d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Nothing in Google Scholar on point.
At least you aren't travelling alone.
Last edited:
Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
FTFY
I stand corrected. Happy now?Though I think my criticisms about your ignorance -- and that of many others here -- of basic principles still stand.
Apropos of which, you might read this paper by Belgian virologist Marc van Regenmortel, this bit in particular:
angrysoba
Philosophile
Are CAIS individuals male or female?
smartcooky says “Yes”.
Do you see how this is not clear at all?
Last edited:
Kinda think you're missing the adjectives -- physically, genetically -- he has apparently added in front of "female" and "male", respectively.
And he is rather pigheaded in refusing to consider that they're reproductively NEITHER male nor female, that they are sexless. Because they can't produce either type of reproductive cell -- which is essential to reproduction. Which is what sex is all about.
angrysoba
Philosophile
How does that help us decide which sex CAIS people are?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
FTFY
Its been clarified now (and was clarified much earlier, but you and @d4m10n chose to pretend it wasn't)
But go ahead - continue to nurse your grievance... you have to because its all you've got!
angrysoba
Philosophile
It doesn’t depend.
CAIS individuals have internal testes. How are they female?
Why is CAIS in the female side of the chart?
The chart is WRONG!!!!
It doesn't. But I think you -- and most everyone else here -- is missing the point.
It is NOT the genotype -- SC's "genetically" -- that qualifies someone as male or female. And it is not the phenotype -- SC's "physically" and Emily's "phenotypically" -- that qualifies someone as male or female. It is ONLY the type of reproductive cell being produced -- and right now.
And relative to "genetically", consider this case:
Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development - PMC
Context: We report herein a remarkable family in which the mother of a woman with 46,XY complete gonadal dysgenesis was found to have a 46,XY karyotype in peripheral lymphocytes, mosaicism in cultured skin fibroblasts (80% 46,XY and 20% 45,X) and a ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"genetically male", but reproductively female -- and in spades. Which is trump -- and his EO.
To answer your question, CAIS people, and most of the intersex as Jerry Coyne acknowledges, are neither male nor female; they're sexless.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Okay, so which physical characteristics proved determinative when sexing individuals using the methodology from DaysGoByGoBy?
I'm guessing external genital virilization (e.g. Prader and Quigley Scales) but, really, who knows?
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
It does
Re read what I said.
If you still don't understand, there isn't much I can do to help you.
Please note that no-one other than you and @d4m10n has failed to understand what I have been saying (or at least no-one that matters in this discussion)
I have already told you this... three times.
No it is not wrong. Continuing you screech and whine about it won't make it so.
Now, I have made my point clear (to everyone but you two it seems). Understanding is bi-directional, I do not feel at all compelled to dumb down my argument further to suit your level of comprehension - if you still don't get it, that's on you to deal with.
As Samuel Johnson is reputed to have once said... "Sir, I have found you an argument, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding."
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
"Physically in that case means as to their genitalia, which is why they are on the female side of the chart."
Are you saying that the DaysGoByGoBy chart is sorting entirely based on external genitalia, or are other factors important as well?
Last edited:
Exactly right. For all smartcooky's blathering-on about genetics and chromosomes, his criteria are no better than the Kindergarten Cop definitions for the sexes: "boys (males) have penises and girls (females) have vaginas."d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
All I'm really looking for here is a sorting algorithm that yields the result which @smartcooky claims to be able to see clearly, that is, "We can ALWAYS ultimately determine whether an individual human is male or female."
I don't care whether we are talking about "genetic sex" or "physical sex" (not sure yet what that second one means) but I really want to see someone show their work instead of just posting a chart or a PDF which claims to do the job without actually telling us the sorting criteria.
Last edited:
angrysoba
Philosophile
I think you have made a more or less nonsense distinction between physical and genetic sex, and used a lot of babble to get there.
I get that you mean CAIS people have external phenotypes of women and genetics of men. Yet if that is the case you are arguing that women can be physically female with testes.
When asked about it you tell of a magical notion called “sex rejection”. What does this “sex rejection” entail? It means you follow the pathway of femaleness.
Okay, that is essentially metaphysical nonsense.
The problem is you seem to be tying yourself in knots becoming ever more illogical and relying on high-handed condescension just to defend a chart.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
I've already wasted enough time and effort dumbing this down for you. You're on your own now. Good luck
Louden Wilde
Muse
There is no doubt that people with CAIS would develop as males if were not for mutations in the AR gene. A problem with the current discussion here is that inarguably deleterious mutations are getting conflated with benign/neutral ('natural') variation. These disorders are not relevant to a formal definition of the sexes in the same way people with SOX2 mutations are not relevant to discussing the spectrum of eye colors (since the latter are born without eyes). Instead, the question here is rather how we treat people with these disorders in regards to female-only activities (e.g. sports) and spaces. I don't think there is any one answer for that questions and it will have addressed on a case by case basis (e.g. the one I mentioned here). That being said, there are likely some generalizations we can agree on. For example, some of the sports folks are proposing that no one who undergoes male puberty be allowed in female sports and I think that makes sense. Reciprocally, kids with complete androgen insensitivity or partial who had their testicles removed shortly after birth will likely be cleared to compete with females.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
A list of outstanding unanswered questions:
- What is the scientific evidence for the proposition "We can ALWAYS ultimately determine whether an individual human is male or female" given thus far? Memes posted on Twitter without references to any scientific publications obviously don't count. PDFs posted by architecture students with actual references do count, assuming we can discern what scientific methodology they actually used to sort male from female. As usual, the burden is on the one making the claim to show that they have evidence a skeptic would accept.
- When putting forth the claim "We can ALWAYS ultimately determine whether an individual human is male or female" are you talking about genetic sex, gametic sex, genital development, or some other determining factor(s)? We've seen CAIS individuals classed as males and females upthread (by the same poster, no less) so the bolded claim needs to be further specified in order for us to evaluate evidence in support.
- Have any subject matter experts (e.g. developmental biologists) ever said anything remotely resembling the claim that "We can ALWAYS ultimately determine whether an individual human is male or female" or is this something we've only ever heard from amateur science enthusiasts like ourselves?
Last edited: