Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

Paul2 said:
I'm not sure you're aware that it's possible to steel-man something that is categorically wrong (see below).


Here's what chatgpt says:
Click to expand...
Lol, replace "lynching" with "shooting" and your first chatgbt item in there seems to cover a lot of the sentiments surrounding the United CEO assassination...
 
Emily's Cat said:
Lol, replace "lynching" with "shooting" and your first chatgbt item in there seems to cover a lot of the sentiments surrounding the United CEO assassination...
Click to expand...
Sure. I take the above *not* as a critique of steel-manning lynching, let me know if I'm wrong.
 
Paul2 said:
I'm not sure you're aware that it's possible to steel-man something that is categorically wrong (see below).
Click to expand...
I'm saying that attempting to steel man some things is repugnant. Only a psychopath would even entertain the idea of steel manning, say, the Holocaust.
 
jt512 said:
I'm saying that attempting to steel man some things is repugnant. Only a psychopath would even entertain the idea of steel manning, say, the Holocaust.
Click to expand...
At least your position is clear. From "On Liberty" by John Stuart Mill:
First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.

Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.

Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.

And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt convictions, from reason or personal experience.
Click to expand...
ETA: [Audaciously attempting to improve on John Stuart Mill]
Lastly and fifthly, when an opinion so self-evidently true may be propagated without retort or challenge, it opens the door to all manner of falsities, either existing within some more general truth, or completely self-contained, to then claim the same mantle of inviolability, to the damage of all.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
BOOM!!!!

Its not meant to be a definition
Its meant to be, AND IS, an indisputable fact
Click to expand...

Just because you can pick two things out of a spectrum does not make it binary.

Too many factors affect sexual development for the result to be binary.

That's another, better fact.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Just because you can pick two things out of a spectrum does not make it binary.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
Picking the ONLY two things out of your claimed, non-existent spectrum (non-existent because you are still yet to present any valid evidence for its existence) makes those two items a binary.

bobdroege7 said:
Too many factors affect sexual development for the result to be binary.
Click to expand...
Factors involved in sexual development have ZERO effect on whether sex is, or is not, on a spectrum.
The On/Off light switch is binary... your argument is tantamount to claiming that the on/off light switch is on a spectrum because many different factors were involved in developing and manufacturing the light switch.

Over here is the real word, only the result matters. This result (in humans) can only be male or female (like a light switch, the result is ON or OFF).

As I have made clear before, until you can provide evidence of a third sex in humans (different from male or female) and a third gamete type (other than sperm or egg) that is involved in sexual reproduction, your claim that sex is anything other than binary fails, and fails spectactularly. You are, and always will be, backing a losing claim.

bobdroege7 said:
That's another, better fact.
Click to expand...
Utter bollocks
 
bobdroege7 said:
Just because you can pick two things out of a spectrum does not make it binary.

Too many factors affect sexual development for the result to be binary.

That's another, better fact.
Click to expand...
It's binary. There are only two reproductive roles; every mammal - including humans - is the product of the fusion of oocyte and sperm. This has been explained to you many times. You clearly didn't read (or at least understand) my long post or any of more concise versions from others. You cant use disorders as counter examples - one literally couldn't make any statement about humans or any group of organisms with that logic - e.g. humans have well developed forebrains, but some are born without them . Your second argument makes no sense - There are many genes involved in the development of every organ system. My only question for you is why you're trying to argue this. As Joe Random asked a few pages back - what do you think follows from your mistaken assertion that sex is a spectrum?
 
Last edited:
Your sex is binary is because you have defined sex as binary, it's a classic circular argument.

And just because I don't agree with your statement does not mean I didn't read it.

It's not a mistake assertion, it follows from the data, intersex individuals do exist, and no matter how you define sex, there will be individuals that don't fit neatly into your binary system.
 
smartcooky said:
Wrong.
Picking the ONLY two things out of your claimed, non-existent spectrum (non-existent because you are still yet to present any valid evidence for its existence) makes those two items a binary.


Factors involved in sexual development have ZERO effect on whether sex is, or is not, on a spectrum.
The On/Off light switch is binary... your argument is tantamount to claiming that the on/off light switch is on a spectrum because many different factors were involved in developing and manufacturing the light switch.

Over here is the real word, only the result matters. This result (in humans) can only be male or female (like a light switch, the result is ON or OFF).

As I have made clear before, until you can provide evidence of a third sex in humans (different from male or female) and a third gamete type (other than sperm or egg) that is involved in sexual reproduction, your claim that sex is anything other than binary fails, and fails spectactularly. You are, and always will be, backing a losing claim.


Utter bollocks
Click to expand...
Light switches come in a spectrum: on, off, and broken.
 
bobdroege7 said:
Your sex is binary is because you have defined sex as binary, it's a classic circular argument.

And just because I don't agree with your statement does not mean I didn't read it.

It's not a mistake assertion, it follows from the data, intersex individuals do exist, and no matter how you define sex, there will be individuals that don't fit neatly into your binary system.
Click to expand...
People with DSDs are still either male or female, as shown on the chart that's been posted several times already. They aren't a third sex or an in-between sex, despite your attempts to misrepresent them as such.
 
Agatha said:
People with DSDs are still either male or female, as shown on the chart that's been posted several times already. They aren't a third sex or an in-between sex, despite your attempts to misrepresent them as such.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times that chart is posted, it is still incomplete.

As I have already pointed out there are humans who do not fit into the three classifications, male, female, and DSMs.

The male female binary is artificial, not representative of the variations that exist.
 
Ron Obvious said:
I don't think you know what the word spectrum means.
Click to expand...
This is the definition I was using.

  1. used to classify something, or suggest that it can be classified, in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme or opposite points:
    "the left or the right of the political spectrum"
    • a wide range:
      "self-help books are covering a broader and broader spectrum"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom