Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[d4m10n]

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.

By the same logic, why not say that the spectrum paradigm means there's no (categorical) reason not to give genetic males hormones that only female produce endogenously, and vice-versa?

 

[ahhell]

By the same logic, why not say that the spectrum paradigm means there's no (categorical) reason not to give genetic males hormones that only female produce endogenously, and vice-versa?

I suspect some folks would make that argument.

 

[theprestige]

By the same logic, why not say that the spectrum paradigm means there's no (categorical) reason not to give genetic males hormones that only female produce endogenously, and vice-versa?

Males produce estrogen endogenously.

 

[bobdroege7]

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.

Competition in sports, women's or men's is a privilege not a right, so no, trans people do not have the right to compete in women's sports.

I don't care what bathroom you use as long as you don't commit any crimes in there, and that means not exposing yourself to any women or children you encounter in that restroom.

As for prisons, I think we have enough trans women in prison to give them their own wing.

Rape counselors can be of any sex, men do get raped, but you should have the right to a counselor you feel comfortable with.

Where should men who have been raped go for shelter?

Organs are already being grown, it's only a matter of time before a trans woman can start producing the large immotile gametes.

 

[theprestige]

Competition in sports, women's or men's is a privilege not a right, so no, trans people do not have the right to compete in women's sports.

I don't care what bathroom you use as long as you don't commit any crimes in there, and that means not exposing yourself to any women or children you encounter in that restroom.

As for prisons, I think we have enough trans women in prison to give them their own wing.

Rape counselors can be of any sex, men do get raped, but you should have the right to a counselor you feel comfortable with.

Where should men who have been raped go for shelter?

Organs are already being grown, it's only a matter of time before a trans woman can start producing the large immotile gametes.

That's nice, but my question to you is still:

"What is your stance on trans rights in public policy?"

"What are the practical applications of viewing sex as a spectrum rather than a binary?"

 

[d4m10n]

Males produce estrogen endogenously.

Fair enough, but only at a fraction of the level females do, until around menopause.

Binary thinking might lead people to conclude we shouldn't give anyone cross-sex hormone therapy at all, and I suspect that is why rights activists (and those institutionally captured) are coming after such thinking.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

^ Incorrect.

..."male" and "female" are the definiendums and that "has the phenotype that produces small gametes" and "has the phenotype that produces large gametes", respectively, are corresponding definiens.
^ Correct.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Don't think you quite understand or appreciate, or want to get, that the "phenotype" changes substantially over the course of our lives

Except that this isn't true. Our reproductive phenotypes don't change substantially over time.

A female fetus from ~7 weeks has fallopian tubes, ovaries, uterus, cervix, and vagina... and they naturally retain all of those until they die. At no point in the development of a female human being do any of those parts atrophy and disappear, nor do they grow new bits that weren't there at the culmination of the mullerian process.

A male fetus has vas deferens, penis, testicles, spermical vesicles... and they keep them throughout their entire life. At no point after the wolffian process completes do any of those vanish all on their own, nor do males grow new parts.

 

[theprestige]

Fair enough, but only at a fraction of the level females do, until around menopause.

Binary thinking might lead people to conclude we shouldn't give anyone cross-sex hormone therapy at all, and I suspect that is why rights activists (and those institutionally captured) are coming after such thinking.

This is pure speculation, though. Both you and bob have alluded to this possibility, but neither of you have given even a single example of the medical field giving suboptimal treatment based on binary thinking, or giving more optimal treatment by switching to spectrum thinking.

There hasn't even been an example of a spectrum-advocate advocating for a move to spectrum thinking in order to improve medical outcomes.

 

[d4m10n]

. . . neither of you have given even a single example of the medical field giving suboptimal treatment based on binary thinking, or giving more optimal treatment by switching to spectrum thinking.

The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.

 

[theprestige]

The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.

I don't see how that is solved by moving to spectrum thinking. Gender transition is still gender transition. If Catholics don't want to support that, they're not going to support it.

Also, last time I checked, there was no good evidence that gender transition treatment is a good prescription for gender dysphoria.

 

[d4m10n]

I don't see how that is solved by moving to spectrum thinking.

To the extent that rigidly binary thinking implies we mustn't ever help natal males become more like females (or vice-versa) such thinking precludes the possibility of transition, as a sort of a priori moral/ontological prescription. This is faith-based nonsense, not skeptical reasoning rooted in science.

Also, last time I checked, there was no good evidence that gender transition treatment is a good prescription for gender dysphoria.

Wrong thread.

 

[theprestige]

To the extent that rigidly binary thinking implies we mustn't ever help natal males become more like females (or vice-versa) such thinking precludes the possibility of transition, as a sort of a priori moral/ontological prescription. This is faith-based nonsense, not skeptical reasoning rooted in science.

Do you have any examples of this in practice?

Wrong thread.

I'm talking about good medical outcomes related to binary vs. spectrum paradigms about sex. The medical treatment you're talking about isn't even known to produce good outcomes. So getting more of it via the spectrum paradigm isn't going to be an example of improved medical outcomes from adopting that paradigm.

 

[d4m10n]

Do you have any examples of this in practice?

Catholic Bishops, see above.

The medical treatment you're talking about isn't even known to produce good outcomes.

You're probably wrong about this, and you are definitely in the wrong thread for it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.

Okay... and what's suboptimal about that from a medical perspective? What material long-term benefit is gained from giving cross-sex hormones for gender identity issues?

Honestly, it's kind of like prescribing ozempic for an anorexic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To the extent that rigidly binary thinking implies we mustn't ever help natal males become more like females (or vice-versa) such thinking precludes the possibility of transition, as a sort of a priori moral/ontological prescription. This is faith-based nonsense, not skeptical reasoning rooted in science.

On the other hand, you're a priori presuming that medicalization based on gender identity confusion is something that ought the be done in the first place... You are assuming that there's some consensus or agreement hat helping males mimic female secondary sex characteristics is beneficial in the first place.

 

[d4m10n]

On the other hand, you're a priori presuming that medicalization based on gender identity confusion is something that ought the be done in the first place...

No, I'm assuming that medicalization ought to be on the table rather than ruled out by faith-based thinking. If the bishops had their way, we'd never have any evidence to judge the efficacy of CSH at all.

Okay... and what's suboptimal about that from a medical perspective?

I'm not going to discuss the medical efficacy of CSH in this thread; it is enough to note that rigid binary thinking would prevent us from gathering any evidence to answer that question.

 

[ahhell]

The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.

IDK, saying you can switch from one sex to the other is still binary. So, not providing gender transition is less binary than providing gender transition services.

 

[d4m10n]

...saying you can switch from one sex to the other is still binary.

You can't, though; no one can.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I'm assuming that medicalization ought to be on the table rather than ruled out by faith-based thinking. If the bishops had their way, we'd never have any evidence to judge the efficacy of CSH at all.

I'm not going to discuss the medical efficacy of CSH in this thread; it is enough to note that rigid binary thinking would prevent us from gathering any evidence to answer that question.

I don't think I agree with your argument, nor your premise. But I'm also having a tough time putting it into words.

Rigid binary thinking is that sex is binary - that there are males and females, there is not spectrum of sex. What you're holding up as a counter to that doesn't seem to suggest that medically sex should be viewed or even considered as a spectrum. Allowing medical interventions to mimic the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex - or even to negate or minimize the characteristics of one's actual sex - doesn't require viewing sex as a spectrum at all. I think it still relies on sex being binary.

To be more blunt... "Can I make a male look less like a typical male and more like a typical female" doesn't suggest that sex itself needs to be viewed as a spectrum. Viewing sex as the binary that it is doesn't preclude cosmetic mimicry.