Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Emily's Cat]

That the items or instances in a category -- blood types for example -- are
{not} ordinal doesn't mean they can't be arbitrarily ordered into a spectrum of sorts.

Corrected the highlighted bit...

Please explain, how do I tell which is the smaller blood type? Is A > B? Is O < A?

 

[jt512]

Jerry Coyne wrote an article, posted on the Freedom From Religion Foundation's house blog, freethoughtnow.org, as a response to an earlier article defining sex from a TRA position, Coyne arguing for the sex binary and defining sex in biological terms. His post was removed by the FFRF. Here is Coyne's post on his own web site explaining.

In response to FFRF's turning its back on science in favor of gender ideology, three prominent scientists have publicly resign from FFRF's Board: Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and, of course, Jerry Coyne himself.

 

[smartcooky]

Breeding bull means it's definitely male. Mixed blood cells suggests it was a twin... which would mean that it's sister is a freemartin.

But..

Still not a third sex
Still not conceived from anything other than one small gamete and one large gamete
Still doesn't make sex bimodal or on a spectrum.

And for the benefit of Steersman, a Freemartin is still female
https://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/975/what-is-a-freemartin/"This condition causes infertility in the female cattle born twin to a male. When a heifer twin shares the uterus with a bull fetus, they also share the placental membranes connecting the fetuses with the dam."

 

[smartcooky]

In response to FFRF's turning its back on science in favor of gender ideology, three prominent scientists have publicly resign from FFRF's Board: Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and, of course, Jerry Coyne himself.

We can add FFRF to the list of ideologically captured organizations that used to promote actual science, and now promotes pseudo science and crackpot biology.

 

[Paul2]

In response to FFRF's turning its back on science in favor of gender ideology, three prominent scientists have publicly resign from FFRF's Board: Steven Pinker, Richard Dawkins, and, of course, Jerry Coyne himself.

My sympathies lie with Coyne et al, but I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Here's an instructive exercise, perhaps. For those in sympathy with Coyne, can you imagine an guest article posted up to a national non-profit blog that you would approve removal for similar reasons as Coyne's article was removed?

If not, try again and imagine the most harmful article you can imagine: if you are a member of any minority, imagine the most harmful article directed at that minority. I'm half Jewish, so, in my case, I can imagine a guest editorial by a Holocaust denier, using the same tone and civility as Coyne did. Even better, how about an article promoting the (fake) Protocols of the Elders of Zion? If you *can* imagine something you'd censor, might those against Coyne consider that they are drawing a similar line? If you can not, then you're at least consistent.

 

[jt512]

We can add FFRF to the list of ideologically captured organizations that used to promote actual science, and now promotes pseudo science and crackpot biology.

Yup.

My sympathies lie with Coyne et al, but I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Here's an instructive exercise, perhaps. For those in sympathy with Coyne, can you imagine an guest article posted up to a national non-profit blog that you would approve removal for similar reasons as Coyne's article was removed?

No.

If not, try again and imagine the most harmful article you can imagine: if you are a member of any minority, imagine the most harmful article directed at that minority.

Jerry's commentary was not anyone or any minority.

I'm half Jewish, so, in my case, I can imagine a guest editorial by a Holocaust denier, using the same tone and civility as Coyne did. Even better, how about an article promoting the (fake) Protocols of the Elders of Zion? If you *can* imagine something you'd censor, might those against Coyne consider that they are drawing a similar line? If you can not, then you're at least consistent.

You've got this exactly backward. Jerry wrote a scientifically correct commentary in response to ideologically driven science denial. To use your analogy, Jerry would be the Holocaust denier, he would be responding to the Holocaust denier.

 

[Paul2]

Yup.

No.

Jerry's commentary was not anyone or any minority.

True, but I don't think that spoils the analogy.

You've got this exactly backward.

I'm not sure what position you think I'm taking such that I have it backward. I'm trying to steel man the opponents of Coyne.

Jerry wrote a scientifically correct commentary in response to ideologically driven science denial. To use your analogy, Jerry would be the Holocaust denier, he would be responding to the Holocaust denier.

My analogy isn't about a reply per se, it's about the standards for censoring any article, reply or not, and whether those against censoring Coyne might still censor an article, reply or not.

 

[smartcooky]

True, but I don't think that spoils the analogy.


I'm not sure what position you think I'm taking such that I have it backward. I'm trying to steel man the opponents of Coyne.

My analogy isn't about a reply per se, it's about the standards for censoring any article, reply or not, and whether
those against censoring Coyne might still censor an article, reply or not.

Holocaust deniers are vile and ought to be censored.... and you don't have to be Jewish to be offended by them.

On the other hand, those who speak objective, observable scientific truth are not vile. They are correct (always) and should never be censored, no matter how much it might offend a tiny minority group.

And this is not a "both sides have valid points" issue.... one side is correct, and the other side is wrong. Its that simple!

Those who say that sex is binary, and immutable in humans are correct.
Those who say its flexible, bimodal and on a spectrum are wrong.
These are observable, scientific truths, the reality of which is obvious to anyone who studies the topic at even the most basic level.

Those who argue that sex is flexible, bimodal and on a spectrum have failed to come up with any evidence that supports their spurious claims. We've had hints, suggestions, maybes, whataboutisms, speculation and fabrication. In other words, the best they could find in their frantic Google searches.

No third sex type
No third gamete type
No measurable scale of "maleness" or "femaleness"

When we ask for these things, we get dodges, derails and obfuscations, usually followed by more hints, suggestions, maybes, whataboutisms, speculation and fabrication.

 

[Steersman]

Corrected the highlighted bit...

