Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[bobdroege7]

None so blind as those who will not see. Here are a set of gold standard definitions for the sexes from the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1039879009407037441

It is still determined by genes, chromosomes, and hormones, not defined by words.

 

[theprestige]

Any chance someone could move on from admiring the problem, to offering practical applications of the spectrum paradigm?

 

[ahhell]

Any chance someone could move on from admiring the problem, to offering practical applications of the spectrum paradigm?

The spectrum paradigm means there's no reason to prevent any women from competing in women's sports, or keep them from women's restrooms, or prevent them from being rape counselors, or keep them out of women's shelters due to the gametes they produce.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are probably dozens of definitions that have defined the sex categories, some that are more or less standard and well regarded by most biologists worth their salt. See:

View attachment 58384
The problem is generally that too many people get their knickers in twist over them largely because they "think" it deprives them of their "humanity" . Many of them, like most of the transloonies, have turned the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences" instead of recognizing them as labels for transitory reproductive abilities.

I don't know how many times we've been through this, but your entire premise is based on a lack of reading comrehension with respect to these definitions.

I'll give it one more go.

With emphasis...
Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult PHENOTYPE that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.

You keep misrepresenting this as if it says:
Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as individuals that PRODUCE larger gametes in anisogamous systems.

The definition is based on the phenotype - and in this context, it means the phenotype of the reproductive system. Actual production of gametes isn't required. A male who's had an orchiectomy cannot produce sperm, but still has the PHENOTYPE that produces smaller gametes within the human anisogamous system.

 

[angrysoba]

Any chance someone could move on from admiring the problem, to offering practical applications of the spectrum paradigm?

Are we talking about toilets?

Judging by the description of the condition Steve Novella (and Louden White) gives regarding CAIS, it would appear that this is an example of someone who is biologically male and yet is likely to appear female in outward appearance, and perhaps even more so if female hormones are recommended for medical treatment as well as removal of male sex organs to the extent the person has them. It makes every sense that they are permitted into women’s toilets in any sane society.

But this is why I suspect that Novella is suggesting a motte-and-bailey. We can easily acknowledge that there are edge cases where even strict biological definitions have to meet a social reality, but that the chances are that they make up about 0% of the trans rights lobby, so they seem to be used as strategic minorities within a minority.

 

[Emily's Cat]

x

 

[theprestige]

The spectrum paradigm means there's no reason to prevent any women from competing in women's sports, or keep them from women's restrooms, or prevent them from being rape counselors, or keep them out of women's shelters due to the gametes they produce.

I don't buy it. Steersman has come out vehemently against this. Bobby D has certainly not come out for it. So I'm still waiting for the thing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It is still determined by genes, chromosomes, and hormones, not defined by words.

Determination and Definition are not the same things.

Defining Sex vs Determining Sex — Paradox Institute

Many often conflate two concepts in biology: how sex is defined versus how sex is determined. Here’s why the difference is important.

www.theparadoxinstitute.com

 

[theprestige]

Are we talking about toilets?

I have no idea what we're talking about, in terms of practical applications. Steersman's proposals seem absurdly counter productive. @bobdroege7 hasn't made any specific proposals at all, so far. Just some vague handwaving towards medical outcomes, upon which he refuses to elaborate.

It's almost like sex as a spectrum has no practical applications.

 

[angrysoba]

I have no idea what we're talking about, in terms of practical applications. Steersman's proposals seem absurdly counter productive. @bobdroege7 hasn't made any specific proposals at all, so far. Just some vague handwaving towards medical outcomes, upon which he refuses to elaborate.

It's almost like sex as a spectrum has no practical applications.

Yeah, me neither. But I am proposing that this may be one area.

We can say, "look biological sex is important and that has social implications."
Someone else might say, "Ah, but biology creates some complications."
To which we might ask, "Oh really? Can you give me an example?"
They reply, "This specific example."
We respond, "Oh, okay. Yep, that does seem to be a case where the line is blurred. Very well, we can accommodate that easily enough by agreeing to..."

But again, it seems that we don't really have a lot of issues unless someone tries to motte-and-baily it.

 

[Steersman]

It is still determined by genes, chromosomes, and hormones, not defined by words.

How else do you think the sex categories are going to be defined? Smoke signals?

Don't think you quite understand how definitions work and the reasons for them. You might try reading, and thinking about, this article:

A definition is a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols). Definitions can be classified into two large categories: intensional definitions (which try to give the sense of a term), and extensional definitions (which try to list the objects that a term describes) ....

In modern usage, a definition is something, typically expressed in words, that attaches a meaning to a word or group of words. The word or group of words that is to be defined is called the definiendum, and the word, group of words, or action that defines it is called the definiens. For example, in the definition "An elephant is a large gray animal native to Asia and Africa", the word "elephant" is the definiendum, and everything after the word "is" is the definiens.

Definition - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the case of the sex categories, reputable biologists, and reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias are SAYING that "male" and "female" are the definiendums and that "produces small gametes" and "produces large gametes", respectively, are corresponding definiens. Those reputable sources are saying that those definiens are what they MEAN when they use those words, that that is what the terms DENOTE:




"All" that your "hormones, chromosomes, and genes" are doing is providing the mechanism, the "recipe" for the creation of organisms that produce either small or large gametes -- which are DEFINED as males and females, respectively. Entirely different kettles of fish.

 

[Steersman]

I don't know how many times we've been through this ...

And you still get it wrong ...

Though your acceptance that human embryos before some 6 weeks don't have a sex is maybe a hopeful sign. Don't think you quite understand or appreciate, or want to get, that the "phenotype" changes substantially over the course of our lives, and that Parker's & Lehtonen's definitions are specifying that it is ONLY the stage, the specific and current phenotype, that is currently producing gametes that can "count as referents of the terms 'male' and 'female':

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

Extensional and intensional definitions - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That definition is saying that the "necessary and sufficient condition" that an organism MUST have to be counted as a referent of the terms "male" and "female" is to actually have the property of producing gametes -- not last year or next month but right now.

The definition is based on the phenotype - and in this context, it means the phenotype of the reproductive system. Actual production of gametes isn't required. A male who's had an orchiectomy cannot produce sperm, but still has the PHENOTYPE that produces smaller gametes within the human anisogamous system.

Yeah, actual production IS required. Your male with the orchiectomy once had a phenotype that actually produced small gametes, but now he only has a phenotype that is similar to his previous one. You may wish to reflect on this article:

In genetics, the phenotype (from Ancient Greek φαίνω (phaínō) 'to appear, show' and τύπος (túpos) 'mark, type') is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism.

Phenotype - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Though "observable characteristics" is somewhat subjective or contingent on methods of observation.

But that male of yours once had the phenotype of "has testicles"; he once had the set of "observable traits" that included "has testicles", but now he doesn't so he can't very well be producing any small gametes. Ergo, sexless. HTH ...

 

[Steersman]

Are we talking about toilets?

Judging by the description of the condition Steve Novella (and Louden White) gives regarding CAIS, it would appear that this is an example of someone who is biologically male and yet is likely to appear female in outward appearance ...

CAIS people are most certainly not "biologically male" -- they're phenotypically female, genotypically and "gonadally" male, but they're lacking the sine qua non for "male" --, i.e., functional testicles, the actual ability to produce sperm -- ergo, sexless, neither male nor female:

Persons with a complete androgen insensitivity have a typical female external phenotype, despite having a 46,XY karyotype.

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.... We can easily acknowledge that there are edge cases where even strict biological definitions have to meet a social reality ...

Why? You think Galileo should have agreed with the "social reality" of the Church that the Earth was the center of the universe? Darwin likewise?

