[Merged] Strict biological definitions of male/female

[smartcooky]

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?

You seem to think that publication in scientific journals and publications of scientific theses is somehow the be-all-and-end-all of qualifications to pontificate on a scientific subject. Well, I have news for you. It is not.

I have a degree in what was my chosen profession - a BEng (Hons) Aeronautical Engineering. I have never published a paper, written an article for an aviation journal, or published my thesis. But I do have that degree, one that was achieved through years of hard work, dedication, long hours of study and practical application, and close scrutiny of my work. That degree makes me qualified to both work in the field of Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering, and to speak about it from a position of qualification and authority. In this capacity, I have served on three aviation accident boards of inquiry, and I have taught theory and practice at two different educational institutes. However, my degree does not qualify me to speak about biology. For that, I rely on those who do have qualifications to do so.... in biology.

The fact that Hilton, Wright and Heying are doctors and professors of biology pretty much supports the fact they ARE qualified to speak on the topic of biology. On the other hand, the people you put your store in are animal behaviorists and ecologists. This qualifies them well to speak on animal behaviour and ecology, but on hard science subject of biology, they are little better than me.... laymen.

I'd be interested to know what qualifications (if any) you have in biology, or in any subject? I have asked you about this before, but you seem to dodge the question every time, so I suspect you have none - you're just a layman like most of the rest of us here.

However, if its just published works you are wanting...

Wright & Hilton
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapt...03286608-2/two-sexes-emma-hilton-colin-wright

Wright
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex

Hilton
https://emmahilton.substack.com/p/sex-differences-between-men-and-women

Hilton
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/from-humans-to-asparagus

 

[theprestige]

You seem to think that publication in scientific journals and publications of scientific theses is somehow the be-all-and-end-all of qualifications to pontificate on a scientific subject. Well, I have news for you. It is not.

I have a degree in what was my chosen profession - a BEng (Hons) Aeronautical Engineering. I have never published a paper, written an article for an aviation journal, or published my thesis. But I do have that degree, one that was achieved through years of hard work, dedication, long hours of study and practical application, and close scrutiny of my work. That degree makes me qualified to both work in the field of Aviation and Aeronautical Engineering, and to speak about it from a position of qualification and authority. In this capacity, I have served on three aviation accident boards of inquiry, and I have taught theory and practice at two different educational institutes. However, my degree does not qualify me to speak about biology. For that, I rely on those who do have qualifications to do so.... in biology.

The fact that Hilton, Wright and Heying are doctors and professors of biology pretty much supports the fact they ARE qualified to speak on the topic of biology. On the other hand, the people you put your store in are animal behaviorists and ecologists. This qualifies them well to speak on animal behaviour and ecology, but on hard science subject of biology, they are little better than me.... laymen.

I'd be interested to know what qualifications (if any) you have in biology, or in any subject? I have asked you about this before, but you seem to dodge the question every time, so I suspect you have none - you're just a layman like most of the rest of us here.

However, if its just published works you are wanting...

Wright & Hilton
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapt...03286608-2/two-sexes-emma-hilton-colin-wright

Wright
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex

Hilton
https://emmahilton.substack.com/p/sex-differences-between-men-and-women

Hilton
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/from-humans-to-asparagus

I see your mistake: You're not a Doctor of Philosophy of Science, so you lack the credentials to say what other scientists are and are not qualified to talk about.

 

[smartcooky]

I see your mistake: You're not a Doctor of Philosophy of Science, so you lack the credentials to say what other scientists are and are not qualified to talk about.

Sarcasm gold!

 

[Steersman]

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?

Think you're barking up the wrong tree. Those are simply a bunch of red herrings.

IF you want to subscribe to Hilton's claptrap then it AIN'T biology. And IF you reject that in favour of the actual biological definitions then "male" and "female" are simply the RONG tools for the jobs you expect of the category.

You might actually try reading -- and thinking about -- Griffiths' article on the point:

Sex is real
Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other

The definition of biological sex is designed to classify the human reproductive system and all the others in a way that helps us to understand and explain the diversity of life. It’s not designed to exhaustively classify every human being, or every living thing. Trying to do so quickly leads to questions that have no biological meaning.

Human societies can’t delegate to biology the job of defining sex as a social institution. The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare.

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

To follow suit and to take a general kick at your questions, access to toilets and the like should be by genitalia: one set of loos for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Similarly for sports which might be segregated by karyotype: for women's, no XY need apply.

You might also reflect on the monkey trap:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman

 

[Steersman]

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

"I can resist everything but temptation" ....

My highlight.

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":

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

Kinda think you're suffering under a "cognitive distortion", though it's a common one, and one that has, maybe arguably, bedeviled much of philosophy for the last 2500 years. Basically, there's a common confusion about the difference between members of a category and the category itself -- particularly when the name for both is the same as in the case of "male" and "female":



"male" and "female" are BOTH names for categories AND for the members of them. Causes no end of confusion; see my "What is a woman?" for some elaborations on the theme:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman

Although it might be emphasized that "phenotype" is basically the same as a category, something of an abstraction -- as Emily usefully acknowledged -- since "type" and "category" are more or less synonymous. But categories, as abstractions, exist only in our minds as names for a collection of individuals that have a particular property or set of properties in common that qualify them as members of that category:



Note the "regarded as" -- i.e., "perceived as" -- having traits in common. But the perception isn't tangible, doesn't exist anywhere outside of our minds, much less in each member of the category. The only thing that might be said to exist, to have tangible aspects, are the properties in question -- in this case, "produces gametes".

You might want to take a gander at this article on universals which might be a useful entry point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals

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?

Think that's a case of reification, one of the side effects, or maybe cause of the aforementioned confusion between categories -- i.e., abstractions -- and the members of them -- generally solid entities:

Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity.[1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

"female" and "male" are not real things with weight and volume. As categories, turning them into those real things is that logical fallacy, the "sin" of reification. As labels for members of the categories, the only things that exist are the qualifying properties.

Because phenotypes are a range of properties that exist to different degrees over wide spans of time, it's too vague and imprecise to be of much use. Only by naming different sets of traits and specifying criteria for category membership -- female phenotype, male phenotype, tadpole phenotype, etc. -- is there going to be much use to them.

Though, there again, it's important to differentiate between the category which is defined on the basis of some of those traits, and the individuals which exhibit them and are therefore members.

 

[Steersman]

You seem to think that publication in scientific journals and publications of scientific theses is somehow the be-all-and-end-all of qualifications to pontificate on a scientific subject. Well, I have news for you. It is not.

So you don't accept any authorities at all?

Kinda think an article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, one of whose authors has an FRS to his name, carries a bit more weight that a letter to UK Times by Hilton and Company. Or would you say otherwise? ...

I have a degree in what was my chosen profession - a BEng (Hons) Aeronautical Engineering.

Good for you.

I'd be interested to know what qualifications (if any) you have in biology, or in any subject? I have asked you about this before, but you seem to dodge the question every time, so I suspect you have none - you're just a layman like most of the rest of us here.

Posted my CV here several weeks ago:
https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14258235&postcount=380

However, if its just published works you are wanting...
Wright & Hilton
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapt...03286608-2/two-sexes-emma-hilton-colin-wright

Wright
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex

Hilton
https://emmahilton.substack.com/p/sex-differences-between-men-and-women

Hilton
https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/watch/from-humans-to-asparagus

That Taylor and Francis link is only to a chapter in a book that Hilton & Wright had written, not the whole book itself. Much of which looks like a pile of feminist claptrap.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books...c5eb9-8ed2-4eb2-bd32-56de46748606&context=ubx

And big deal that Hilton and Wright are peddling their views on their Substacks -- even I have one of those. But still not a peer-reviewed biological journal anywhere to be seen.

As for the Paradox Institute, the "proprietor" Zach Elliott is no more than an architectural student, though generally knowledgeable about biology. Even if he does have his thumbs, to the elbows on the scales:



Since when do "morally problematic claims" trump scientific theories and facts? Galileo, Darwin, and his "bulldog" T.H. Huxley are rolling over in their graves.

Though you might take a close look at that video of Zach's yourself, particularly from about the midpoint on which apparently features a chain of Hilton's tweets where she emphasizes the distinguishing and defining trait for "female": "she produces large gametes".

 

[d4m10n]

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

You might try clicking on the wikipedia link I provided.

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

Development of an ovum (at all stages of maturity) is literally the process of "production of gametes" mentioned here.

 

[Myriad]

Think you're barking up the wrong tree. Those are simply a bunch of red herrings.

IF you want to subscribe to Hilton's claptrap then it AIN'T biology. And IF you reject that in favour of the actual biological definitions then "male" and "female" are simply the RONG tools for the jobs you expect of the category.

You might actually try reading -- and thinking about -- Griffiths' article on the point:


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

To follow suit and to take a general kick at your questions, access to toilets and the like should be by genitalia: one set of loos for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Similarly for sports which might be segregated by karyotype: for women's, no XY need apply.

You might also reflect on the monkey trap:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman

I don't care about Griffiths answers, I was asking about yours.

I didn't ask about toilets. Please answer the questions I posed.

