Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Rolfe]

Many physical traits have a bimodal distribution. In normal times, when people are thinking sensibly, they realise this indicates that two distinct populations are present in the sample.

 

[jt512]

Many physical traits have a bimodal distribution. In normal times, when people are thinking sensibly, they realise this indicates that two distinct populations are present in the sample.

Except that sex is binary. Period.

 

[smartcooky]

Finally, to disprove the sex binary what you should do is find a class of individuals that are demonstrably not either female or male and yet reproduce. We can't find such a class despite many millions of observations across mammals.

... and without changing the definitions of words to suit whatever argument he can come up with!

 

[Rolfe]

Except that sex is binary. Period.

I think that's what I said. Two distinct populations.

 

[jt512]

I think that's what I said. Two distinct populations.

You seemed to have granted that sex is bimodal, which would allow for an infinite number of sexes.

 

[Rolfe]

Read what I said. Many physical traits have a bimodal distribution. That's because two distinct populations are present in the data.

 

[jt512]

Read what I said. Many physical traits have a bimodal distribution. That's because two distinct populations are present in the data.

Sex doesn't have a bimodal distribution.

This is a bimodal distribution:

If sex has a bimodal distribution (rather than a binary distribution), what in the above figure are all the sexes, other than those represented by the peaks?

 

[sphenisc]

Sex doesn't have a bimodal distribution.

This is a bimodal distribution:

If sex has a bimodal distribution (rather than a binary distribution), what in the above figure are all the sexes, other than those represented by the peaks?

A bimodal distribution is characterised by having two modes. That's it.

The fact your example has numerous ordinal values is irrelevant. It is an incidental property of the example you have happened to choose, just as much as the fact it is displayed in blue.

 

[jt512]

A bimodal distribution is characterised by having two modes. That's it.

The fact your example has numerous ordinal values is irrelevant. It is an incidental property of the example you have happened to choose, just as much as the fact it is displayed in blue.

Your word salad notwithstanding, Rolfe's post implies that sex has a distribution like the one I depicted.

 

[Elaedith]

Your word salad notwithstanding, Rolfe's post implies that sex has a distribution like the one I depicted.

No, she said if physical traits (such as secondary sexual characteristics) have a bimodal distribution, that shows that sex is binary.

 

[Rolfe]

No, she said if physical traits (such as secondary sexual characteristics) have a bimodal distribution, that shows that sex is binary.

Correct.

 

[jt512]

…if physical traits (such as secondary sexual characteristics) have a bimodal distribution, that shows that sex is binary.

That is obviously false.

 

[Rolfe]

Duh? I think you need to show your working on that.

 

[Agatha]

Adult height (for example) plotted against sex shows a bimodal distribution - sex is binary, height is influenced by sex (notwithstanding the fact that there are tall women and short men).

 

[Rolfe]

I wasn't sure if height showed enough of a split for that to be a useful example, but that is indeed what I mean.

But in general, if you are plotting a variable and you find a bimodal distribution, that's a damn good clue that your population is actually composed of two distinct groups.

 

[smartcooky]

Sex doesn't have a bimodal distribution.

This is a bimodal distribution:

If sex has a bimodal distribution (rather than a binary distribution), what in the above figure are all the sexes, other than those represented by the peaks?

Are you just ignoring the word "traits" in Rolfe's answer?

She not saying sex is bimodal, she is saying the "traits" related to sex are bimodal.

For example, if you took 10000 randomly selected adults, looked at their physical strength (which is a trait) and plotted them on a graph (x axis = weight, y= frequency) you would end up with a graph much like the one you posted. Same for physical size, height, weight emotional responses etc.

 

[Rolfe]

Are you just ignoring the word "traits" in Rolfe's answer?

She not saying sex is bimodal, she is saying the "traits" related to sex are bimodal.

For example, if you took 10000 randomly selected adults, looked at their physical strength (which is a trait) and plotted them on a graph (x axis = weight, y= frequency) you would end up with a graph much like the one you posted. Same for physical size, height, weight emotional responses etc.

I think you'd get much more of an overlap than on the schematic he posted. It's certainly not the case that there is a complete separation between males and females on any of these traits. You might not even see two appreciably separate peaks on some of them (height?).

 

[smartcooky]

I think you'd get much more of an overlap than on the schematic he posted. It's certainly not the case that there is a complete separation between males and females on any of these traits. You might not even see two appreciably separate peaks on some of them (height?).

Adult humans average height
Females 161 cm (5ft 3½ in).
Males 175 cm (5ft 9 in).
Males are on average are 8.5% taller.
I think that would resolve to two distinguishable peaks.

Adult humans average weight
Femaled approx.77kg (170lb).
Males approx. 91 kg (200lb).
Males are on average 17% heavier
This is significant enough to resolve into two definite peaks

Adult humans typical average punching power
Females 945 Newtons of force (38 to 57 psi on a SPARQ test).
Males 2500 Newtons of force (100 to 150psi on a SPARQ test).
Males on average have 162% more punching power.
This would definitely resolve to two distinct peaks.

* SPARQ is an acronym for Speed, Power, Agility, Reaction and Quickness.
*All height and weight figured from the CDC
*Punching power figures from MDPI

 

[jt512]

Are you just ignoring the word "traits" in Rolfe's answer?

She not saying sex is bimodal, she is saying the "traits" related to sex are bimodal.

For example, if you took 10000 randomly selected adults, looked at their physical strength (which is a trait) and plotted them on a graph (x axis = weight, y= frequency) you would end up with a graph much like the one you posted. Same for physical size, height, weight emotional responses etc.

No, but I thought the trait that she was referring to was sex.

 

[Rolfe]

Sex is not a trait, for crying out loud!