[Merged] Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

But only for a couple of days each month.

Nope.

You rather "obstinately" refuse to consider what "produces" actually MEANS. It's the ongoing process -- which takes place over each month -- that is what qualifies women as females. Not just the ovulation step.

Surprised you wouldn't realize that ...

 

[theprestige]

You've repeatedly either insinuated or directly implied that every one of us is dishonest, lying, and dumb.

If everyone you meet is dishonest, lying, and dumb...

 

[theprestige]

Nope.

You rather "obstinately" refuse to consider what "produces" actually MEANS. It's the ongoing process -- which takes place over each month -- that is what qualifies women as females. Not just the ovulation step.

Surprised you wouldn't realize that ... : rolleyes :

There are more English verb tenses in heaven and earth, Steersman, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[Steersman]

No, this is disingenuous. The vast majority of us who have engaged with you have done so respectfully. YOU on the other hand, feel free to insult us in almost every single thing you post. You've repeatedly either insinuated or directly implied that every one of us is dishonest, lying, and dumb.

Horse feathers. As Ben Franklin is reputed to have said, "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." Bravo, bravo ...

Virtually none of you have tabled anything in the way of sources for your "opinions". Nor have you managed to show any reputable biological journal justifying the claptrap that Hilton has peddled. You seriously think that the UK Times qualifies as such?

And you rather obstinately refuse to address the credible sources that endorse that "life-history stage" definition.

"respectfully"? Whot a joke.

YOU are the only person in this thread who seems to completely lack the ability to be civil. Your condescension and contempt are quite tiring.

More horse feathers. Your "This entire thread is contrary to common sense, as well as comprehension" is rather mild, but (not) Smart Cooky's "I don't care" is pretty much par for the course from everyone else.

Skeptics? Ha! Y'all might give some thought to a recent post by UK comedian Andrew Doyle on critical thinking, maybe see yourselves in the mirror ...

https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-importance-of-critical-thinking

 

[Steersman]

There are more English verb tenses in heaven and earth, Steersman, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

So what? We're only concerned about one.

 

[theprestige]

So what? We're only concerned about one.

You're only concerned about one, because it's the one you need to support your claim. We're telling you it's not the one actually in play, and that you need to be concerned about more than just the one.

 

[Steersman]

If everyone you meet is dishonest, lying, and dumb...

... maybe there's a problem with the educational system ...

“All over the world there are enormous numbers of smart, even gifted, people who harbor a passion for science. But that passion is unrequited. Surveys suggest that some 95 percent of Americans are “scientifically illiterate.” That’s just the same fraction as those African Americans, almost all of them slaves, who were illiterate just before the Civil War—when severe penalties were in force for anyone who taught a slave to read. Of course there’s a degree of arbitrariness about any determination of illiteracy, whether it applies to language or to science. But anything like 95 percent illiteracy is extremely serious.”
― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/71425-all-over-the-world-there-are-enormous-numbers-of-smart

 

[Steersman]

You're only concerned about one, because it's the one you need to support your claim. We're telling you it's not the one actually in play, and that you need to be concerned about more than just the one.

Unbloody-believable. In your entirely unevidenced OPINION.

Where, exactly, is your evidence that "produces" is anything other that present tense? That it means anything other than "happening right now or ... regularly"?

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

 

[GlennB]

Unbloody-believable. In your entirely unevidenced OPINION.

Where, exactly, is your evidence that "produces" is anything other that present tense? That it means anything other than "happening right now or ... regularly"?
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/

Familiarity with the language. "He almost never drinks vodka", for example.

 

[jt512]

This is false. Natural selection doesn't select at all.

Mutations occur randomly. Evolution doesn't cause them to come into being. Once a mutation has occurred, that mutation has a chance of being passed on to the next generation - this is genetic mixing in sexually reproductive species where the offspring only receives half of the material from each parent, so any given gene-level mutation has only a relatively small chance of being dropped. Consider that these initial mutations don't occur in every single sperm cell - they'll occur in one sperm cell out of millions. So *if* that particular sperm is the one that fertilizes the egg, then the initial mutation gets passed on, otherwise it doesn't.