 

[smartcooky]

The problem you have Steersman is the there is no such word as "context" in your vocabulary... or if there is, your either do not understand what it means, or you do not accept that it is relevant.

Let's grant for a moment, without prejudice, that your definitions are correct. I disagree, but for the sake of a thought experiment, I can pretend that I agree that your definitions of male and female applies to all mammals. In this thought experiment world, "produces" means exactly what you say it does, and that only your definitions can be used. Any mammal that is not actually producing gametes in the here and now is sexless and is indistinguishable in any way from any other mammal in of the same species. Context is not allowed, so you cannot use any other clues such as physical attributes or biological phenomena to determine sex other than your definitions. The ONLY way to determine sex is production of gametes, and if you are unable to determine this, you cannot determine the sex of the individual.

(Oh, and keep in mind this is MY thought experiment and mine alone. You do not get to change any conditions to make your opinions or comments or conclusions fit, or fit better. So, you don't get to use terms like boys, girls, men, women or gender etc, because they have been explicitly ruled out by you definitions. You also don't get to use context, because your definitions also rule context out).

Now please explain the following

Since all prepubescent mammals are sexless, then in your world...

1. How does a grade school segregate toilet facilities?

2. How does that grade school decide who wear which uniform?

3. What criteria would a junior sports club use to qualify children for segregation into teams?

4. How would a veterinarian determine which procedure to use to neuter a dog or a cat or other animal?

5. What criteria would a farmer use to decide which calves to cull from a group of new calves?


Since all post-menopausal women are sexless

6. What criteria does the LPGA Senior Tour use to define who can compete. (repeat for all other seniors/veterans sports)?

7. What criteria are used to determine which public toilets this person will use?

 

[Steersman]

You might try clicking on the wikipedia link I provided.

I did. Still obliged me to search to find what you were getting at.

Development of an ovum (at all stages of maturity) is literally the process of "production of gametes" mentioned [here.

Still not an ovum until it comes off the end of the production line. As a "car" along the production line doesn't qualify as one until it comes off the end of it.

I linked to this before in, I think, another comment to you and even listed all of the different names given in the process: oogonium to primary and secondary oocytes to ootids to ova:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis#Oogenesis_in_non-human_mammals

You might actually try looking at and thinking about the table shown.

 

[Steersman]

I don't care about Griffiths answers, I was asking about yours.

I didn't ask about toilets. Please answer the questions I posed.

I did. You just don't like the answers given. Tough.

 

[8enotto]

Prediction of results of this.

The goalposts will slide back to looser definitions.

 

[smartcooky]

I did. You just don't like the answers given. Tough.

This is a lie. You did not answer Myriad's questions, you just spouted someone else's dogma.

Are you even capable of original thinking, or is your go to reaction to just parrot what you've been told to think?

 

[Steersman]

The problem you have Steersman is the there is no such word as "context" in your vocabulary... or if there is, your either do not understand what it means, or you do not accept that it is relevant.

context: the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.

In this case, all of the literally millions of species which are characterized by many members producing large or small gametes.

.... Any mammal that is not actually producing gametes in the here and now is sexless and is indistinguishable in any way from any other mammal in of the same species.

"indistinguishable in any way" is a rather clueless premise. For one thing, some 48% have vaginas and XX karyotypes while another 48% have penises and XY karyotypes.

In addition to which virtually all females -- those producing ova -- have vaginas and XX karyotypes, but probably only 66% of those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females. Pretty good bet -- 2 to 1 I figure -- that those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females.

For a supposed engineer you don't seem to have a clue about correlation. Or about biology and much else besides.

Context is not allowed, so you cannot use any other clues such as physical attributes or biological phenomena to determine sex other than your definitions. The ONLY way to determine sex is production of gametes, and if you are unable to determine this, you cannot determine the sex of the individual.

<snip>

Now please explain the following

Since all prepubescent mammals are sexless, then in your world...

1. How does a grade school segregate toilet facilities?

<snip>

7. What criteria are used to determine which public toilets this person will use?

Already explained above and in my previous comment. Most of you lot are just too clueless or intellectually dishonest to read and think about the answers given:

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14270531&postcount=844

Since you seem incapable or unwilling to read and think about what was posted, here's the Cole's Notes version:

IF you want to subscribe to Hilton's claptrap then it AIN'T biology. And IF you reject that in favour of the actual biological definitions then "male" and "female" are simply the RONG tools for the jobs you expect of the category.

To follow suit and to take a general kick at your questions, access to toilets and the like should be by genitalia: one set of loos for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- or reasonable facsimiles thereof. Similarly for sports which might be segregated by karyotype: for women's, no XY need apply.

