Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[angrysoba]

Can you expand on what you mean when you say an individual is "functionally intersex"? Please elaborate on what you think that encompasses.

That there is genuine doubt about whether male or female best describes the individuals. In the chart, for example, CAIS is labeled female, but others in the thread have argued male.

 

[d4m10n]

You're essentially using an inverted appeal to authority - you're outright rejecting information based on what you think about the source, with no consideration whatsoever for the accuracy of the information itself.

I'm rejecting a classification system that (for all we know) involved the author eyeballing a few examples from a 2010 print copy of the Encyclopedia Britannica and then making his and/or her best guess.

Everything in that chart can be independently verified.

By the person asserting that the entire chart is true, one might well assume.

(Otherwise we'd be shifting the burden of proof from the one making assertions to the one doubting them.)

You can go look up information about every one of the listed conditions, and learn what makes them male or female in each case. But you don't want to bother with it, and it's much easier for you to just pretend its "a meme" and discard it entirely because it doesn't fit your pre-existing belief.

I'm not going to accept the burden of proof for that meme. If you want to support it, that's on you.

While you're at it, what classification criteria do you think the meme creator used on the hard cases like PAIS & CAIS?

If you were acting with internal consistency... you would reject every single bit of information provided in this thread by anyone other than Louden Wilde, Rolfe, and Elaedith* - all of whom have actual training in biology and/or sexual development to be relevant to the discussion.

Not the worst idea, really.

 

[Elaedith]

If you were acting with internal consistency... you would reject every single bit of information provided in this thread by anyone other than Louden Wilde, Rolfe, and
Elaedith* - all of whom have actual training in biology and/or sexual development to be relevant to the discussion. That means you should reject any assertions made by YOU as well.

I do? That's news to me.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That there is genuine doubt about whether male or female best describes the individuals. In the chart, for example, CAIS is labeled female, but others in the thread have argued male.

Would it be fair to say that there's doubt or disagreement about how to best classify them, but not that they are something other than male or female?

This might seem like an unnecessary detail, but it is pretty important

 

[Emily's Cat]

I do? That's news to me.

Well then apparently you just come across as incredibly knowledgeable!

I'd swear there's at least one other participant in these threads that had a relevant background, but I also am really bad at keeping track of things like that. I kind of suck at it in real life, where I have the benefit of facial expression and inflection to cement a person in my brain; without those I struggle to isolate individuals. Avatars help, and copious amounts of in-depth interaction too... but yeah, I rely heavily on faces to make people "real" in my brain.

 

[Steersman]

That there is genuine doubt about whether male or female best describes the individuals. In the chart, for example, CAIS is labeled female, but others in the thread have argued male.

When one is caught on the horns of a dilemma -- "male or female?" -- or caught in a monkey trap -- "everyone has to be male or female" -- then often the best solution is to consider other alternatives:

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

For example, most of the intersex are neither male nor female. They are sexless. As per Trump's EO and standard biological definitions, they can't produce either type of reproductive cells so can't be called either male or female.

As I've indicated here several times, that view on the intersex is something explicitly endorsed by biologist Jerry Coyne:

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

 

[smartcooky]

Everything in that chart can be independently verified. You can go look up information about every one of the listed conditions, and learn what makes them male or female in each case. But you don't want to bother with it, and it's much easier for you to just pretend its "a meme" and discard it entirely because it doesn't fit your pre-existing belief.

Evidence should be sourced, but it doesn't matter if it is not, so long as the information supplied can be validated or falsified. For example, If I were to say that the Moon Landings really happened, I don't then need to launch into a 50,000 word university research paper as evidence.

Neither Louden Wilde (an actual biologist) or Rolfe (who has training in biology and/or sexual development) have called into question the veracity or validity of that chart or any entries on it. But none of that matters to d4m10n - I have seen enough of his form on this forum to know that, even if I were to spend all of the time necessary to find and post links to medical opinions for every single entry, he would still dismiss it anyway, because accepting it as valid and accurate conflicts with his chosen narrative... he has already made his mind up that its just a meme, and nothing I do is going to change that!.

 

[Steersman]

By the person asserting that the entire chart is true, one might well assume.

(Otherwise we'd be shifting the burden of proof from the one making assertions to the one doubting them.)

I'm not going to accept the burden of proof for that meme. If you want to support it, that's on you.

While you're at it, what classification criteria do you think the meme creator used on the hard cases like PAIS & CAIS?

Seems rather clear that the "classification principle" in play is "everyone has to have a sex", "everyone gets a participation trophy". Certainly "kind", but hardly scientific.

Following therefrom is the modus operandi that everyone is categorized as male or female depending on how "close" they are to the "ideal" or "typical" member of those categories.

But the fly in that ointment is that one has to have a clear and unambiguous definition for those categories in the first place before one can say how close any other member is to those "ideals". Something elaborated on to some depth by Paul Griffiths in his "What are biological sexes?"

But that inclusive "principle and modus operandi basically turns the sexes into overlapping spectra -- they say that there is nothing that uniquely differentiates males from females. Makes the whole concept useless for both social engineering and biological purposes.

Not the worst idea, really.

Offhand, hard to think of a worse one. That some here are reputed to have some biology under their belts really doesn't carry much weight when many other so-called biologists claim that the sexes are spectra or merely "socially constructed".

Seems the only way off the horns of that particular dilemma is to consider the reasons and justifications for the different hypotheses and definitions in play. And how much of mainstream biology uses the terms in question.

 

[Steersman]

Would it be fair to say that there's doubt or disagreement about how to best classify them, but not that they are something other than male or female?

"Objection your Honour. Counsel is leading the witness."

Methinks you too have your hand, and mind, stuck in the proverbial monkey trap, that everyone has to have a sex.

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

This might seem like an unnecessary detail, but it is pretty important

Got that right. Though rather surprised, and somewhat disconcerted that you can accept that embryos can be sexless but balk at the idea that the same can be said about most of the intersex -- and for the same reasons.

 

[Rolfe]

Fellow of the Institute of Biology here.

 

[angrysoba]

Fellow of the Institute of Biology here.

Fellow?

J/K!

 

[d4m10n]

But none of that matters to d4m10n - I have seen enough of his form on this forum to know that, even if I were to spend all of the time necessary to find and post links to medical opinions for every single entry, he would still dismiss it anyway

What classification criteria do you think the meme creator used on the hard cases like PAIS & CAIS?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882519965284364783

 

[d4m10n]

Addendum to my last, it strikes me as really odd that every time I try to drill down into the logic behind the meme (e.g. why are some PAIS folks considered female and others male) the defenders thereof decide that it's time to tap out and talk about something more general or something else entirely. I've asked at least three times now about why the meme is right (or wrong) about how it deals with 46 XY SRY+ but we've gotten nowhere and @smartcooky has yet to acknowledge their own explicit disagreement with the meme on that issue.

 

[Matthew Best]

Just for clarity, this is how the graphic deals with 46 XH SRY+

46 XY SRY+ - Typical composition or issues associated with 5-ARD - Dyadic male or 5-ARD - MALE
46 XY SRY+ - changes in the AR gene leads to undermasculinisation but not sex rejection - Mild/Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome - MALE
46 XY SRY+ - Relation to the two variants or CBX2 as well as homolog of M33 leads to successful full female development - FEMALE
46 XY SRY+ - Mutation in the NROB1 gene or Map3K1 gene - Swyer syndrome - FEMALE
46 XY SRY+ - Changes in the AR gene leads to sex rejection - androgens rejected enough to reject male development - Partial/Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - FEMALE

 

[smartcooky]

What classification criteria do you think the meme creator used on the hard cases like PAIS & CAIS?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882519965284364783

Astonishing. You quibble about my sources for a chart (which you incorrectly call a meme), and then use X as a source? What was that you were saying earlier about chutzpah?

 

[smartcooky]

Addendum to my last, it strikes me as really odd that every time I try to drill down into the logic behind the meme (e.g. why are some PAIS folks considered female and others male) the defenders thereof decide that it's time to tap out and talk about something more general or something else entirely. I've asked at least three times now about why the meme is right (or wrong) about how it deals with 46 XY SRY+ but we've gotten nowhere and @smartcooky has yet to acknowledge their own explicit disagreement with the meme on that issue.

I addressed that here...

Oh, and just to head you off at the pass, despite the fact that you thought you found your gotcha moment (46 XY SRY+) on both sides of the CHART you neglected to understand why that is not the smoking gun you thought you found.

Changes in the androgen receptor gene in someone with 46 XY SRY+ can have two different outcomes...
1. Little or no sex rejection takes place, and the subject ends up male, but under masculinzed
2. Sex rejection takes place and the subject ends up female

.... but you ignored that and pretended I didn't. @Matthew Best clarified that here...

