Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

Run this by Google when you've got a moment.

Wikipedia generally works just as well:

In one exceptional case, a 22-year-old with CAIS was found to have a cervix, uterus, and fallopian tubes. In an unrelated case, almost fully developed uterus was found in a 22-year-old adult with CAIS.

Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Though atrophied and non-functional testes kind of puts them into the "male phenotype" category, at least by the OP: "gonads of past, present, or future functionality":

The gonads in people with CAIS are testes; .... Testes in those affected have been found to be atrophic upon gonadectomy. Immature sperm cells in the testes do not mature past an early stage, as sensitivity to androgens is required in order for spermatogenesis to complete.

They're sexless, incapable of producing either type of gamete.

But that's the problem with the "designed around" claptrap of Hooven et al. And Emily's "anatomical structures that have evolved to support one or the other reproductive role in an anisogamous species". Which structures? How can you tell they're "designed"? By whom? For what purpose?

The ONLY structures that are relevant to the biological definitions are the gonads. And they have to be "online" and cranking out product on a regular basis for the organism to qualify for a membership card in the sex categories. No gametes, no sex. Easy peasy. At least for those not with their arms, or minds, stuck in a monkey trap of one sort or another:

monkey trap - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

Don’t get caught in the monkey trap

‘The monkey is trapped not by anything physical, but by an idea, unable to see that a principle that served him well has become lethal,’ says Oliver Burkeman

www.theguardian.com

 

[smartcooky]

Norman Alexander maybe, but smartcooky?

You, Zig, Prestige and He Who Shall Not Be Named are all reading far too much into what I said. I do not agree with Norman Alexander's take, except that I agree with his belief the EO is poorly written. Conception is not a useful point in the timeline of the development of an indivual on which to base a determination of sex.
I'm simply making a technical point about what Ron Obvious said.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't believe anyone here has yet established the truth of this claim.

Bollocks! This has been established repeatedly.
Go find some study papers on DSD (ones being untertaken by biologists NOT philosophers) and see if you can find ANY in which those doing the study explicity state that the subject of that study is a third sex, neither male nor female. You won't find one.
And please STOP using "intersex" as a term. That term is no longer used in science. The correct term is DSD (Disorders of Sexual Development). "Intersex" falsely implies that people with DSD are "between sexes" and is used by some as the basis of the claim that sex is on a spectrum.

 

[Steersman]

You, Zig, Prestige and He Who Shall Not Be Named are all reading far too much into what I said.

LoL. Is that your non-engagement engagement?

I do not agree with Norman Alexander's take, except that I agree with his belief the EO is poorly written. Conception is not a useful point in the timeline of the development of an individual on which to base a determination of sex. I'm simply making a technical point about what Ron Obvious said.

Horse feathers. Retconning for fun and profit. You explicitly agreed with Alexander's take that the "EO is to cynically and cruelly deny that service to a small segment of US society", the service in question stipulated to be the "care" that "ailing people ... need":

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

Jan 27, 2025

I suspect that you're correct that the people writing are likely vile. But your answer is... not good. Again - this issue was handed to them by folks on the left. Women and girls are oppressed/discriminated against on the basis of their being female, and the Dems lost sight of that - at least officially. Another impact is the kind of claims I mentioned weakened peoples belief that the Dems are the party of science. When I was a young scientist, I heard the phrase, "the right hates science when it goes against their interpretation of the bible, and the left when it conflicts with...

• Norman Alexander

The "care" in question being the sterilization and castration of autistic and dysphoric children, turning them into sexless eunuchs. Some "service", some "care". The crime and medical scandal of the century.

Though you're right as far as the EO being poorly written, mostly because it conflicts with the standard biological definitions for the sexes, primarily in claiming that most of us are male or female right from conception. Nice that you more or less agree that we're all sexless until some time between conception and birth -- more or less what Carole Hooven and Jerry Coyne argue in favour of, even if those biological definitions don't agree with any of you.

 

[Steersman]

I dunno, dude. Taibbi posts regularly so...