Please explain, how do I tell which is the smaller blood type? Is A > B? Is O < A?

Thanks for the correction.

But it's largely immaterial how you order the blood types in some "spectrum". It could, for examples, be alphabetical or by molecular weight. Here's another example, a spectrum of karyotypes:



A joint population distribution of two spectra -- karyotypes and heights, only the latter being an ordinal category. One might order the karyotypes by assigning a zero to the X and a one to the Y in the chromosome. Regardless of how the karyotypes are ordered it's still a spectrum.

 

[Steersman]

Those who say that sex is binary, and immutable in humans are correct.

That depends entirely on how one defines the sex categories. As I've indicated dozens of times, the standard biological definitions for the sexes stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Hardly "immutable" HTH ...

 

[jt512]

True, but I don't think that spoils the analogy.


I'm not sure what position you think I'm taking such that I have it backward. I'm trying to steel man the opponents of Coyne.

My analogy isn't about a reply per se, it's about the standards for censoring any article, reply or not, and whether those against censoring Coyne might still censor an article, reply or not.

They censored a scientifically accurate post from their blog, which they have the temerity to call Freethought Now, because their ideology denies the science. There is nothing to be steel manned.

 

[Rolfe]

Breeding bull means it's definitely male. Mixed blood cells suggests it was a twin... which would mean that it's sister is a freemartin.

Correct. I'm not sure my friend even bothered to tell the farmer who bought the bull that he was a twin to a freemartin. That's how unimportant it is to the animal's use in breeding. But hey, XX cells!

 

[jt512]

More on the kerfuffle at the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

Prominent atheists ditch Freedom From Religion Foundation as org doubles down on censorship, 'extreme gender activism'

A trio of prominent atheists have resigned from the Freedom From Religion Foundation's board of honorary directors following the non-profit's decision to double down on censorship and "extreme gender activism."

www.westernstandard.news

 

[Paul2]

They censored a scientifically accurate post from their blog, which they have the temerity to call Freethought Now, because their ideology denies the science. There is nothing to be steel manned.

Steel-manning is taking a position, even one you know to be wrong, illogical, ill-advised, and smelly, and putting it in the best possible terms, even if those terms are horrible and make no sense. My suggested entry into that steel-manning was to imagine an article that one would censor for similar motivations as Coyne's was.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thanks for the correction.

But it's largely immaterial how you order the blood types in some "spectrum". It could, for examples, be alphabetical or by molecular weight. Here's another example, a spectrum of karyotypes:



A joint population distribution of two spectra -- karyotypes and heights, only the latter being an ordinal category. One might order the karyotypes by assigning a zero to the X and a one to the Y in the chromosome. Regardless of how the karyotypes are ordered it's still a spectrum.

The entire point is that non-ordinal categories are *arbitrarily* laid out. You get to choose the order, based on whatever whim you wish, and it has nothing to do with any innate characteristic of what's being plotted. And because it's arbitrary, any suggestion of a pattern that sort of looks like a defined probability density function is an illusion.

Consider five non-ordinal items that you're plotting the count of. Let's say you have 5 apples, 4 bananas, 3 grapes, 2 oranges, and 1 strawberry.

If you arbitrarily decide to order them alphabetically, then it will look like you have a linearly reducing function.
If you arbitrarily decide to order them reverse-alphabetically, then it magically because a linearly increasing function.
If you arbitrarily decide to order them based on my personal preference of gummi bear flavors (strawberry, grape, apple, banana, orange), you have something that looks like a normal function.
If you arbitrarily decide to order them based on my spouse's whim (strawberry, banana, grape, apple, orange), you end up with something that looks like a bimodal distribution.

Because there is no innate orderability to the categories... any apparent "function" is artificial and illusory.

In your example... the only spectrum that exists in with respect to height - and height is ordinal. There is no spectrum for karyotype, as there is no innate way to order them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That depends entirely on how one defines the sex categories. As I've indicated dozens of times, the standard biological definitions for the sexes stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Hardly "immutable" HTH ...

You saying it multiple times doesn't make it true. Your "standard" definition is NOT the standard definition. It's your personal interpretation, based on what you are assuming beforehand then wedging the definition into.

 

[bobdroege7]

Like this definition:

"either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:
"adults of both sexes"

Hmm, but not a biological definition.

 

[Trausti]

Like this definition:

"either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions:
"adults of both sexes"

Hmm, but not a biological definition.

Either you contribute your mitochondria to the offspring or you don't. Binary.

 

[jt512]

Steel-manning is taking a position, even one you know to be wrong, illogical, ill-advised, and smelly, and putting it in the best possible terms, even if those terms are horrible and make no sense. My suggested entry into that steel-manning was to imagine an article that one would censor for similar motivations as Coyne's was.

I know what the word means. But some things are just categorically wrong. Try steel-manning, say, lynching.

 

[Paul2]

I know what the word means. But some things are just categorically wrong.

I'm not sure you're aware that it's possible to steel-man something that is categorically wrong (see below).

Try steel-manning, say, lynching.

Here's what chatgpt says:

• Social Order and Vigilantism: Proponents might argue that lynching was a form of "justice" in communities where formal legal systems were perceived as ineffective, slow, or corrupt. They could claim it provided a way to swiftly address alleged crimes, particularly in isolated areas with limited access to courts or law enforcement.
• Community Solidarity: In some cases, lynching was framed as a collective action that demonstrated the community's shared moral values or resolve to address perceived threats, whether real or fabricated.
• Deterrence: Some might argue that lynching acted as a deterrent to criminal behavior by demonstrating severe consequences for transgressions, thus discouraging others from committing similar acts.