Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[d4m10n]

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.

I don't think it makes much sense to analogize from a spectrum to a categorical variable, whether we are talking about two categories (sexes which can reproduce) or three.

That said, the guidance is surely strict here, every individual is sorted into one of two categories as of the moment of conception. This sorting is not particularly pragmatic, though, since it requires inferences from genetic analyses which are not nearly universally performed.

 

[Rolfe]

But could be, if the occasion arose.

 

[d4m10n]

But could be, if the occasion arose.

Woe be unto the CAIS prisoners who get tested.

 

[bobdroege7]

Can we get a subforum where its forbidden to bring up Trump?

I didn't bring him up, I was referring to the general republican platform.

I am glad someone thinks it's the stupidest thing I have ever posted.

And you forgot something in your post, here it is, no charge.

 

[Steersman]

Woe be unto the CAIS prisoners who get tested.

Indeed. Particularly problematic since they don't and won't ever produce either type of gamete.

Provides some justification for defining "woman" as adult human ovary-haver, and "man" as adult human testicle-haver. Though I doubt those CAIS prisoners would appreciate being thrown to the wolves among the male prison population.

Whence definitions based solely on genitalia -- e.g., "woman" as adult human vagina-haver. Bonus is that menopausees at least get to keep their "woman card" after that point in their lives. Works for me ...

 

[Rolfe]

I'm fairly sure the law can be codified to accommodate CAIS women.

 

[Steersman]

I'm fairly sure the law can be codified to accommodate CAIS women.

Do tell. I'm all ears -- as I expect many others here are. Not to mention President Trump ...

Your "CAIS women" are only "women" by your apparent defacto criterion for "woman" which is apparently "vagina-haver". Despite them having XY karyotypes and internal but non-functional testicles. You now going to accept that some women have or had testicles? How dare you deny Ms. Tickle's right to join Giggle? For shame ...

The point is generally, as I've frequently quoted Paul Griffiths more or less insisting, that the biological definitions for the sexes -- which have a great deal of utility and value within the whole corpus of biology -- are simply the wrong tools for the jobs of adjudicating access to various opportunities and rights that might reasonably be segregated by sex, nominally speaking at least. So far too many people try to bastardize and corrupt those definitions, generally by turning the sexes into identities rather than labels for transitory reproductive abilities:

Paul Griffiths: “Sex Is Real: Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other. .... On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition [e.g., in law], the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."

The existence of biological sex is no constraint on human diversity | Aeon Essays

Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other

aeon.co

 

[Trausti]

How does the existence of congential deformity negate the sexual binary? Some people are born without legs; ergo, humans are not bipedal?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm fairly sure the law can be codified to accommodate CAIS women.

Of course it could be, but the Executive Order as it stands will have them in men's locker rooms and prisons, since all that matters is sex as determined at conception. This sort of nonsense is inevitable when we impose a strict conceptual binary on people living in messy reality.

 

[Trausti]

Of course it could be, but the Executive Order as it stands will have them in men's locker rooms and prisons, since all that matters is sex as determined at conception.

Would it? Aren't most (all) CAIS women identified as girls at birth?

 

[Steersman]

How does the existence of congenital deformity negate the sexual binary? Some people are born without legs; ergo, humans are not bipedal?

It doesn't. But that "born without legs" is basically a false analogy. Bipedality is only a typical property of humans, an accidental one. It is NOT the essential property of "human" which is basically having the same number and type of chromosomes as other members of the species. See my post on the topic which starts off from a conversation with "Hippiesq", the mother of a dysphoric teenage daughter:

Accidental & Essential Properties

An Open Letter on The Problems with Gender Identity

humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com

And that sex is, by definition, a binary most certainly does not mean that everyone is either a male or a female -- technically speaking, some third of us, at any one time, are sexless. See also:

The existence of biological sex is no constraint on human diversity | Aeon Essays

Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other

aeon.co

 

[Steersman]

Would it? Aren't most (all) CAIS women identified as girls at birth?

Try looking at that Executive Order and the OP:

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

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

Resolved: Hilton, Wright, & Heying are essentially correct about what makes a mammal either female or male.

Merged Thread 'Strict biological definitions of male/female'

Sep 13, 2022

Resolved: Hilton, Wright, & Heying are essentially correct about what makes a mammal either female or male.

View attachment 46972

• d4m10n
• biology categories gametes lexicography pedantry taxonomy transgender transgender issues
• Replies: 2,733
• Forum: Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

That combination makes "CAIS women" into "males" even though their testicles are non-functional. Which puts CAIS prisoners into male prisons. Despite being "phenotypically female", so much so that any red-blooded Amurican boy would jump their bones at the drop of a hat:

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Steersman]

However, a strict definition isn't necessarily one that answers all questions of category membership.

Seems rather moot at best. See:

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 is what the "strict" biological definitions DO. If some organism produces large or small gametes then it is female or male, respectively. And if it doesn't produce either then it's sexless. Producing gametes -- right now -- is the necessary and sufficient condition "to be counted as a referent of those terms".

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.

Kinda think you're changing definitions in midstream -- always a hazardous operation. IF the paint was reflecting monochromatic light in a particular wavelength range defined as "red" then it would be, by definition, red. But if it is reflecting some light of wavelengths inside and outside that range then it isn't simply red -- it's a mixture of colours. Can't have your cake and eat it too -- one of the benefits of strict definitions, not least of which is that it keeps everybody honest.

 

[Rolfe]

Of course it could be, but the Executive Order as it stands will have them in men's locker rooms and prisons, since all that matters is sex as determined at conception. This sort of nonsense is inevitable when we impose a strict conceptual binary on people living in messy reality.

Would it? Aren't most (all) CAIS women identified as girls at birth?

The Executive Order doesn't actually specify what the criteria are for determining sex at conception. It would be open to them to include embryos lacking the gene(s) for functioning androgen receptors as female. That's just one suggestion, there are other ways.

 

[d4m10n]

It would be open to them to include embryos lacking the gene(s) for functioning androgen receptors as female.

Are you suggesting that the "sex that produces the large reproductive cell" may sensibly include rare cases of individuals who are genetically predetermined never to produce oocytes?

 

[Rolfe]

Yes.

 

[Steersman]

Here's the relevant part of the order.

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

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.

There are definitely at least two groups there -- the one that produces the large reproductive cell, and the one that produces the small reproductive cell. But there's also an implicit one -- the group that produces neither and is therefore neither male nor female.

The references to "girl" and "boy" specifically include immature individuals who do not ovulate or produce sperm.

Calling girls and boys females and males doesn't magically change them into organisms that are ovulating or producing sperm. You -- and too many others -- don't quite seem to get the idea of necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership. You actually have to be between the ages of 13 and 19 to qualify for membership in the "teenager" category -- a child of 10 or an adult of 25 doesn't acquire a membership card by some sort of a contact high by being similar to some actual teenagers in some other ways.

(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.)

Nope, sorry. They're born with oocytes, diploid cells stuck at prophase I which do not qualify as ova:

Oogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They don't become fully functional ova -- haploid cells -- until ovulation, one or two a month after the onset of puberty:

Ootidogenesis: The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.

However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle. ....

Both polar bodies disintegrate at the end of Meiosis II, leaving only the ootid, which then eventually undergoes maturation into a mature ovum.

Oogenesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Darat]

How does the existence of congential deformity negate the sexual binary? Some people are born without legs; ergo, humans are not bipedal?

No but those people are not bipedal. If you had a classification that said a human was bipedal your classification would exclude those from being classified as humans. Horses for courses.

 

[d4m10n]

Are you suggesting that the "sex that produces the large reproductive cell" may sensibly include rare cases of individuals who are genetically predetermined never to produce oocytes?

Yes.

Forgive me, but I cannot make any sense of this.

In what sense is someone genetically predetermined never to produce any large gametes of the "sex that produces the large reproductive cell" given the way terms are defined in the EO?

 

[Planigale]

Forgive me, but I cannot make any sense of this.

In what sense is someone genetically predetermined never to produce any large gametes of the "sex that produces the large reproductive cell" given the way terms are defined in the EO?

Androgen insensitivity.

Because they lack androgen receptors XY ( genetically male) will develop as default female. No penis, no testicles, vagina (small), no uterus and streak (indeterminate ) gonads. They will produce no gametes. They will be infertile. from birth they will be phenotypically female. They will be identified as XY only when they fail to menstruate.

Such individuals will have been identified as , and raised as, and identified as female. expecting periods and pregnancy until they fail to menstruate. Most choose to continue as (trans) females (although I personally regard them as true female gender), some prefer to transition to being (cis?) male.

i have a friend in this position, she looked at a womb transplant so she could have a child with her husband (it would have meant egg donation from her sister and womb donation from her mother, both of whom were willing to give her the chance to have her husband's child).