Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[d4m10n]

d4m10n - did you see my post immediately above yours ?

I did, no significant disagreements. I was focused on chasing down the claim that literally everyone can be sexed, not merely for practical purposes such as sports leagues, but in some more general sense.

I do have a question about your first sentence though. While "[t]here is no doubt that people with CAIS would develop as males if were not for mutations in the AR gene," there remains some doubt as to whether the new EO from Trump would take that into account on one side of the ledger or the other side. Since the anti-gender EO purports to sort everyone as of conception (i.e. genotype information only) does that mean we take the mutation into account (concluding female for legal purposes) or do we ignore it as an inarguably deleterious mutation and go with what would have happened otherwise (concluding male for legal purposes)?

 

[smartcooky]

A list of outstanding unanswered questions:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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?

Without some attempt to answer these questions, I'm going to consider my skepticism regarding the bolded claim to be reasonably justified.

Asked and answered! Not my problem you don't understand those answers.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I did, no significant disagreements. I was focused on chasing down the claim that literally everyone can be sexed, not merely for practical purposes such as sports leagues, but in some more general sense.

I do have a question about your first sentence though. While "[t]here is no doubt that people with CAIS would develop as males if were not for mutations in the AR gene," there remains some doubt as to whether the new EO from Trump would take that into account on one side of the ledger or the other side. Since the anti-gender EO purports to sort everyone as of conception (i.e. genotype information only) does that mean we take the mutation into account (concluding female for legal purposes) or do we ignore it as an inarguably deleterious mutation and go with what would have happened otherwise (concluding male for legal purposes)?

Fair- good point. I agree - the executive order should have had a provision for those with relevant disorders - and that they should be female for legal purposes (i.e. assuming little/no male development). I'm hoping HIPAA provisions will protect those people.

Unfortunately, the blunders/heavy-handedness by the Trump Admin here just provides fuel for the sex-is-a-spectrum people.

 

[d4m10n]

Asked and answered! Not my problem you don't understand those answers.

Where did anyone answer #3?

 

[angrysoba]

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.

Thanks for the explanation.

Given the thread is about strict biological definitions, would we say that CAIS individuals are, strictly speaking, male?

Furthermore, if that is the case, then shouldn’t CAIS and PAIS be on the “male” side of the chart?

And a further point, does the word “sex rejection” have a strict biological meaning or is this a non-standard term that is best avoided to prevent confusion?

After all, if CAIS individuals are not biologically female (either in terms of chromosomes or gamete-potential), then saying they have also undergone “sex rejection” which prevents them being male, seems to put them into a genuine sexless or intersex position.

I get that these are non-preferred terms in contemporary biology, and that people do not like to see such DSDs being used as political footballs or trojan horses for other agendas, but while we are discussing this dispassionately and trying to get to the truth or otherwise of the statement that each individual’s sex can be knowable we should at least have a criteria that doesn’t result in areas of disagreement.

 

[Steersman]

Asked and answered! Not my problem you don't understand those answers.

LoL. You don't HAVE any answers, just an agenda to shoehorn every last human into either the male or female categories. Despite manifest evidence that that is simply impossible.

 

[Steersman]

Fair- good point. I agree - the executive order should have had a provision for those with relevant disorders - and that they should be female for legal purposes (i.e. assuming little/no male development). I'm hoping HIPAA provisions will protect those people.

Indeed.

Unfortunately, the blunders/heavy-handedness by the Trump Admin here just provides fuel for the sex-is-a-spectrum people.

Kind of the hallmark of the Trump Admin, at least so far. Pretty impressive record of that, and only two weeks into it.

But you might note that Dawkins gives him top marks on that EO:

In America, the otherwise loathsome President Trump made the upholding of biological maleness and femaleness the subject of an Executive Order, as one of his first actions (perhaps the only good thing he has ever done) after taking office.

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

Even if he is rather clueless in insisting that "worker bees are sterile females" -- an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.

And that membership in the sex categories is just a matter of "potential" to produce gametes.

 

[Steersman]

Thanks for the explanation.

Given the thread is about strict biological definitions, would we say that CAIS individuals are, strictly speaking, male?

Furthermore, if that is the case, then shouldn’t CAIS and PAIS be on the “male” side of the chart?

All sorts of people claiming that theirs are those "strict biological definitions". Apropos of which, you might consider this earlier post of Louden's:

... what a recent review by the society of endocrinologists (that unfortunately kowtowed to the recent gender ideology a bit) called the "classic" definition - namely which gamete type the individual/body in question was functionally organized around producing/delivering (which includes pre- & post-fertile individuals).

L

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

Oct 2, 2024

First, my apologies to many of the regulars for repeating a good bit of what I've said in other threads (& a good bit of what's been said in this thread). I was a research biologist for close to 30 years (about 23 years of that post PhD), and then transitioned to clinical genetics a bit over 5 years ago. My research foci in academia were centered around (eutherian) mammalian genetics and included evolution/comparative biology, epigenetics and developmental/ reproductive biology. During grad school I got interested in comparative mechanisms of sex determination in amniote (mammals...

