Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

Since nobody else has answered this, de la Chapelle's syndrome. Male XX.

I was sure your DLC was a "French independent car builder", even if the connection seemed obscure ...

De La Chapelle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But nice to see you finally quoting people, instead of expecting them to find out who you might have been referring to .

However, as something of a point of reference, not really "male XX", just "male phenotype XX":

Based on limited evidence, most XX males appear to have typical body and pubic hair, penis size, libido, and erectile function. In all reported cases, individuals have been sterile, with azoospermia (no sperm in the ejaculate).

XX male syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By the EO -- and by standard biological definitions -- such individuals simply don't qualify as males since they're not capable of ever producing any "small reproductive cells".

 

[Norman Alexander]

I wonder if NA thinks that sexual differentiation just happens at random and this then determines the genotype? As I said, this idea seems to be doing the rounds on social media. I have seen posts implying there is no Y chromosome until after differentiation.

Doesn't matter what I think. Technically, I agree with you. Problem is that the EO as written does not. AGAIN, here is the NIH information...for the fourth time.

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.

 

[Steersman]

When someone uses the term "reproductive phenotype" what does that mean to you? I'm not being snarky - this is a major disconnect between pretty much everyone in this thread and you. Nearly all of us have a shared understanding of what that means, even if we might have some slight discrepancies around the edges. You seem to take an entirely different approach, and to date I honestly don't know what you think a phenotype is in generally, let alone a reproductive phenotype.

I think I've explained it several times, but I don't think you're listening. You seem to think a phenotype is the same from conception to death. Is the embryo phenotype the same as the adult phenotype?

There are clearly many different phenotypes throughout our lives -- and those of other species -- each of which has different potentialities, abilities, and traits. Why Parker's and Lehtonen's definitions for the sexes stipulate that it is ONLY the phenotypical stage that actually produces gametes that qualifies as a referent for the terms "male" and "female".

More particularly, your "reproductive phenotype" is the phenotype that produces "reproductive cells" -- as the EO puts it. If a particular phenotype isn't producing such cells then it doesn't qualify for membership in the sex categories. You might actually take a look at a popular definition for "sex" which basically endorses or manifests that biological perspective:



Do note the "reproductive function". No function, no sex; do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Too many people are trying to turn the sexes into participation trophies, into badges of tribal membership. Not far removed from transwomen trying to "participate" in the female category. Pots and kettles.

In the extraordinarily rare event that a CAIS person ends up in prison, I doubt anyone is going to be doing genetic testing to determine whether the entirely female looking person with no fake parts is actually for realsies a genetic female or whether they have testicles where there ovaries are along with their home-grown fallopian tubes, cervix, etc.

But hey, if you need to latch on to the spectre of CAIS ending up in a male prison, knock yourself out I guess.

You may wish to take a gander at the Wikipedia article on perverse incentives:

Perverse incentive - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Lord -- Power Corrupts -- Acton once said that it is generally a bad idea to pass bad laws on the assumption that its flaws won't be taken advantage of to the general detriment of society. Kinda think that the UK's Gender Recognition Act [GRA] is a case in point. And one might reasonably argue the same about the EO -- even if it's really kind of great that it more or less reflects standard biological definitions.

But they really are not the same, and the discrepancies may well be just as problematic as that GRA. And apart from corrupting those biological definitions. Trying to shoehorn the foot of social justice into the glass slipper of biology -- which is largely what you, and too many others including various transactivists, are basically doing -- just cripples the former and shatters the latter beyond much use at all:

 

[Steersman]

Doesn't matter what I think. Technically, I agree with you. Problem is that the EO as written does not. AGAIN, here is the NIH information...for the fourth time.

Still kind of clueless that "phenotypically female" is NOT the same as "reproductively female".

 

[Louden Wilde]

Do you think the EO from the current American administration makes sense with regard to AIS individuals?

I confess I haven't thoroughly read it . I saw they used the word immutable - fair enough in humans (& other mammals). AIS folks are going to have it tough anyway - it's certainly different than trans. As has been noted, many affected CAIS don't know until puberty. PAIS are sometime the same - as testes cancer is more frequent, e.g. in a case presented to us here last year they were removed while still very young - condition was just being explained to the ~12 yr old. My recollection is that even treated PAIS often have short or micropenis, and (as far as I can tell) making fun of penis size is fair game for both left and right - leaning folks (another unfortunate example of the left not really embracing "body positivity").

That being said, I can't support redefining sex to mean "looks female" (and as I noted before, they won't be considered female when the rubber meets the road)

 

[Louden Wilde]

Doesn't matter what I think. Technically, I agree with you. Problem is that the EO as written does not. AGAIN, here is the NIH information...for the fourth time.

