Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Matthew Best]

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.

You haven't demonstrated this, just asserted it. There are only two classifications: male and female - DSDs (not sure what DSMs are) come under one or other of those two classifications. Prove me wrong.

 

[Louden Wilde]

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.

False. If people are capable of reproduction, it's because they can produce either oocytes or sperm. With people who don't produce either, we can tell which one they would produce if it were not for the defect. But note - even if we couldn't tell which gamete type they would produce - they wouldn't be relevant to a definition of a reproductive class. I'll ask again, Why are you so attached to this false belief?

 

[Louden Wilde]

It was a light switch that was claimed to be binary, a dimmer switch allows a spectrum of light levels.

It can be bright, or not too bright.

there is no intermediate gamete type, so your analogy fails

 

[smartcooky]

Light switches come in a spectrum: on, off, and broken.

Broken = Off
Its binary

It was a light switch that was claimed to be binary, a dimmer switch allows a spectrum of light levels.

It can be bright, or not too bright.

I used the words "On/Off light switch" for a reason. It excludes the light dimmer

Your sex is binary is because you have defined sex as binary, it's a classic circular argument.

The male female binary is artificial, not representative of the variations that exist.

That sex is binary is the default fact. The onus is on you to PROVE otherwise. You have failed to do so.

You have also yet to prove that any of these "variations" you imagine exist are neither male nor female

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.

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

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

OK, I challenge you to complete that chart then.

Show us all which DSD are not listed on that chart, and show us that any person with any of those unlisted DSD cannot be categorized as "male" or "female", is instead categorized as a third sex, and has a body organized around the production of gametes that are neither sperm nor eggs; gametes that have a role or function in sexual reproduction.

You see, this is the issue you keep dodging - you won't address it, and I can see why - its the thorn in your side, the elephant in the room, the inconvenient fact. For sex to be anything other than binary, there MUST be a third sex, and therefore there MUST be a third gamete type too.... there isn't, there never can be....

....and that is why you fail!

 

[Agatha]

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.

The DSM is an American publication of mental disorders.

DSDs, which is what I think you must mean, are not a different category from male or female; they are part of those categories. Some DSDs only affect males and the rest only affect females.

Humans are a species with four limbs, but someone with a disorder of limb development is not something other than human. In exactly the same way, a male with a disorder of sex development is not something other than male, and a female with a disorder of sex development is not something other than female.

You have not pointed out any human who does not fit into either male or female.

 

[d4m10n]

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?

This is a tricky exercise, because we'd have to posit first that the non-profit waded into the issue on one side and then approved a rebuttal and then subsequently took it down in order to squelch the conversation which they started. The squelching won't work, of course, because someone else will just repost the (Streisand-boosted) rebuttal like so:

Biology is not Bigotry

This piece from the biologist Jerry Coyne original appeared on the Freedom from Religion blog FreeThought now, but was later removed for dogmatic reasons. Critical Mass subscribers can read it here

substack.com

The problem with trying to steel-man this is that most thoughtful non-profits aren't going to embroil themselves in an argument against something manifestly false and harmful (e.g. vaccine denial) unless those false claims have been gaining traction in the broader culture. If such ideas have been gaining a following, though, then it's probably good to take the strongest version of them apart in public. All that said, Grant's article isn't a very strong example of the genre and Coyne's isn't particularly responsive to it. The former is mostly about "woman" as a social role (e.g. people who use the women's changing room and restroom in places that accept progressive thinking on gender) whereas the latter is mostly about "woman" as a reproductive role (i.e. people born with oocytes). Since words carry different meaning in different contexts, it's hard to say whether linguistic battle has substantively been joined here.

Grant gets some pretty basic stuff wrong about sex, e.g. patients "who receive bottom surgery have vaginas." She They ought to look up what this organ actually does and run through the checklist.

By the same token, Coyne gets some pretty basic stuff wrong about gender, such as claiming "it still has two camel’s-hump modes around 'male' and 'female,'" when in point of fact (1) female refers to sex; feminine to gender and (2) there is no ordinal variable which would allow such a plot to even exist.

This latest kerfuffle isn't a battle of steel-men, it's Amateur Hour On Sex and Gender.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I meant that I was understanding that post of yours to me a comedic aside and did not imply a critique of my steel-man.

Yes, gotcha - thank you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

JFC. Sexual DEVELOPMENT is not SEX.

Secondary sexual characteristics are not SEX
Sex-correlated attributes are not SEX
The mechanics that determine sex are not SEX
And in case it needs to be said, eye color and hair color and a preference for strawberry ice cream are also not SEX

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your sex is binary is because you have defined sex as binary, it's a classic circular argument.

No, that's not true.

Sex is binary because EVERY SINGLE SPECIES THAT WE'VE OBSERVED THAT REPRODUCES VIA SEXUAL REPRODUCTION HAS TWO AND ONLY TWO GAMETE TYPES, AND CONSEQUENTLY TWO AND ONLY TWO REPRODUCTIVE ANATOMY SETS THAT HAVE EVOLVED TO SUPPORT THOSE GAMETES.

It's based on observation across every single mammal, every single bird, and the overwhelming majority of reptiles and fish and even most insects! As well as a substantial number of plants.

Every single species we've ever looked at - both current and historic - that engages sexual reproduction in order to propagate has two distinct germ cell types, and has evolved the physical structures to support one or the other of those germ cell types. These are distinctly different structures, that have evolved for distinct purposes. Just like a liver and a spleen are both organs in the human body, but have evolved to perform different functions, so too have our reproductive systems - one evolved to support and produce large gametes, the other to support and produce small gametes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

What is missing?

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

What is DSM and why on earth do you think it's not male or female?

The male female binary is artificial, not representative of the variations that exist.

All you have to do to win this argument is to present a human being that has a distinctly different reproductive system that has evolved to support the production of either an in-between sperg gamete or a completely new and distinctly different third gamete. That's all. Show just one single example and you win.

Go on, I'll wait.

 

[bobdroege7]

You have not pointed out any human who does not fit into either male or female.

Yes I have.

Pseudohermaphrodites do not fit neatly into either male or female.

Sex is not binary.

Sex, Gender, and Sexuality Are Binary - Fact or Myth?

Studies have shown there is no single determinant of sex, gender, or sexuality. In terms of both sex (genetic) and gender (a social construct), a binary distinction of "male or female" fails to describe a wide range of humans in practice. Meanwhile, sexuality (a preference) eludes any simple...

factmyth.com

 

[bobdroege7]

Broken = Off


You see, this is the issue you keep dodging - you won't address it, and I can see why - its the thorn in your side, the elephant in the room, the inconvenient fact. For sex to be anything other than binary, there MUST be a third sex, and therefore there MUST be a third gamete type too.... there isn't, there never can be....

....and that is why you fail!

First, broken can also be always on, you fail on that one.

Second, I have already addressed your requirement that there must be a third sex or a third gamete, that's false.

 

[bobdroege7]

False. If people are capable of reproduction, it's because they can produce either oocytes or sperm. With people who don't produce either, we can tell which one they would produce if it were not for the defect. But note - even if we couldn't tell which gamete type they would produce - they wouldn't be relevant to a definition of a reproductive class. I'll ask again, Why are you so attached to this false belief?

I'll answer the why, and the belief is not false.

It's become political, I don't think law makers should get between doctors and patients.

If I don't stand up for trans people there will be nobody to stand up for me when they come for me.

It's a basic human rights issue.

I do know a handful of trans people, and their rights should not be restricted.

 

[smartcooky]

First, broken can also be always on, you fail on that one.

On/off = binary
Broken on/Broken off = still binary

Second, I have already addressed your requirement that there must be a third sex or a third gamete, that's false.

No you didn't. You posted stuff you pulled out of your own arse!

 

[smartcooky]

Yes I have.

Pseudohermaphrodites do not fit neatly into either male or female.

Pseudohermaphrodites are either classified as male: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/male-pseudohermaphroditism

Or they are classified as female: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topic...ceutical-science/female-pseudohermaphroditism

There are no pseudohermaphrodites that are classified as neither, therefore, no third sex, no third gamete type, and sex remains binary.

You are really are not very good at this!

 

[smartcooky]

I'll answer the why, and the belief is not false.

Delusional

It's become political, I don't think law makers should get between doctors and patients.

You're right, including not getting between battered woman and/or rape victims, and their counselors!

If I don't stand up for trans people there will be nobody to stand up for me when they come for me.

You think transpeople are coming for you? Paranoid much?

It's a basic human rights issue.