I expect he has a bit more pull on Twitter than I do. And I think I got banned early in the feud between Musk and Taibbi so maybe Twitter pulled in their horns a bit after that:

Twitter targets its rival Substack, forcing well-known journalists to choose​

Matt Taibbi, whom Elon Musk solicited to write the ‘Twitter Files,’ says he’ll start using Substack’s new Twitter clone

Updated April 7, 2023

LOS ANGELES — Matt Taibbi, who was chosen by Twitter owner Elon Musk to write segments of the controversial “Twitter Files,” announced Friday that he’s quitting the platform to protest new restrictions on links to Substack, a rival newsletter and social media platform where Taibbi is one of the most popular contributors. ....

On Thursday, Substack writers discovered that they were no longer able to embed tweets in their Substack posts. Writers who tried were met with the message, “Twitter has unexpectedly restricted access to embedding tweets in Substack posts.”
On Friday morning, Twitter began blocking users from retweeting, liking or engaging with posts that contained links to Substack articles. Users also could not pin posts containing links to Substack to the top of their profiles. On Friday evening, Twitter began marking links to Substack as “unsafe.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/07/twitter-substack-taibbi-musk-split/

 

[Steersman]

Bollocks! This has been established repeatedly.

Don't think you quite understand how biology or science in general works. D4m10n was responding to a comment by Emily where she claimed that "Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female...":

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

Jan 27, 2025

My argument is simple; any EO purporting to define sex needs to deal with the possibility of intersex conditions

No it doesn't. Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female, nobody is something "in between" and nobody is a "third sex".

• Emily's Cat

That very much depends on the definition in play. While she "thinks" that her rather bogus ones are trump, neither the EO nor the standard biological ones support that contention. Both of those definitions more or less explicitly make the production of gametes, of "reproductive cells", into the sine qua non for membership in the sex categories. No gametes, no sex.

Most of the intersex produce neither type so therefore, by those definitions, must qualify as sexless.

Go find some study papers on DSD (ones being undertaken by biologists NOT philosophers) and see if you can find ANY in which those doing the study explicitly state that the subject of that study is a third sex, neither male nor female. You won't find one.

You do seem to have some difficulty with the concept that those organisms which are "neither male nor female" simply don't qualify as a "third sex". You might note that biologist Jerry Coyne has explicitly endorsed the view that the intersex are neither male nor female, that they're not a "third sex":



https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023...-and-gender-are-not-binaries/#comment-2048737

Though he tends to talk out of both sides of his mouth, and in the same post:

Not nah, yeah. Zemick even falls for the bogus criticism that sterile or pre- or post-reproductive people are neither male nor female:

The intersex are neither male nor female because they don't produce either type of gamete -- as per EO and standard biological definitions. Which is the same case for "pre- or post-reproductive people". Ergo, likewise neither male nor female. Can't have your cake and eat it too there mate.

 

[d4m10n]

Bollocks! This has been established repeatedly.

The claim of which I remain skeptical is this: "Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female..."

I've already provided a specific example which is very difficult to classify, along with disagreement in this thread as to where those folks should be classified, whether using our own criteria or the ones from the OP or the new EO.

Go find some study papers on DSD (ones being untertaken by biologists NOT philosophers) and see if you can find ANY in which those doing the study explicity state that the subject of that study is a third sex, neither male nor female.

A "third sex" would be a new reproductive category (i.e. three gametes instead of just two) so obviously we're not talking about that unless we're doing SFF.

And please STOP using "intersex" as a term.

Defund the language police.

 

[smartcooky]

The claim of which I remain skeptical is this: "Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female..."

Then you're wrong! The matter is settled - only ideologues with an agenda disagree.

I've already provided a specific example which is very difficult to classify, along with disagreement in this thread as to where those folks should be classified, whether using our own criteria or the ones from the OP or the new EO.

Difficult is not impossible! The fact remains that you cannot show me an individual who is impossible to classify as either male or female - therefore, you have no evidence for your claim

Hitchens' Razor applies: "That is which is claimed without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence"

You claim is therefore dismissed

A "third sex" would be a new reproductive category (i.e. three gametes instead of just two) so obviously we're not talking about that unless we're doing SFF.

