a category to encompass those entities which possess them. But that question is more or less answered by the concept of "natural kinds", the sexes being biggies as far as biology is concerned -- foundational to the field:

"Natural kind" is an intellectual grouping, or categorizing of things, in a manner that is reflective of the actual world and not just human interests. Some treat it as a classification identifying some structure of truth and reality that exists whether or not humans recognize it. Others treat it as intrinsically useful to the human mind, but not necessarily reflective of something more objective. Candidate examples of natural kinds are found in all the sciences, but the field of chemistry provides the paradigm example of elements.

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

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a decent synopsis of the idea as well, although they go off into the weeds pretty quickly:

Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/

The philosopher Muhammad Ali Khalidi has, more or less successfully, argued in favour of that "thesis" with his "Are sexes natural kinds?":
https://philpapers.org/rec/KHAASN

And I've used the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on "Mechanisms in Science" to argue pretty much the same point:

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

 

[Roger Ramjets]

You might actually try reading that article. Generally a bad idea to let others do your thinking for you, to too slavishly follow the herd.

A condescending tone doesn't help your argument - it just gets people's backs up and makes you sound like a supercilious prick. Perhaps that's one reason you are having trouble convincing people that your definition is the right one (a good argument would stand on its own without emotional support).

But in this case it's worse than than that. You accuse someone of letting others do the thinking for them and 'slavishly' following the herd, then direct them to a Wikipedia article for answers to their question?

Wikipedia:About

Written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers known as Wikipedians, Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone with Internet access...

Wikipedia has tested the wisdom of the crowd since 2001 and found that it succeeds.

The wisdom of the crowd is the collective opinion of a diverse and independent group of individuals rather than that of a single expert... there is idiosyncratic noise associated with each individual judgment, and taking the average over a large number of responses will go some way toward canceling the effect of this noise.

But, more particularly, categories are defined by the properties that must be present for any entity to qualify as a referent of the term being defined. Don't exhibit or manifest the property "produces gametes" then not a member of the sex categories. Easy peasy.

Thus your argument that a castrated male is no longer male.

But that flies in the face of definitions agreed upon by the crowd. If you disagree then you are one of those 'idiosyncratic individuals' setting themselves up to be an 'expert' - the very antithesis of Wikipedia's aim.

Eunuch

A eunuch is a male who has been castrated.

Non-castrated eunuchs

The term eunuch has sometimes figuratively been used for a wide range of men who were seen to be physically unable to procreate. Hippocrates describes the Scythians as being afflicted with high rates of erectile dysfunction and thus "the most eunuchoid of all nations"

You say there are only two sexes, then argue that a eunuch is neither. But the standard definition says he is still male. Your argument is similar to saying that since a car is defined as 'a four-wheeled road vehicle powered by an engine', if it runs out of gas then it's no longer a car.

But no, that cat becomes sexless. By the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless: no gametes, no sex. Q.E.D.

Cat

Etymology and naming

A male cat is called a tom or tomcat (or a gib, if neutered)

Once again, not having gonads doesn't change the definition to 'not male' - at least according to Wikipedia.

But perhaps in the narrow scientific field of biology, a narrow definition that doesn't agree with regular usage applies. In which case you can show us examples of scientists arguing that a neutered male human or cat etc. is not male, right? Not that it matters to the community at large - we will continue to use the definitions agreed upon by the crowd.

If you tried to create extensional definitions for the sexes then, technically at least, you'd probably have to specify every individual member of each category.

Yet by specifying functional gonads as a prerequisite for being male or female, you are effectively forcing each individual member to prove they belong. Have a low sperm count? "I'm sorry 'sir', today you don't qualify as being male. Give it a few days and we'll do another test".

 

[Orphia Nay]

Steers, is this a fair summary of your approach?

• The definition of the sexes has to apply to all anisogamous species.
  
• The sexes cannot be defined as the phenotypes organized around the production of one of the two gametes because that does not accommodate hermaphroditic species (2-5% of non-mammalian species).
  
• Defining sex by incorporating the idea of actually producing one of the two gametes accommodates those hermaphroditic species.
  
• Such a definition of sex then must apply to mammalian species, even though they are not hermaphroditic.

THAT'S what this thread is all about?? How bizarre.

I mean, it's good it takes into account hermaphrodites, as the OP doesn't, but the whole thing about pre- and post-puberty not counting as female for women is just weird.

 

[smartcooky]

A condescending tone doesn't help your argument - it just gets people's backs up and makes you sound like a supercilious prick.

Amen to that! Its why I no longer bother debating him... its a waste of time debating someone who has his mouth open, his ears blocked and his mind bolted shut.

These days, I just lurk in the thread and eat popcorn while I watch others tearing his arguments to shreds.

 

[HansMustermann]

THAT'S what this thread is all about?? How bizarre.

I mean, it's good it takes into account hermaphrodites, as the OP doesn't, but the whole thing about pre- and post-puberty not counting as female for women is just weird.

Or post-menopause.

 

[Paul2]

THAT'S what this thread is all about?? How bizarre.

You're welcome. I think.

