Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

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

Tough job, someone has to do it. I'd been asked a question that had been answered in some depth by the link I'd previously provided. Kinda think y'all are past the spoon-feeding stage. Or should be -- decidedly moot in more than a few cases.

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.

Which members of the crowd are you referring to? Wikipedia's definition for "sex" is virtually the same as the Oxford Dictionary of Biology and all of the other similar sources I've quoted:

Sex is the biological trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing organism produces male or female gametes.[1][2][3][4]

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

Do note the "produces", present tense ...

Eunuch
You say there are only two sexes, then argue that a eunuch is neither. But the standard definition says he is still male. ...

Some OTHER definition says that. But the standard biological definitions DON'T.

Merriam-Webster's definition for "female" lists at least two different definitions:

1a) : of, relating to, or being the sex that typically has the capacity to bear young or produce eggs
1b) : having a gender identity that is the opposite of male

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

Can't very well be both, can it? At least simultaneously. You might want to try reading Wikipedia's article on the principle of explosion:

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

If you start off from a contradiction then you can prove anything

But perhaps in the narrow scientific field of biology, a narrow definition that doesn't agree with regular usage applies.

Bingo. What colour kewpie doll would you like?

That's the whole flaming point. Biologists use those definitions for a reason -- dozens of them in fact which I've expended some effort to illustrate. That people want to use folk biology then they're welcome to do so. But they can't then claim to be using biology to justify various social policies.

In which case you can show us examples of scientists arguing that a neutered male human or cat etc. is not male, right?

Think I've done so -- dozens of times. Once more from the top -- with feeling. First off, here's a paper in the Wiley Online Library by a trio of biologists which underlines that "sexless":

WOL: "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

Not "reproductively competent" -- i.e., no functioning gonads -- then neither male nor female.

And US "biologist" (the jury is still out on that question) PZ Myers likewise underlines the same point:

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

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".

You're STILL using the folk-biology definitions. You want to make them into participation trophies. You're welcome to do so if you want. But it AIN'T biology.

 

[Steersman]

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.

What's your definition for "female"? You have a reputable source that says exactly what it takes to qualify as one? Maybe you'll go with the Kindergarten Cop definitions? "boys (males) have penises, and girls (females) have vaginas"?

If that's the case then sure, "pre-puberty XXers" are female. Go big, fill yer boots.

But that is NOT what the standard biological definitions for the sexes say.

If it's a case of "anyone can play" then why not go with the definitions created courtesy of transwoman Riley Dennis by which it's just a case of "best 3 out of 5"?

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

You HAVE to say what you MEAN by the words you use. And it kinda helps if you mean the same thing as what others in your conversations mean by the same term. Otherwise you're just blathering.

 

[Steersman]

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.

Big LoL. Let me know when you get enough "sand" or whatever out of your ears to be able to admit that the religion-less don't have a religion. Won't be holding my breath ...

 

[Steersman]

You're welcome. I think.

Perfectly reasonable summary or synopsis More or less in any case.

Which I acknowledged without too many quotes and links ...

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14405942&postcount=1534

 

[Steersman]

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

I've already said several times that that is a more or less accurate summary of my arguments.

Which I've elaborated on -- quite briefly -- where it needed that. See:

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14405942&postcount=1534

 

[Steersman]

...

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.

You think that you would even be prepared to read anything I or anyone else wrote about that usefulness?

Seems unlikely given that I've already posted dozens of links to such.

But in case you missed them ..., see a couple of papers by Griffiths, and my own essay based on an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Mechanisms in Science:

“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

"What are biological sexes?"

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

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

As Griffiths points out in that Aeon paper of his, the biological definitions are of limited use for various "social engineering" purposes. But they're kind of essential to all of biology:

Human societies can’t delegate to biology the job of defining sex as a social institution. The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare. Theorists who want to use the biological definition of sex in those ways need to show that it will do a good job at the Olympics or in Medicare. The fact that it’s needed in biology isn’t good enough. On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake.

The problem is that the rather desperate if not demented desire to make the sexes into participation trophies, into empty signifiers leads to the "distortion" and corruption that Griffiths alludes to.

ETA:

Because it would also, on the same basis, declare tens of millions of cis Americans sexless. Which toilets should they use?

Kinda think you're missing the point, but seems worthwhile to touch on it briefly as it speaks to my "empty signifiers" above. As far you -- and most others -- are concerned, "male" and "female" mean nothing more than "penis-haver" and "vagina-haver": the Kindergarten Cop definitions. What else does it mean or signify? That is YOUR operational definition for the sexes. Fine. But it ain't biology.

You'd be further ahead to put stylized penises and vaginas over top of the entrances to the toilets -- maybe blades and chalices, as per Dan Brown, for the overly delicate.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Or post-menopause.

Yes, I should have said that, not post-puberty.

You're welcome. I think.

And during pregnancy.

Yep.

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

Yep, that too.

What's your definition for "female"? You have a reputable source that says exactly what it takes to qualify as one? Maybe you'll go with the Kindergarten Cop definitions? "boys (males) have penises, and girls (females) have vaginas"?

If that's the case then sure, "pre-puberty XXers" are female. Go big, fill yer boots.

But that is NOT what the standard biological definitions for the sexes say.

If it's a case of "anyone can play" then why not go with the definitions created courtesy of transwoman Riley Dennis by which it's just a case of "best 3 out of 5"?



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis

You HAVE to say what you MEAN by the words you use. And it kinda helps if you mean the same thing as what others in your conversations mean by the same term. Otherwise you're just blathering.

I do not presume to be able to write a definition for "woman" that could be set in stone.

I do presume I'm able to recognise a wrong definition for "woman" when I see one, and yours is wrong.

That's what science is, testing things to get closer to the truth.

 

[Steersman]

...

I do not presume to be able to write a definition for "woman" that could be set in stone.

You -- and a lot of other people -- seem to have some difficulty with the question of "What is a woman?"

Apropos of which and ICYMI, you might take a gander at Matt Walsh's kick at that kitty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZPMS6cSYGQ

And PZ Myers -- a US "biologist" though the jury is still out on that claim -- has weighed-in on that question and Walsh's documentary. You might have some particular interest in some comments there by one Fred Kadiddlehopper -- a man after me own heart ... -- and PZ's responses thereto:

https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/07/12/what-is-a-woman-2/#comment-2141594
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2022/07/12/what-is-a-woman-2/#comment-2141695

I do presume I'm able to recognise a wrong definition for "woman" when I see one, and yours is wrong.

Not quite sure how you can say that a definition is a wrong one if you don't or can't say what the right one is.

That's what science is, testing things to get closer to the truth.

As Pontius Pilate famously, or infamously, asked, "What is truth?":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Often a matter of definition. Apropos of which, you might try thinking about the concept of "by definition":

by definition; idiom
: because of what something or someone is : according to the definition of a word that is being used to describe someone or something
A volunteer by definition is not paid.
A glider is by definition an aircraft with no engine.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by definition

As a female by definition is the phenotype that produces large gametes. Applicable across ALL anisogamous species -- no exceptions.

A somewhat more philosophical perspective -- for those (few here) willing and able to do a bit of thinking on the topic -- is the infamous "Analytic–synthetic distinction":

The analytic–synthetic distinction is a semantic distinction used primarily in philosophy to distinguish between propositions (in particular, statements that are affirmative subject–predicate judgments) that are of two types: analytic propositions and synthetic propositions. Analytic propositions are true or not true solely by virtue of their meaning, whereas synthetic propositions' truth, if any, derives from how their meaning relates to the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic–synthetic_distinction

Philosophers have, in general, kind of muddied the waters there -- job security. But "analytic propositions" basically follow from that concept of "by definition". For example, "all teenagers are 13 to 19", is an example of an analytic proposition because it is "true by definition". If someone is 13 to 19 then "she/he/it" is a teenager. And if they're not 13 to 19 then they're not a teenager. No exceptions.

SAME thing with the standard biological definitions. "produces gametes" is what reputable biologists MEAN by those terms -- no gametes, no sex category membership cards.

 

[hecd2]

Maybe the fact that it's published in reputable biological dictionaries and journals? Pray tell, where are those from the people you're apparently championing? "scientism-ists", the lot by the look of it.

