Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

Here you go:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/voLb3RV.png[/qimg]

Thanks. But where's the actual tweet? Maybe the tweet number is different from what I have?

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554

And where's a recent response to it? Maybe she deleted it and reposted it?

But you might ask her how that squares with the actual biological definitions that say diddly-squat about "gonads of past, present, or future functionality".

And you might also ask her about her "partner in crime", Colin Wright, who's acknowledged that "sexless" is "theoretically possible". And about "biologist" "Kerry Joyne" who's argued that many intersex are sexless:

https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/the-act-isnt-racially-biased-because/comment/49276174

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm banned there. Why else do you think I'm asking you to put your money where your mouth is?

How surprising.

That actually is a bit surprising. It takes quite a bit to get banned from the twitter verse.

 

[Myriad]

LoL. "Offended"?

You state "offended" in quotes, though I said no such thing. That's dishonest.

What I said is, it's a crap idea. Which it is.

 

[Steersman]

You state "offended" in quotes, though I said no such thing. That's dishonest.

And I did no such thing -- there was a question mark there at the end.

But it seems that a rather "adamant" rejection, absent any evidence or reasoning, can only be because one has one's knickers in a serious twist ...

What happened to the commitment to skepticism that is supposedly the hallmark of this forum?

What I said is, it's a crap idea. Which it is.

Opinions, we all have 'em ...

That conclusion is the direct consequence of those biological definitions. To insist, without evidence, that "it's a crap idea" is basically saying those definitions are likewise "crap".

Scientific illiteracy and pigheaded ignorance as far as the eye can see ...

 

[Steersman]

That actually is a bit surprising. It takes quite a bit to get banned from the twitter verse.

Used to be painfully easy -- just say that transwomen aren't women. Even AM -- After Musk -- all one has to do is post multiple links to Substack, my latest "transgression" if I remember correctly.

 

[Steersman]

That doesn't logically follow. It's the equivalent of if I say that all squares are rectangles, and you come back and say, "does that mean all rectangles are squares?". No. It doesn't mean that at all.

False analogy. I'm not saying that at all.

All large gametes are produced exclusively by females DOES NOT mean that all females produce large gametes. EVERYONE knows this. Everyone but you, apparently.

Sure -- just saying "All large gametes are produced exclusively by females" does not, BY ITSELF, "mean that all females produce large gametes". EXCEPT when the definition STIPULATES -- as it does -- that "producing large gametes" is THE "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as female.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions

That's the whole benefit of those definitions: it necessarily follows that, by definition, "ALL females produce large gametes" and if an organism isn't producing them then it's NOT a female. Period. Q.E.D.

You are being deliberately obtuse, for reasons I do not understand.

Because you're not listening. Because you "think" that your definitions for the sexes qualify as gospel truth. You don't seem to have a flaming clue that there ARE other definitions that are possible. The question then is which are the best ones, and which ones mainstream biology endorse -- not backwaters that post their idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definitions to the letter section of the UK Times ...

Sex is never ambiguous (upon medical examination) in anyone who does not have a disorder of sexual development. Even in the vast majority of DSD cases, sex can still be unambiguously determined in the vast majority of cases. And almost nobody who is trans has a DSD, let alone one that actually makes sex ambiguous.

Again because you "think" that your definitions are trump, that they're the only game in town. You rather pigheadedly refuse to consider the ones that are published by reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.

The entire debate of access to female spaces has NOTHING to do with any actual difficulty in determining biological sex. The entire debate is about who is allowed to be an exception to sex-based rules. There is no actual controversy about how to define sex in humans. There is only an attempt to make a controversy in order to justify arguments about being exceptions to sex-based rules.

Again, because you're insisting that your definitions are the only game in town. Why can't the TRAs do the same with their sex-as-a-spectrum?

That's the whole point about the biological definitions -- there's as little logical and biological justification for the spectrumist definitions of those TRAs as there is for yours -- i.e., absolutely NONE.

And if you bet the farm on that "how to define sex in humans" then you're just rejecting the biological ones that apply equally to ALL anisogamous species, including the human one. All you're doing with that is proving yourself to be a science denier and scientific illiterate. Bravo, bravo ...

 

[Ziggurat]

You are incoherent. You are simultaneously asserting that there is only one biological definition and that there are multiple definitions. You contradict yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

Interesting side note: according to Steersman, female humans can never get pregnant and pregnant humans are never female.

 

[Steersman]

You are incoherent. You are simultaneously asserting that there is only one biological definition and that there are multiple definitions. You contradict yourself.

You may have something of a point -- at least to the extent that many of the definitions on tap use various biological criteria as their defining traits. Whence they might all be considered "biological definitions".

But the questions are, WHICH traits qualify as necessary and/or sufficient conditions? And which species do they apply to?

For instance, Hilton's definitions say "gonads of past, present, or future functionality" -- basically a spectrum of three. And many other "biological definitions" have a whole smorgasbord of traits that "justify" an even broader spectrum. For an example of the latter see this risibly unscientific post at the sadly misnamed "Science-Based Medicine":

First we need to consider all the traits relevant to sex that vary along this bimodal distribution. The language and concepts for these traits have been evolving too, but here is a current generally accepted scheme for organizing these traits:

• Genetic sex
• Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
• Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
• Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
• Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

And see this post of mine which is basically a comment on Colin Wright's Substack post about another contender in the spectrumist sweepstakes:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/new-paper-argues-for-multimodal-model

And my comparison of the ongoing battles between the binarists and the spectrumists, Wright and Hilton being "honourary" members of the latter:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists

So a whole bunch of "biological definitions" -- at least to the extent of using various biological traits. But really only those that are published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- not the letter section of the UK Times -- deserve the title or the respect. And largely if not entirely because those other definitions don't work at all -- they're a bloody joke --when applied to thousands if not millions of other anisogamous species. As evolutionary biologist Joan Roughgarden put it in a quote from Paul Griffiths' "What are biological sexes?":

Griffiths: But no general definition of sexes can rely on these features [chromosomes, hormones, & sex organs] because, as Roughgarden puts it, “the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.”

https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2

 

[Steersman]

Interesting side note: according to Steersman, female humans can never get pregnant and pregnant humans are never female.

Not at all. Though that "misperception" is probably due to a common misunderstanding of what "produces gametes" actually means. And all it means is "regularly":

Grammarly: "We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it’s sometimes called present indefinite). Depending on the person, the simple present tense is formed by using the root form or by adding s or es to the end."

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/

So XXers from puberty to menopause typically still qualify as females for the duration, XYers more or less similarly.

Same thing with, say, an automobile plant. We say it "produces cars" even if there isn't a new one coming off the end of the production line at every second. There might be fewer per month for higher quality vehicles, and more for lower quality ones -- still a case of "produces cars".

 

[Ziggurat]

Not at all. Though that "misperception" is probably due to a common misunderstanding of what "produces gametes" actually means. And all it means is "regularly":

Nope, still wrong. In human females, all gametes are produced before puberty. After puberty, gametes are released, but none are produced. This is in contrast to human males where production is continuous after puberty.

You can't even do pedantry right.

 

[Ziggurat]

You may have something of a point -- at least to the extent that many of the definitions on tap use various biological criteria as their defining traits. Whence they might all be considered "biological definitions".

But the questions are, WHICH traits qualify as necessary and/or sufficient conditions? And which species do they apply to?

Nobody here objects to using scientific definitions based on biological criteria. That has never been the problem. The problem has always been this weird insistence on one specific scientific definition that isn't very useful when dealing with humans. And because definitions, even completely objective scientific definitions, are still largely arbitrary, the choice to use one ill-suited for use in humans when more useful ones are available was and is baffling.

So a whole bunch of "biological definitions" -- at least to the extent of using various biological traits. But really only those that are published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- not the letter section of the UK Times -- deserve the title or the respect. And largely if not entirely because those other definitions don't work at all -- they're a bloody joke --when applied to thousands if not millions of other anisogamous species.

First, you've got this really weird hangup on publications which isn't warranted. You are confusing credentialism for rigor. The fact that some people define sex badly doesn't mean the posters here have.

Second, when dealing exclusively with humans, we do not actually need a definition that works on other species. Terms can AND DO have definitions which are context-specific, and there's nothing wrong with that. Pay attention closely here:

Griffiths: But no general definition of sexes can rely on these features [chromosomes, hormones, & sex organs] because, as Roughgarden puts it, “the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.”

Griffiths is right, but there's a giant caveat here which you have missed completely. We do not need a general definition when what we're doing is exclusive to humans. A context-specific definition that works on humans but not seaweed is perfectly acceptable when all we are dealing with is humans, because we are using it in context. If we need to consider seaweed, then we may need such a general definition, but that doesn't invalidate a context-specific definition that works on humans when we are only working on humans.

 

[Myriad]

Opinions, we all have 'em ...

That conclusion is the direct consequence of those biological definitions. To insist, without evidence, that "it's a crap idea" is basically saying those definitions are likewise "crap".

The definitions may or may not be crap, but the conclusions you're trying to draw from them certainly are.

If a census taker acting as an official representative of the U.S. government asks me whether I have a next-door neighbor of the female sex, I'll answer yes, even though the only neighbor I have fitting that description is post-menopausal. If asked the same question in court under oath, I'd still answer yes, without fear of perjury. No legal authority in the land would gainsay the truth of my answer.

 

[Steersman]

Nope, still wrong. In human females, all gametes are produced before puberty. After puberty, gametes are released, but none are produced. This is in contrast to human males where production is continuous after puberty.

You can't even do pedantry right.

Don't think either you or Emily -- or her cat -- has a clue what you're talking about. At least on that point -- maybe understandable, if deplorable, in your case, less so in hers. See:

Wikipedia: "Ootidogenesis:
The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.

However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle. ....

Both polar bodies disintegrate at the end of Meiosis II, leaving only the ootid, which then eventually undergoes maturation into a mature ovum."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis#Ootidogenesis

Baby XXers are BORN with millions of ootids -- immature ova -- that don't BECOME actual ova until menstruation. Human females produce only one or two ova a month. Period. So to speak ...

 

[Steersman]

The definitions may or may not be crap, but the conclusions you're trying to draw from them certainly are.

In your entirely unevidenced opinion. Which ain't worth diddly-squat.

You might try getting your head out of the sand and read what some actual biologists say and who reach the SAME conclusions:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

Wiley: "A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. .... Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."

If a census taker acting as an official representative of the U.S. government asks me whether I have a next-door neighbor of the female sex, I'll answer yes, even though the only neighbor I have fitting that description is post-menopausal. If asked the same question in court under oath, I'd still answer yes, without fear of perjury. No legal authority in the land would gainsay the truth of my answer.

Then you and your census-taker are using non-standard and non-scientific definitions. Fine if you want to do that but you might want to explicitly define your idiosyncratic and non-scientific definitions to explicitly refer only to humans -- label your categories accordingly as human-female & human-male.

The problem is that you and your ilk -- like Emma Hilton and Colin Wright and even Emily's Cat -- are engaged in or contributing to the corruption of the biological definitions for the sexes, Hilton rather explicitly since she claims that their definitions are THE biological ones. No equivocation there at all -- no qualifications about "human-female":

UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554

What a flaming joke she and Wright are -- grifters peddling antiscientific claptrap if not a big fat flaming LIE. Ain't no way of sugar-coating that.

You lot are only marginally better than the transloonie nutcases who insist on using "male" and "female" as genders:

Wikipedia: "In 2012, Hubbard transitioned to female.[9][10] She began hormone therapy that year.[6] Hubbard competed in international weightlifting for the first time in 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Hubbard

The issue is how we are to DEFINE "male" and "female". And the ONLY definitions that hold any water at all are the biological ones, the ones that say that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.

 

[Ziggurat]

The issue is how we are to DEFINE "male" and "female". And the ONLY definitions that hold any water at all are the biological ones, the ones that say that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.

This is simply wrong. Biological definitions DO NOT need to rely on having functional gonads. Biological definitions which rely on developmental pathways work perfectly well. There's no ambiguity in defining someone as male when they are on a developmental pathway which (if not interrupted) will produce functioning male gonads. There's no ambiguity in defining someone as female when they had functioning female gonads in the past. And such a definition is quite obviously preferable to your functional gonad definition, because it is more useful for categorizing things. That's why we come up with words: to use them to communicate. There is no point in categorizing post-menopausal women and pre-pubescent boys as both being sexless when we know quite well what their reproductive trajectory corresponds to female and male respectively.

Why on earth are you hung up on ONLY using this one biological definition when other, better biological definitions are available? And more importantly, why would you insist everyone else use it too? Do you really think it's necessary to categorize post-menopausal women as being sexless rather than infertile? Do you really think it's necessary to categorize prepubescent boys as being sexless rather than not yet fertile? Your entire approach makes no sense.

 

[theprestige]

The issue is how we are to DEFINE "male" and "female".

How we define these terms depends on the context, and what we're trying to accomplish. Different definitions are good for different purposes. Your definitions don't seem to serve any purpose at all, except a doctrinaire rejection of every other definition regardless of how demonstrably useful it is in its intended context.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nope, still wrong. In human females, all gametes are produced before puberty. After puberty, gametes are released, but none are produced. This is in contrast to human males where production is continuous after puberty.

You can't even do pedantry right.

In female humans, all of the gametes are produced before birth. We're born with all the eggs we'll ever have.

I addressed this previously. It appears that Steersman is very selective about which posts they respond to. They also are quite selective about where they will trim a post and pretend like the rest of it doesn't exist.

Neither of those specifies that active production must be occurring, and that an individual that does not produce gametes is sexless. In fact, they both specify that the sex is based on the PHENOTYPE that produces either eggs or sperm. Those definitions are in agreement with what I've presented, I've only been more explicit about specifying that it is the reproductive system of the phenotype in question that is actually relevant, not the entirety of the phenotype which could include things like height, weight, and other characteristics that are correlated with but not directly driven by sex.

Steersman decided to clip that post prior to the highlighted bit... Presumably because the definition that Steersman uses directly contradicts Steersman's errant interpretation of that definition.

 

[d4m10n]

Nope, still wrong. In human females, all gametes are produced before puberty.

This has been pointed out upthread. I'd say that everyone born with female gametes is presumptively female, but that would contradict Steersman's definition (which matters only when I'm talking to him in particular, since no one other than him has ever affirmed that girls are sexless at birth and then again after menopause).

 

[Steersman]

In female humans, all of the gametes are produced before birth. We're born with all the eggs we'll ever have.

I addressed this previously. It appears that Steersman is very selective about which posts they respond to. They also are quite selective about where they will trim a post and pretend like the rest of it doesn't exist.

You may wish to consider at least skimming through to the end of the thread before commenting as I've already addressed that point in a recent comment:

Quote:
Wikipedia: "Ootidogenesis:
The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.

However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle. ....

Both polar bodies disintegrate at the end of Meiosis II, leaving only the ootid, which then eventually undergoes maturation into a mature ovum."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis#Ootidogenesis

Baby XXers are BORN with millions of ootids -- immature ova -- that don't BECOME actual ova until menstruation. Human females produce only one or two ova a month. Period. So to speak ...

Though "he" is fine even if I may well be neither male nor female. But still a "penis-haver" so I guess that should qualify me as the former, at least by the folk-biology that seems the "standard" in this (benighted) neck of the woods ...

Steersman decided to clip that post prior to the highlighted bit... Presumably because the definition that Steersman uses directly contradicts Steersman's errant interpretation of that definition.

You said also that:

Neither of those specifies that active production must be occurring, and that an individual that does not produce gametes is sexless. In fact, they both specify that the sex is based on the PHENOTYPE that produces either eggs or sperm.

Yeah they do so specify "active production" -- that's what "produces" MEANS.

But do you seriously think that our phenotypes are not an intrinsic part of our selves? To say that our "phenotypes produce either sperm or ova" is to say that WE do.

 

[Steersman]

This has been pointed out upthread. I'd say that everyone born with female gametes is presumptively female, but that would contradict Steersman's definition (which matters only when I'm talking to him in particular, since no one other than him has ever affirmed that girls are sexless at birth and then again after menopause).

Nice hat ...

But you might also try reading this recent Wiley Online Library article by a couple of well-regarded biologists which basically endorses that "sexless until puberty":

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

Wiley: "A widespread misconception among philosophers, biomedical scientists and gender theorists – and now also among some authors and editors of influential science journals – is that the definition of the biological sex is based on chromosomes, genes, hormones, vulvas, or penises, etc. .... Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET. [my emphasis]."

And you can "presume" all you want, but that is most certainly NOT anything that can change facts. And, as I've just indicated, baby XXers don't actually produce actual ova until the onset of puberty and on menstruation -- one or two a month.

 

[theprestige]

Baby XXers are BORN with millions of ootids -- immature ova -- that don't BECOME actual ova until menstruation.

One, immature ova are ova. So that settles that.

Two, I'm pretty sure they become mature ova prior to menstruation.

 

[theprestige]

But you might also try reading this recent Wiley Online Library article by a couple of well-regarded biologists which basically endorses that "sexless until puberty":

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

After reading that, my regard for these two biologists has plummeted drastically. To the point where I'm reluctant to call them biologists.

 

[Steersman]

One, immature ova are ova. So that settles that.

What unmitigated horse crap. Antiscientific claptrap. You might just as well say that a female brain is a female, that, all by itself, it is able to produce ova. That a collection of nuts and bolts halfway down the production line for cars is an actual car.

Two, I'm pretty sure they become mature ova prior to menstruation.

Nope. You might actually try reading that Wikipedia article on the topic -- if that's not too much of a strain or likely to cause a debilitating headache ...

 

[Steersman]

After reading that, my regard for these two biologists has plummeted drastically. To the point where I'm reluctant to call them biologists.

You probably never heard or read of them before so "plummeted" seems rather pretentious.

But that's largely my opinion of Hilton, Heying, and Wright -- and with far more evidence to back it up:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying

 

[theprestige]

What unmitigated horse crap. Antiscientific claptrap. You might just as well say that a female brain is a female, that, all by itself, it is able to produce ova. That a collection of nuts and bolts halfway down the production line for cars is an actual car.

"Immature" is a qualifier on ova. An ovum can't be an immature ovum unless it is first an ovum.

Nope. You might actually try reading that Wikipedia article on the topic -- if that's not too much of a strain or likely to cause a debilitating headache ... : rolleyes :

My dude, if ova don't become mature until menstruation, the opportunity for conception has already passed, and nobody could ever get pregnant.

 

[Steersman]

"Immature" is a qualifier on ova. An ovum can't be an immature ovum unless it is first an ovum.

Nope. It's the immature stage in the development of an ovum. Adjectives don't change the state of something.

My dude, if ova don't become mature until menstruation, the opportunity for conception has already passed, and nobody could ever get pregnant.

I stand corrected; learn something new everyday:

The time from the beginning of the last menstrual period (LMP) until ovulation is, on average, 14.6[8] days,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovulation

Still not an ovum until the ootid matures into a state that can be used in reproduction.

 

[Myriad]

Then you and your census-taker are using non-standard and non-scientific definitions.

Non-standard? The U.S. Census is mandated by the Constitution and has occurred every 10 years since 1790. Separate counts of males and females has been part of that census since the very first one. Show me where the U.S. Census Bureau has ever excluded pre-pubescent girls and post-menopausal women from the count of females due to their lack of gamete production. One hundred seventy-four years of consistent usage by a constitutionally established government bureau sounds pretty "standard" to me. About as standard as it's possible to get, in fact.

The issue is how we are to DEFINE "male" and "female". And the ONLY definitions that hold any water at all are the biological ones, the ones that say that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.

Show me your track record of successfully applying your preferred "biological" definition to real-life situations.

Show me where you or defense lawyers acting on your behalf have gotten women acquitted of crimes because the police reports or indictments described a suspect as "female" when the suspect was actually post-menopausal, sterile, or otherwise "sexless" and therefore didn't match the description or represented a mistaken identity.

Show me where you've convinced business owners or public agencies to provide separate facilities labeled "sexless" for employees and customers who lack functioning gonads or ovaries.

Show me the medical record keeping software systems or installations you've arranged to be configured to omit "male" and "female" from the data records of prepubescent children, post-menopausal women, castrated males, and others with injuries or disorders that preclude gamete production, designating all of them as "sexless" instead.

Show me where you've successfully petitioned the International Olympic Committee or any nation's Olympic Committee to exclude prepubescent athletes from any men's or women's event on the basis of their being sexless instead of male or female.

Show me the actuarial tables that you've successfully had altered to include the necessary "sexless" category, and which insurance underwriters are using them.

And then show me how your successfully implemented male-female-sexless designation system has persuaded individuals who do produce gametes but claim to identify as sexless (e.g. "non-binary"), that they are actually male or female in accordance with a biological definition. How many such individuals have you persuaded?

 

[theprestige]

Nope. It's the immature stage in the development of an ovum. Adjectives don't change the state of something.

Adjectives describe the state of something. A car at rest is a car. A car in motion is a car. The state of a car cannot be described without first having a car. A car cannot be in any state unless it is first a car.

An ovum can be in several different states. Mature, immature, etc. But they are all states of an ovum, necessarily so.

