Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[d4m10n]

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.

Why are you so confident that you will be able to find a clear-cut criterion which will separate those on the male path from those on the female path? Nature isn't obligated to make everything fall into our categories.

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.

Speaking of headaches and technical explanations, did you ever get around to googling your claim from earlier:
"CAIS people have fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and vagina."

 

[d4m10n]

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

I was clearly referring to conditions such as PAIS & CAIS on the meme chart, but really it's all of America's problem since the EO.

 

[angrysoba]

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.

No. Bollocks refer to testicles. Not scrotum.

 

[angrysoba]

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.

I looked up Emma Hilton, who is quoted at the beginning of this thread. She says…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597247339055681536

 

[Steersman]

I looked up Emma Hilton, who is quoted at the beginning of this thread. She says…

https://twitter.com/x/status/1597247339055681536

Some significant differences between "female phenotype" and "phenotypically female" -- which Hilton herself may not be fully aware of:

phenotypically; adverb; biology, specialized

in a way that relates to the physical characteristics of something living, especially those characteristics that can be seen:

e.g., Phenotypically, the creature appears female, but it lacks female reproductive organs.

phenotypically

1. in a way that relates to the physical characteristics of something living…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Generally, "phenotype" refers only to those traits that are observable so Hilton's reference to testes is maybe wide of the mark.

But you might look through her tweets for quite an informative thread on clownfish and on her frequent reference to "produces large gametes" as a distinguishing and defining feature of many species, including those clownfish. She has an "earthy" sense of humour which is a bonus.

 

[d4m10n]

What even is a "female phenotype" anyhow?

Surely ovaries and (immature or mature) ova are enough to put someone in that bin, but what else would be or should be, in the absence thereof? Since there are people who argue CAIS individuals are "physically female" they have to have some criteria in mind.

 

[theprestige]

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.

The EO provides guidelines to regulators who are handling disputes about sex segregation under Title IX.

It's a strict definition for a specific use case. We figured out that definitions are for specific cases, back on the first pages of the first thread.

 

[d4m10n]

The EO provides guidelines to regulators who are handling disputes about sex segregation under Title IX.

I think you might be thinking of the more recent EO rather than the one I linked.

 

[Steersman]

What even is a "female phenotype" anyhow?

Good question. This might be a useful starting point:

In genetics, the phenotype (from Ancient Greek φαίνω (phaínō) 'to appear, show' and τύπος (túpos) 'mark, type') is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism.The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior.

Phenotype - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Basically, "phenotype" refers to the whole organism -- at specific points in time as it's changing all the time -- as well as to some somewhat intangible traits like behavior. Some sources, like the Wikipedia article on CAIS, further qualify the term with "external" to differentiate between the directly observable and the internal "structure".

Surely ovaries and (immature or mature) ova are enough to put someone in that bin, but what else would be or should be, in the absence thereof? Since there are people who argue CAIS individuals are "physically female" they have to have some criteria in mind.

To answer that, consider this Oxford definition for "female":

Of, or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

female | Definition of female in English by Oxford Dictionaries

Definition of female - of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) whic

web.archive.org

Some maybe convoluted syntax, but the first "of" is key. For example, "female brain" IS the brain OF a female. Similarly, "female phenotype" IS the phenotype OF a female. The individual HAS to be female FIRST before one can say that it has a female brain or a female phenotype.

But that some "males" exhibit some external phenotypes that are "phenotypically" SIMILAR to those of actual females -- like CAIS and the brains of transwomen -- does not at all mean that those males are actually females. For them to qualify as females they would actually have to possess the defining and essential trait of "female", i.e., producing large gametes.

HTH ...

 

[Steersman]

The EO provides guidelines to regulators who are handling disputes about sex segregation under Title IX.

Sure, maybe.

It's a strict definition for a specific use case. We figured out that definitions are for specific cases, back on the first pages of the first thread.

Maybe moot what that "specific use case is", whether it meets the intended objective, and whether it conflicts with the standard biological definitions for the sexes.

You might take a close look at the title of that EO, and its definitions for the sexes:

"Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government":

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

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.

(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

It is clearly asserting that they are THE definitions for the sexes -- "restoring biological truth" (according to Genesis 1:2 ...) -- and implying that everyone is one or the other right from conception. More or less right on the first part, scientific claptrap if not barking mad on the second part.

From discussions here, and from evidence that various biologists and semi-literate wannabes here can't agree whether CAIS people are male, female, or sexless, one might suggest that there are some pitfalls and flies in that EO "ointment".

 

[d4m10n]

To clarify further:

Defending Women (January 20, 2025)

Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports (February 5, 2025)​

The more recent one has a "strict definition for a specific use case" but this is not the case for the earlier one, which provides us with "the policy of the United States" in all matters regarding sex which come before any executive branch agency or sub-unit.

 

[Steersman]

To clarify further:

Defending Women (January 20, 2025)​

​

Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports (February 5, 2025)​

The more recent one has a "strict definition for a specific use case" but this is not the case for the earlier one, which provides us with "the policy of the United States" in all matters regarding sex which come before any executive branch agency or sub-unit.

Some impressive EOs, particularly in reading the Riot Act to the usual suspects who have been enumerated and described in some detail.

But you might note this from the second one:

Sec. 2. Definitions. The definitions in Executive Order 14168 of January 20, 2025 (Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government), shall apply to this order.

That is apparently the "strict definition" for both EOs, each of which lays out the various, and presumably separate, use cases to be dealt with.

Though, as previously discussed, there may still be some pitfalls in those definitions and in their application.

 

[Steersman]

Sequential hermaphroditism has nothing at all to do with your premise that active gamete production is required.

Of course it does. Large body of biological research is based on the view that sequential hermaphrodites -- those which change sex from male or female, or vice versa -- exist because they change the type of gamete being produced.

It's entirely possible for a sequential hermaphrodite to change from one sex to another while simultaneously being sterile.

You're still basing your "argument" on a set of quite unscientific definitions for the sexes. You simply cannot be said to have a sex if you're sterile -- as much as that view or those definitions might chap your hide.

You might actually try reading Dawkins' post and my many responses to it:

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

Steersman on The Poetry of Reality with Richard Dawkins

Nope, sorry. Did you read Coyne's comment on his blog that I had linked to above? He's saying that most of the intersex are neither male nor female, i.e., sexless. Likewise with geldings -- no gametes, no sex. Professor Dawkins' rather risible "potential to produce gametes," notwithstanding...

richarddawkins.substack.com

 

[Rolfe]

I offer this to add to discussion.

Sex Development Charts — Paradox Institute

A series of flow charts showing the steps of sex development for typical males and females and a variety of DSDs.

www.theparadoxinstitute.com

 

[theprestige]

I offer this to add to discussion.

Sex Development Charts — Paradox Institute

A series of flow charts showing the steps of sex development for typical males and females and a variety of DSDs.

www.theparadoxinstitute.com

Well that seems pretty strict, but also pretty nuanced.

TIL that while a Y chromosome almost always means a male developmental pathway, there are exceptions.

 

[d4m10n]

I offer this to add to discussion.

Sex Development Charts — Paradox Institute

A series of flow charts showing the steps of sex development for typical males and females and a variety of DSDs.

www.theparadoxinstitute.com

What did you think of Hilton's critique of slide 14, quoted upthread at post #2,604?

 

[Rolfe]

I thought that document classified CAIS as male, as Emma does.

I think classifying CAIS is like angels dancing on the head of a pin. In the "strict biological definition" then call them male if you like, but that's between them and their doctors. In any discussion of actual real life, I don't think there's a woman alive who would be shouting "get that man out of my single-sex space" about a CAIS woman.

 

[d4m10n]

I thought that document classified CAIS as male, as Emma does.

I was referring to the "female phenotype" phrase in particular.

I think classifying CAIS is like angels dancing on the head of a pin. In the "strict biological definition" then call them male if you like, but that's between them and their doctors. In any discussion of actual real life, I don't think there's a woman alive who would be shouting "get that man out of my single-sex space" about a CAIS woman.

If you are saying that strict biological definitions will not prove serviceable for policies designed around everyday people doing everyday things, then we are in full agreement.

 

[Rolfe]

I think you're making a ridiculous meal out of one specific case which is easily dealt with by a few strokes of a pen.

 

[Steersman]

I offer this to add to discussion.

Sex Development Charts — Paradox Institute

A series of flow charts showing the steps of sex development for typical males and females and a variety of DSDs.

www.theparadoxinstitute.com

Not bad -- particularly for an architecture student. Though I'm not sure I would buy any architectural plans from him if that essay is anything to go by since he's rather clueless about the foundational principles of biology. In particular:

But humans are a gonochoric species: individuals are either male or female throughout their entire life cycle.

What a grifter, what a fraud, what a scientific and philosophical illiterate. He is clearly motivated more by butthurt at the prospect of the intersex getting deprived of sex category membership cards -- lotta that goin' round these days -- than by those principles:


WTF does "morally problematic" have to do with those principles? Galileo, and Darwin and his "bulldog" T.H. Huxley are rolling over in their graves.

But you might note the Merriam-Webster definition for gonochoric:

gonochoric; adjective​

: having the sexes separate : not hermaphroditic : dioecious

Definition of GONOCHORIC

having the sexes separate : not hermaphroditic : dioecious… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

And the link provided in the Paradox article by its author, the infamous Zach Elliott, likewise says nothing, that I can see, to justify Elliott's "entire life cycle". Even if Wikipedia is peddling the same schlock -- which is maybe not surprising since they claim transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard had "transitioned to female".

But you might be "amused" by this bit from the same link from a pair of psychologists at Oakland University:

The size of the gametes is the most direct means of differentiating between sexes. By definition, male gametes are smaller, and female gametes
are larger (see Verma 2019). Individuals producing smaller gametes are defined as males, and individuals producing larger gametes are defined as female.

No "producing", no sex category membership cards.

But one might argue from the foregoing that "gonochoric" is sort of like "bipedal" -- something typical of many members of a species, but not applicable all the time to all of them.