[Merged] Strict biological definitions of male/female

[smartcooky]

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.

 

[Ziggurat]

"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

You have a reading comprehension problem. So I will help you. Do you see the difference between the two highlighted phrases?

Definitions are often context dependent. You are lying about the context of the definitions being used.

 

[Matthew Best]

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?

I give up. You ask for a link - Emily's Cat gives you one. Then you ask for a screenshot. I give you one. In response to that, you ask for a link again? What is this merry-go-round supposed to achieve?

There isn't a recent response to it readily obvious - perhaps because, well, why would there be? She posted it four years ago.

You're wasting my time. But maybe that is THE FLAMING POINT?

 

[smartcooky]

You have a reading comprehension problem. So I will help you. Do you see the difference between the two highlighted phrases?

Definitions are often context dependent. You are lying about the context of the definitions being used.

He has an "understanding human biology" problem as well.

 

[Steersman]

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.

English a second language for you?

There IS a difference between past, present, and future tenses. Something I elaborated on in a recent comment here:

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14258586&postcount=415

But that "second sentence" -- and the Glossary I referred you to but which you apparently lacked the intellectual honesty to consider -- explicitly rely on present tense:

Second sentence: Biologically, males are defined as the sex that produces the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), implying that the male and female sexes only exist in species with gamete dimorphism (anisogamy).

Glossary:

• Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
• Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems.

A world of difference between those definitions from the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction -- co-authored by a fellow with an FRS to his name --and the "scientism" peddled by Hilton and her fellow grifters. Their definitions explicitly encompass gonads of "past, present, and future functionality" -- past, present, and future tenses.

You might ask your so-called biology professors for some citations from reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries that explicitly endorse that claptrap, particularly when applied to ALL anisogamous species. You might also ask them what sex is a recently fertilized alligator egg ...

 

[Steersman]

You're wasting my time. But maybe that is THE FLAMING POINT?

Kinda slow on the uptake there mate. I was asking for a screenshot WITH the tweet number in it ...


https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154

 

[GlennB]

English a second language for you?

There IS a difference between past, present, and future tenses. Something I elaborated on in a recent comment here:

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14258586&postcount=415

But that "second sentence" -- and the Glossary I referred you to but which you apparently lacked the intellectual honesty to consider -- explicitly rely on present tense:

A world of difference between those definitions from the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction -- co-authored by a fellow with an FRS to his name --and the "scientism" peddled by Hilton and her fellow grifters. Their definitions explicitly encompass gonads of "past, present, and future functionality" -- past, present, and future tenses.

You might ask your so-called biology professors for some citations from reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries that explicitly endorse that claptrap, particularly when applied to ALL anisogamous species. You might also ask them what sex is a recently fertilized alligator egg ...

Your command of English is not so good. Either that or you're desperate for an 'out'.

 

[Matthew Best]

Kinda slow on the uptake there mate. I was asking for a screenshot WITH the tweet number in it ...


https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154

That's a different tweet.

 

[Ziggurat]

You might ask your so-called biology professors for some citations from reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries that explicitly endorse that claptrap, particularly when applied to ALL anisogamous species.

Why do we need a definition that applies to all anisogamous species if we're not working with all anisogamous species?

As I keep saying and you keep ignoring, definitions are very often context-dependent. We don't need a definition that works for everything if we aren't working with everything. We only need a definition which works for what we're working with.

I'll give you an example. What's the definition of temperature? Find one you like, and we'll see what context it works in.

 

[Steersman]

That's a different tweet.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/2nHlhwm.png[/qimg]

Duh - are you ever quick ...

I know it is -- I'm asking for a screenshot that SHOWS the tweet number. Like this:



Note the red underline of the tweet number at the top.

For bonus points, try responding to that UK Times tweet of Hilton's and capture both it and your response -- and hers if she's listening, which I doubt.

 

[Steersman]

Your command of English is not so good. Either that or you're desperate for an 'out'.

