Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

Emily's Cat said:
Because the alternative is to either try to itemize every single possible karyotype variation including ones we haven't yet run across, and write policy for every conceivable potential exception and spend 50,000 pages trying to nail down something that will satisfy all possible naysayers...
Click to expand...
Or the policy could be written allow for the possibility that human judgment will be necessary in special cases, the resolution of which are not obvious from the legal definitions now followed by the executive branch.
Emily's Cat said:
Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female...
Click to expand...
I don't believe anyone here has yet established the truth of this claim, especially if we're restricted to using only genotype-based information when sorting.

For example, I would be inclined to sort CAIS individuals into the male sex, given that 46,XY gonadal dysgenesis is "characteristic of male hypogonadism with karyotype 46,XY" and I tend to favor the idea that people should be sexed according to what sex they would have developed, but for deleterious mutations or other interference. Rolfe, though, goes the other way.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Transgender identified males are still males, even if they buy the nicest Prada ...
Click to expand...
A reasonably close argument, but still no cigar. Transwomen who cut off their nuts are sex-less, neither male nor female.

Don't think you realize, or want to get, that it is only your article of faith that membership in the sex categories is based on some nebulous "designed to produce gametes" criterion. Which neither Trump's EO nor standard biological definitions endorse.

You might take a gander at that second tweet of Hooven's as one can almost see the wheels turning in her head as she endorses that EO, particularly the "produces gametes", then makes a hail Mary pass to "designed to produce" to rescue her from admitting that she is technically sexless. Rather amusing to see her recourse to "intelligent design" -- "the Lord works in wondrous ways" ... 🙄
 
smartcooky said:
Well, it only looks like an crap analogy to you because you have missed the point entirely. My post was a response to Ron Obvious' expectation of finding unspoken conquences clealy laid out, then upon not finding them, deciding those consequencys don't exist.

In the discussion about the EO, we are talking about what it says, but not necessarily the truth (or otherwise) or fairness (or otherwise) of what it says, and the interpretation of what it doesn't say. I am neither saying this EO is a good thing or a bad thing. I actually like the idea of making a legal defintion to nail down exactly how men/males and women/females are defined in the eyes of the law, so that there can be no later argument about the practical applications of those defintiions, but the fact remains that THIS EO is badly written, not based in science, and as a result, will cause some unspoken consequences - things that will later be legally interpeted. Building codes are a good analogy for those unspoken consequences because, like EO's they are declarations of what is and what is not!
Click to expand...
I don't think the EO is poorly written. For one thing, it's not a legal definition. It's a guideline for executive branch agencies.

Its purpose is to resolve conflicts or disputes about enforcement of federal regulations.

For example: Say a complaint is lodged with federal Title IX regulators, that a university receiving federal funds isn't allowing women access to women's athletic programs, locker rooms, etc. This EO instructs the regulators to address the complaint by defining women according to their natal sex. The EO assumes that natal sex is binary and immutable. This may lead to some rare edge cases in regulatory enforcement, but doesn't represent a serious problem for the EO and its application. Cases where the sex of the person in question cannot be easily determined by visual inspection or genetic testing would most likely be referred to a review board or some other dispute resolution process. If these kinds of cases become a regular problem, they'll probably result in a new EO superseding the deficient one. But I don't think the current EO is deficient on its face.
 
Ziggurat said:
Maybe he's worried this will lead to transwomen being denied pap smears.
Click to expand...
LoL. Though another case of truth being stranger than fiction as, IIRC, Kara Dansky quoted Bill Maher poking fun at some Democrat Representative or Senator demanding the right to abortion services for transwomen.
 
theprestige said:
But I don't think the current EO is deficient on its face.
Click to expand...
👍 More or less in any case. Both Hooven and Jerry Coyne still basically endorsed it, albeit with some qualifications.

And I would do likewise with the caveat that while the EO definitions for the sexes are consistent with reputable biology, it is simply not "true" -- the EO not being consistent with the biological definitions -- that we're male or female right from conception. You might note that both Hooven and Coyne endorse the view, Emily or her cat likewise, that we don't acquire a sex until well after conception.

But the standard biological definitions lead to the conclusion that we generally don't acquire a sex until the onset of puberty -- most of the intersex being exceptions since, as many have noted, they don't go through that process.

Conclusions depend on the premises, axioms, and definitions one starts out from.
 
Steersman said:
Quoting and linking to various Substack posts -- by me and many others including Matt Taibbi -- was more or less explicitly anathematized by Musk, Himself.