• Louden Wilde

• 

By which one might surmise that he -- and that society of endocrinologists -- would consider CAIS people as males since they would seem much "closer" to being "organized around producing/delivering" small gametes than to being "organized around producing/delivering" large gametes.

More or less what the OP claimed by way of Hilton's letter to the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper, but hardly what anyone would call a peer-reviewed biological journal. But you might also note that, as I've indicated earlier, Hilton at least has repudiated that rather unscientific definition:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1488523777042432008

Absolutely diddly-squat about "organized around".

I get that these are non-preferred terms in contemporary biology, and that people do not like to see such DSDs being used as political footballs or trojan horses for other agendas, but while we are discussing this dispassionately and trying to get to the truth or otherwise of the statement that each individual’s sex can be knowable we should at least have a criteria that doesn’t result in areas of disagreement.

Much of that "disagreement" is politically motivated, and much else is motivated by "muh humanity" -- by a rather peevish, immature, and quite unscientific insistence that everyone has to have a sex. Too many are making the sexes into no more than badges of tribal membership, making the terms scientifically and biologically meaningless -- and thereby useless. Louden again, same post:

I point all this out because the internet is now rampant with (what seem to be) politically motivated arguments about defining sex. I am concerned this phenomenon is contributing to erosion of public trust in science.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fellow?

J/K!

I'm a fellow too... although not of biology

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

PAIS end up being dependent on *how* damaged the receptor is, which impacts whether the wolffian process triggers enough during fetal development to end up with a male system. It's definitely challenging, and there is likely to be some element of judgement involved.

You end up with some of us tapping out for several reasons. Primary among them is that it's just not worth the headache to try to explain something technical to someone who is only going to reject it based on their feels and beliefs anyway. I mean, there's a point where if basic elements of geometry and documented observations aren't enough to get a Flat Earther out of their trench, it's not worth getting into more advanced planetary physics - it's not going to make a difference, so why waste the time on a lost cause?

ETA: to clarify, I don't know enough of the down-in-the-weeds technicalities on this, and I didn't mean to imply that I did. I'm extrapolating that other people who *do* know enough tap out because it's a lost cause

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.

Oh FFS. Karyotypes are not conditions. 46 XY SRY+ is the karyotype for a normal human male. But there are several conditions that result in problems with sexual development that have nothing to do with karyotype at all.

As previously mentioned, my godchild has a perfectly normal female karyotype of 46 XX. They have a perfectly normal female reproductive system with all of the appropriate parts in all the right places. But they have a condition that damaged their pituitary gland, and this resulted in puberty not triggering. Kallman Syndrome is a DSD (extremely rare though), because it is a *disorder* that results in problems with *sexual development*. But there's no karyotype abnormalities involved.

Your lack of understanding that sex classification is not defined by karyotype is your own problem, pal.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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...

It's also never "no sex". If a mammal doesn't develop at least the rudiments of a reproductive system, they will 100% be terminated by the mother's body. A reproductive system is a *necessary* component for a zygote, along with brain and heart and several other major organs and systems. If it's not there at all, the zygote will not develop.

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

Oh, if we're talking about evolution on the scale of millions and millions of years, it's hypothetically possible for currently anisogamous species to eventually change enough to be a multisogamous (?) species, with more than two gamete types, leading to more than two reproductive systems, and thus resulting in more than two sexes.

But really, we're talking about around a billion years of years of evolution. Anisogamy evolved somewhere around the same time that multicellular organisms evolved.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If it was really the case that "produces gametes" meant "maybe in ancient history" or "maybe some time over the rainbow" -- as you and many others here seem to "think" -- then there wouldn't be any such thing as sequential hermaphrodites since all members of those many species would always be male and female right from conception.

Sequential hermaphroditism has nothing at all to do with your premise that active gamete production is required. It's entirely possible for a sequential hermaphrodite to change from one sex to another while simultaneously being sterile.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Am I going insane? Seriously! I think I must be going insane. Could someone reassure me that I am not going insane? (you don't count, smartcooky)



That is all well and good, if you so insist. BUT.....

You said....




Indeed! Which is why the chart is WRONG because it says those with "complete androgen insensitivity syndrome" are FEMALE.

What is "complete androgen insensitivity syndrome"? It is CAIS!

This is the important bit!!

First and foremost, sex is DEFINED by phenotype, not karyotype.

1) All AIS are karyotypically male - in layman's terms, they are genetically male. Their chromosomes are those of a typical and normal male. In fact, ANY mammal that has a Y chromosome at all is genetically male, no matter how many Xs get tagged on to it. The presence of a Y in any form means the individual has a male karyotype.

2) Some AIS, specifically CAIS and some very small number of PAIS that are so close to CAIS as to be *functionally* indistinguishable develop a female phenotype, regardless of their karyotype.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't know the difference between FRS and FIBiol, seriously?

