d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Godwin's Law but for Drumpf instead of Schicklgruber.
Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
bobdroege7
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,408
Yes, where men are men, and the sheep, cows, steers, and goats know it.
Where marriage is between a man and a woman, where we can pray in school, and an AR-15 in every pot.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
My god can there be no respite from it.
BRB; going to change my signature.
BRB; going to change my signature.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
By the way, I posted a link to his CSIcon talk which is on topic in this thread.
You might give her this article to read:
If that woman insists that the Y chromosome is definitive then she has to accept that some men can conceive, gestate a fetus, and give birth. Reductio ad absurdum writ large.
Devils in the details. If you don't want to grapple with them then don't be surprised by cases like Tickle vs. Giggle where the "judge" accepted that "Ms." Tickle -- with her brand-spanking new neovagina -- had changed sex:
Transgender woman Roxanne Tickle wins discrimination case after being banned from women-only Giggle for Girls app
Tickle successfully sued social media platform Giggle for Girls with judge stating ‘on its ordinary meaning sex is changeable’
www.theguardian.com
Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960
It's a matter of definitions, and which one is going to be trump.
Think you can answer a question there old sport? Did or did not "Professor Coyne" say:
SF Chronicle gets biological sex badly wrong
If ever there were a headline designed to get my dander up, it’s this one from a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed (click screenshot below to read, or see it archived here). The author’s se…
whyevolutionistrue.com
I see he's still using the same analogy of "a nickel tossed in the air will wind up on its edge" in the Morgan video as he used in that old (2023) post of his. But the point is that regardless of how wide that "edge" is, he at least accepted the concept of "sexless" there. He's crossed the Rubicon, and is now, at best, talking out of both sides of his mouth.
But you might note that Trump's Executive order on the topic more or less explicitly endorses the standard biological definition for the sexes, and which say absolutely diddly-squat about any "reproductive apparatus":
Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United
www.whitehouse.gov
Trump Signs Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”
The sweeping order, which defines sex as binary and fixed and seeks to exclude biological males from women's prisons and rape shelters, will inevitably be challenged by multiple lawsuits.
benryan.substack.com
So you collated all of my comments thither and yon and found that two-thirds number? Pics or it didn't happen ...But you might try getting your head out of the sand and actually look at my blog posts. I'm hardly cutting my argument and conclusions from whole cloth. There are solid and sound epistemological reasons why the mechanisms of actually producing either large gametes or small gametes are taken as the "essence" of, the defining trait for the sex categories as that is what is ubiquitous and common across literally millions of anisogamous species:
Rerum cognoscere causas
Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints
humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com
Why the sexes are taken as "natural kinds":
Muhammad Ali Khalidi, Are sexes natural kinds? - PhilPapers
Asking whether the sexes are natural kinds amounts to asking whether the categories, female and male, identify real divisions in nature, like the distinctions between biological species, or whether they mark ...
philpapers.org
Which even Kathleen Stock endorses in her Material Girls and spends some time and effort elaborating on in some detail:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
This would have to be one of the most stupid, irrelevant statements you have made. None of any of this has to do with the transgender issues
Rolfe
Adult human female
SF Chronicle gets biological sex badly wrong
If ever there were a headline designed to get my dander up, it’s this one from a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed (click screenshot below to read, or see it archived here). The author’s se…
I see he's still using the same analogy of "a nickel tossed in the air will wind up on its edge" in the Morgan video as he used in that old (2023) post of his. But the point is that regardless of how wide that "edge" is, he at least accepted the concept of "sexless" there. He's crossed the Rubicon, and is now, at best, talking out of both sides of his mouth.
But you might note that Trump's Executive order on the topic more or less explicitly endorses the standard biological definition for the sexes, and which say absolutely diddly-squat about any "reproductive apparatus":
Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, UnitedTrump Signs Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”
The sweeping order, which defines sex as binary and fixed and seeks to exclude biological males from women's prisons and rape shelters, will inevitably be challenged by multiple lawsuits.
Steersman, if you seriously think the definitions in that executive order mean that around a third of the US population is now categorised as "sexless", well, there isn't enough popcorn in the world.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Yup. Doubling down on stupid.... as usual
Rolfe
Adult human female
Here's the relevant part of the order.
It's very clear that the population is being divided into exactly two groups, not three. No reference at all is made to any individuals who are not male or female. The references to "girl" and "boy" specifically include immature individuals who do not ovulate or produce sperm. (I'm still not sure how Steersman classes girls and women though, given that baby girls are born with all the ova they will ever have - they don't produce them because they already produced them in utero. I have a vague recollection that he shifted the goalpost to ovulation.)
The references to "at conception" make it very clear that individuals are considered to be male or female from that point, not when they start producing viable ova or sperm. Again, the grammar of "the sex that produces..." is perfectly clear to everyone except Steersman.
I note that the classification includes individuals with DSDs who were incorrectly registered at birth as their true sex, not "sex recorded at birth". I would doubt there are many 5ARD boys in America who are misregistered as girls, but that definition makes them boys even if that were to happen.
It's very clear that the population is being divided into exactly two groups, not three. No reference at all is made to any individuals who are not male or female. The references to "girl" and "boy" specifically include immature individuals who do not ovulate or produce sperm. (I'm still not sure how Steersman classes girls and women though, given that baby girls are born with all the ova they will ever have - they don't produce them because they already produced them in utero. I have a vague recollection that he shifted the goalpost to ovulation.)
The references to "at conception" make it very clear that individuals are considered to be male or female from that point, not when they start producing viable ova or sperm. Again, the grammar of "the sex that produces..." is perfectly clear to everyone except Steersman.
I note that the classification includes individuals with DSDs who were incorrectly registered at birth as their true sex, not "sex recorded at birth". I would doubt there are many 5ARD boys in America who are misregistered as girls, but that definition makes them boys even if that were to happen.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Which are not even the topic at hand, really.
This thread is about whether sex is binary or not.
Can we get a subforum where its forbidden to bring up Trump?
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, too bad, but this is absolutely directly relevant to this thread. I can't see what would be more relevant in fact, than the President of the USA issuing a strict definition of make and female.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Isn't that textbook argumentum ad baculum though? He has the power to enforce decrees upon the American government bureaucracy, but the fact that they are backed by force of law doesn't make any decrees correct or incorrect.
I suppose it's nice to know that the party of climate change denial, vaccine denial, evolution denial, etc. happened to get this one right, but a clock that is right twice a day isn't exactly useful as a timepiece.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
It does, however, make this decree 100% relevant to the discussion in this thread. Discuss away.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Fine. Now that Supporting Intersex Students: A Resource for Students, Families, and Educators (October 2021) has been officially rescinded, what does the new guidance tell us about their status?
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The topic of the thread is strict biological definitions, not correct biological definitions. One of the salient concepts in this discussion is that there is more than one optimal "strict" definition, depending on the context and the practical result being sought.
There's very few definitions more strict in principle and in application than a legal definition. And for the practical result being sought, it's pretty optimal. Obviously it wouldn't suit a marine biologist studying clownfish, but as long as you're capable of reasonable context-switching, that shouldn't cause you any difficulty.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Please note the use of the phrase "essentially correct about what makes a mammal either female or male" at the top of the OP.
Definitions aimed a pragmatic policy results are (most likely) neither strict nor biological. This new policy provides no guidance on what do to with people who are born with a mix of sexed characteristics, apparently taking a fully denialist stance.
Last edited:
However, a strict definition isn't necessarily one that answers all questions of category membership. Quite the contrary. It's not difficult to design a strict physical definition of "red" that specifies to within the tiniest fraction of a nanometer of wavelength of monochromatic light where "red" becomes "orange" or "infrared" instead. But that definition, due in part to its very strictness, will not distinguish unambiguously between red and orange shades of paint, which are made with mixes of pigments.
"Is this paint red?" "No, no actual paint is truly red because the mix of wavelengths they reflect aren't entirely within the 652+ nanometer range." That's analogous to Steersman's "no actual young children are truly male or female because..."
The most useful definitions of "red" aren't very strict: "toward the long-wavelength end of the spectrum" or "between orange and violent on the color wheel" or "similar in color to rubies or blood."