If an individual is not male or female then, by default, they must be a third, as yet undiscovered sex. That is unless you are an adherent of Steersman's bat-crap loony position that anyone who is not actively producing gametes while he is watching, is sexless.

The fact is, there are no individuals who are impossible to classify as either male or female.

Defund the language police.

A dodge. You failed to address what I posted. Its not about policing language, its about skeptics using correct scientific terminology.

"Intersex" was replaced with "DSD" almost 20 years ago. Only the ignorant, the scientifically illiterate and ideologues with a nefarious agenda still use it. (Its easier to claim sex is not binary when you use the term "intersex" because it implies an in-between or third sex)

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2018.1453862

Various umbrella terms refer to sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of somatic sex. Key terms include Intersex, reclaimed by 1990s activists, and Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) used in medicine since 2006.​

 

[angrysoba]

Smartcooky, did you read that study? It’s just a study based on interviews and focus groups in which they ask random people which words they prefer. The paper repeatedly refers to “intersex/DSD” as if the paper’s authors see both terms as legitimate. Besides, “used in medicine since 2006” is not the same as “replaced”.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You, Zig, Prestige and He Who Shall Not Be Named are all reading far too much into what I said. I do not agree with Norman Alexander's take, except that I agree with his belief the EO is poorly written. Conception is not a useful point in the timeline of the development of an indivual on which to base a determination of sex.
I'm simply making a technical point about what Ron Obvious said.

That was supposed to be my point. It was a reasonable assumption for Zig to make about Norman Alexander's position, but not for yours.

 

[Brainster]

They're not in there because, as I said, this is a precursor. Once they can unperson people by denying they even exist, lots of discrimination follows. This is like changing the value of a "black" person back to being three fifths of a white man. But in this case, it is denying their existence entirely.

This "deny their existence" tack is pretty ridiculous. Nobody denies the existence of Caitlyn Jenner. What we deny is that somehow magically Bruce Jenner turned into a woman when he decided that's what he was.

 

[Steersman]

This "deny their existence" tack is pretty ridiculous.

An absolute howler. Though it has been a major part of the litany of complaints from the transloonie tribe for at least the last half-dozen years:

We need to acknowledge that debates that invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us based on gender are both a form of transphobia and gendered violence. There is no neutral way to demand that someone defend their very existence and their right to a safe school and work environment.

Words Lose Their Meaning at Wilfrid Laurier University - Quillette

archived 6 Jan 2018 03:13:27 UTC

archive.ph

Words Lose Their Meaning at Wilfrid Laurier University

Though different literary forms, the key message of both works was the same: beware any person or group that redefines words.

quillette.com

Words Lose Their Meaning at Wilfrid Laurier University​

"cry bullies" from square one:

https://grrrgraphics.com/attack-of-the-cry-bullies-new-ben-garrison-cartoon/

Nobody denies the existence of Caitlyn Jenner. What we deny is that somehow magically Bruce Jenner turned into a woman when he decided that's what he was.

Exactly right. Though it's a common feature -- even if "bug" or "cognitive distortion" is probably more accurate -- of both sides that too many "think" that if we deny their claims to being male or female then we're "denying" their existence or "humanity". For example, see the "Biology Is Not Binary" article in the recent American "Scientist" newsmagazine:

Sex is not binary. Presenting male and female as the only two possible sex categories ignores the diversity of humans and other organisms, and it erases intersex people.

https://psv4.userapi.com/s/v1/d/ngaxZDtOSp-FJkWDw_9CZe7l-vTGwA7MptHsoHayggLCbMrjLWbfB7rAhq1yaxX_-r-tayP4QEspzuadT7tukz1ejCwv9kU58D3gYG_cvat9eKlu/American_Scientist_-_March-April_2024.pdf

Gonna get Luigi to "rub them out" ... Probably why so many, supposedly on the right side of history, bastardize and corrupt the biological definitions so as to include the intersex in the sex categories:



"morally problematic" -- wot a joke. One must be kind to the poor dears ...

 

[Norman Alexander]

This "deny their existence" tack is pretty ridiculous. Nobody denies the existence of Caitlyn Jenner. What we deny is that somehow magically Bruce Jenner turned into a woman when he decided that's what he was.

