Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[d4m10n]

Androgen insensitivity.

I said "CAIS" upthread, specifying this to be the case.

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.

All true; all completely irrelevant given the criteria from the EO which specifies sex as of conception with no reference to phenotype.

At conception, the conceptus would be known to "produce no gametes" if we somehow had complete genetic information at the time.

Here are the two sexes from the EO:

(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.​

An individual genetically predetermined at conception to produce neither large gametes nor small gametes cannot fit into either category. It is wholesome and righteous that you want to put CAIS people in the female category, but it does not comport with this legal guidance if interpreted straightforwardly with no attempt to retcon the text to make sense for intersex individuals, who are completely ignored.

 

[d4m10n]

As an addendum to my last post, having strict biological definitions for male and female is just fine with me, but that doesn't make it sensible or ethical to pretend individuals who don't fit into either strictly bounded category simply do not exist, especially since the only mention of "intersex" in the entire EO is to repeal that guidance.

Harvard Law produces good lawyers, but they should have run this memorandum past someone with a background in science.

 

[Norman Alexander]

I said "CAIS" upthread, specifying this to be the case.

All true; all completely irrelevant given the criteria from the EO which specifies sex as of conception with no reference to phenotype.

At conception, the conceptus would be known to "produce no gametes" if we somehow had complete genetic information at the time.

Here are the two sexes from the EO:

(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.​

An individual genetically predetermined at conception to produce neither large gametes nor small gametes cannot fit into either category. It is wholesome and righteous that you want to put CAIS people in the female category, but it does not comport with this legal guidance if interpreted straightforwardly with no attempt to retcon the text to make sense for intersex individuals, who are completely ignored.

As noted elsewhere on this forum, all humans are female at conception. Sexual differentiation occurs later in the gestation process. So all Americans are now being designated as women.

Which will come as a surprise to many MAGAnuts.

 

[Matthew Best]

As noted elsewhere on this forum, all humans are female at conception.

I don't believe this is true for a moment.

 

[theprestige]

I don't believe this is true for a moment.

They're pretending that ambiguous phenotype at conception trumps distinct genotype and reproductive path at conception.

 

[Steersman]

They're pretending that ambiguous phenotype at conception trumps distinct genotype and reproductive path at conception.

The standard biological definitions have got diddly-squat to do with "reproductive path". By those definitions, the necessary and sufficient condition for membership in the sex categories is having a working mechanism that is currently producing either large or small "reproductive cells".

That is the single most common property shared by trillions of members of millions of anisogamous species. And which then justifies its use as the defining property for the sex categories. "Philosopher" Alex Byrne more or less reasonably, even if somewhat obscurely, noted that:

Categories are interchangeable with properties: S is a woman iff [if and only if] S has the property being a woman iff S is a member of the category woman.

https://joelvelasco.net/teaching/5330(spring2021)/byrne20-adult_women.pdf

Nothing can be a member of any category unless it possesses the defining property. You can't be a teenager unless you're 13 to 19. And that's why the EO definitions are rather problematic -- it puts CAIS "women" into limbo, and maybe male prisons, as either sexless or as males.

 

[Steersman]

I don't believe this is true for a moment.

Progress!

Though it's not a matter of belief but of definition. A point that came up during the Forstater trial though it was never adequately addressed. One doesn't "believe" that it's illegal to speed in a school zone -- the law says so.

Same thing with the biological definitions -- they SAY that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, more or less what the EO is saying, and that those with neither type are sexless.

 

[Steersman]

An individual genetically predetermined at conception to produce neither large gametes nor small gametes cannot fit into either category.

Ergo, sexless. Which biologist Jerry Coyne has endorsed. Maybe that's who the Harvard lawyers who presumably wrote that EO should have spoken to ...

It is wholesome and righteous that you want to put CAIS people in the female category, but it does not comport with this legal guidance if interpreted straightforwardly with no attempt to retcon the text to make sense for intersex individuals, who are completely ignored.

As indicated, "sexless" "makes sense for intersex individuals". What doesn't make sense - what is missing from the rest of the EO about prisons segregated by sex -- is where the sexless are supposed to go. Somewhat apropos of which, and of some amusement:

The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre occurred in 1902, in Hanoi, Vietnam (then known as French Indochina), when, under French colonial rule, the colonial government created a bounty program that paid a reward for each rat killed. To collect the bounty, people would need to provide the severed tail of a rat. Colonial officials, however, began noticing rats in Hanoi with no tails. The Vietnamese rat catchers would capture rats, sever their tails, then release them back into the sewers so that they could produce more rats.

Perverse incentive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Relatively easy to create laws; bit more difficult to foresee the often problematic consequences of them. A case in point being the UK's Gender Recognition Act. But more particularly and as philosopher of science Paul Griffiths has emphasized, the biological definitions for the sexes are generally the wrong tool for the job of social engineering that many are trying to press them into doing:

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

 

[Norman Alexander]

Whoopsie, for all the apologists.

All human individuals—whether they have an XX, an XY, or an atypical sex chromosome combination—begin development from the same starting point. During early development the gonads of the fetus remain undifferentiated; that is, all fetal genitalia are the same and are phenotypically female. After approximately 6 to 7 weeks of gestation, however, the expression of a gene on the Y chromosome induces changes that result in the development of the testes.

Sex Begins in the Womb - Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Steersman]

Whoopsie, for all the apologists.

Sex Begins in the Womb - Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health - NCBI Bookshelf

"phenotypically female"

CAIS people are, as Wikipedia emphasizes, also "phenotypically female". That is they have the external phenotype that is typical of females. But they are NOT females. Because neither they nor XX humans from conception to puberty are producing large "reproductive cells" which is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as female -- ergo, sexless:

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But I'm not terribly impressed by that NCBI bookshelf -- another article there insists that "every cell has a sex" which incoherent and quite unscientific twaddle:

Every Cell Has a Sex - Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health - NCBI Bookshelf

Probably not surprising given that Anne -- Five Sexes -- Fausto-Sterling has her mitts all over that article. And probably many more besides:

Committee and Staff Biographies - Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Matthew Best]

Whoopsie, for all the apologists.

Sex Begins in the Womb - Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health - NCBI Bookshelf

Apology accepted. "Phenotypically female" doesn't mean "female", as you are now no doubt aware.

 

[smartcooky]

As an addendum to my last post, having strict biological definitions for male and female is just fine with me, but that doesn't make it sensible or ethical to pretend individuals who don't fit into either strictly bounded category simply do not exist, especially since the only mention off "intersex" in the entire EO is to repeal that guidance.

Harvard Law produces good lawyers, but they should have run this memorandum past someone with a background in science.

As has been explained numerous times before, the term "intersex" is no longer used, because it covers too broad a range of complex issues. @bobdroege7 likes to use it claim sex is not binary, attempting to use it as a cudgel to bash realists over the head.

The preferred term is DSD (Disorders of Sexual Development)... and here's the thing. Even those with DSD are still either male or female. This chart has been posted numerous times, but some people continue to pretend it hasn't been...

Individuals who don't fit into either strictly bounded category effectively do not exist. If you can come up with individuals who have neither X nor Y chromosomes in their karyoype, I will review that position.

 

[Steersman]

As has been explained numerous times before, the term "intersex" is no longer used, because it covers too broad a range of complex issues. @bobdroege7 likes to use it claim sex is not binary, attempting to use it as a cudgel to bash realists over the head.

The preferred term is DSD (Disorders of Sexual Development)... and here's the thing. Even those with DSD are still either male or female. This chart has been posted numerous times, but some people continue to pretend it hasn't been...

Individuals who don't fit into either strictly bounded category effectively do not exist. If you can come up with individuals who have neither X nor Y chromosomes in their karyotype, I will review that position.

Not quite sure where you got that graphic of yours -- box of crackerjacks, perhaps? But you can keep posting that until the cows come home -- like saying 2+2=5 until then -- but it still won't make it true that, for an example from that graphic of yours, CAIS people are female. That rather unscientific claim -- being charitable -- rests on an unspecified definition for the sexes that is clearly contradicted by both the EO definitions and the standard biological ones.

People who "don't fit in either strictly bounded category" -- i.e., those who don't produce either large or small reproductive cells -- clearly still "exist". They just don't have a membership card in the male or female sex categories.

 

[d4m10n]

As has been explained numerous times before, the term "intersex" is no longer used

Does that change my point, though?

Even those with DSD are still either male or female. This chart has been posted numerous times, but some people continue to pretend it hasn't been...

I really don't think skeptics should believe images posted on the internet with no supporting links. That said, did you happen to notice that at least one condition is listed on both sides?

 

[Norman Alexander]

Apology accepted. "Phenotypically female" doesn't mean "female", as you are now no doubt aware.

Oh? So is it phenotypically something else?

 

[angrysoba]

Does that change my point, though?

I really don't think skeptics should believe images posted on the internet with no supporting links. That said, did you happen to notice that at least one condition is listed on both sides?

I have wondered about that chart, each time I have seen it, because there is no attribution to it.