I know it's difficult for most of you lot to follow links -- even more so to follow an argument -- but do try ...

From that earlier post of mine:

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/

That's what "produces" IS -- the present tense. There's diddly-squat in those definitions I posted that gives ANY credence or justification to the claptrap that Hilton is peddling, i.e., gonads of "past, present, or future functionality".

If you don't like that then take it up with Grammarly -- and the army of linguists behind them.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's what "produces" IS -- the present tense.

What’s the subject of that verb? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not “males”.

 

[Steersman]

Why do we need a definition that applies to all anisogamous species if we're not working with all anisogamous species? ....

FFS, the authors of that Molecular Human Reproduction article ARE "working with ALL anisogamous species". They say so right out of the effen chute -- there in black and white. For example:

Once evolved, anisogamy and the two sexes are evolutionarily very stable. This explains the maintenance of anisogamy in organisms with internal fertilization, which can cause large decreases in both gamete competition and gamete limitation. The ancestral divergence and maintenance of gamete sizes subsequently led to many other differences we now observe between the two sexes, sowing the seeds for what we have become.

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990

You might actually try reading the article, even the Abstract ...

But likewise most biologists worthy of the name, Hilton and Wright being rather depressing exceptions to the rule since they clearly refer to anisogamy as well. But their definitions simply DO NOT WORK with ALL anisogamous species even while they're claiming they do. Which is what makes them charlatans and grifters, "scientism-ists" at best.

You might also try reading about the difference between folk-biology -- what Hilton is peddling -- and the real-meal deal from people like that Journal:

Folk taxonomies are generated from social knowledge and are used in everyday speech. They are distinguished from scientific taxonomies that claim to be disembedded from social relations and thus more objective and universal.

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

 

[Steersman]

What’s the subject of that verb? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not “males”.

You don't have a flaming clue what you're talking about, just throwing "stuff" at the wall.

The definitions clearly say "male: PRODUCES small gametes". Who else do you think is doing that producing? You "think" our phenotypes are somehow not an intrinsic part of our selves?

That "produces small gametes" constitutes the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify for membership in the "male" category.

 

[Matthew Best]

Duh - are you ever quick ...

I know it is -- I'm asking for a screenshot that SHOWS the tweet number. Like this:

[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7712765cd4c7a31509.jpg[/qimg]

Note the red underline of the tweet number at the top.

For bonus points, try responding to that UK Times tweet of Hilton's and capture both it and your response -- and hers if she's listening, which I doubt.

You're asking for a screenshot that you literally just posted?

In God's name, WHY?

 

[Steersman]

You're asking for a screenshot that you literally just posted?

In God's name, WHY?

You must be drunk or something worse.

No, I'm asking for the same TYPE of screenshot but for Hilton's other tweet, this one:

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

Try looking for the tweet number at top of it, though maybe it doesn't show up on smartphones.

 

[theprestige]

You must be drunk or something worse.

No, I'm asking for the same TYPE of screenshot but for Hilton's other tweet, this one:

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

Try looking for the tweet number at top of it, though maybe it doesn't show up on smartphones.

If Hilton's tweet exists, and says what it is purported to say, how will that change your argument?

 

[Matthew Best]

You must be drunk or something worse.

No, I'm asking for the same TYPE of screenshot but for Hilton's other tweet, this one:

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

Try looking for the tweet number at top of it, though maybe it doesn't show up on smartphones.

My question remains: Why, in God's name, WHY??

 

[Steersman]

If Hilton's tweet exists, and says what it is purported to say, how will that change your argument?

It probably won't but I'd like to know why when I access that 554 tweet I get "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else", yet I can access, see, and screenshot that 154 tweet (note the number differences):

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154

Either she has protected the first one somehow or she's actually deleted it -- Matthew's and Emily's assertions notwithstanding -- possibly because I've been posting the link thither and yon.

But I've "accused" her of deleting it so I'd like to correct the record if that's the case -- and have a link to the new tweet if she's reposted it:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-spergy-letter-project

 

[Ziggurat]

FFS, the authors of that Molecular Human Reproduction article ARE "working with ALL anisogamous species".

But WE aren’t. I’m not objecting to them using their definition in their context, I object to you insisting we must use their definition in our context, which is not their context.

You might also try reading about the difference between folk-biology -- what Hilton is peddling -- and the real-meal deal from people like that Journal:

Define temperature. This isn’t a gacha question, I have little doubt you can come up with a perfectly suitable one. But I do have a point which is quite relevant. Give it a try. You seem reasonably smart, surely this isn’t beyond your capabilities.

 

[theprestige]

I have no joke here, just...

"Meal deal"

"Gacha question"

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't have a flaming clue what you're talking about, just throwing "stuff" at the wall.

I note that you didn’t answer my question. I’ll give you a hint. The subject of the verb is in the same sentence as the verb, and precedes the verb. But it isn’t “male”. Seriously, reread the actual sentence.

The definitions clearly say "male: PRODUCES small gametes".

You put those words in quotes, but that isn’t the actual quote. There is a reason they phrased it differently than you did. The difference has meaning. To get at that meaning, you need to be able to identify the grammatical subject of the verb. You still have not done so.

 

[Matthew Best]

It probably won't but I'd like to know why when I access that 554 tweet I get "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else", yet I can access, see, and screenshot that 154 tweet (note the number differences):

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154

Either she has protected the first one somehow or she's actually deleted it -- Matthew's and Emily's assertions notwithstanding -- possibly because I've been posting the link thither and yon.

But I've "accused" her of deleting it so I'd like to correct the record if that's the case -- and have a link to the new tweet if she's reposted it:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-spergy-letter-project

She hasn't deleted it. I've clicked on your link, seen it and done a screenshot for you. If that isn't enough, that's on you.

 

[Steersman]

She hasn't deleted it. I've clicked on your link, seen it and done a screenshot for you. If that isn't enough, that's on you.

So you say. Though STILL with no screenshot with the tweet number, much less a more or less recent tweet in response to it from you or anyone else ...

 

[Steersman]

I note that you didn’t answer my question. I’ll give you a hint. The subject of the verb is in the same sentence as the verb, and precedes the verb. But it isn’t “male”. Seriously, reread the actual sentence.

I did. You're just too clueless or intellectually dishonest to read what I said, think about it, and deal with it.

You might just as well argue that people don't kill, it's guns that do so -- "the devil made me do it ..." Blaming the tool for what the tool user did with it.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/104807/word-for-attaching-blame-to-inanimate-objects

 

[Steersman]

But WE aren’t. I’m not objecting to them using their definition in their context, I object to you insisting we must use their definition in our context, which is not their context.

Who’s “WE”? Seems that Emily and many others here are explicitly endorsing that “definition” of Hilton’s, the one that started this thread, and which she is explicitly saying is applicable to ALL anisogamous species – including the human one:

... sexual reproduction in almost all higher species, including humans, proceeds via fusion of one small and one large gamete (anisogamy).

I sure haven't seen any qualification at all from anyone here that, despite Hilton's claim to the contrary, it applies only to humans.

But that is supposedly the claim to fame and fortune of her definition, i.e., that it is THE biological definition for the sexes in ALL anisogamous species – INCLUDING the human one – and one that is endorsed by "myriads" of (so-called) biologists all across the land. But that is a big fat flaming LIE.

As I said before – which you apparently, and rather typically, missed or lack the intellectual honesty to address – IF you want to define your own sex categories – say, “human-female” and “human-male” – and use that “gonads of past, present, or future functionality” as the criteria for category membership THEN fine, go big, fill yer boots. That “human sex” is then the context you have in mind and you’re welcome to your own (unscientific) definitions and labels.

Though not quite sure how you can then think you’re any better than “Scientific” American and Nature who want to turn the sexes, particularly as applicable to all anisogamous species, into a spectrum ...

But you lot are basically claiming a separate context while using a definition that’s clearly intended to apply to the context of “ALL anisogamous species” – including the human one – yet get all bent out of shape when you’re obliged to provide your own definitions and labels for your own context. Bait and switch, motte and bailey – outright fraud. Almost as bad as the transloonie nutcases and all their odious ilk.

 

[Ziggurat]

I did.

No, you did not. Instead, you introduced a different sentence, put it in quotes, and then talked about the subject of that different sentence. You never told me the grammatical subject of the original sentence I actually asked about. Care to try again? Probably not. So I’ll tell you.

The subject of the verb “produce” is “sex”, not “male”.

Now for the hard part: why is it written that way? Why not make “male” the subject?

Good luck, you’ll need it, because you aren’t good at this.

 

[Matthew Best]

So you say. Though STILL with no screenshot with the tweet number, much less a more or less recent tweet in response to it from you or anyone else ...

What would be the purpose of that? To convince you that I'm not making it up? Why on earth do you think I would do that? And how do you think I got the screenshot I posted? Do you imagine I had a screenshot of a random deleted tweet stored somewhere just in case some idiot one day in four years' time asked me if it was still there? No, I clicked on your link and went straight to it, of course.

And why would there BE any recent tweets in response? The thing is four years old - just who do you think is going to respond to it today?

What the actual heck is wrong with you?????

 

[smartcooky]

I give up. You ask for a link - Emily's Cat gives you one. Then you ask for a screenshot. I give you one. In response to that, you ask for a link again? What is this merry-go-round supposed to achieve?

There isn't a recent response to it readily obvious - perhaps because, well, why would there be? She posted it four years ago.

You're wasting my time. But maybe that is THE FLAMING POINT?

Here, for the benefit of the computer illiterate...

The tweet in question, complete with tweet number (note, I did this on Microsoft Edge, which wasn't logged into Twitter and gave the "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else" result. As soon as I logged in with the button at the bottom of the page, the page refreshed and the tweet appeared.

I await the next stupid goalpost move, demanding some other inane, obscure detail.

 

[Roboramma]

What would be the purpose of that? To convince you that I'm not making it up? Why on earth do you think I would do that? And how do you think I got the screenshot I posted? Do you imagine I had a screenshot of a random deleted tweet stored somewhere just in case some idiot one day in four years' time asked me if it was still there? No, I clicked on your link and went straight to it, of course.

And why would there BE any recent tweets in response? The thing is four years old - just who do you think is going to respond to it today?

What the actual heck is wrong with you?????

It's also pretty funny that he thinks both you and Emily's Cat are perpetrating a hoax on him by claiming the existence of a non-existent tweet that anyone with a twitter account can access.

Any reader of this thread can just click the link to see if you're lying. You have no motive to lie, and would be found out immediately if you were, but somehow he still thinks you're lying.

 

[Steersman]

It's also pretty funny that he thinks both you and Emily's Cat are perpetrating a hoax on him by claiming the existence of a non-existent tweet that anyone with a twitter account can access.

Yeah, well I DON'T HAVE a twitter account, at least an unsuspended one. That's why I was asking for proof -- like pulling teeth ...

 

[Steersman]

Here, for the benefit of the computer illiterate....

Thanks, though I think the "computer illiterate" in question is Matthew as he seems unclear on the concept of a tweet number.

But, as I had pointed out before, several times, I STILL get a "this page doesn't exist":

 

[Steersman]

No, you did not. Instead, you introduced a different sentence, put it in quotes, and then talked about the subject of that different sentence. You never told me the grammatical subject of the original sentence I actually asked about. Care to try again? Probably not. So I’ll tell you.

The subject of the verb “produce” is “sex”, not “male”.

Now for the hard part: why is it written that way? Why not make “male” the subject?

Good luck, you’ll need it, because you aren’t good at this.

Don't think you have a flaming clue what you're talking about. It's the "male sex" that produces small gametes.