No - you just keep repeating the same fallacy. You are begging the question and assuming that the sources which you think support your case are authoritative and those that don't agree with you are "scientism-ists". (You might want to learn a little about logical fallacies, and in particular the fallacy, petitio principii, in the hope that you might avoid falling into it up to your neck every time you open your mouth.)

The fact is that there is some variability among the community of biologists regarding the definition of "male" and "female" (this variability mainly depends o the context - the field of study and the organisms being studied), and those who you think support your preferred definition have no more authority than those who do not. It is also a fact that some of those who you think support your idea do not do so. This has been pointed out to you many times, but you perversely and incorrigibly continue to misinterpret them, through your ignorance of English syntax and your idiosyncratic interpretation of what the phrase "the sex which produces" means.

There are many cases in which biologists and medical professionals need to distinguish anatomical, biochemical, genetic, and other characteristics of organisms based on their sex, and they do so using the terms male and female regardless of whether the organisms in question are actually producing gametes at the relevant time. This is illustrated by the lack of other terms to make the distinction in, say prepubescent or post-menopausal humans, or in dioecious plants such as the yew. A five year old boy is a male child, and yew which produces berries is a female tree even in March in the northern hemisphere.

It is abundantly clear that use of the terms male and female within the biological and medical sciences to distinguish individual organisms, whether or not they are currently producing gametes, is not just widespread but universal. No dictionary or encyclopaedia can dictate to scientists what they actually mean by the terminology they use. Biologists commonly use male and female in cases where the referent isn't currently producing gametes, and any dictionary definition must reflect that.

There are no infallible prophets or holy books in science.

But I don't think you want that there's any common definition for the sexes, particularly ones endorsed by mainstream biology and the journals seen as authoritative. You look to be solidly in the camp of the spectrumists -- making common cause with the transloonie nutcases, by intent or not.

Absolutely wrong. As we have seen clearly in this thread, the definition for male and female actually used by mainstream biologists is not the one you are promoting. There is, or ought to be, a common definition for the two (and only two) sexes - it's just not your idiosyncratic one.

I accept the proposition that there are two and only two sexes, which in the vast majority of anisogamous species, including mammals, are immutable, and which every member of that species can properly be assigned to at all times. That is the definition that is used implicitly and explicitly by the overwhelming majority of professionals working in the biological sciences. It is a useful definition, unlike yours which produces such absurd anomalies that it is completely useless in any practical sense.

 

[Myriad]

Kinda think you're missing the point, but seems worthwhile to touch on it briefly as it speaks to my "empty signifiers" above. As far you -- and most others -- are concerned, "male" and "female" mean nothing more than "penis-haver" and "vagina-haver": the Kindergarten Cop definitions. What else does it mean or signify? That is YOUR operational definition for the sexes. Fine. But it ain't biology.

You'd be further ahead to put stylized penises and vaginas over top of the entrances to the toilets -- maybe blades and chalices, as per Dan Brown, for the overly delicate.

You have indeed missed the point. You have repeatedly brought up the behavior of an individual called Tickle, and their use of particular bathrooms, as an example of problems supposedly caused by imprecise definitions of male and female. That’s only a valid argument in favor of your preferred definitions if your are better at addressing said behavior.

Using your “strict” definitions of male and female would designate Tickle as not male, not female, and therefore sexless.

How does categorizing Tickle as sexless help anyone decide which bathroom(s) Tickle should be permitted to use?

If you can’t answer that question, it proves your definitions as no more fit for purpose than those already in wide and long-standing use. That is to say, useless.

 

[HansMustermann]

Not to mention that his definition classifies pregnant women and men who had a vasectomy as both sexless, so I guess they should both go to the sexless bathroom. Replace "pregnant women" with "girls before puberty" and you get even more of an ick.

 

[theprestige]

You have indeed missed the point. You have repeatedly brought up the behavior of an individual called Tickle, and their use of particular bathrooms, as an example of problems supposedly caused by imprecise definitions of male and female. That’s only a valid argument in favor of your preferred definitions if your are better at addressing said behavior.

Part of the problem is that Steersman grossly misunderstands the phenomenon in question. There's no vague, imprecise definition that leaves Tickle confused about which bathroom to use in our society. The common binary definition is clear to Tickle, and their choice of bathroom is thus also clear: Either the bathroom identical to their sex binary, or the bathroom opposite to their sex binary.