Just for clarity, this is how the graphic deals with 46 XH SRY+

46 XY SRY+ - Typical composition or issues associated with 5-ARD - Dyadic male or 5-ARD - MALE
46 XY SRY+ - changes in the AR gene leads to undermasculinisation but not sex rejection - Mild/Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome - MALE
46 XY SRY+ - Relation to the two variants or CBX2 as well as homolog of M33 leads to successful full female development - FEMALE
46 XY SRY+ - Mutation in the NROB1 gene or Map3K1 gene - Swyer syndrome - FEMALE
46 XY SRY+ - Changes in the AR gene leads to sex rejection - androgens rejected enough to reject male development - Partial/Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - FEMALE

The takeaway is this. We can ALWAYS ultimately determine whether an individual human is male or female - even if it can (rarely) be difficult, it is never impossible. Given the modern knowledge in genetics that we have now, there is not, never has been, and IMO, never will be, an individual human for whom it would be impossible to determine their sex as being male or female. Furthermore, when their sex IS determined, it is ALWAYS either male or female, and never something in between or a third sex...

Biological sex is binary, it always has been, and probably always will be.

 

[d4m10n]

Just for clarity, this is how the graphic deals with 46 XH SRY+

46 XY SRY+ - Typical composition or issues associated with 5-ARD - Dyadic male or 5-ARD - MALE
46 XY SRY+ - changes in the AR gene leads to undermasculinisation but not sex rejection - Mild/Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome - MALE
46 XY SRY+ - Relation to the two variants or CBX2 as well as homolog of M33 leads to successful full female development - FEMALE
46 XY SRY+ - Mutation in the NROB1 gene or Map3K1 gene - Swyer syndrome - FEMALE
46 XY SRY+ - Changes in the AR gene leads to sex rejection - androgens rejected enough to reject male development - Partial/Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - FEMALE

I've not been able to find any scientific sources which tell us how to discern the first bolded case from the second one.

For those who affirm "We can ALWAYS ultimately determine whether an individual human is male or female" I'd be interested in knowing how you do this for PAIS individuals. "Sex rejection takes place" seems fairly question begging, unless we are told which observable factors led someone to that conclusion in any given case. We know that gametes aren't breaking the tie here, so what really is?

 

[d4m10n]

I addressed that here...

You did not address how to tell that "sex rejection" has happened, or even give us a link to a publication (non-meme) which uses that language.

You also did not address why you said CAIS individuals are male while the meme (which you support) says otherwise.

 

[angrysoba]

Astonishing. You quibble about my sources for a chart (which you incorrectly call a meme), and then use X as a source? What was that you were saying earlier about chutzpah?

Your chart IS from Twitter. The person called Alex - DetransIS is the source who made your chart. You seem to believe that it was from a Psychology Today article (itself hardly a great source) but that article used the chart taken from Twitter.

Obviously the point is that you claim it is always possible to know yet in the case of CAIS, where “sex rejection” takes place, the reason for considering individuals as female is because of external sex characteristics being female. But they have no uterus or fallopian tubes, only non-functioning (infertile) internal male sex organs.

Either the chart is wrong. Or the basis for determining sex does not have a single factor.

 

[Steersman]

Fellow of the Institute of Biology here.

Then you in particular might like Dawkins' recent post, and my comment in particular:

ETA title & article link:

Is the Male Female Divide a Social Construct or Scientific Reality?

Is the Male Female Divide a Social Construct or Scientific Reality?

In November 2024, the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) published a silly article by one of their staffers, Kat Grant (“they, them”) called What is a Woman? The indefatigable Jerry Coyne took the trouble to write a reply, called Biology is not Bigotry, which the co-directors of FFRF...

richarddawkins.substack.com

Comment link:

Steersman on The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins

> "Worker bees are sterile females" Nope, sorry. They're phenotypically female in the same way that CAIS people are so. In both cases, they're neither male nor female; they're sexless. Since you've been quoting Jerry Coyne, you might read this comment of his where he explicitly says that...

richarddawkins.substack.com

Fairly thorough and solid defense of the sex binary -- pleased to see him quoting and elaborating on Parker's and Lehtonen's classic paper on anisogamey.

But he's still rather clueless in insisting that "worker bees are sterile females". That's an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. If any organism is a female then it can't be sterile. And if it's sterile -- unable to produce gametes -- then it can't be a female. Like saying someone is a 45-year old teenager. Does not compute.