 

[angrysoba]

CAIS people are most certainly not "biologically male" -- they're phenotypically female, genotypically and "gonadally" male, but they're lacking the sine qua non for "male" --, i.e., functional testicles, the actual ability to produce sperm -- ergo, sexless, neither male nor female:

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Why? You think Galileo should have agreed with the "social reality" of the Church that the Earth was the center of the universe? Darwin likewise?

The social reality is that we have sex-segregated toilets. You say that CAIS people are neither male nor female. So does that mean they don't get to use either toilet?

 

[smartcooky]

I have no idea what we're talking about, in terms of practical applications. Steersman's proposals seem absurdly counter productive. @bobdroege7 hasn't made any specific proposals at all, so far. Just some vague handwaving towards medical outcomes, upon which he refuses to elaborate.

It's almost like sex as a spectrum has no practical applications.

It doesn't, but what it DOES have is ideological applications, which is exactly why bobdroege7, people like Novella and most TRAs argue in favour. They ignore objective, observable, scientific reality in order to further their ideologically-driven narratives and agendas.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't know how many times we've been through this, but your entire premise is based on a lack of reading comrehension with respect to these definitions.

I'll give it one more go.
With emphasis...
Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult PHENOTYPE that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.

You keep misrepresenting this as if it says:
Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as individuals that PRODUCE larger gametes in anisogamous systems.

The definition is based on the phenotype - and in this context, it means the phenotype of the reproductive system. Actual production of gametes isn't required. A male who's had an orchiectomy cannot produce sperm, but still has the PHENOTYPE that produces smaller gametes within the human anisogamous system.

You're wasting your time and effort. Steersman will never, ever stop clinging to his flawed, unique-to-him understanding of the English language regardless of what anyone says. This became apparent to me after I read some of the misogyny-driven claptrap he posted on his substack. This is why I don't read anything he posts here and no longer engage with him at all. Its the same old, tired, routine from him - copious link-spamming to the same old spurious sources, demeaning comments towards posters for their opinions, calling everything he doesn't agree with "horse-feathers". It just isn't worth the effort!

 

[Steersman]

The social reality is that we have sex-segregated toilets. You say that CAIS people are neither male nor female. So does that mean they don't get to use either toilet?

We don't really have sex-segregated toilets -- no one is checking for ovaries and testicles which is what, to a first approximation, the sexes really are or denote

What we have is genitalia-segregated toilets and change rooms. We might so specify.

But how we deal with that problem is somewhat secondary to the issue of what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place -- Novella and Company being a case in point. And the only definition that holds any water is the strict biological one.

And, I think, the only one able to resolve the transgender issue -- it's not just the transloonies who have made the sexes into identities tied to "muh humanity" for too many people.

 

[angrysoba]

We don't really have sex-segregated toilets -- no one is checking for ovaries and testicles which is what, to a first approximation, the sexes really are or denote

What we have is genitalia-segregated toilets and change rooms. We might so specify.

But how we deal with that problem is somewhat secondary to the issue of what it takes to qualify as male and female in the first place -- Novella and Company being a case in point. And the only definition that holds any water is the strict biological one.

And, I think, the only one able to resolve the transgender issue -- it's not just the transloonies who have made the sexes into identities tied to "muh humanity" for too many people.

Errrmm...what?

 

[Steersman]

You're wasting your time and effort. Steersman will never, ever stop clinging to his flawed, unique-to-him understanding of the English language regardless of what anyone says. .... It just isn't worth the effort!

What a great steaming pile of ... horse feathers.

I've pointed out, probably dozens of times, several more or less reputable biologists who say the same thing. A trio of biologists writing in the Wiley Online Library -- not exactly chopped liver -- for example:

Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] 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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

And PZ Myers has reasonably argued that many "ciswomen" are not females. And Jerry Coyne -- subject of recent discussions -- has argued that many if not most of the intersex are neither male nor female. Because, in both cases, they don't have any functional gonads.

 

[Steersman]

---

Errrmm...what?

You have a point? Or not?