"male" and "female" are sexes -- they're each members of the "sex" category, a binary with two members, but characterized by having a "reproductive function". How much "reproductive function" does someone have if they have "gonads of past or future functionality"?

But technically speaking, "male" and "female" are names for categories AND for members of those categories. It's the ambiguity in using the same word for both members of a category and the category name itself that is somewhat problematic and a stumbling block for the careless or the clueless:

sex (noun): Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions

https://web.archive.org/web/20190326191905/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex

male (adjective):1 Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male

Of particular note though is that there's diddly-squat there about any "gonads of past, present, or future functionality".

But as categories, they can't do diddly-squat themselves as they're only abstractions, perceptions of common properties. Only the members of them can do that "producing gametes".

 

[Matthew Best]

Thanks, though I think the "computer illiterate" in question is Matthew as he seems unclear on the concept of a tweet number.

But, as I had pointed out before, several times, I STILL get a "this page doesn't exist":



[qimg]https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7712765c462d0b1768.jpg[/qimg]

That’s because you’re NOT LOGGED IN as was explained to you several aeons ago.

If you can’t understand pretty simple stuff like this, how am I supposed to take you seriously about anything slightly more complicated, like counting the number of sexes (it’s two)?

 

[Matthew Best]

Yeah, well I DON'T HAVE a twitter account, at least an unsuspended one. That's why I was asking for proof -- like pulling teeth ...

This makes no sense. Why did you require PROOF of something that numerous people had explained to you? Are you really that paranoid?

 

[Steersman]

That’s because you’re NOT LOGGED IN as was explained to you several aeons ago.

If you can’t understand pretty simple stuff like this, how am I supposed to take you seriously about anything slightly more complicated, like counting the number of sexes (it’s two)?

Kinda slow on the uptake there mate. Why I pointed out -- several times -- that I could see OTHER tweets of Hilton -- and lots of other tweets from other people -- all WITHOUT logging in. And WHY I asked why it should be the case that I couldn't see that particular one.

 

[Roboramma]

Yeah, well I DON'T HAVE a twitter account, at least an unsuspended one. That's why I was asking for proof -- like pulling teeth ...

Yes, I'm aware. I can't access twitter either, for what it's worth. But I'm still very confident that the tweet exists because, as I said in that post that you responded to, other people could easily verify if MB and EC were lying. In fact MB was the first to do that verification (of EC). It seems pretty stupid of them to make a false claim that could be so easily discovered by other people (not me or you) who have access to twitter.

It's weird to think they'd do that, when there's nothing to gain from doing it and a major loss to reputation on being discovered. I can almost understand asking for confirmation the first time, I find it very strange to ask for confirmation the second time.

 

[Pixel42]

Kinda slow on the uptake there mate. Why I pointed out -- several times -- that I could see OTHER tweets of Hilton -- and lots of other tweets from other people -- all WITHOUT logging in. And WHY I asked why it should be the case that I couldn't see that particular one.

I doubt there's anyone here with the necessary technical knowledge and expertise to answer that question. Perhaps you should ask Elon Musk.

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't think you have a flaming clue what you're talking about. It's the "male sex" that produces small gametes.

I didn’t say otherwise. But that wasn’t my question. My question was about the grammatical construction of that sentence. And in that sentence, “male” was not the subject. “Sex” was. You were so hung up on a straw man that you couldn’t even answer a simple grammar question.

And there’s a reason that it was constructed that way, and did not just say (as you falsely claimed) that males produce small gametes. In that sentence, “male” serves to indicate individuals, “sex” serves to indicate the group. The group produces small gametes. Individuals within the group might not currently produce small gametes, but they are still members of the group that does.

But perhaps this is all too sophisticated for you to grasp.

 

[Matthew Best]

Kinda slow on the uptake there mate. Why I pointed out -- several times -- that I could see OTHER tweets of Hilton -- and lots of other tweets from other people -- all WITHOUT logging in. And WHY I asked why it should be the case that I couldn't see that particular one.

Why the hello would you expect ME to know the answer to THAT? Ask Twitter.