Yes it is a basic human rights issue. The human rights of half the population should NOT be trampled over to satisfy the predilections of a tiny minority.

I do know a handful of trans people, and their rights should not be restricted.

Oooh, you're playing the "some of my best friends" card. Are any of you best friends women? Or Black?

[OFF TOPIC] but related
Well guess what. I know several LGBTQ+ people too. One of the activities I am involved in (competitive equestrian sports) has a lot of them. NOT ONE OF THEM thinks that sex is on a spectrum. They all believe (correctly) that it is binary (I've asked them).

The three transwomen I know are all pissed off with this Liberal political zeal to legalize fiat self ID. Its ruined everything for them - they used to be able to go about their business and private lives including using women's rest rooms, and no-one would bat an eyelid. Now, they feel like they are being watched and stared at wherever they go and whatever they do. It is biological revisionists like you who are the direct cause of this - you're hurting the very people you claim to be protecting!

 

[Agatha]

Yes I have.

Pseudohermaphrodites do not fit neatly into either male or female.

Sex is not binary.

Sex, Gender, and Sexuality Are Binary - Fact or Myth?

Studies have shown there is no single determinant of sex, gender, or sexuality. In terms of both sex (genetic) and gender (a social construct), a binary distinction of "male or female" fails to describe a wide range of humans in practice. Meanwhile, sexuality (a preference) eludes any simple...

factmyth.com

A pseudohermaphrodite is still either male or female.

That article keeps trying to conflate sex, gender and sexuality, and is pushing the idea that people with DSDs are something other than male or female.

ETA and to show jut how far away from facts that site is, another article on that site claims that trans people change sex, and that sports competitors can choose their own sex.

 

[pipelineaudio]

The three transwomen I know are all pissed off with this Liberal political zeal to legalize fiat self ID. Its ruined everything for them - they used to be able to go about their business and private lives including using women's rest rooms, and no-one would bat an eyelid. Now, they feel like they are being watched and stared at wherever they go and whatever they do. It is biological revisionists like you who are the direct cause of this - you're hurting the very people you claim to be protecting!

This is the current situation in Hawaii as well. Here they say "we had this stuff figured out long before recorded history and now some haoles want to come in, pretend to great white savior for us and turn us into victims". It was never an issue, past the un-PC jokes that every group is part of here until some Portland/Seattle/San Fran SJWs decided to come in and White Knight for people who didn't want any

 

[theprestige]

I guess I'm at the point where I'm less interested in rebutting bob's argument, and more interested in finding out what practical application, if any, does his definition have.

@bobdroege7 what are the practical applications you envision, for the concept of biological sex as a spectrum?

 

[Steersman]

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.

<snip>

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.

So what if there's no way to order a range or series of nominal categories? That doesn't mean that they don't constitute a spectrum, only that there's a limited number of arithmetic operations that can be done with the data.

Relative to the first point, you -- and several others here -- might try reading these articles on spectrum and on categorical variables:

Spectrum has since been applied by analogy to topics outside optics. Thus, one might talk about the "spectrum of political opinion", or the "spectrum of activity" of a drug, or the "autism spectrum". In these uses, values within a spectrum may not be associated with precisely quantifiable numbers or definitions. Such uses imply a broad range of conditions or behaviors grouped together and studied under a single title for ease of discussion.

Spectrum - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In statistics, a categorical variable (also called qualitative variable) is a variable that can take on one of a limited, and usually fixed, number of possible values, assigning each individual or other unit of observation to a particular group or nominal category on the basis of some qualitative property.

Categorical variable - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Relative to my previous joint probability distribution by heights and karyotypes, karyotype is a nominal categorical variable and all of the different karyotypes are nominal categories. Which can still be arranged in a somewhat arbitrary spectrum.

And, relative to my second point above, what can not be done -- as you and others reasonably point out -- is to use the distribution to get, for examples, measures of median and standard deviations. See:

A nominal scale [AKA spectrum] consists only of a number of distinct classes or categories, for example: [Cat, Dog, Rabbit]. Unlike the other scales, no kind of relationship between the classes can be relied upon. Thus measuring with the nominal scale is equivalent to classifying. .... No form of arithmetic computation (+, −, ×, etc.) may be performed on nominal measures. The nominal level is the lowest measurement level used from a statistical point of view.

Level of measurement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org