I stand corrected; learn something new everyday:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovulation

One hopes that the nature of menstruation is not a new learning for you.

Still not an ovum until the ootid matures into a state that can be used in reproduction.

Of course it's an ovum! Just a few posts earlier you were using "immature ovum" to describe the exact same thing. Clearly, an ootid is just a synonym for immature ovum. Which must necessarily be an ovum, if it is going to be an immature ovum.

For someone who supposedly places a very high value on strict definitions, you seem to be indulging in some very loose definitions.

 

[d4m10n]

But you might also try reading this recent Wiley Online Library article by a couple of well-regarded biologists which basically endorses that "sexless until puberty"

Interesting example, but I was talking about "girls" who (generally) do not have "heterozygous sex chromosomes."

I am impressed that you found someone else who shares the "life stage" view of sex though.

 

[Steersman]

Interesting example, but I was talking about "girls" who (generally) do not have "heterozygous sex chromosomes."

No, they have "homozygous [XX] sex chromosomes", but the same principle is in play -- not "reproductively competent" until the onset of puberty, hence sexless.

I am impressed that you found someone else who shares the "life stage" view of sex though.

They're referencing Paul Griffiths paper which put it in those terms. But you might note that your good buddy PZ Myers has also endorsed that perspective:

"female" is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female.

https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342

And Colin Wright has recently acknowledged that "sexless" is at least "theoretically possible", and Jerry Coyne has apparently accepted that some intersex are actually sexless:

JC: "Those 1/6000 individuals are intersexes, neither male nor female."

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

Eva Kurilova: "With great patience, Wright answered that an individual could theoretically be sexless, but that doesn’t mean sex itself is no longer binary."

https://www.thedistancemag.com/p/for-the-last-time-humans-are-not

You may wish to follow-up with all three of them ...

But the whole point is that those definitions of Hilton and Company are incoherent twaddle and flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. And they make no sense at all when applied to species which change sex over the course of their lives. Why those biological definitions define the categories as processes, and not fixed or "immutable" structures.

You in particular might have some interest in this Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on biological kinds as mechanisms, as processes:

https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/win2021/entries/science-mechanisms/

 

[Steersman]

An ovum can be in several different states. Mature, immature, etc. But they are all states of an ovum, necessarily so.

You don't have a flaming clue what you're talking about -- just throwing "stuff" at the wall and hoping that it will stick.

An immature ovum is a cell that goes through the process of oogenesis to become an ovum.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immature_ovum

It can't very well "become" an ovum if it was such from the get-go.

 

[Steersman]

Non-standard? The U.S. Census is mandated by the Constitution and has occurred every 10 years since 1790.

So flaming what? No one ever heard of gametes until the late 1800s when they were discovered. "we" have generally always realized there were two types of individuals -- animal husbandry goes back a long ways, 13,000 BC in fact -- who took part in reproduction but no one had much of an idea as to the definitive difference.

Show me your track record of successfully applying your preferred "biological" definition to real-life situations.

NOT. THE. FLAMING. POINT. If you want to call the prepubescent male and female, fine, go big, fill yer boots. But they AIN'T the biological definitions that you're using -- just folk-biology if not the Kindergarten Cop definitions: "boys ('males') have penises, and girls ('females') have vaginas".

 

[Myriad]

NOT. THE. FLAMING. POINT. If you want to call the prepubescent male and female, fine, go big, fill yer boots. But they AIN'T the biological definitions that you're using -- just folk-biology if not the Kindergarten Cop definitions: "boys ('males') have penises, and girls ('females') have vaginas".

If the definitions of human males and females used by governments, demographers, courts, hospitals, businesses, schools, international athletic bodies, and actuaries is NOT. THE. FLAMING. POINT. then what exactly IS the FLAMING POINT?

Who (besides those bodies I just listed whose terminology is beside the point according to you) isn't using the definitions you favor, who should be? TikTokkers perhaps?

 

[smartcooky]

Adjectives describe the state of something. A car at rest is a car. A car in motion is a car. The state of a car cannot be described without first having a car. A car cannot be in any state unless it is first a car.

An ovum can be in several different states. Mature, immature, etc. But they are all states of an ovum, necessarily so.



One hopes that the nature of menstruation is not a new learning for you.