Again, that's not how we define female.

 

[Steersman]

Again, that's not how we define female.

Glad you appreciate, maybe finally, that it's a matter of definitions? The question then seems to be which ones will be trump -- so to speak.

As above, so below ...

Please (all), quit using disorders when attempting definitions. Following that logic, we can't say anything about any group of organisms and classification/cladistics is impossible (i.e. there are deleterious mutations/accidents that affect every feature of an organism). It's also special pleading for both organ system and species (and we know male and female are equivalent/homologous in other mammals and vertebrates.

The problem isn't the definitions, but that most everyone is rather desperate, if not dementedly so, to include those disorders in the sex categories. And when they don't fit they try to bastardize and corrupt the standard biological ones which are quite clear: if some organism -- of any anisogamous species -- doesn't produce any "reproductive cells" then it doesn't qualify for membership in the sex categories. Easy peasy.

As you reasonably point out or suggest, "male" and "female" are "equivalent/homologous" in all anisogamous species BECAUSE the definitions make the production of gametes the sine qua non for membership in those categories. As transwoman and evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden once put it, "the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.":

Paul E. Griffiths, What are biological sexes? - PhilArchive

Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are defined by different gametic strategies for reproduction. Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out ...

philarchive.org

Which your "gonad/gamete definition" simply doesn't do. More below.

Also - for Steersman - the gonad/gamete definition I posted in the link above will also be preferred over current gamete production status, due to its greater utility, predictive value, and the importance of sex in the life history of an organism. If you want to change that, my recommendation would be to try and do it from within the field - get a PhD in repro/Dev bio, then do a post-doctoral fellowship in a related field (note one of these labs should focus on comparative aspects - I could recommend some PIs) and see if your opinion changes or you can convince others at meetings, etc.

Sure. Your "classic definition - namely which gamete type the individual/body in question was functionally organized around producing/delivering" may well have some utility when applied to most mammals. But, as indicated above, it's going to come a cropper when applied to, probably, millions of other anisogamous species.

In addition to which, it conflicts profoundly with the Executive Order, e.g., " 'Female' means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell." Apart from the fact that no zygote actually produces either large or small reproductive cells, there's diddly-squat there about "that may produce the large reproductive cell", or that "may have produced the large reproductive cell". Which is what your "society of endocrinologists" would have to get Trump to add to those EO definitions to comport with theirs. Rots of ruck.

Finally, some of the focus here seems to be on not on defining sex, but rather whether we treat males with Androgen insensitivity syndrome (or other disorders that cause them to appear superficially female) with regard to female activities and spaces - as noted, some of those folks don't know about their condition until puberty or their parents tell them. While I'm fine with those folks being treated as female, it's important to note that they're not and therefore likely to face rejection in potential long-term relationships because of it (which is the false promise at the heart of the trans movement).

Kind of Paul Griffiths' point:

The idea of biological sex is critical for understanding the diversity of life, but ill-suited to the job of determining the social or legal status of human beings as men or women.

Paul E. Griffiths, What are biological sexes? - PhilArchive

Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are defined by different gametic strategies for reproduction. Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out ...

philarchive.org

That seems to be much of the motivation behind defending the folk-biology definitions -- a matter of status, of "muh humanity!" . Not of understanding the "essence" of what it means to be male and female. I wonder if you ever read Parker's and Lehtonen's article on the topic -- highly recommended, even if I can't say I've read more than the abstract and the introduction:

Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

Abstract. Males and females are a fundamental aspect of human reproduction, yet procreation is perfectly possible without this division into two sexes. Biologic

web.archive.org

I confess I haven't thoroughly read it . I saw they used the word immutable - fair enough in humans (& other mammals).

ICYMI :

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

But only "immutable" if you go with folk-biology definitions. Fine if that's what we want. But the problem is that too many claim that that is what the standard biological definitions of much wider application say. Which is so much "horse feathers", and serves only to corrupt and distort biology. Which, as Griffiths pointed out in an Aeon article, is likely to have tragic and far-reaching consequences on par with the "Lysenko Incident":

the deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Louden Wilde]

Glad you appreciate, maybe finally, that it's a matter of definitions? The question then seems to be which ones will be trump -- so to speak.

As above, so below ...


The problem isn't the definitions, but that most everyone is rather desperate, if not dementedly so, to include those disorders in the sex categories. And when they don't fit they try to bastardize and corrupt the standard biological ones which are quite clear: if some organism -- of any anisogamous species -- doesn't produce any "reproductive cells" then it doesn't qualify for membership in the sex categories. Easy peasy.