Once past that initial event, the mutation has been passed to a single offspring, and is then present throughout their genetic code (cells divide and carry the same info with them). At that point, whether or not the mutation makes it to another generation depends on a lot of things, many of which are random - does the individual carrying that mutation get eaten before they can reproduce for example. It also depends on whether the individual can find a mate and have sex at all. It depends on whether or not the mutation is on the half of the genetic material that gets mixed in for the offspring. It depends on whether or not the fertilized ova develops into a viable infant. All in all, there's less than a 50% chance of the mutation being passed on to a second generation.

If a mutation actually confers a survival advantage, then the probability* of it getting passed on is higher... but there's a massive amount of our genetic code that doesn't confer an advantage of any sort - but it doesn't **** things up either. By and large, most mutations get into the species not because they allow for an advantage, but because they don't reduce the likelihood to procreate.

Even more interesting, however, is when you look at how evolution functions at a population level. There are tons of simulations out there that have investigated the population effect - and we have evidence from the real world as well. Some detrimental mutations get passed on and become endemic in a population because the population is small and interbreeding is high, this concentrates the persistency of the mutation among the population even if it's disadvantageous. Similarly there are mutations that would be considered beneficial that do NOT become endemic in the species, because the breeding population is very large and by sheer chance the mutation gets lost or diluted to such a degree that it's immaterial.

It's also important to not underestimate the power of sexual selection as well. Peacock tails are definitely NOT a survival adaptation - they're a sexual adaptation for no other reason that that female peahens happen to like them. One might argue that intelligence in humans is an advantageous trait... but stupid people have more kids regardless of how advantageous we might think smartness is

Evolution has no mind, it does not select anything at all. The environment is the "selector" in that it's the gigantic pachinko machine that the genetic "marble" bounces through.

*ETA: Remember that random doesn't mean an even chance, it just means that it's stochastic as opposed to deterministic. Something that has a 90% chance of occurring, and does occur, is still a random occurrence - the occurrence itself is probabilistic in nature.

None of that contradicts my statement.

 

[Shrinker]

Unbloody-believable. In your entirely unevidenced OPINION.

Where, exactly, is your evidence that "produces" is anything other that present tense? That it means anything other than "happening right now or ... regularly"?

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

"In school we learned that a caterpillar produces wings and becomes a butterfly."

This is not referring to a specific caterpillar's present activity. It's referring to a fact or general reality regarding butterflies' lifecycles which is true in the present.

From wikipedia...

The simple present is used to refer to an action or event that takes place habitually, to remark habits, facts and general realities, repeated actions or unchanging situations, emotions, and wishes

 

[d4m10n]

An oogonium hasn't developed to the point where it can take part in the process of reproduction. Why it is not YET a gamete, an ovum.

The relevant article refers to an "immature ovum" which contradicts your claim here.

ETA: Since we're using Wikipedia, what do you suppose "female" means throughout this article?

 

[Steersman]

Familiarity with the language. "He almost never drinks vodka", for example.

Don't think that qualifies as the simple present ...

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

You see anything about such qualifications in the use of "produces" in the biological definitions?

The clear intent is "happening regularly right now" which is part and parcel of how many mainstream biologists -- not charlatans and grifters like Hilton -- use the term. You might actually try reading the sources I've linked and why they use that sense.

 

[Steersman]

"In school we learned that a caterpillar produces wings and becomes a butterfly."

This is not referring to a specific caterpillar's present activity. It's referring to a fact or general reality regarding butterflies' lifecycles which is true in the present.

From wikipedia...

The simple present is used to refer to an action or event that takes place habitually, to remark habits, facts and general realities, repeated actions or unchanging situations, emotions, and wishes

Don't think that qualifies as the simple present either as it is clearly referring to an event that happens or may happen in the future.

A statement about a lifecycle tends to have limited relevance to what is actually the case right now. Everything that one might say about such lifecycles hardly justifies claiming that they're true at all stages of that cycle. That we're born and die is somewhat secondary to that fact that we're currently alive right now -- presumably, for most of us in any case ...

In addition to which, most people are rather clueless, and rather pigheadedly so, that the definitions stipulate that the present production of gametes is the necessary and sufficient condition for sex category membership:

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

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

No tickee, no washee ...

 

[Shrinker]

Don't think that qualifies as the simple present either as it is clearly referring to an event that happens or may happen in the future.

So in the same way that 'the female produces large gametes' is clearly referring to an event that happens or may happen in the future?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

So in the same way that 'the female produces large gametes' is clearly referring to an event that happens or may happen in the future?

Cue temper tantrum, insult, citing of sources that don't support the argument being made, etc.

 

[Steersman]

The relevant article refers to an "immature ovum" which contradicts your claim here.

ETA: Since we're using Wikipedia, what do you suppose "female" means throughout this article?

You might try quoting exactly what you're referring to since the only use of "immature" in that first one is this:

Immature eggs have been grown until maturation in vitro at a 10% survival rate, but the technique is not yet clinically available.

But do you seriously think, analogously speaking, that "female brain" means that such brains, sitting in a vat all by their lonesome, are capable of producing ova or possess ovaries "of past, present, or future functionality" all by themselves? Or maybe, more likely, that it refers to the brain OF a female?



Fairly common definition:

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

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/jeni-harvery/the-sex-delusion_b_16084346.html

Sure would like to see a prepubescent XXer or menopausee "produce eggs", figuratively speaking, of course ...

But that construction -- "of or denoting" -- is also fairly ubiquitous, and the "of" -- as a preposition -- means "expressing the relationship between a part and a whole". So, as indicated, "female brain" just means the brain OF a female or, at a stretch, typical of a female.

Similarly, "immature ova" only means, at best, "the immature stage in the development OF an ovum".

And likewise with your other article:

From birth, the ovaries of the human female contain a number of immature, primordial follicles.

The "female" there being replaced with "female child", meaning "child stage of a female".

Sloppy or inconsistent use of terminology -- many dictionaries define "boy" as "male child", and you CAN say "2+2=5" -- says diddly-squat against the definitions for a category or the reasons behind them.

As "Frances Bacon" once put it:

For men associate through conversation, but words are applied according to the capacity of ordinary people. Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways" (Aphorism 43).

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

Why the definitions are essential starting points. Pretty much everything follows therefrom -- almost like the axioms of Euclidean geometry ...

 

[Paul2]

"In school we learned that a caterpillar produces wings and becomes a butterfly."

This is not referring to a specific caterpillar's present activity. It's referring to a fact or general reality regarding butterflies' lifecycles which is true in the present.

From wikipedia...

The simple present is used to refer to an action or event that takes place habitually, to remark habits, facts and general realities, repeated actions or unchanging situations, emotions, and wishes

Excellent research, yet it was just Wikipedia?! But we had been looking for that fact about present tense. Thanks.

 

[Steersman]

So in the same way that 'the female produces large gametes' is clearly referring to an event that happens or may happen in the future?

Not the same kettles of fish at all -- more like kettles of dandelions and saltwater crocodiles. Why I expended some effort to quote the article on definitions -- you might actually try reading and thinking about it.

The biological definitions stipulate that the current, on-going production of gametes is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as males and females. The quality has to go in BEFORE the name goes on -- so to speak:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zenith_Electronics

You really can't say, for example, "sometime in the future the female produces large gametes" unless the organism was female to begin with -- i.e., producing large gametes at that point -- or has recently become a female because it has acquired that ability. Being called a female is contingent upon producing large gametes. As the Wikipedia article puts it, the term "female" is "specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term" -- i.e., "produces large gametes".

Not at all the same thing with your "a caterpillar produces wings and becomes a butterfly." It is not an essential property of a caterpillar to produce wings, but if it does then it becomes a butterfly. The same way that if an organism which isn't a female produces large gametes then it becomes one.

Which is why biologists -- those worth their salt and not grifters like Hilton and Company -- talk about clownfish changing sex. The male changes into a female because at that point it stops producing sperm and starts producing ova. If we followed your lead, into the ditch, then we would be obliged to say that newly hatched clownfish -- which don't produce either type of gamete -- are both males and females because they may -- in the far distant future and in a galaxy far, far away -- change into a phenotype that "produces sperm" and "produces ova".

There really are a great many very solid reasons for those definitions and that interpretation. You really might want to try reading Griffiths' articles to get some appreciation of them:

https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2

 

[smartcooky]

"In school we learned that a caterpillar produces wings and becomes a butterfly."

This is not referring to a specific caterpillar's present activity. It's referring to a fact or general reality regarding butterflies' lifecycles which is true in the present.

From wikipedia...

The simple present is used to refer to an action or event that takes place habitually, to remark habits, facts and general realities, repeated actions or unchanging situations, emotions, and wishes

You have to keep in mind that in the Fantasy World where Steersman lives, he can twist and/or adjust and/or change the grammar and meaning of words in the language whenever it suits him - change, spin or ignore facts at will - cherry-pick publications and move the goalposts around as much as he likes, and insult, demean, mock, ridicule and treat with disdain anyone who disagrees with him, including actual degreed biologists.

All of this is so that HIS personal worldview is truth, and everyone else's view is horse-****.

This is how stuff works in Steersman's world.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

"In school we learned that a caterpillar produces wings and becomes a butterfly."

This is not referring to a specific caterpillar's present activity. It's referring to a fact or general reality regarding butterflies' lifecycles which is true in the present.

From wikipedia...

The simple present is used to refer to an action or event that takes place habitually, to remark habits, facts and general realities, repeated actions or unchanging situations, emotions, and wishes

This is correct. I've been an English teacher (TEFL- teaching the language to non-native speakers) for 20 years. I teach grammar for a living, and am well-qualified to do so. This is what Present Simple means.

Don't think that qualifies as the simple present either as it is clearly referring to an event that happens or may happen in the future.

This, on the other hand, is complete rubbish.
"A caterpillar produces...[and] becomes..." are both instances of Present Simple. The meaning of this tense in this context contains no reference to the future whatsoever. You can use PS to refer to future facts- "The train leaves at one o'clock", for example, but you generally need a time reference for this. In the context of 'produces gametes', or 'becomes a butterfly', this is the meaning of a fact, something that is always true. There are no references to future possibilities in these sentences or phrases at all.

 

[Steersman]

You have to keep in mind that in the Fantasy World where Steersman lives, he can twist and/or adjust and/or change the grammar and meaning of words in the language whenever it suits him - change, spin or ignore facts at will - cherry-pick publications and move the goalposts around as much as he likes, and insult, demean, mock, ridicule and treat with disdain anyone who disagrees with him, including actual degreed biologists.

All of this is so that HIS personal worldview is truth, and everyone else's view is horse-****.

This is how stuff works in Steersman's world.

Let me know when you're ready to put some facts and sources on the table to backup your "arguments".

And when you're ready to address those I've tabled without running off to stick your head in the sand with "I don't care" echoing behind you ...

 

[smartcooky]

Let me know when you're ready to put some facts and sources on the table to backup your "arguments".

And when you're ready to address those I've tabled without running off to stick your head in the sand with "I don't care" echoing behind you ...

It is a complete waste of time putting facts on the table for you. The posters here have been putting facts on the table over the last 18 months (42 pages - 800+ posts) - you just ignore them because they don't fit your unique, personal, and I might add, totally unqualified personal interpretations.

Therefore, rather than waste any more of my time pursuing a thankless and impossible task, I will mock and deride your so-called facts (just as you mock and deride others who dare to challenge your stupidity).

Much more enjoyable!

PS: If you don't like it, there is always "that" section of the CP you can use. It will benefit both of us... I you won't be annoyed by me any more, and I wont have to read the crap you post.

 

[Steersman]

This is correct. I've been an English teacher (TEFL- teaching the language to non-native speakers) for 20 years. I teach grammar for a living, and am well-qualified to do so. This is what Present Simple means.

Kinda think there are several possibilities listed there. The standard biological definitions are based on the "regularly", on "right now", on the presence of that process as the criterion for sex category membership.

You too might want to take a look at how definitions work, on necessary and sufficient conditions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions

Too many others are relying on the other possibilities which are red herrings -- at best.

This, on the other hand, is complete rubbish.
"A caterpillar produces...[and] becomes..." are both instances of Present Simple. The meaning of this tense in this context contains no reference to the future whatsoever. You can use PS to refer to future facts- "The train leaves at one o'clock", for example, but you generally need a time reference for this. In the context of 'produces gametes', or 'becomes a butterfly', this is the meaning of a fact, something that is always true. There are no references to future possibilities in these sentences or phrases at all.

Horse feathers. For one thing, "becomes" kind of puts the event into the future.

And for another, "produces gametes" is most certainly not always true. Prepubescent children don't produce any nor do menopausees nor do transwomen who cut their nuts off. Likewise newly hatched clownfish which may or may not produce one or both at different stages of their lives.

Most people don't seem to have a flaming clue -- and rather pigheadedly refuse to get any by reading the writing on the wall -- that biologists, at least those worth their salt, SAY that those organisms which are currently producing gametes -- on a regular basis -- are CALLED males and females. And if they produce neither then they CALLED sexless.

Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we define females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972), and the same definition applies to the female and male functions in hermaphrodites.

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1

That is why the "produces gametes" -- right now -- is the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as referents of the terms "male" and "female".

 

[smartcooky]

This, on the other hand, is complete rubbish.
"A caterpillar produces...[and] becomes..." are both instances of Present Simple. The meaning of this tense in this context contains no reference to the future whatsoever. You can use PS to refer to future facts- "The train leaves at one o'clock", for example, but you generally need a time reference for this. In the context of 'produces gametes', or 'becomes a butterfly', this is the meaning of a fact, something that is always true. There are no references to future possibilities in these sentences or phrases at all.

There is no way he will ever concede that, because he cannot. Were he to concede that his "understanding" (and I use the term reluctantly) of the present simple tense was wrong, the whole house of cards his shtick rests on will collapse.

Steersman has dug himself a big hole he cannot get out of without losing face, and because he knows nothing else, he just keeps digging.

 

[Steersman]

... unique, personal, and I might add, totally unqualified personal interpretations. ....

Ha! Whot a joke, whot a clown.

Neither "unique", nor "personal", nor "unqualified" as there are any number of reputable biologists who are saying the same thing:

Wiley: “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. 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]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Kinda think there are several possibilities listed there. The standard biological definitions are based on the "regularly", on "right now", on the presence of that process as the criterion for sex category membership.

You too might want to take a look at how definitions work, on necessary and sufficient conditions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions

Too many others are relying on the other possibilities which are red herrings -- at best.

Irrelevant. I was correcting you on a point of grammar, which is my specialist field. Discussions of your weird biolological notions are out of my area of expertise.

Horse feathers. For one thing, "becomes" kind of puts the event into the future.

No, it 'kind of' doesn't.
There is a long list of example sentences here, including these ones:

In the adult worm, this papilla becomes dome-shaped with a small central stoma.
In inhomogeneous plasma, the occurrence of the process of mode conversion becomes possible.

These are referring to facts, things that are true now. To be clearer: they are describing a process. Use of PS indicates that this is how the process is followed. There is no indication that 'become' "kind of puts the event [or the process] into the future".
You are clearly unqualified to lecture anyone on English grammar, especially not an actual English grammar teacher.
I have no doubt this will not prevent you from continuing to try. The facts speak for themselves: I will not be engaging with you any further on this matter.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

There is no way he will ever concede that, because he cannot. Were he to concede that his "understanding" (and I use the term reluctantly) of the present simple tense was wrong, the whole house of cards his shtick rests on will collapse.

Steersman has dug himself a big hole he cannot get out of without losing face, and because he knows nothing else, he just keeps digging.

You are right, alas. However, I couldn't just sit back and watch someone pontificate about something I know a great deal about, without at least making my point.
This whole debate is just....well, it is something, that's for sure!

 

[smartcooky]

Ha! Whot a joke, whot a clown.

Neither "unique", nor "personal", nor "unqualified" as there are any number of reputable biologists who are saying the same thing;

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173

- I (and I suspect most of the others in this thread) regard Dr. Emma Hilton (a Human Developmental Biologist) , Dr. Colin Wright (an Evolutionary Biologist) and Professor Heather Heying (an Evolutionary Biologist) to be correct on this issue. You regard them as ignorant idiots who don't know what they are talking about.

- You regard Dr. Wolfgang Goymann (an Ornithological Behavioral Ecologist), Henrik Brumm (an Animal Behaviouristand Urban Ecologist) and Dr. Peter Kappeler (Behavioral Ecologist and Anthropologist) to be correct on this issue. I regard them as people who are not even in the right field of study to comment on the issue. (I don't know what the others think, so I won't speak for them).

- We are all entrenched in our positions and won't budge. The only difference between you and everyone else is that, while everyone else, including me, have tried to reason you out of your entrenched position with facts and evidence, your response has been to declare your self the sole arbiter of fact, and to mock, insult and disdain anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Your sources appear to be a bird psychologist, and two animal psychologists (one of which calls himself a "sociobiologist"* - whatever they hell that is). As either Clarke or Asimov once said, no matter how many degrees a scientist might have in their chosen field, when they pontificate outside of that field, they are just laymen like everyone else.

I consider Hilton, Wright and Heyring, who are actual biologists to be far more scholarly and authoritative sources on the subject at hand than yours. Accordingly, I will continue to accept their word on this issue.

*ETA: I looked it up. Sociobiology is a field of study that aims to explain social behavior in terms of evolution. In other words, a behaviorist, not someone who studies the nuts and bolts of biology, just the social effects of it.
‎
‎

 

[Steersman]

Irrelevant. I was correcting you on a point of grammar, which is my specialist field.

Irrelevant. The point in question is whether there's an ongoing production of gametes -- present tense -- as a precondition to qualify as a referent of the terms "male" and "female".

Discussions of your weird biological notions are out of my area of expertise.

Glad we agree on the latter, though hardly "weird" as they are well supported by reputable biologists and is the subject of this thread from the first post. You may wish to review it ...

No, it 'kind of' doesn't. .... There is no indication that 'become' "kind of puts the event [or the process] into the future".

Moot:

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
be·come
/bəˈkəm/
verb
1.
begin to be.
"it is becoming clear that we are in a totally new situation"

If there's a beginning now then I kinda think there has to be an end somewhere down the road a piece ...

You are clearly unqualified to lecture anyone on English grammar, especially not an actual English grammar teacher.

Experts very often don't know their arses from a hole in the ground, particularly once the subject is outside their bailiwick. See the first post here.

I will not be engaging with you any further on this matter.

Promise?

 

[Steersman]

- I (and I suspect most of the others in this thread) regard Dr. Emma Hilton (a Human Developmental Biologist) , Dr. Colin Wright (an Evolutionary Biologist) and Professor Heather Heying (an Evolutionary Biologist) to be correct on this issue. You regard them as ignorant idiots who don't know what they are talking about.

They may well know their onions when it comes to the biology, but they clearly don't know their arses from a hole in the ground when it comes to the philosophical principles which undergird their field.

You regard Dr. Wolfgang Goymann ...

https://www.bi.mpg.de/staff/115665

... tried to reason you out of your entrenched position with facts and evidence ...

What an absolute howler. Hard to believe that you could say that with a straight face.

Virtually none of you have tabled anything in the way of solid evidence and citations to buttress your opinions.

As for your vaunted Hilton and Company, do show us all where their "thesis" -- the one that has started this thread -- has been published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. Do you seriously think that the letter section of the UK Times qualifies as such?

 

[smartcooky]

They may well know their onions when it comes to the biology, but they clearly don't know their arses from a hole in the ground when it comes to the philosophical principles which undergird their field.

Ah I see.. your objections are not on scientific grounds, they are based on philosophy. You're a philosopher. What a howler!!

Biological sex has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. Biology is HARD SCIENCE, not airy fairy philosobabble. No wonder you're so adept at spinning tense to suit your preconceived conclusions..

 

[Shrinker]

Not the same kettles of fish at all -- more like kettles of dandelions and saltwater crocodiles. Why I expended some effort to quote the article on definitions -- you might actually try reading and thinking about it.

The biological definitions stipulate that the current, on-going production of gametes is the necessary...

I don't care about biology or tortured definitions. I'm only interested in this situation:

You: Where, exactly, is your evidence that "produces"... means anything other than "happening right now or ... regularly"?

You: "a caterpillar produces wings..." ... is clearly referring to an event that happens or may happen in the future.

You seem to have comprehensively proved yourself wrong. As you have explained to yourself, 'produces' can mean 'right now', or 'generally'. Here are some examples of the two different usages.

Generally:
An average student produces 70,000 words of handwritten text
A family car produces about 25 tons of CO2
The female of the species produces large gametes

Right now:
I round the corner to see McGuire who grins and produces a pistol
The cop reaches into his pocket and produces a search warrant
A female walks into a bar and produces large gametes

 

[GlennB]

Don't think that qualifies as the simple present ...

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

You see anything about such qualifications in the use of "produces" in the biological definitions?

You're wrong, and the reasons have been explained many times in this thread and a number of times in the last few days alone.

OK, your ego investment doesn't allow you to admit it but maybe you could just stop repeating the same debunked falsehood over and over?

 

[Steersman]

Ah I see.. your objections are not on scientific grounds, they are based on philosophy. You're a philosopher. What a howler!!

Biological sex has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. Biology is HARD SCIENCE, not airy fairy philosobabble. No wonder you're so adept at spinning tense to suit your preconceived conclusions..

Still running off to stick your head in the sand. And I don't see that you've linked to or quoted any reputable biological journal, dictionary, or encyclopedia that endorse Hilton's claptrap. No jam? Blowing smoke?

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

In case you didn't notice

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

-- much of the transgender "debate" is over the definitions for the sexes which can only be resolved by addressing the philosophical, biological, and even practical justifications and principles for each "contender". And Hilton and her ilk are sadly totally clueless on that score, something which is rather typical of most biologists:

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 (Blachowicz 2009).

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

Much of the philosophy gets pretty convoluted pretty quickly, but the relevant principles really aren't all that intractable, at least for anyone who hasn't got their head in the sand or disappeared up their fundaments or those of various so-called "experts".

 

[Steersman]

I don't care about biology or tortured definitions.

Yeah, well, that IS the topic of this thread. If you need any confirmation, do consider looking at the first comment ...

You seem to have comprehensively proved yourself wrong. As you have explained to yourself, 'produces' can mean 'right now', or 'generally'. Here are some examples of the two different usages.

I'll cheerfully concede that the present tense can be used in many circumstances, and have already done so.

But the issue is the sense -- or context -- in which the current production -- right now -- is the criteria for qualifying as a member of the sex categories, "male" and "female". The issue -- see the first comment in case you've forgotten -- is "specifying the properties that an object [organism] needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the" terms "male" and "female":

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

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

 

[Steersman]

You're wrong, and the reasons have been explained many times in this thread and a number of times in the last few days alone.

OK, your ego investment doesn't allow you to admit it but maybe you could just stop repeating the same debunked falsehood over and over?

Horse feathers. In your entirely unevidenced opinion. Which ain't worth diddly-squat. Analogously, you seem to "think" that saying "God exists" or "2+2=5" makes them true. Rather "surprising" on a forum ostensibly for skeptics ...

 

[Myriad]

Here are a few simple scenarios to test the usefulness of strict biological definitions of sex that are constructed and interpreted so as to place humans whose bodies are not presently producing viable gametes into a "sexless" category, when it comes to social interactions and policies. Steersman, please state your answers to each question.

1. There is a combat sport league whose current participating athletes are all females of a certain age range, further divided into weight classes. A sexless person of the required age and of a weight within one of the existing weight classes wishes to compete in the league and fight the current participants. Should the league allow this? Should the league be legally required to allow it?

2. A general practitioners' medical office plans to mail out a reminder to each of its male patients, age 50 and over, who has not had a routine recommended prostate exam within the past year, to make an appointment for one. Should the same reminder also be mailed to the sexless patients 50 and over who haven't had a prostate exam within the past year?

3. A large group of sexless fourth grade students in a public school are changing clothes for gym class. Is a male teacher an acceptable choice to supervise the changing room? How about a sexless teacher?

 

[Paul2]

Yeah, well, that IS the topic of this thread. If you need any confirmation, do consider looking at the first comment ...


I'll cheerfully concede that the present tense can be used in many circumstances, and have already done so.

But the issue is the sense -- or context -- in which the current production -- right now -- is the criteria for qualifying as a member of the sex categories, "male" and "female". The issue -- see the first comment in case you've forgotten -- is "specifying the properties that an object [organism] needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the" terms "male" and "female":


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

Here I am again: Lordy, the flesh AND the spirit is weak . . . .

My highlight.

What needs to have the property - per your own definition - is not the organism per se but its phenotype.

So the issue then becomes, when an organism goes through its developmental processes - gestating, puberty, menopause, etc. - does a new stage mean it has a different phenotype, or merely the same phenotype that encompasses those developmental stages?

 

[GlennB]

Horse feathers...

Try to vary your cheap jibes. Here, try one of these:

Chicken fur
Dog scales
Fish knees

yvw