This particular social issue has never been about strictly defining the sex binary in humans. It's always been about transcending the very clearly understood segregation along binary sex lines. The solution Steersman proffers is not applicable to the problem he purports to solve. What's worse, his solution actually exacerbates the problem he purports to solve

 

[smartcooky]

No - you just keep repeating the same fallacy. You are begging the question and assuming that the sources which you think support your case are authoritative and those that don't agree with you are "scientism-ists". (You might want to learn a little about logical fallacies, and in particular the fallacy, petitio principii, in the hope that you might avoid falling into it up to your neck every time you open your mouth.)

The fact is that there is some variability among the community of biologists regarding the definition of "male" and "female" (this variability mainly depends o the context - the field of study and the organisms being studied), and those who you think support your preferred definition have no more authority than those who do not. It is also a fact that some of those who you think support your idea do not do so. This has been pointed out to you many times, but you perversely and incorrigibly continue to misinterpret them, through your ignorance of English syntax and your idiosyncratic interpretation of what the phrase "the sex which produces" means.

There are many cases in which biologists and medical professionals need to distinguish anatomical, biochemical, genetic, and other characteristics of organisms based on their sex, and they do so using the terms male and female regardless of whether the organisms in question are actually producing gametes at the relevant time. This is illustrated by the lack of other terms to make the distinction in, say prepubescent or post-menopausal humans, or in dioecious plants such as the yew. A five year old boy is a male child, and yew which produces berries is a female tree even in March in the northern hemisphere.

It is abundantly clear that use of the terms male and female within the biological and medical sciences to distinguish individual organisms, whether or not they are currently producing gametes, is not just widespread but universal. No dictionary or encyclopaedia can dictate to scientists what they actually mean by the terminology they use. Biologists commonly use male and female in cases where the referent isn't currently producing gametes, and any dictionary definition must reflect that.

There are no infallible prophets or holy books in science.
Absolutely wrong. As we have seen clearly in this thread, the definition for male and female actually used by mainstream biologists is not the one you are promoting. There is, or ought to be, a common definition for the two (and only two) sexes - it's just not your idiosyncratic one.

I accept the proposition that there are two and only two sexes, which in the vast majority of anisogamous species, including mammals, are immutable, and which every member of that species can properly be assigned to at all times. That is the definition that is used implicitly and explicitly by the overwhelming majority of professionals working in the biological sciences. It is a useful definition, unlike yours which produces such absurd anomalies that it is completely useless in any practical sense.

/thread

(or at least, it bloody well should be!)

 

[Steersman]

Not to mention that his definition classifies pregnant women and men who had a vasectomy as both sexless, so I guess they should both go to the sexless bathroom. Replace "pregnant women" with "girls before puberty" and you get even more of an ick.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that toilets should be -- and in fact are -- segregated by genitalia. One set of loos for the penis-havers, and one set for the vagina-havers. Or reasonable facsimiles thereof.

But you're completely missing the point of my whole argument. And that of Griffiths -- from whom I more or less take my "marching orders":

"Finally, the fact that a species has only two biological sexes does not imply that every member of the species is either male, female or hermaphroditic, or that the sex of every individual organism is clear and determinate. The idea of biological sex is critical for understanding the diversity of life, but ill-suited to the job of determining the social or legal status of human beings as men or women."

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

You lot -- mostly scientism-ists at best, being charitable -- want to make the sexes into markers of that "social or legal status". A matter of identity, of "muh humanity!" Not of science, not of understanding what it means to be male and female in the first place. And the defacto criteria for membership in those categories of yours are no more genitalia. Fine. Go big. Fill yer boots.

But those implicit definitions are not at all what reputable biologists mean by those terms. I wouldn't -- Griffiths wouldn't -- give much of a rat's arse about those definitions -- except they're part and parcel of the general corruption of biology and science in general.

 

[Steersman]

You have indeed missed the point. ....

If you can’t answer that question, it proves your definitions as no more fit for purpose than those already in wide and long-standing use. That is to say, useless.

Nope, you did. WHICH purposes?

Did you, perchance, read ANY of the sources I linked to that give chapter and verse on the REASONS for the biological definitions?