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14270531&postcount=844

 

[smartcooky]

Yeah, as I expected, your stock answer when you've got nothing!

In this case, all of the literally millions of species which are characterized by many members producing large or small gametes.

Non sequitur. Irrelevant to what I am asking

"indistinguishable in any way" is a rather clueless premise. For one thing, some 48% have vaginas and XX karyotypes while another 48% have penises and XY karyotypes.

In addition to which virtually all females -- those producing ova -- have vaginas and XX karyotypes, but probably only 66% of those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females. Pretty good bet -- 2 to 1 I figure -- that those with vaginas and XX karyotypes qualify as females.

Of course, you are changing the conditions of my thought experiment. I told you that you cannot do that

But hey, here's some progress. You are admitting that there are TWO types of distinguishing characteristics or attributes, and that about half have one type, and the other half have the other type. Congratulations, you've just come up with the basis for definitions of male and female - one that has a better chance of working in the real world of humans and social interactions than that unworkable abstraction you believe in.

8enotto was right, you've moved the goalposts to loosen your definitions. Welcome to the social reality of humanity.

For a supposed engineer you don't seem to have a clue about correlation. Or about biology and much else besides.

My apologies. I hadn't realized that you are unfamiliar with the concept of a thought experiment.

For a supposed Electronics technologist, you don't seem to have a clue about willingness to learn. Or about biology and much else besides.

Already explained above and in my previous comment. Most of you lot are just too clueless or intellectually dishonest to read and think about the answers given:

https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14270531&postcount=844

Since you seem incapable or unwilling to read and think about what was posted, here's the Cole's Notes version:


https://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14270531&postcount=844

Yeah, confirmed. You really do not understand the concept of a thought experiment do you?

 

[Steersman]

...
Of course, you are changing the conditions of my thought experiment. I told you that you cannot do that.

Idiotic thought experiment. Par for the course. "Can Gawd create something heavier than He can lift?"

... that unworkable abstraction you believe in.

Not a matter of belief but stipulation. Another fairly basic concept that you apparently also don't have a clue about:

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

But a fairly common definition that's more or less standard across many reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries as well as being replicated in many more popular sources:

Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
male
/māl/
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.

 

[Paul2]

. . . .

Because phenotypes are a range of properties that exist to different degrees over wide spans of time, it's too vague and imprecise to be of much use.

And yet, somehow, phenotype is used in biology.

Only by naming different sets of traits and specifying criteria for category membership -- female phenotype, male phenotype, tadpole phenotype, etc. -- is there going to be much use to them.

Sure. The female phenotype is the one that produces larger gametes, the male phenotype smaller gametes.

Though, there again, it's important to differentiate between the category which is defined on the basis of some of those traits, and the individuals which exhibit them and are therefore members.

Right. It's the phenotype that produces the gametes, per your definition.

EETA: the sex itself is defined as the adult phenotype that produces larger gametes per your definition. The two sexes are defined as phenotypes.

So the question still remains, does the phenotype remain throughout an organisms life-span, or does an organism have multiple phenotypes thru their lifespan?

 

[smartcooky]

Idiotic thought experiment. Par for the course. "Can Gawd create something heavier than He can lift?"

There is no such thing as an idiotic thought experiment...

Also, "Can Gawd create something heavier than He can lift?" is not even a thought experiment in the first place, its a paradox.

Not a matter of belief but stipulation. Another fairly basic concept that you apparently also don't have a clue about:

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

But a fairly common definition that's more or less standard across many reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries as well as being replicated in many more popular sources:

All of which indicates that, when faced with the unworkability of your dogma in my thought experiment, for example, it could not be used to segregate your so-called "sexless" humans, you acknowledged the different attributes of the two groups, and suggested those be used to complete the task. i.e. you moved the goalposts towards a workable, practical definition of male and female to solve to the problem.

However much you might object to this, it is an acknowledgement, from you, that your dogma might be technically fine for the abstraction that passes the strange world you live in, but over here in the real world, it does not work and is not useful in dealing with the social considerations of everyday life.

 

[theprestige]

Idiotic thought experiment. Par for the course. "Can Gawd create something heavier than He can lift?"

Yes, and also He can lift it. I never understood why everyone thinks this is such a hard question.

: rolleyes :

Indeed.

 

[theprestige]

Everyone: "A 'strict biological definition of male and female' (whatever that means) is obviously unworkable for any practical purpose. Let's move the goalposts a bit, to a slightly looser definition we can actually use."

Steersman: "IMPOSSIBLE."

Everyone: "Seriously?"

Steersman: "Okay, fine. You can have a slightly looser, actually useful definition. But you're not allowed to call it 'male and female'."

Everyone: "Actually, 'male and female' seems to be working just fine. We all pretty much understand exactly what definition is meant, in each context. So we're gonna keep doing that."

Steersman: "UNACCEPTABLE. DEFINITIONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY."

Everyone: "They kinda do, actually."

 

[Steersman]

And yet, somehow, phenotype is used in biology.

Yes, but so what? Biologists and physicists also use "colour" but they generally recognize that that term is less useful than specifying WHICH ONE: red, green, blue, etc..

Same thing with "phenotype" -- as both the Wikipedia article and your Britannica article emphasize, "phenotype" -- all by itself -- covers a range, a spectrum of traits and processes in various stages of development -- it's not a fixed thing, it continually changes. But it has more utility when you specify which one, when you give names to particular traits in various stages.

One might argue that "man" and "boy" are both phenotypes, but different named stages of a phenotype that encompasses the human life span.

So the question still remains, does the phenotype remain throughout an organisms life-span, or does an organism have multiple phenotypes thru their lifespan?

Think you're equivocating though probably inadvertently:

"In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Try thinking of "phenotype" as a spectrum of colours which include a bunch named colours within that spectrum: e.g., the male and female phenotypes/"colours", the boy and man phenotypes/"colours".

 

[Steersman]

Everyone: "A 'strict biological definition of male and female' (whatever that means) is obviously unworkable for any practical purpose. Let's move the goalposts a bit, to a slightly looser definition we can actually use."

Steersman: "IMPOSSIBLE."

Everyone: "Seriously?"

Steersman: "Okay, fine. You can have a slightly looser, actually useful definition. But you're not allowed to call it 'male and female'."

Everyone: "Actually, 'male and female' seems to be working just fine. We all pretty much understand exactly what definition is meant, in each context. So we're gonna keep doing that."

Steersman: "UNACCEPTABLE. DEFINITIONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY."

Everyone: "They kinda do, actually."

A complete misunderstanding and rather egregious if not fraudulent misrepresentation of what I'm saying.

You can have Hilton's claptrap if you want but IT AIN'T BIOLOGY -- it's antiscientific and incoherent folk-biology, Kindergarten Cop "definitions": boys have penises and girls have vaginas. All you're doing with peddling Hilton's claptrap is engaging in Lysenkoism:

In time, the term has come to be identified as any deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lysenkoism&oldid=1125841723

 

[Steersman]

... your dogma ... your dogma ....

Still clueless about axiomatic systems and stipulative definitions.

You "think" that the axioms of Euclidean geometry are "dogma"?

 

[smartcooky]

Everyone: "A 'strict biological definition of male and female' (whatever that means) is obviously unworkable for any practical purpose. Let's move the goalposts a bit, to a slightly looser definition we can actually use."

Steersman: "IMPOSSIBLE."

Everyone: "Seriously?"

Steersman: "Okay, fine. You can have a slightly looser, actually useful definition. But you're not allowed to call it 'male and female'."

Everyone: "Actually, 'male and female' seems to be working just fine. We all pretty much understand exactly what definition is meant, in each context. So we're gonna keep doing that."

Steersman: "UNACCEPTABLE. DEFINITIONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY."

Everyone: "They kinda do, actually."

This is the whole thing in a nutshell.

In real life, we need definitions of things that work in the everyday functioning of the real world we live in. Steersman's "strict" definition is unnecessarily inhibitory - it may be fine in some abstract philosophical debate full of gobbledygook and philosobabble, but it is all but useless anywhere else, especially in everyday use.

 

[Paul2]

. . . .

One might argue that "man" and "boy" are both phenotypes, but different named stages of a phenotype that encompasses the human life span.

My understanding is that that is not what biologists mean by the term "phenotype," and therefore is not what is meant in the definition of sex that you offered.

Think you're equivocating though probably inadvertently:

"In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Try thinking of "phenotype" as a spectrum of colours which include a bunch named colours within that spectrum: e.g., the male and female phenotypes/"colours", the boy and man phenotypes/"colours".

My understanding is that that is not what biologists mean by the term "phenotype," and therefore is not what is meant in the definition of sex that you offered.

 

[smartcooky]

Still clueless about axiomatic systems and stipulative definitions.

You misunderstand my use of the word "dogma". This stems from your lack of basic English comprehension skills, and your continued lack of understanding of the concept of "context"

Its is not the definitions you use that I consider dogma. Those definitions are fine in the context of a philosophical discussion. What I do regard as "your dogma" is your obsession and insistent demand that they are the only definitions that exist - that no other valid definitions exist, and that they MUST be used in real life. That is your dogma!

You "think" that the axioms of Euclidean geometry are "dogma"?