As you reasonably point out or suggest, "male" and "female" are "equivalent/homologous" in all anisogamous species BECAUSE the definitions make the production of gametes the sine qua non for membership in those categories. As transwoman and evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden once put it, "the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.":

Paul E. Griffiths, What are biological sexes? - PhilArchive

Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are defined by different gametic strategies for reproduction. Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out ...

philarchive.org

Kind of Paul Griffiths' point:

Paul E. Griffiths, What are biological sexes? - PhilArchive

Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are defined by different gametic strategies for reproduction. Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out ...

philarchive.org

That seems to be much of the motivation behind defending the folk-biology definitions -- a matter of status, of "muh humanity!" . Not of understanding the "essence" of what it means to be male and female. I wonder if you ever read Parker's and Lehtonen's article on the topic -- highly recommended, even if I can't say I've read more than the abstract and the introduction:

Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

Abstract. Males and females are a fundamental aspect of human reproduction, yet procreation is perfectly possible without this division into two sexes. Biologic

web.archive.org

ICYMI :

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

But only "immutable" if you go with folk-biology definitions. Fine if that's what we want. But the problem is that too many claim that that is what the standard biological definitions of much wider application say. Which is so much "horse feathers", and serves only to corrupt and distort biology. Which, as Griffiths pointed out in an Aeon article, is likely to have tragic and far-reaching consequences on par with the "Lysenko Incident":

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

see my post here on Griffiths.

 

[smartcooky]

There isn't just one listed on both sides. These are listed on both sides:
46 XY SRY+ (actually twice in the male column, twice in the female column)
46 XX SRY-
47 XXY SRY+
45/46 X/XY SRY+

Correct, BUT the descriptions and conditions are different. You won't find the same karyotype, description and condition list on both sides.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/karyotype

A karyotype is a picture of all of the chromosomes from one cell of an individual and it is organized into 23 pairs. The purpose of ordering a karyotype is to see how the chromosomes look, including the total number of chromosomes, if there are any major extra or missing pieces, or if their arrangement is abnormal​

​

​

 

[Norman Alexander]

Still kind of clueless that "phenotypically female" is NOT the same as "reproductively female".

I understand the difference quite well. Whoever wrote the EO does not.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Again, that's not how we define female.

I never said it was.

But again, you are proceeding down a track where whoever wrote that EO has never been. Their specific EO wording is "at conception" and that is precisely what is referred to in law now. So you cannot invoke all the science of gender expression after that point in time, no matter how correct and detailed it most certainly is.

The EO author(s) have completely failed to read and understand even a high school science book that would have informed them of the very basics you have knowledge of. Frankly, they have very likely failed to read anything whatsoever about the subject at all, in case it taint their anti-abortionist zeal. They are a very biblical-themed bunch, so you really do have to dial back your expectations of their knowledge of this branch of science. We are talking Young Earth Creationist type morons here. Seriously.

 

[Steersman]

see my post here on Griffiths.

I wonder how much of his paper you actually read. Not very closely nor with much of an open mind by the look of it.

I glanced at the Griffiths paper and he gets it wrong at some critical points - it seems to be a fancier version of trans-activist arguments (some organisms switch sex, some have environmentally determined triggers to start the sex differentiation pathway). He even seems to admit this (My motive in writing this essay must, somehow, be to enforce my view of human diversity...) . Citing Roughgarden adds to this impression.

His words in italics:
Moreover, when biologists say there are two sexes in the human species this does not imply that every human being is one of those two sexes or that every human individual has a determinate biological sex.

In the case of humans and other mammals, it does (imply that every individual is one of the two) - because of our understanding of the development and genetics of sex determination in this group (and its being tied in with the urogenital system).

That's based on YOUR definition, not the one in Trump's EO nor the one in reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias, both of which make the current production of reproductive cells into the necessary and sufficient condition for sex category membership.

And you might note that there are some 6000 mammal species, but probably some 10 million anisogamous species, i.e., virtually all multicellular organisms:

Mammal | Definition, Characteristics, Classification, Examples, & Facts | Britannica

Mammal, a vertebrate animal whose young are nourished with milk from special mammary glands of the mother.

www.britannica.com

The biological definition of sex does not imply that there is any genetic or phenotypic character that is shared by all members of a sex in a species.

Yes, it does for the latter (shared phenotype): All females have organs/gonads that at some point in their life cycle will be capable of producing mature oocytes* (yes, barring deleterious mutation, accidents, or other insult - let's please don't go down this path).

Clearly, the gonads of "females" which once produced ova are not the same gonads that are currently producing ova. And neither are the same gonads as those which might yet produce ova. They all MIGHT look the same, but clearly one is not like the other two in a rather significant way. You might note the "reproductive FUNCTION" in the definition for sex:



And maybe you missed this bit in Griffiths' paper which speaks to that function as being a necessity for sex category membership:

Worker honeybees are ‘female’ in the sense that their developmental trajectory is an evolutionary modification of the developmental trajectory of their straightforwardly female ancestors (Table 1). I’m not criticising this usage, but I do want to draw attention to the fact that these non-reproductives are not ‘female’ in the same sense as female reproductives. A Queen ant is female in the standard, gametic strategy sense. The non-reproductive castes, however, have abandoned the production of gametes and adopted a strategy based on transferring resources to relatives who share their genes.

 

[Steersman]

I understand the difference quite well. Whoever wrote the EO does not.

You're quoting that NCBI article which is what is talking about "phenotypically female". And then "concluding" -- erroneously -- that they are actually reproductively female.

 

[Norman Alexander]

You're quoting that NCBI article which is what is talking about "phenotypically female". And then "concluding" -- erroneously -- that they are actually reproductively female.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You know full well I did not say that, nor is it my opinion.

 

[Steersman]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. You know full well I did not say that, nor is it my opinion.

Horse crap. You SAID:

"And at conception, we humans are all female."

See:

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.

And Trump's Executive Order:

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

Though, as you've suggested, that EO has rather badly mangled the definitions for the sexes, even if they more or less get right what it takes to qualify as male and female:

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

But to qualify as female one must be producing large reproductive cells. Which doesn't happen until puberty so no one at conception is female. Your rather clueless misunderstanding to the contrary notwithstanding.

And -- given your "legally assigned US gender" -- you might also try reading and thinking about that EO since it anathematizes the use of "gender":

(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. “Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity.”

(f) “Gender ideology” replaces the biological category of sex with an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa, and requiring all institutions of society to regard this false claim as true. Gender ideology includes the idea that there is a vast spectrum of genders that are disconnected from one’s sex. Gender ideology is internally inconsistent, in that it diminishes sex as an identifiable or useful category but nevertheless maintains that it is possible for a person to be born in the wrong sexed body.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Horse crap. You SAID:


See:

And Trump's Executive Order:

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

Though, as you've suggested, that EO has rather badly mangled the definitions for the sexes, even if they more or less get right what it takes to qualify as male and female:


But to qualify as female one must be producing large reproductive cells. Which doesn't happen until puberty so no one at conception is female. Your rather clueless misunderstanding to the contrary notwithstanding.

And -- given your "legally assigned US gender" -- you might also try reading and thinking about that EO since it anathematizes the use of "gender":

AGAIN!!!
IT'S NOT ME MAKING THESE CLAIMS! IT'S THE US NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH! IF THEY ARE WRONG, PLEASE WRITE TO THEM, NOT ME!!

AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!

 

[Steersman]

AGAIN!!!
IT'S NOT ME MAKING THESE CLAIMS! IT'S THE US NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HEALTH! IF THEY ARE WRONG, PLEASE WRITE TO THEM, NOT ME!!

AND STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!

Thick as a brick there mate. The NCBI article is saying "phenotypically female" which is NOT the same thing as "reproductively female". And then you're saying -- "at conception, we humans are all female" --- that they're saying we're all actually reproductively female right from conception. Which is simply not true.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Thick as a brick there mate. The NCBI article is saying "phenotypically female" which is NOT the same thing as "reproductively female".

NB. That's not me saying it. So glad you accept that.

And then you're saying -- "at conception, we humans are all female" --- that they're saying we're all actually reproductively female right from conception.

No, this is where you are wrong. I have not said that at all. This is you putting words in my mouth.

Which is simply not true.

Correct. Now...

TELL THAT TO THE AUTHORS OF THE E.O. BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT IS EXACTLY THE CASE!!

 

[Elaedith]

Doesn't matter what I think. Technically, I agree with you. Problem is that the EO as written does not. AGAIN, here is the NIH information...for the fourth time.

No matter how many times you post it, it does not say that we are all female at conception.

 

[Steersman]

NB. That's not me saying it. So glad you accept that.

No, this is where you are wrong. I have not said that at all. This is you putting words in my mouth.

Correct. Now...

TELL THAT TO THE AUTHORS OF THE E.O. BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THAT IS EXACTLY THE CASE!!

Think you can answer a simple question there sport? Did you or did you not say that "at conception, we humans are all female"?

Where, exactly, are they saying that?