 

[p0lka]

Amen to that! Its why I no longer bother debating him... its a waste of time debating someone who has his mouth open, his ears blocked and his mind bolted shut.

These days, I just lurk in the thread and eat popcorn while I watch others tearing his arguments to shreds.

People should always debate that which they disagree with, at the very least it's a learning experience for one, if not for all.

 

[p0lka]

Steers, is this a fair summary of your approach?

• The definition of the sexes has to apply to all anisogamous species.
  
• The sexes cannot be defined as the phenotypes organized around the production of one of the two gametes because that does not accommodate hermaphroditic species (2-5% of non-mammalian species).
  
• Defining sex by incorporating the idea of actually producing one of the two gametes accommodates those hermaphroditic species.
  
• Such a definition of sex then must apply to mammalian species, even though they are not hermaphroditic.

I would ask Steersman to summarise their approach themselves, without links and quotes etc. It would be helpful.

 

[Agatha]

Or post-menopause.

And during pregnancy.

 

[Ron Obvious]

I would ask Steersman to summarise their approach themselves, without links and quotes etc. It would be helpful.

It really wouldn't.

 

[smartcooky]

And during pregnancy.

And if they are on the pill, or have a contraceptive device inserted.

 

[Paul2]

I would ask Steersman to summarise their approach themselves, without links and quotes etc. It would be helpful.

It's fairly standard in conflict resolution that, when a disagreement is going 'round and 'round, to summarize another person's position (either by the mediator or the other party) and check with the person to see how that fares.

It's not automatic that a person can distill their argument the best - they surely have advantages in knowing what their argument is, but they also need skill in distilling an argument. I think I distilled Steers' argument pretty well - it's nearly a syllogism - and appropriately checked it with him.

If anyone else wants to ask Steers to distill his argument, I'm fine with that.

 

[Myriad]

On no evidence ...[/url]


There is plenty of evidence, provided here by you, that what you’ve stated as your opinion is in fact your opinion. I also have informed you of my contrary opinion, which I know with certainty is my opinion, so there’s quite sufficient evidence for my claim, which is that I reject your opinion.

[qoute]Some "actual biologists" claim that sex is a spectrum. The issue is the controversy over which definitions qualify as trump. Which can only be adjudicated on the basis of going back to first principles, in understanding the reasons for the different ones. Don't see that your "biologists" have made any sort of a credible case for theirs.

If biologists don’t have a consensus on a definition of male and female, as you’re now claiming, then it is useless to attempt to apply a “strict biological definition” at all, as no such thing exists, making the premise of this thread invalid. You’ve just nullified your own central argument.

As for "caring", that is more or less the point. Various transloonie nutcases are bound and determined to bastardize and corrupt the biological definitions for political purposes. Which too many here are more or less following suit on.

If people -- including various so-called biologists -- want to use folk-biology definitions then I guess they're entitled to do so. But if they do then I don't think they have much of a leg to stand on when people like "Ms." Tickle use the same ones to claim access to places like women's sports, toilets, and social media applications:

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

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

What is your evidence that Tickle’s claim to female status is in any way based on pre-pubertal children, pregnant and post-menopausal women, infertile adult men, or anyone else being considered male or female despite not currently producing viable gametes? I’ve seen none. Outside this thread about your own claims I’ve never seen e.g. post-menopausal women ever being mentioned at all in any discussion of issues related to trans accommodation in society.

As has been pointed out already by others, without responsive comment from you, declaring Tickle sexless by virtue of no gametes would not resolve, or even help resolve, Tickle’s status or rights. Because it would also, on the same basis, declare tens of millions of cis Americans sexless. Which toilets should they use?

Barring them all from all public toilets would be reprehensible, and a blatant enough civil rights violation to be immediately ruled unconstitutional by even the most conservative SCOTUS. Building 50% more “separate but equal” “sexless” toilets is unaffordable, and even if it weren’t, “sexless” toilets would have vasectomied adult men together with 10 year old girls, ten year old boys with pregnant women, etc. Stupid, and we don’t have the resources for that anyhow. Okay, how about if the “sexless” can use whichever bathroom they want? Obviously, that just makes the problems you’re complaining about worse!

What you end up having to do instead is determine for each “sexless” person which sex(es) of bathroom it makes the most sense for them to use. Which we can do… but that just recapitulates the exact same issues we already have now! Some are easily to decide, of course. Pregnant women go in with the females, vasectomied men with the males, infants and toddlers accompanied by a caretaker in whichever one the caretaker uses, and so on. But which one does Tickle use? Declaring Tickle sexless has done nothing to help anyone agree on an answer to that question!

Yes, I quite agree with you that it makes sense for them to use. "definitions and categories aren't objective facts". But some definitions are more useful than others. The standard biological definitions are more or less essential to all of biology, at least outside the backwaters peopled by various scientific illiterates, grifters, and charlatans -- "scientism-ists", the lot of them.

You haven’t convinced me that your preferred definitions are more useful in any way. Please explain how they would be more useful. Examples would be nice.

 

[smartcooky]

<polite snip>

You haven’t convinced me that your preferred definitions are more useful in any way. Please explain how they would be more useful. Examples would be nice.