Nope. Euclidean geometry works in real and everyday life. The definitions of male and female you insist are the only ones that exist, do not.
‎
‎

 

[Steersman]

My understanding is that that is not what biologists mean by the term "phenotype," and therefore is not what is meant in the definition of sex that you offered. ....

Behaviors and their consequences are also phenotypes, since behaviors are observable characteristics. Behavioral phenotypes include cognitive, personality, and behavioral patterns. Some behavioral phenotypes may characterize psychiatric disorders[7] or syndromes.[8][9] ....

Although phenome has been in use for many years, the distinction between the use of phenome and phenotype is problematic. A proposed definition for both terms as the "physical totality of all traits of an organism or of one of its subsystems" was put forth by Mahner and Kary in 1997, who argue that although scientists tend to intuitively use these and related terms in a manner that does not impede research, the terms are not well defined and usage of the terms is not consistent.[11]

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

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

 

[Steersman]

You misunderstand my use of the word "dogma". This stems from your lack of basic English comprehension skills, and your continued lack of understanding of the concept of "context"

"When I use a word", Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less".

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Words

Its is not the definitions you use that I consider dogma. Those definitions are fine in the context of a philosophical discussion. What I do regard as "your dogma" is your obsession and insistent demand that they are the only definitions that exist - that no other valid definitions exist, and that they MUST be used in real life. That is your dogma!
‎

Clueless. It is NOT a philosophical discussion, or at least not entirely. It's a biological one, a "debate" over which are the best and most logical definitions for the sexes.

And I'm perfectly fine with different definitions. Maybe you, or some transactivists would be happy with defining male and female as those with concave and convex mating surfaces?

You -- and your girlfriend and many others -- just have your knickers in a twist because the standard biological definitions -- which are part and parcel of all of biology -- don't comport with your desperate insistence that sex is immutable, and that everyone has to be either male or female.

And, speaking of dogma, I doubt there's much difference between that insistence of yours and the historical insistence that the earth was the center of the universe and 6000 years old, and that we didn't evolve from apes ...

 

[theprestige]

Clueless. It is NOT a philosophical discussion, or at least not entirely. It's a biological one, a "debate" over which are the best and most logical definitions for the sexes.

Clueless! Discussions about what is best or most logical are absolutely and exclusively philosophical discussions.

 

[smartcooky]

Clueless! Discussions about what is best or most logical are absolutely and exclusively philosophical discussions.

Indeed. Self-professed expert on philosophy doesn't recognize a philosophical discussion when he sees one

Colour me surprised!

 

[Steersman]

Clueless! Discussions about what is best or most logical are absolutely and exclusively philosophical discussions.

Maybe that's why y'all don't really want to, why you're unable to present any defense of Hilton's claptrap? "That's the way my grandpappy did it and it's good enough for me!" Just an article of faith, nothing else.

But I DID say "not entirely". And there are a number of practical principles involved that are less philosophical and likely to be a bit more palatable for you:

In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

Hard to imagine a more important and more ubiquitous trait shared among millions of species than "produces large gametes" and "produces small gametes". Which justifies naming them -- perchance, "females" and "males"?

But if you're unwilling to consider reasons for best and worst contenders then why not a spectrum? Or transwoman Riley Dennis' entry into those sweepstakes?

On biological sex
“”For example, if someone was assigned male at birth, but took puberty blockers and hormones and had a vaginoplasty, they would have “female” hormones, secondary sex characters, and genitals. So, three of their five ways of determining sex would be “female”... That means three-fifths of the sex criteria point to female, and only one-fifth points to male – and if you believe that sex is an unchanging biological fact, that couldn’t be possible. But it is.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis#On_biological_sex

Do note the heading -- "On biological sex". How dare you, I say, how dare you deny "her" claim to that exalted estate? And in the face of such sound reasoning!

If you abandon the field -- unbloodied -- and repudiate and bastardize more scientific and philosophically sound definitions then don't act all surprised and aggrieved when various charlatans, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists ride roughshod over the standard biological definitions and over even the folk-biology claptrap peddled by Hilton.

 

[smartcooky]

Maybe that's why y'all don't really want to, why you're unable to present any defense of Hilton's claptrap? "That's the way my grandpappy did it and it's good enough for me!" Just an article of faith, nothing else.

But I DID say "not entirely". And there are a number of practical principles involved that are less philosophical and likely to be a bit more palatable for you:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

Hard to imagine a more important and more ubiquitous trait shared among millions of species than "produces large gametes" and "produces small gametes". Which justifies naming them -- perchance, "females" and "males"?

But if you're unwilling to consider reasons for best and worst contenders then why not a spectrum? Or transwoman Riley Dennis' entry into those sweepstakes?


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis#On_biological_sex

Do note the heading -- "On biological sex". How dare you, I say, how dare you deny "her" claim to that exalted estate? And in the face of such sound reasoning!

If you abandon the field -- unbloodied -- and repudiate and bastardize more scientific and philosophically sound definitions then don't act all surprised and aggrieved when various charlatans, scientific illiterates, and political opportunists ride roughshod over the standard biological definitions and over even the folk-biology claptrap peddled by Hilton.

While this is all very interesting, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality. Riley Dennis is a nutcase who thinks that a transwoman is not biologically male, and who thinks that sex is a spectrum.

Reality: Sex is binary... there are only two of them - one is male, and the other is female... there is NO THIRD SEX. There are intersex humans, but they are a minuscule percentage. This is what Hilton insists on.

But you, buy declaring pre-pubescent humans and post-menopausal women to be neither male nor female, are playing directly into the hands of the very people you claim to oppose. TRAs would absolutely love your take on this.

 

[Steersman]

While this is all very interesting, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.

It has everything to do with reality. You and too many others don't quite seem to get -- or want to get -- that there's no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female", particularly as sexes.

But there's a major battle with far reaching consequences that is taking place -- Helen Joyce and Helen Dale more or less reasonably argue transgenderism is a civilization threatening/ending movement -- over how to define those categories. Kinda think that the biological definitions are the line in the sand, the last line of defense based on sound facts and solid principles. Which neither you nor Hilton are doing much to defend by peddling folk-biology.

Riley Dennis is a nutcase who thinks that a transwoman is not biologically male, and who thinks that sex is a spectrum.

Well we certainly agree on that. But do you seriously think I disagree with that? If you do then you're simply not paying attention.

Reality: Sex is binary... there are only two of them - one is male, and the other is female... there is NO THIRD SEX. There are intersex humans, but they are a minuscule percentage. This is what Hilton insists on.

Do you seriously think I'm arguing there IS a third sex? Rather clueless if that's the case.

You at least should appreciate the idea that categories aren't exhaustive. You might consider something in the way of "thought experiment": IF religion was a binary -- Christianity and Islam -- THEN are atheists "religion-less"?

Even Emily conceded, even if on tenuous grounds, that human embryos before 6 weeks -- if I'm not mistaken -- were sexless. And that because they don't meet the criteria she has in mind for the sex categories.

All that the standard biological definitions are doing is advancing broader and more encompassing criteria, i.e., functional gonads.

But you, by declaring pre-pubescent humans and post-menopausal women to be neither male nor female, are playing directly into the hands of the very people you claim to oppose. TRAs would absolutely love your take on this.

You're grabbing at straws there mate. Show your work.

By the standard biological definitions transwomen won't EVER be female because they won't EVER have functional ovaries of their own. But folk-biology and the claptrap Hilton is peddling open the door to that claim since there's no necessary requirement to have any reproductive abilities at all; they simply boil down into the Kindergarten Cop "definitions": boys have penises and girls have vaginas. " Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!"

 

[smartcooky]

It has everything to do with reality. You and too many others don't quite seem to get -- or want to get -- that there's no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female", particularly as sexes.

But we can assign meaning to them in order to segregate them so that we can have a fairer, safer and more just society.

1. Females can, or will be, or were able to bear offspring - males cannot and never will be able to, AND
2. Males can, or will be, or were able to father offspring - females cannot and never will be able to, AND
3. Males have penises - females have vaginas, AND
4. Males have generally superior physical attributes than females (larger, taller, stronger and faster)

These are indisputable, observable and verifiable facts, and when combined together, i.e. AND, NOT OR, we can use them as a definition in the context of, and for the purpose I have stated above.

These assigned definitions allow society to

1. Segregate girls' and boys' changing rooms
2. Segregate sports for the safety of the (figuratively) weaker sex, and for fairness and equity in competition
3. Create safe spaces for women
4. Not regard post-menopausal women as being past their use-by date

The strict definition you would have us use allows NONE of the above.

But there's a major battle with far reaching consequences that is taking place -- Helen Joyce and Helen Dale more or less reasonably argue transgenderism is a civilization threatening/ending movement -- over how to define those categories. Kinda think that the biological definitions are the line in the sand, the last line of defense based on sound facts and solid principles. Which neither you nor Hilton are doing much to defend by peddling folk-biology.

By the standard biological definitions transwomen won't EVER be female because they won't EVER have functional ovaries of their own. But folk-biology and the claptrap Hilton is peddling open the door to that claim since there's no necessary requirement to have any reproductive abilities at all; they simply boil down into the Kindergarten Cop "definitions": boys have penises and girls have vaginas. " Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!"

Maybe you are reading something into what Hilton is saying that I am not reading...

"...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 for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as "males" and "females", respectively. No anisogametic species produces more than two different gamete types. Thus, there are precisely two reproductive roles in anisogametic species. Thus, there are precisely two sexes — sex is binary.
- Dr. Emma Hilton"​

Can you please explain what is it about this opinion that 'opens the door to the claim transwomen are really women'? From my reading of it, rather than opening the door, her opinion slams the door shut on that claim, then bolts and locks it.
‎
‎

 

[Emily's Cat]

Horse feathers. You may know a bit about statistics, but you know much less about biology and the principles undergirding it than you think you do

You know far less than you think you do as well, and I'm fairly confident that I understand far more than you.

You go find a link - because you don't actually understand the principles and cannot explain the concepts in your own words, all you can do is parrot language that you don't fully understand. Then you fixate on a single word in that link that you *think* supports your errant position, and you fail to incorporate the context in your comprehension.

You're functioning like a bot that regurgitates things it finds on the internet, but lacks actual understanding of any of it - it's a facsimile of knowledge, but the dearth of comprehension is apparent to everyone except the bot.

For example... You select this snippet from wikipedia:

In genetics, the phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior.

From this, you fixate on a single term:

In genetics, the phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior.

But in so doing, you fail to comprehend the actual meaning being presented. Allow me to demonstrate:

In genetics, the phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior.

The primary definition of phenotype is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. That's the core of the definition, and you have chosen to ignore that in its entirety. That definition is expanded to add more information, and you've also ignored the majority of that expanded definition. To make matters worse, you fixate on the single term "processes", even though the term appears in the context of "developmental processes".

You appear to have misunderstood that developmental processes, in the context of the definition of phenotype, means the steps that an individual goes through in their journey from fetal to adult specimens of the species. Instead, you've substituted your own meaning, insisting that it means "actively producing through an ongoing physical process". Your meaning is not supported by the defintion, nor by the remainder of the wikipedia article that you seem to have failed to read.

At the end of the day, males and females within the same species have 1) different morphologies and 2) follow different developmental processes in their journey from fetus to adult. That holds true for all anisogamous species, completely irrespective of whether they ever produce viable gametes at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

So do you, and fundamentally so.

 

[Emily's Cat]

None of that contradicts my statement.

jt512: Evolution is not random, natural selection doesn't select for random traits

EC: Describes the mechanism by which randomly occurring mutations enter the genetic pool, and further clarifies that natural selection does exactly zero "selection" in the first place

jt512: That doesn't contradict what I said!

It contradicts the entire premise of what you said. It contradicts your implicat assumptions regarding the mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You have not produced any supporting evidence that even remotely suggests that PRESENT PRODUCTION OF GAMETES is a NECESSARY condition for the definition (and hence classification) of sex in anisogamous species.

This is an extrapolation of your own, that is not supported by any of the references you have regurgitated.

I will once again reiterate that present production is sufficient, but not necessary. I will also reiterate that not all systems have a singular necessary and sufficient condition.

If you wish to continue your argument, then it's incumbent upon you to provide evidence supporting your assumption that present production of gametes is necessary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Your fundamental lack of comprehension is frustrating.
"Of or denoting the sex that can..."
That's the key part. Here's a simple question for you:
Is it EVER possible for a male, whether mature or not, to bear offspring or to produce eggs? EVER?

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

The child stage of a female is not, however, sexless. And there is ZERO probability that the child stage of a female will ever turn into a male and begin producing sperm. The child stage of a female within humans is ONLY EVER a female, it cannot ever become male.

And the very fact that you can use the phrase "child stage of a female" implicitly acknowledges that the child is female in phenotype.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

First: Philosphy is irrelevant claptrap when it comes to actual ******* science.
Second: YOU don't know a thing about either the philosophical principles or biology, so why on earth should any of us listen to you?

Finally - you have yet to provide any of us with any reason to accept your interpretations for any of the subjects you opine on. You reference internet articles to try to insist that your view of statistics is right, when it is not. On the other hand, I have a degree in applied mathematics with a minor in statistics, and over 20 years experience actually *using* statistics for my career. You reference internet definitions of language to try to override the experience and knowledge of an english language teacher. You use internet definition to try to force your own errant view of biology onto those of us who have been lectured by our very own resident evolutionary biologist.

All in all, you have no expertise, no experience, and no actual knowledge. All you have is your own interpretation of what you're read on the internet. And you interpretations are materially flawed, as you completely lack understanding and comprehension of the definitions that you keep posting.