Most americans don't. I have only a very vague notion, compliments of you and Neal Stephenson.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Remember the old joke.
If my auntie had bollocks she would be my uncle.
Smartcooky would presumably say, "well, that depends. Maybe she had CAIS which resulted in sex rejection which is why her sex would appear in the female column.

If your auntie had CAIS, they wouldn't have bollocks.

ETA: I assume this is already clear, but there's a lot in this thread that makes me second guess that assumption. So for clarity's sake... bollocks refers to scrotum. Scrotum is the flesh dangly bit inside which the testes sit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I am not convinced on this one. I think there's a world of difference between someone who is CAIS and doesn't go through male puberty and someone with is karyotypically and phenotypically male whose natural male puberty was halted via blockers.

I don't know how DSDs interact on this specific topic. But I *do* know that a normal male whose puberty is blocked still grow to essentially the same height with the same size hands and feet they would have if their puberty had run its normal course, they still develop lung capacity and heart performance in line with a normal male, they still have male muscle fibers and male attachment points for their ligaments and tendons, and they still have femurs perpendicular to the ground. Those are governed by the adrenal gland, not the pituitary - and blockers do not interfere with the adrenal.

A normal male whose puberty is artificially interrupted still ends up with the majority of advantages that any other male has.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I did, no significant disagreements. I was focused on chasing down the claim that literally everyone can be sexed, not merely for practical purposes such as sports leagues, but in some more general sense.

You're engaging in some logical bait and switch here, although I also think it isn't intentional.

Consider:
1) An object in the universe is always either a star or it isn't. This is a true statement.
2) Some observed objects are indistinct enough that we are unable to discern whether they are a star or if they're a different object with a very high albedo. This is also a true statement.
3) Given enough time and information gathered about the object, we will be able to discern whether it's a star or not. This is also a true statement.

Both statements are true, and they're pretty closely analogous to this situation.
1) Every human has a sex, and that sex is either male or female - there is no in-between-sex, there is no third sex, and there is no no-sex. That's a true statement.
2) For some humans, it's difficult to tell whether they're male or female based on limited information. This is also a true statement.
3) Given enough information and examination of genetics and somatic formations, we will be able to discern whether that 'difficult to classify' human is male or female. That's also a true statement.

You (along with others) are looking at your lack of specific knowledge about a hypothetical individual, and then you're falsely assuming that your lack of knowledge means that the definition is wrong or incomplete.

 

[smartcooky]

You end up with some of us tapping out for several reasons. Primary among them is that it's just not worth the headache to try to explain something technical to someone who is only going to reject it based on their feels and beliefs anyway. I mean, there's a point where if basic elements of geometry and documented observations aren't enough to get a Flat Earther out of their trench, it's not worth getting into more advanced planetary physics - it's not going to make a difference, so why waste the time on a lost cause?

Indeed. As I said earlier, I am only prepared to dumb things down so far. Once I reach a point where I think the person I am dealing is either incapable or being deliberately unwilling to understand what I am saying, I will just stop wasting my time.

For example, I was debating the merits of flouride water treatment with someone on another forum. They were making much of the fact that its a waste product from a chemical plant... I pointed out that its chemical formula would be the same whether its a waste product or not. I then told him about fuel cells on manned spacecraft that are like a mini chemical plant that produces electrical power from rocket fuel, and it produces drinking water as a waste product, which the astronauts drink. His response...and this is a quote "No one has ever been to space, because there is no space. The sky ends at the firmament". At that point, I knew I was dealing with a moron, and stopped engaging.

 

[d4m10n]

You're engaging in some logical bait and switch here, although I also think it isn't intentional.

Consider:
1) An object in the universe is always either a star or it isn't. This is a true statement.
2) Some observed objects are indistinct enough that we are unable to discern whether they are a star or if they're a different object with a very high albedo. This is also a true statement.
3) Given enough time and information gathered about the object, we will be able to discern whether it's a star or not. This is also a true statement.

Both statements are true, and they're pretty closely analogous to this situation.
1) Every human has a sex, and that sex is either male or female - there is no in-between-sex, there is no third sex, and there is no no-sex. That's a true statement.
2) For some humans, it's difficult to tell whether they're male or female based on limited information. This is also a true statement.
3) Given enough information and examination of genetics and somatic formations, we will be able to discern whether that 'difficult to classify' human is male or female. That's also a true statement.

I am skeptical of #3 in both cases, but at least in the case of stars we can come up with a list of criteria which would theorectically separate stars from non-stellar bodies. In the case of male/female, we've been given various criteria which actually contradict each other, and no clarity on whether we're really arguing about gametic sex, genetic sex, or something else entirely.

 

[d4m10n]

First and foremost, sex is DEFINED by phenotype, not karyotype.

Unless we're talking about the anti-gender EO, in which case sex is as of conception and only genotype can be said to exist.