I wasn't the only only one exiled to the "outer darkness" for that "crime".


I've tried -- several times, including using VPNs. Their algorithms for detecting offenders are a bit more aggressive and thorough -- probably enhanced by AI ... 😉🙂
Click to expand...
I dunno, dude. Taibbi posts regularly so... 🤷‍♀️
 
d4m10n said:
Or the policy could be written allow for the possibility that human judgment will be necessary in special cases, the resolution of which are not obvious from the legal definitions now followed by the executive branch.
Click to expand...
WCGW?

"Oh this is a special case" is sort of how we ended up needing to codify sex in law in the first place, isn't it?
 
Steersman said:
A reasonably close argument, but still no cigar. Transwomen who cut off their nuts are sex-less, neither male nor female.
Click to expand...
Just so you have no misunderstandings, I am not going to entertain your definition of sex. I reject it, and have consistently done so since before we managed to get it split to it's own thread.

Actual gamete production is not a requirement for sex. I wasn't sexless last month when I skipped a cycle due to being perimenopausal, and I didn't magically transform back into a female this month when I started to menstruate again.
 
Emily's Cat said:
No, actually, you haven't. You've always backtracked to an assertion that phenotype changes over time and that infants have a different reproductive phenotype than adults do. But you've yet to actually explain what you personally interpret the word phenotype to mean.

And as this is at the heart of many of the disagreements, it seems worthwhile for you to provide an explanation - in your own words - of how you interpret that term, and how it applies within the context of this discussion.
Click to expand...
As I've said, repeatedly, you're not listening. Here for another example:

S

Merged Post in thread 'Strict biological definitions of male/female'

Emily's Cat said:
By your logic, an infant who hasn't yet learned to walk is legless.
Click to expand...
🙄 The "set of observable characteristics or traits" -- AKA phenotype -- of a typical newborn is clearly different from someone of 50 who lost their legs in an accident.

At least try thinking that constructions like "X is the phenotype that exhibits properties A, B, & C" is just equating or defining the entity X as the body that currently exhibits those properties.

An embryo is the phenotype that has undifferentiated reproductive structures;
A polydactyl is the phenotype that has extra fingers or toes;
An...

Generally speaking, phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits. Why Wikipedia says CAIS people are phenotypically female. By the same token, Jenner and/or other transwomen with neovaginas are likewise phenotypically female.

So when you start talking about reproductive phenotype, one might argue women don't have one since their gonads are not observable whereas those of men are.

So your "reproductive phenotype" can only mean the ovaries that are only observable once you look underneath the hood. But if you're going to widen the scope and meaning of "observable" then, by the same principle, looking a bit deeper under that hood, one see that there are phenotypical differences in the ovaries of prepubescent girls, fertile women, and menopausees. Two of those three have NO reproductive function because they're not producing ova; there is no physiological and biochemical mechanism present that is able to deliver fully formed and functional ova to the production floor -- so to speak.

Ergo, there are phenotypical differences there that are relevant to the question of reproductive abilities. And to questions of membership in the female sex category.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Just so you have no misunderstandings, I am not going to entertain your definition of sex
Click to expand...
Fine by me. But then your definition isn't the one endorsed by mainstream biology.

And if you're going to reject biology then I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on when the Tickle vs Giggle case makes a neovagina the defining criterion for membership in the female category.

Nor when supposedly reputable biologists and biological journals claim sex is a spectrum. Nor when transactivists, like Riley Dennis, claim "female" is just a matter of best three out of five.

That's the benefit of that EO, as imperfect as it is: a clear stipulation that membership in sex categories is contingent on the current production of large or small gametes. Even if many, on both sides, are "offended" at the supposed denial of their personhood or humanity 🙄.
 
Steersman said:
Generally speaking, phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits. Why Wikipedia says CAIS people are phenotypically female. By the same token, Jenner and/or other transwomen with neovaginas are likewise phenotypically female.

So when you start talking about reproductive phenotype, one might argue women don't have one since their gonads are not observable whereas those of men are.
Click to expand...
When I say "reproductive phenotype", I am talking about the set of anatomical structures that have evolved to support one or the other reproductive role in an anisogamous species. We're talking humans, so I'll stick to that. I'm also sure I'll miss one or two small bits somewhere along the way, but I assume you can keep up with the gist.

A female of the human species has gonads comprised of ovarian tissue, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and vagina. There are other smaller bits, but those are the big ones. Those are the anatomical structures that are involved in the female reproductive role of gestating a fertilized egg and delivering an infant.