Do tell, I'm all ears ...

 

[Steersman]

/thread

(or at least, it bloody well should be!)

It might be -- if you could ever get your head out of the sand, or wherever ..., and admit that the religion-less don't have a religion .... Not holding my breath ...

 

[Steersman]

....

There are no infallible prophets or holy books in science.

Where did I say there were? You clearly haven't a flaming clue about stipulative definitions. To say the least ...

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

Absolutely wrong. As we have seen clearly in this thread, the definition for male and female actually used by mainstream biologists is not the one you are promoting. There is, or ought to be, a common definition for the two (and only two) sexes - it's just not your idiosyncratic one.

Hardly "idiosyncratic" when the Oxford Dictionary of Biology endorses those "promulgated" by Parker [FRS] & Lehtonen in their article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction. None of them being chopped liver.

If anything is "idiosyncratic" it's the claptrap that Hilton & Company had had published in the UK Times letter section -- see the OP. Pray tell, exactly where are the "reputable" journals endorsing that definition? One which Hilton herself has subsequently repudiated.

I accept the proposition that there are two and only two sexes, which in the vast majority of anisogamous species, including mammals, are immutable, and which every member of that species can properly be assigned to at all times. That is the definition that is used implicitly and explicitly by the overwhelming majority of professionals working in the biological sciences. It is a useful definition, unlike yours which produces such absurd anomalies that it is completely useless in any practical sense.

Bravo. Progress. Was beginning to think you were sailing under a false flag. Though "two and only two" is a matter of definition -- the crux of the matter.

But your "useful definition" is only a matter of "operational definitions", of "proxies":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)

All of those proxies and operational definitions are only using properties that are typical of the sexes. But NONE of them say EXACTLY what it MEANS to be male and female, what the "essence" of it might be, what it is that is common across all of the millions of species which can be said to HAVE a sex, to be members of the sex categories.

Maybe there's something more fundamental than "produces gametes" -- right now, not last decade or in the next one -- but that seems as close to bedrock as biology has so far managed to get.

 

[Paul2]

nvm

 

[Steersman]

nvm

You thought you weren't being "nice" enough with this? The benefits of e-mail notifications ...

... two phenotypes, each of which are organized around the production of one type of gamete at any one point in the organism's lifetime.

Sorry, but a vague and totally useless definition. What do you MEAN by "organized around"?

How, exactly, does that work for sequential hermaphrodites, particularly clownfish at hatching? They're "organized around" EVENTUALLY producing one or the other or both. Which sex are they at that point?

And likewise with other species that don't have a sex at conception because the eventual sex is determined by incubation temperature.

"produces gametes" -- right now -- is readily detectable and observable, at least theoretically. "organized around" isn't.

A mechanical clock missing a piece is "organized around" producing sounds, but it is not "working", is not really a clock unless it is actually producing the sounds, unless one can hear the sounds it is supposed to make.

Y'all might try reading this old Psychology Today article by Robert King on Terf Wars: What Is Biological Sex? which emphasizes that point:

RK: However, I would like to offer one perspective on the issue of who is, or is not, essentially a man, or essentially a woman.

No one. …. The reason that they are wrong: No one has the essence of male or female. ....

No one has the essence of maleness or femaleness, for one simple reason: Since the 17th century, what science has been showing, in every single field, is that the folk notion of an ‘essence’ is not reflected in reality. There are no essences in nature. For the last three hundred years or so, the advance of science has been in lockstep with the insight that what really exists are processes, not essences.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hive-mind/202003/terf-wars-what-is-biological-sex

The "essence" of the biological definitions is the presence of two quite distinct processes: produces large gametes, and produces small gametes. No processes happening, no sex category membership cards. Period.

At least unless you want to go with the Kindergarten Cop definitions. Which just opens the door to people like Bruce Jenner, Khelif, and "Ms." Tickle ...

 

[Paul2]

You thought you weren't being "nice" enough with this? The benefits of e-mail notifications ...

I realized a defeater to my suggestion, one that you mention below, so I had to rethink my suggestion. That was the reason for my "nvm."

Ya know, I can almost hear the sneer behind "nice." That gives me little reason to continue with you.

Everyone else, if I post up something else in reply to Steers, remind me to stop.