Of course it's an ovum! Just a few posts earlier you were using "immature ovum" to describe the exact same thing. Clearly, an ootid is just a synonym for immature ovum. Which must necessarily be an ovum, if it is going to be an immature ovum.

For someone who supposedly places a very high value on strict definitions, you seem to be indulging in some very loose definitions.

Lion King nailed it a few posts ago, - he cottoned on to Steersman's silly game... its performance art, the kind usually executed by the sub-ponte among us.

His arguments are stupid, bordering on the ludicrous... he contradicts his own proclamations from one post to the next. Its like he knows what he WANTS to discuss because he thinks he's on solid ground, and cannot accept that we DON'T want to talk about what he's try to drag the topic to. When we won't play his game, he derides our supposed lack of understanding and scholarliness.



This is why I no longer engage!

 

[Roboramma]

If the definitions of human males and females used by governments, demographers, courts, hospitals, businesses, schools, international athletic bodies, and actuaries is NOT. THE. FLAMING. POINT. then what exactly IS the FLAMING POINT?

Who (besides those bodies I just listed whose terminology is beside the point according to you) isn't using the definitions you favor, who should be? TikTokkers perhaps?

Once again Myriad distills the issue at play to its essence with clear language. (your previous post has been nominated).

 

[Steersman]

If the definitions of human males and females used by governments, demographers, courts, hospitals, businesses, schools, international athletic bodies, and actuaries is NOT. THE. FLAMING. POINT. then what exactly IS the FLAMING POINT?

I already told you in a previous comment which you apparently lack the intellectual honesty to deal with or even consider:

The problem is that you and your ilk – like Emma Hilton and Colin Wright and even Emily's Cat – are engaged in or contributing to the corruption of the biological definitions for the sexes, Hilton rather explicitly since she claims that their definitions are THE biological ones. No equivocation there at all – no qualifications about "human-female"

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14259077&postcount=420

From her letter to the UK Times:

"Sir, Further to the Lib Dem policy of self-identifying one’s gender, sexual reproduction in almost all higher species, including humans, proceeds via fusion of one small and one large gamete (anisogamy). “Sex” refers to one of the two reproductive roles in this process. Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively. ...."

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/st...63359589527554

She, Wright, and Heying are claiming that those are the biological definitions that apply to ALL anisogamous species, including the human one – and you and too many others are following suit. But that is a big fat flaming LIE. The definitions published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries say absolutely diddly-squat about any gonads of “past, present, or future functionality”.

And even the definitions for “male” and “female” from a Google search, from Oxford Languages, more or less match those biological ones:

"male: adjective; of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

female: adjective; of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes"

You see anything there about gonads of "past, present, or future functionality"? Perchance somewhere in between the lines?

But it is precisely that corruption and “distortion” that Griffiths was drawing attention to and which I’ve referred to and quoted several times:

Griffiths: "On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition [e.g., in law], the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."

https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity

THAT is the FLAMING POINT.

Hilton and Company, and all of you who follow in their footsteps, are trying to wrap themselves in the mantle or flag of biology in furtherance of what may well be commendable objectives. But they – and you all – are really only contributing to that corruption which has a great many far-reaching and quite seriously problematic consequences.

 

[jt512]

Here you go:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/voLb3RV.png[/qimg]

FWIW, I have had asked two professors of biology how sex is defined, and the above (after the first comma) is essentially exactly how both of them answered the question.

 

[Steersman]

FWIW, I have had asked two professors of biology how sex is defined, and the above (after the first comma) is essentially exactly how both of them answered the question.

You might ask them how they think those "definitions" "square" with ones published in reputable biological, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- including the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)

You might also point out that several other "professors of biology" have claimed that sex is a spectrum:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-understand-sex-we-need-to-ask-the-right-questions/

The general problem is that too many so-called biologists haven't a flaming clue about some of the foundational principles that undergird their discipline. Belgian virologist Marc Van Regenmortel:

Regenmortel: "Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tes_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_H._V._van_Regenmortel

 

[jt512]

You might ask them how they think those "definitions" "square" with ones published in reputable biological, encyclopedias, and dictionaries -- including the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)

Considering just the first of your linked sources, I don't have to ask them how "their" definition squares with the one in your source, because all I have to do is read the second sentence in the paper to see that they are the same. This leads me to two immediate conclusions: (1) you don't know what you are talking about, and therefore, (2) I need not bother checking the rest of your sources or pay any attention to you on this subject whatsoever.