Whatever Caitlyn Jenner's issue is, "we" have no business in it, or limiting what her choices are if they are legal. Like what she has for dinner, or what tattoos she gets. It's her private choice, none of "our" business. Just butt your nose out.

 

[Steersman]

Whatever Caitlyn Jenner's issue is, "we" have no business in it, or limiting what her choices are if they are legal. Like what she has for dinner, or what tattoos she gets. It's her private choice, none of "our" business. Just butt your nose out.

LoL. Given "her" public profile -- "Woman of the Year" award no less -- one might raise at least an eyebrow at your "private choice". But she has explicitly said she had "the final surgery":

Jenner underwent cosmetic surgery and completed sex reassignment surgery in January 2017.

Caitlyn Jenner - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But that claim to being a woman is rather contingent on what it takes to qualify as women -- rather doubt any transwoman is ever going to grow a pair of ovaries of their own. But at least she recognizes that transwomen don't qualify as such, and that they have no business being in women's sports:

Former Olympian turned Fox News commentator Caitlyn Jenner has said trans women are not “real women” and called for chromosome testing to be brought back in sports.

Jenner – who won the decathlon gold at the 1976 summer Olympics in Montreal – has been vocal in backing restrictions on trans athletes competing in women’s sports, criticised “woke culture” and decried the “radical rainbow mafia” – whatever that is.

Caitlyn Jenner says trans women are not 'real women'

Caitlyn Jenner has said trans women are not “real women” and called for chromosome tests to be brought back in sports.

www.thepinknews.com

But kind of amusing that Pink News balks at that "radical rainbow mafia".

 

[Steersman]

<d4m10n said:
The claim of which I remain skeptical is this: "Everyone with a DSD is still either male or female..."
>
Then you're wrong! The matter is settled - only ideologues with an agenda disagree.

LoL. "Liar, liar, pants on fire". Unless you "think" that Jerry Coyne is "an ideologue with an agenda"?

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

You just prove yourself to be a fraud and a liar -- and an "ideologue" -- every time you make such statements without considering evidence to the contrary.

The fact is, there are no individuals who are impossible to classify as either male or female.

You really don't seem to have a flaming clue that whether someone is classified as a male or female -- or as sexless -- depends entirely on the definitions used, on the criteria specified therein. Your definition and that of Emily is pretty much the same as what so-called biologist Heather Heying is peddling -- largely what had been part of the OP which its primary author, Emma Hilton, had repudiated, although Hilton said nothing at all about "anomalies" :

Females are individuals who do or did or will or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs.

Not the First Female President

But yes, the First Raccoon

naturalselections.substack.com

But that is NOT how either the EO or standard biological definitions define the term. Since you seem to have a short memory -- maybe too often running off to stick your head in the sand, "I don't care" echoing behind you -- your might review the former:

“Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large 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

Diddly-squat there about any "who do, did, will, or would -- but for ... anomalies, produce eggs". Talk about "ideologues". Though one might ask, "which anomalies"? How can you tell? Who says so? A dog's breakfast of contradictory criteria that makes it pretty well impossible to classify everyone as either male or female. The recent contradictory judgement calls about CAIS people being a case in point. Someone might ask Heying -- she's blocked me -- about CAIS since she would probably call them males since they at least have (atrophied) testicular tissue.

But the EO makes it easy to classify people as male or female -- small or large reproductive cells coming off the end of the production line on a regular basis. respectively. And if people -- like the CAIS and intersex in general -- don't produce either then the implication, as per Coyne, is that they are neither male nor female, ergo sexless.

 

[d4m10n]

Then you're wrong! The matter is settled - only ideologues with an agenda disagree.

Evidence? This time don't post an unsourced meme.

The fact remains that you cannot show me an individual who is impossible to classify as either male or female - therefore, you have no evidence for your claim

Are CAIS people male or female, in your view?

If an individual is not male or female then, by default, they must be a third, as yet undiscovered sex.

Nope; sex is for reproduction. "Third sex" implies some new role in the reproductive process, and we'll only ever see that in sci-fi.

That is unless you are an adherent of Steersman's bat-crap loony position that anyone who is not actively producing gametes while he is watching, is sexless.

I'm not going to address Steersman's position any further.

The fact is, there are no individuals who are impossible to classify as either male or female.

Are CAIS people male or female, in your view?

You failed to address what I posted. Its not about policing language, its about skeptics using correct scientific terminology.

Too bad. I'm not changing my language to suit your agenda.

 

[smartcooky]

Evidence? This time don't post an unsourced meme.

Its not unsourced...

Body and Soul: Why Sex Categories Matter in Combat Sports

Differences in sexual development do not mean that biological sex is a spectrum or a matter of choice. Confusion over this is putting women's lives at risk, especially in boxing.

www.psychologytoday.com

And its not a "meme" its a chart that shows accurate, verifiable facts.

Are CAIS people male or female, in your view?

Are CAIS people male or female, in your view?

They are genetically male

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome: Complete & Partial

Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is a genetic disease. It occurs when someone is genetically male, but doesn’t develop normal external male genitals.

my.clevelandclinic.org

"Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) is a rare, inherited, sexual development disorder. People with AIS are genetically male, but don’t develop male external genitals because their bodies can’t respond to male sex hormones. AIS can cause problems during puberty, as well as infertility."​

​

"Androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) occurs when someone is genetically male but is insensitive to androgens (male sex hormones). This means the person has male sex chromosomes (one X and one Y chromosome) but may have female genitals."​

​

"Complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS): A person’s external genital appears female. But they don’t have female sex organs (no ovaries, fallopian tubes or uterus)."​

​

"Males who inherit an abnormal gene, called the androgen receptor (AR) gene, from their mothers have a 1 in 4 chance of developing AIS. Females can also inherit and carry the gene, but they won’t develop AIS."​

To summarize: Individuals with AIS are
- always genetically male, since females cannot develop AIS
- never have internal female reproductive organs, therefore cannot be female

Nope; sex is for reproduction. "Third sex" implies some new role in the reproductiveprocess, and we'll only ever see that in sci-fi.

Yet you are advocating for it by what you have been saying

Question: In your view, Is sex binary? Answer yes or no (no elaboration or equivocation)

I'm not going to address Steersman's position any further.

First you thing you've said for a while that makes any sense

Too bad. I'm not changing my language to suit your agenda.

Ok, well you can remain scientifically illiterate then... no-one else cares

 

[Emily's Cat]

Whatever Caitlyn Jenner's issue is, "we" have no business in it, or limiting what her choices are if they are legal. Like what she has for dinner, or what tattoos she gets. It's her private choice, none of "our" business. Just butt your nose out.

Nobody has proposed anything remotely like that level of butting into Jenner's business, and it's a massive red herring on your part.

On the other hand, Jenner's personal feeling about their head-gender-feeling doesn't grant them the special privilege of invalidating the rights of female humans.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Nobody has proposed anything remotely like that level of butting into Jenner's business, and it's a massive red herring on your part.

On the other hand, Jenner's personal feeling about their head-gender-feeling doesn't grant them the special privilege of invalidating the rights of female humans.

What are these rights of female humans that are different from males? Do males have different rights from females?

 

[d4m10n]

To summarize: Individuals with AIS are
- always genetically male, since females cannot develop AIS
- never have internal female reproductive organs, therefore cannot be female

Agreed! Now here is the tricky bit: Given that they have seen themselves as female their entire lives, do you think CAIS individuals ought to be forced to use male facilities, as per the new Trump EO on gender? Rolfe at #2,216 says she'd rather treat these people as female, despite how this flies in the face of the binary as we understand it. I think her moral intuitions are good, but don't see any way to get squeeze them into the framework of the anti-gender EO.

Yet you are advocating for it by what you have been saying

Alas, it doesn't follow from anything I've been saying.

Question: In your view, Is sex binary?

Sex as a process for passing on genes is obviously binary.

Sex as a category is a bit harder, "some degree of judgement comes into play" in rare cases as Emily's Cat noted above.