I guess it is helpful to have a chart that is just labelled "MALE" and "FEMALE" and just go, "see! Look! The chart says so..."

So I did some reverse Google image searching and found some attribution to it being "Daysgobygoby" which apparently is a Twitter handle.

It looks like the person who owns the handle is called "Alex - DetransIS".

I was looking at some tweets by Alex - DetransIS and here is one:

Do I need to freaking update my chart so people stop using that awful trainwreck of dehumanizing misinformation? I hesitated putting CAIS and PAIS in the biologically male category FOR that reason.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882161336219832625

Okay, but doesn't that sound like the selection was arbitrary? Indeed, in the case of "Partial Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome" the label is "Male" whereas for "Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome" the label is female.

I'm not going to get on board any train here, but the idea that someone slides from male to female depending upon hormonal insensitivity does suggest in this case that there is something "spectrum-y" going on here.

In addition, I see the words "Mosaic" on two of the labels. I don't know much about this, and am willing to know more, but it seems that theoretically this could result in someone being able to produce both large and small gametes (even if they are unlikely to be functional). That again suggests some form of genuine intersex condition, no?

In addition, that one labelled "Turner syndrome". Could someone walk me through why that person is female?

In addition,

 

[Norman Alexander]

It seems that out of all those acronyms, the one missing is WAG - wild-assed guess.

 

[Steersman]

Oh? So is it phenotypically something else?

"phenotypically female" is NOT the same thing as "reproductively female", although the "reproductively" is redundant since that is what "female" MEANS.

See:

phenotypically, adverb
biology specialized
in a way that relates to the physical characteristics of something living, especially those characteristics that can be seen:

phenotypically

1. in a way that relates to the physical characteristics of something living…

dictionary.cambridge.org

The "physical characteristics" -- i.e., those that can be seen -- of CAIS people are those of a typical female -- genitalia in particular. What can NOT be seen are the gonads, the actual reproductive machinery -- at least without specialized equipment -- much less that they're operational and cranking out ova on a regular basis.

You might actually try looking at the "signs and symptoms" of the condition:

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Steersman]

I have wondered about that chart, each time I have seen it, because there is no attribution to it.

I guess it is helpful to have a chart that is just labelled "MALE" and "FEMALE" and just go, "see! Look! The chart says so..."

So I did some reverse Google image searching and found some attribution to it being "Daysgobygoby" which apparently is a Twitter handle.

Nice bit of sleuthing. Guess I wasn't far wrong on my "box of crackerjacks" ...

It looks like the person who owns the handle is called "Alex - DetransIS".

I was looking at some tweets by Alex - DetransIS and here is one:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882161336219832625

"Do I need to freaking update my chart so people stop using that awful trainwreck of dehumanizing misinformation? I hesitated putting CAIS and PAIS in the biologically male category FOR that reason."

That "dehumanizing" is a phrase that many of the transactivists use. Even some supposedly on the right side of history -- many people get their knickers in a twist at the thought that the standard biological definitions for the sexes mean that many of us, not just the intersex, are sexless -- "depriving them of their humanity" :

Since when does scientific terminology, definitions, and theory turn on whether some people find them "morally problematic"? Galileo, Darwin, and "Darwin's Bulldog" are turning over in their graves.

In addition, that one labelled "Turner syndrome". Could someone walk me through why that person is female?

Turner syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Something in the article that suggests that some people with the condition are male though it's a bit obscure or contradictory.

 

[Norman Alexander]

"phenotypically female" is NOT the same thing as "reproductively female", although the "reproductively" is redundant since that is what "female" MEANS.

See:

phenotypically

1. in a way that relates to the physical characteristics of something living…

dictionary.cambridge.org

The "physical characteristics" -- i.e., those that can be seen -- of CAIS people are those of a typical female -- genitalia in particular. What can NOT be seen are the gonads, the actual reproductive machinery -- at least without specialized equipment -- much less that they're operational and cranking out ova on a regular basis.

You might actually try looking at the "signs and symptoms" of the condition:

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, whatever.

Forget about anything after conception. There's no argument there. Because Trump's legislation refers to "at conception". And at conception, we humans are all female. So if your legally assigned US gender is what you are at conception, you are therefore all women. Congratulations, madam!

They've made a serious boo-boo because they are SO scientifically illiterate. Perhaps they should have consulted a book or something. Sexual differentiation, to whatever gender that happens to be, occurs about 6-7 weeks after conception, i.e. about a month and a half. So a better version of their ridiculous document would not be at conception, but after sexual differentiation.