A male of the human species has gonads comprised of testicular tissue, scrotal sac, vas deferens, prostate, and penis. There are other smaller bits, but these are the big ones. Those are the anatomical structures that are involved in the male reproductive role of delivering sperm to a female's eggs inside of the female's body.

Now, given that those are the reproductive phenotypes of males and females in the human species... which of those anatomical structures are either absent or materially different in a newborn human than in an adult human?

Which of those anatomical structures does Jenner have?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Which of those anatomical structures does Jenner have?
Click to expand...
I SAID "phenotypically female". Do you deny that Wikipedia is saying the same about CAIS people?

That the NCBI article was saying the same about fetuses at various stages?

That phrase is JUST saying that the top-level traits -- genitalia in particular -- are those that are typical of females. Not that those individuals are actually female.

A cognitive distortion that you seem to share with Norman and Sarah McBride and the author of that Guardian article.

Motivated "reasoning" as far as the eye can see.
 
Steersman said:
I SAID "phenotypically female". Do you deny that Wikipedia is saying the same about CAIS people?
Click to expand...
FFS, why are you seemingly incapable of actually answering a direct question in good faith? I was very clear, I laid out exactly what I meant in easy-to-follow language without undue jargon. Then I asked you TWO very specific and explicit questions. Neither of which you have addressed.

CAIS people have fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and vagina. They have gonads in the anatomical position that females have gonads, but they're comprised of testicular tissue. CAIS people have a FEMALE reproductive phenotype.

Jenner has NONE of those things. Jenner doesn't have a vagina - Jenner has a thing that mimics the general shape of a vagina but is absolutely 100% not at all a real vagina - in the same way that the plastic apple in my grandparent's house was not at all a real apple.

On the other hand... every one of those anatomical structures that comprises the male reproductive phenotype and the female reproductive phenotype are present in fetal (post week 7), infant, juvenile, adult, and on-their-deathbed male and female humans respectively.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
What could go wrong with moving CAIS prisoners into male prisons?
Click to expand...
Less than can go wrong with moving phenotypical males into female prisons.

But hey, if it's such a concern - go find the one single CAIS individual who is in prison right now, and I'll cosign them being given a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ankle bracelet and placed under house arrest instead.
 
Emily's Cat said:
FFS, why are you seemingly incapable of actually answering a direct question in good faith? I was very clear, I laid out exactly what I meant in easy-to-follow language without undue jargon. Then I asked you TWO very specific and explicit questions. Neither of which you have addressed.
Click to expand...
Fer Christ's sake, look at this:

So Bruce Jenner is also "phenotypically female" -- apparently has a neovagina to prove it too. Though one would have to be half blind or dead drunk -- or desperate -- to take the next step.
Click to expand...

S

Merged Post in thread 'Strict biological definitions of male/female'

Norman Alexander said:
It says "phenotypically female". Do you deny it says that?
Click to expand...
So Bruce Jenner is also "phenotypically female" -- apparently has a neovagina to prove it too. Though one would have to be half blind or dead drunk -- or desperate -- to take the next step.

But are you now going to say that "she" is a female? Why or why not? Show your work ... 🙄

You might take a look at the photo given on "penile inversion", though I wouldn't put it past Wikipedia to put their thumbs on the scales:

Vaginoplasty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Only their gynecologists could say for sure ... "looks like" the real-meal deal, an actual vagina. "female phenotype" to pretty well anyone with not too exacting standards.

Emily's Cat said:
CAIS people have fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and vagina. They have gonads in the anatomical position that females have gonads, but they're comprised of testicular tissue. CAIS people have a FEMALE reproductive phenotype.
Click to expand...
We're NOT talking about a "female reproductive phenotype", just plain old "female phenotype".
Emily's Cat said:
Jenner has NONE of those things. Jenner doesn't have a vagina - Jenner has a thing that mimics the general shape of a vagina but is absolutely 100% not at all a real vagina - in the same way that the plastic apple in my grandparent's house was not at all a real apple.
Click to expand...
So flaming what? "female phenotype" MEANS "looks like" a typical female from a top-level perspective.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Less than can go wrong with moving phenotypical males into female prisons.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not the trans thread and I'm sick of writing responses only to have them wind up in AAH.
Emily's Cat said:
But hey, if it's such a concern - go find the one single CAIS individual who is in prison right now, and I'll cosign them being given a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ ankle bracelet and placed under house arrest instead.
Click to expand...
Your solicitude is noted but useless to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom