[Merged] Strict biological definitions of male/female

[smartcooky]

You lot seem to "think" -- I use the term loosely

Nope, but you do use facts loosely!

-- that "male" and "female" are actual entities...

Wrong!

... immutable identities....

Wrong!

...based on some "mythic essences"...

Wrong!

...that they produce gametes is, apparently in your views, simply an irrelevant detail

Wrong!

Biologically speaking, ALL that the words denote is the presence of functional gonads, is the ongoing capability of production of either large gametes or small gametes at some time during their life. Period.

FTFY

Glad I could help you with this!
‎
‎

 

[d4m10n]

What's your point?

The definition you posted refers to "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs" invoking a biological capacity inherent to females rather than using the present indefinite tense, "produces" as you have claimed above.

Let's go back to your car analogy. Suppose we have a new Ford factory set up such that it can produce cars next door to a new Schwinn factory set up such that it can produce bicycles. We could tell which factory is which even before they finish producing any products, because they are set up using different machines, tools, and parts in stock. We might even go so far as to say one factory has been arranged such that it "can...produce" cars whereas the other one is set up such that it "can...produce" bicycles. You might well feel the need to wait until finished products are rolling off the lines to discern the difference, but we needn't take such a cautious approach in the face of counterfactual claims such as "The Schwinn factory can produce cars."

 

[smartcooky]

The definition you posted refers to "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs" invoking a biological capacity inherent to females rather than using the present indefinite tense, "produces" as you have claimed above.

Let's go back to your car analogy. Suppose we have a new Ford factory set up such that it can produce cars next door to a new Schwinn factory set up such that it can produce bicycles. We could tell which factory is which even before they finish producing any products, because they are set up using different machines, tools, and parts in stock. We might even go so far as to say one factory has been arranged such that it "can...produce" cars whereas the other one is set up such that it "can...produce" bicycles. You might well feel the need to wait until finished products are rolling off the lines to discern the difference, but we needn't take such a cautious approach in the face of counterfactual claims such as "The Schwinn factory can produce cars."

Furthermore, even if the Ford factory shuts down, either temporarily or permanently, we can still tell it used to produce cars by observing the machines and equipment inside. If there is a power cut, or if one of the machines becomes faulty, stopping production, we can still tell what that factory produced.

 

[Trausti]

Researchers identify 6,500 genes that are expressed differently in men and women

Men and women differ in obvious and less obvious ways -- for example, in the prevalence of certain diseases or reactions to drugs. How are these connected to one's sex? Researchers recently uncovered thousands of human genes that are expressed -- copied out to make proteins -- differently in the two sexes.

 

[Steersman]

....

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
... immutable identities....

Wrong!

That you would apparently condone your girlfriend kicking me in the nuts because I pointed out that she probably no longer qualifies as female -- at least by standard biological definitions -- certainly suggests you see the sexes as such "immutable identities". "How dare you deprive me of my identity, my part in the female Borg!!??"

You and she might just as well do the same if I had said that she no longer qualifies as a teenager once she's had her 20th birthday.

"teenager" and "female" are both names for categories, and one has to be able to pay the membership dues to wear the gang's colours ...

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Biologically speaking, ALL that the words denote is the presence of functional gonads, is the ongoing capability of production of either large gametes or small gametes at some time during their life. Period.

FTFY

Glad I could help you with this!
‎‎

"fixed"? Yeah, the way the Ministry of Truth -- and feminists -- "fix" various unpalatable facts.

Standard biological definitions don't say anything of the sort. You're welcome to your own idiosyncratic definitions which are no better than the ones from the Kindergarten Cop movie, but they AIN'T biology. Something which you seem rather desperate to deny and abrogate. Wonder why that might be ...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Don't think you quite understand how intensional definitions work -- even in the face of my multiple quotes and links.

I understand it, but I'm not convinced that you do.

Humor me. You've provided lots of quotes and links, yes. But can you explain in your own words what the difference is between an intensional and an extensional definition? Can you explain in your own words why you think your understanding of intensional is applicable to this case?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Grammatically incompetent, because you explicitly believe that only the verb form “produces” is the present tense and you explicitly excluded “produce”.

It's even worse than that. For Steersman, it's not even actually fully present tense. They have decreed that it can mean "regularly produces" instead of "currently produces"... so that females can be considered females for the 20-ish days a month that they aren't actively ovulating a mature and fertile egg.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Can Fred be a teenager if he's not between 13 and 19 inclusive?

What if Fred is a 13 year old in a spanish speaking country?

Similarly, Sally can't be a female unless she actually produces ova on a regular basis -- in spite of you insisting that "Sally produces ova" is "always true" ...

It is true from the 6th week of gestation until the day Sally dies that Sally has the phenotype that produces ova.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wrote:




About that statement you responded:




I don't see how my statement could contradict my "implicit assumptions regarding the mechanisms of evolution," because my understanding of those mechanisms is essentially what you described.

Okay... then all of your terminology is wrong for what you're trying to express.

Evolution does exactly zero selecting of anything. Randomly occurring mutations that do not harm the individual's ability to survive until reproduction are more likely to propagate into the species - but there's a population dynamic that has a much more profound effect on the inclusion/exclusion of genetic mutations that you seem to realize.

An entirely random process can produce sorted results.

Imagine a gigantic pachinko machine, with the pegs spaced at random intervals. Some are close together, some are far apart, and they're not distributed by any pattern at all. Now imagine a box full of randomly sized marbles, all mixed up, with no pattern to their distribution. Now dump that box of marbles into the pachinko machine.

When you look at the output of the machine - where the marbles come out at the bottom - they will be effectively sorted. It may not be perfect, but it will be obvious. You'll have the smallest marbles in one location, the largest marbles in a different location. You'll have some of the small marbles in with the big marbles, but you'll have very very few large marbles in with the small ones.

The inputs and the process are entirely random; the results are not.

Evolution is a process - it's the pachinko machine. Genetic mutations are the inputs - they're the marbles. The process results in a sorted result - in this context, the propagation of genes that don't **** things up too badly. But the process itself is absolutely random.

 

[Emily's Cat]

BY DEFINITION, the sexes are categories and one can't be a member of them unless one can pay the membership dues -- i.e., producing gametes on a regular basis:

You have a persistent error in your approach. The error is that you (and you alone, by the way) believe that class membership in the sexes is based on active production of one gamete or the other. But that is NOT the definition of sex, it's not even the definition that YOU provided.

Class membership is based on the REPRODUCTIVE PHENOTYPE that one has.

Females are those that have the PHENOTYPE THAT PRODUCES large gametes; males are those that have the PHENOTYPE THAT PRODUCES small gametes.

If your belief were true, the definition would read differently. Specifically it would say: Females are those that PRODUCE large gametes; males are those that PRODUCE small gametes.

But that's not what the definition says. Your premise is wrong.

 

[Steersman]

The definition you posted refers to "the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs" invoking a biological capacity inherent to females rather than using the present indefinite tense, "produces" as you have claimed above.

So what? You might note that Oxford's own definitions for "male" use "produces":

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.

https://www.google.com/search?q=mal...BMgYIBxBFGEGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

The point is that a great many more or less reputable sources endorse the standard biological definitions, and many more don't. For an example of the former see Wikipedia:

An organism's sex is female (symbol: ♀) if it produces the ovum (egg cell), the type of gamete (sex cell) that fuses with the male gamete (sperm cell) during sexual reproduction.

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

Though their sister organization, Wiktionary, has clearly been corrupted by gender ideology:

female: Belonging to the sex which typically produces eggs (ova), or to the gender which is typically associated with it.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/female

"typically"? Maybe an atypical female produces sperm? Inquiring minds and all that ... A bloody useless definition, certainly not a logical nor a scientific one.

That Oxford drops the ball on one of the pair proves diddly-squat -- apart from the ongoing efforts to bastardize and corrupt biological terminology which many here seem fully on-board with ...

The issue is still what reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries stipulate as the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as referents of the terms "male" and "female". And they SAY the on-going current and regular production of gametes. Period.

Let's go back to your car analogy. Suppose we have a new Ford factory set up such that it can produce cars next door to a new Schwinn factory set up such that it can produce bicycles. We could tell which factory is which even before they finish producing any products, because they are set up using different machines, tools, and parts in stock. We might even go so far as to say one factory has been arranged such that it "can...produce" cars whereas the other one is set up such that it "can...produce" bicycles. You might well feel the need to wait until finished products are rolling off the lines to discern the difference, but we needn't take such a cautious approach in the face of counterfactual claims such as "The Schwinn factory can produce cars."

Your "can produce" is still something in the way of a future production. The prepubescent probably can produce gametes in the sweet by-and-by, and menopausees probably could have produced ova in some ancient past. But none of them are actually producing gametes RIGHT NOW.

That is the whole point of the "produces" being "regularly", in the present at the time of the labelling, as a precondition for applying the label:

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

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

We might say that Sally, as a prepubescent XXer, isn't producing any ova right now, but some time down the road she will become a person who "produces ova" [present tense?] at which point she will get her female membership card.

You too seem rather desperate to avoid facing the fact that a necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a referent of the terms "male" and "female" is to have functional gonads that are fully on-line and cranking out product. Wonder why that might be ...

You might actually try reading and thinking about this, about the principles undergirding the biological definitions:

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

 

[Emily's Cat]

The supposed perpetrator seems to have departed for parts unknown, but Wikipedia themselves provide the smoking gun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequential_hermaphroditism&diff=926078049&oldid=917680304

It's a comparison of two sequential edits of the article on sequential hermaphroditism, one September 24, 2019 by Monkbot and a later one on November 14th 2019 by HeatherNL98. Of particular note:





Heather is explicitly changing "male" and "female" into binaries -- the reproductive and non-reproductive halves. Completely antithetical to Monkbot's statement which matches standard biological terminology.

Heather's description is more accurate. At hatching, clownfish all have the male phenotype, but are sexually immature. They remain sexually immature males until the breeding male - the sexually mature male - dies or transforms into the colony female. A clownfish colony is comprised of one fish with a female reproductive anatomy, and several fish with male reproductive anatomy. Of those males, only one will be fertile at any given time, but all of them have male reproductive anatomies.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You lot seem to "think" -- I use the term loosely -- that "male" and "female" are actual entities, immutable identities based on some "mythic essences" -- that they produce gametes is, apparently in your views, simply an irrelevant detail. Biologically speaking, ALL that the words denote is the presence of functional gonads, is the ongoing production of either large gametes or small gametes. Period.

No, we do not think any of that.

We all agree that male and female are based on the reproductive phenotype that an individual has; and that those phenotypes come in two sorts: one that has evolved to produce large gametes, and one that has evolved to produce small gametes. Sex classification is based on the phenotype, not on successful production of gametes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Researchers identify 6,500 genes that are expressed differently in men and women

Very interesting... but oh goodness what a rabbit hole you've opened up!

This will end up going back to the basics of what constitutes primary sex characteristics, secondary sex characteristics, and sex-linked or sex-correlated characteristics.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"fixed"? Yeah, the way the Ministry of Truth -- and feminists -- "fix" various unpalatable facts.

Are you aware that your posts come across with an extremely misogynistic tone? Does that bother you at all?

 

[Steersman]

I understand it, but I'm not convinced that you do.

Humor me. You've provided lots of quotes and links, yes. But can you explain in your own words what the difference is between an intensional and an extensional definition? Can you explain in your own words why you think your understanding of intensional is applicable to this case?

IF "even number" required an extensional definition THEN we would have to list every last even number -- e.g., {2, 4, 6, 8 .... 2178, 2180 ... 11479832, 11479834, ....}.

But an intensional definition allows us to specify the criteria that describes the property exhibited by each and every member of the category, i.e., "divisible by 2 with no remainder". That criterion then provides a way of determining if any candidate qualifies for membership in the even category.

As for its applicability to biology, there are clearly billions if not trillions of members of literally millions of anisogamous species that are characterized by or exhibit the property of "produces large or small gametes RIGHT NOW". Which biologists CHOSE to call "females" and "males".

That's probably why Lehtonen, in particular, explicitly states that:

Lehtonen: “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 [present tense] the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972)” [my emphasis]

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

Note that there's no reference at all to phenotype. It just says that those organisms which currently produce gametes are to be CALLED males and females.

Do you agree or not that there are trillions of organisms which exist in the state of producing, on a regular basis, large or small gametes? Those are the organisms which biology CHOOSES to CALL females and males.

 

[Steersman]

Are you aware that your posts come across with an extremely misogynistic tone? Does that bother you at all?

Not terribly impressed with much of "feminism" and its proponents. More than a few women have quite reasonably said that the "transcult is the bastard child of feminism".

You might try reading this essay by Marco Del Giudice on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender":

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

Something for which I have Colin Wright to thank since he tweeted a link to it ages ago.

 

[Emily's Cat]

IF "even number" required an extensional definition THEN we would have to list every last even number -- e.g., {2, 4, 6, 8 .... 2178, 2180 ... 11479832, 11479834, ....}.

But an intensional definition allows us to specify the criteria that describes the property exhibited by each and every member of the category, i.e., "divisible by 2 with no remainder". That criterion then provides a way of determining if any candidate qualifies for membership in the even category.

Thank you - that was well explained, and much more conversational. Please use your own words to express your arguments in the future. Links to references, and even quotes of pertinent information are useful - but only as support for your own discourse.

As for its applicability to biology, there are clearly billions if not trillions of members of literally millions of anisogamous species that are characterized by or exhibit the property of "produces large or small gametes RIGHT NOW". Which biologists CHOSE to call "females" and "males".

That's probably why Lehtonen, in particular, explicitly states that:


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

Note that there's no reference at all to phenotype. It just says that those organisms which currently produce gametes are to be CALLED males and females.

Do you agree or not that there are trillions of organisms which exist in the state of producing, on a regular basis, large or small gametes? Those are the organisms which biology CHOOSES to CALL females and males.

Let's take a step back. We'll use your Lehtonen quote as a springboard for this, without the emphasis.

Lehtonen: “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”

First off, let's note that Lehtonen is defining the term "female", they are not defining the term "sex".

Per Lehtonen, "Female" is the sex that produces larger gametes. I've added my emphasis here. Female, according to Lehtonen, is defined as one of two sexes. There is no third sex referenced, nor is there a sexless state referenced.

Before we move on, do you agree that Lehtonen has defined "female" and has not defined "sex"? Do you agree that Lehtonen references only two sexes, and does not in any way reference an unsexed state?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not terribly impressed with much of "feminism" and its proponents.

What about feminism do you have strong disagreements with? to which wave of feminism are you referring?

More than a few women have quite reasonably said that the "transcult is the bastard child of feminism".

It *is* the bastard child of feminism. Although I strongly suspect that you don't understand why that is, and what led to it. I have no confidence that you understand how transgender ideology arose from third wave feminism, nor the rather strong critiques that second wave adherents have toward third wave adherents.

 

[jt512]

Okay... then all of your terminology is wrong for what you're trying to express.

Evolution does exactly zero selecting of anything.

First of all, all I said was that evolution is not entirely random.

Randomly occurring mutations that do not harm the individual's ability to survive until reproduction are more likely to propagate into the species - but there's a population dynamic that has a much more profound effect on the inclusion/exclusion of genetic mutations that you seem to realize.

...

The inputs and the process are entirely random; the results are not.

If the results are not random, then there must be a non-random step in the process.

Natural selection starts with random inputs, but the outputs that are naturally selected for are the ones that improve survival or reproduction. The selection process is entirely passive, but it is a selective process.

Evolution is a process ... But the process itself is absolutely random.

If natural selection is entirely random, then how can virologists predict which new variants of SARS-CoV-2 will become dominant?

 

[smartcooky]

What if Fred is a 13 year old in a spanish speaking country?

KaaaaBOOM!!!

Are you aware that your posts come across with an extremely misogynistic tone? Does that bother you at all?

My guess is, not an ice-cube's chance in hell. He seems to be quite open about his hatred for females!

 

[Emily's Cat]

If the results are not random, then there must be a non-random step in the process.

*grumble* You trimmed the part that explained exactly how random inputs + random process can result in sorted outcomes.

Natural selection starts with random inputs, but the outputs that are naturally selected for are the ones that improve survival or reproduction. The selection process is entirely passive, but it is a selective process.

Nothing is actually selected for - evolution doesn't select. It's one of the most annoying misnaming ever for me. We call it "natural selection" but there is literally zero selection involved.

If natural selection is entirely random, then how can virologists predict which new variants of SARS-CoV-2 will become dominant?

Viruses are fairly simple from a genetic standpoint. They also aren't sexually reproductive - the way that mutations propagate in viruses is different from the way they propagate in an anisogamous species. Virus replication uses an entirely different mechanism. It's much easier for virologists to program in the existing strains, and then run all the combinations to see what the results end up being. It's predictive modeling, and it's very cool... but they're not looking at traits and saying "oh, this trait is going to increase virus replicability, therefore it will be selected for". They're saying "Here's all the currently active variants, let's throw them at our virus mixing algorithm and see what comes out when we run it tons of times". For all intents, they've programmed the pachinko machine, and they're observing what sorting shows up most often at the other end.

And sometimes they get it wrong.

 

[smartcooky]

Nothing is actually selected for - evolution doesn't select. It's one of the most annoying misnaming ever for me. We call it "natural selection" but there is literally zero selection involved.g.

Or more correctly, evolution does "select" but it does so after the fact.

In natural selection, organisms that, as a result of random genetic mutations, become better adapted to their environment, have a greater chance of surviving and passing on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time.

Natural selection is a result or consequence, not a choice or cause!

 

[Steersman]

It's even worse than that. For Steersman, it's not even actually fully present tense. They have decreed that it can mean "regularly produces" instead of "currently produces"... so that females can be considered females for the 20-ish days a month that they aren't actively ovulating a mature and fertile egg.

Nope. Think you're seriously misinterpreting "regular" -- and many other terms as well. But see:

reg·u·lar
/ˈreɡ(yə)lər/
adjective
1.
arranged in or constituting a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances.

https://www.google.com/search?q=reg...IHCAkQABiABKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Producing an ovum or two a month is sufficient. Qualify as a female during and between those events.

But "he" works fine. "steersman" is not -- despite you're "misandrist" allusions to the contrary -- any sort of justification for suggesting I've been castrated. See the etymology for "cybernetics":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics#Etymology

 

[Steersman]

No, we do not think any of that.

You've been voted spokes-person for the crowd? But sure a lot of people -- mostly women for some reason ... -- who get quite "offended" at the prospect of being deprived of their sex category membership cards.

We all agree that male and female are based on the reproductive phenotype that an individual has; and that those phenotypes come in two sorts: one that has evolved to produce large gametes, and one that has evolved to produce small gametes. Sex classification is based on the phenotype, not on successful production of gametes.

And transwomen "all agree" that sex is a spectrum, a best three-out-of-five.

That is just YOUR entirely unscientific definition which is most certainly not what is endorsed by reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

 

[jt512]

Nothing is actually selected for - evolution doesn't select. It's one of the most annoying misnaming ever for me. We call it "natural selection" but there is literally zero selection involved.

I don't know what you think "selection" means, but I don't think it means what you think it means. Selection can actually be random, as in how numbers are selected in a lottery. So even if natural selection were random, it would still be selection. But it isn't random, since it selects for traits that have certain characteristics.

Viruses are fairly simple from a genetic standpoint. They also aren't sexually reproductive - the way that mutations propagate in viruses is different from the way they propagate in an anisogamous species. Virus replication uses an entirely different mechanism.

None of that matters. It is still natural selection, and it is anything but random.

 

[Steersman]

Heather's description is more accurate. At hatching, clownfish all have the male phenotype, but are sexually immature. They remain sexually immature males until the breeding male - the sexually mature male - dies or transforms into the colony female. A clownfish colony is comprised of one fish with a female reproductive anatomy, and several fish with male reproductive anatomy. Of those males, only one will be fertile at any given time, but all of them have male reproductive anatomies.

Horse feathers.

For one thing, you too are turning each sex into a binary -- the "sexually immature" and "sexually mature" halves. Basically what the latest version of Wikipedia's article on clownfish is doing:

Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female.

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

So they're saying a binary consisting of "functional male" and "non-functional male". Completely antithetical to the definition for "sex":

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=sex...C6BgYIARABGBOSBwEzoAebFg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

So "non-functional male" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. How much "reproductive function" does a transwoman have who's had his nuts removed?

But you're going to argue that newly hatched clownfish are non-functional males AND non-functional females, some of whom become functional males and non-functional females, and some of whom then become non-functional males and functional females?

"What tangled webs we weave" ...

In addition to which, absolutely NONE of the definitions I've quoted say ANYTHING about the "reproductive anatomy" that you and Hilton are peddling. All their definitions are specifying "produces gametes" as the necessary and sufficient condition for sex category membership -- which I don't see that you've at all addressed.

 

[Trausti]

Sex differences in functional connectivity during fetal brain development

We discovered both within and between network FC-GA associations that varied with sex. Specifically, associations between GA and posterior cingulate-temporal pole and fronto-cerebellar FC were observed in females only, whereas the association between GA and increased intracerebellar FC was stronger in males. These observations confirm that sexual dimorphism in functional brain systems emerges during human gestation.

 

[theprestige]

Now that is interesting!

 

[Steersman]

KaaaaBOOM!!!

Damp squib ... https://www.wordreference.com/es/translation.asp?tranword=teenager

My guess is, not an ice-cube's chance in hell. He seems to be quite open about his hatred for females!

I guess when you don't have any credible arguments then you can always engage in ad hominems ...

 

[Steersman]

Thank you - that was well explained, and much more conversational. Please use your own words to express your arguments in the future. Links to references, and even quotes of pertinent information are useful - but only as support for your own discourse.

Though that is generally what I do in any case. More bang for the buck if our comments are linked to supporting citations -- which seem rather thin on the ground in your own, though pretty much everyone else here is in the same boat ...

Let's take a step back. We'll use your Lehtonen quote as a springboard for this, without the emphasis.

Maybe not so quickly. You might try answering this point from my previous comment:

Do you agree or not that there are trillions of organisms which exist in the state of producing, on a regular basis, large or small gametes? Those are the organisms which biology CHOOSES to CALL females and males.

Do you agree or not? Yes or no?

First off, let's note that Lehtonen is defining the term "female", they are not defining the term "sex".

Per Lehtonen, "Female" is the sex that produces larger gametes. I've added my emphasis here. Female, according to Lehtonen, is defined as one of two sexes. There is no third sex referenced, nor is there a sexless state referenced.

Before we move on, do you agree that Lehtonen has defined "female" and has not defined "sex"? Do you agree that Lehtonen references only two sexes, and does not in any way reference an unsexed state?

Kinda think you're missing the point. While I'll agree that he hasn't explicitly defined "sex" itself, the standard definition says it is either of two main categories which are distinguished by sexual function -- basically their ability to reproduce which is, of course, absent in the prepubescent:

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=sex...BgYIARABGBOSBwMzLjGgB6YX&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Once he has defined those two categories then he has in effect defined "sex".

Kinda think you're trying to mash other traits into the definition for "sex" which is clearly not supported at all. You at least should know of and appreciate the difference between independent and dependent variables. Try thinking of those definitions of Lehtonen's and others as describing two independent variables, and that all of the secondary and sexually dimorphic traits -- which vary greatly by species -- as the dependent variables.

And while I'll agree also that he hasn't referenced any "third sex" or "sexless state", it's simply not necessary. Something that you at least should realize if you had any understanding of the concept of "necessary and sufficient condition", at least in the context of Lehtonen's definitions.

For example, the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a teenager is to be 13 to 19 inclusive. It's not necessary to refer to any "teenager-less state" -- if an individual is not in that age range then it necessarily follows that they're not a teenager.

Same thing with "male" and "female" -- Lehtonen's definitions, and those other sources I've quoted, are listing the necessary sufficient conditions to qualify as members of those categories. If an organism doesn't meet either condition then it necessarily follows that they're neither male nor female, that they are sexless.

 

[Steersman]

What about feminism do you have strong disagreements with? to which wave of feminism are you referring?

Basically that so much of it is profoundly unscientific and anti-intellectual. As a decent review of "Professing Feminism" by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge -- a couple of women, I might emphasize -- put it:

The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students.

https://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2009/07/27/professing-feminism-noh/

And Substacker, lawyer, and author Helen Dale quoted Maya Forstater arguing that "hostility to evolution is Feminism's Achille's heel":
https://lawliberty.org/podcast/when-does-sex-matter/

Although, as Del Giudice's paper emphasizes, many feminists have had some worthwhile insights, notably in separating sex and gender, and defining the latter, at least to a first approximation, as masculine and feminine personalities:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/feminism-gender/

It *is* the bastard child of feminism. Although I strongly suspect that you don't understand why that is, and what led to it. I have no confidence that you understand how transgender ideology arose from third wave feminism, nor the rather strong critiques that second wave adherents have toward third wave adherents.

Glad we agree on that much anyway. Though not quite sure why you then give me a hard time when I criticize those feminists who've contributed to that state of affairs -- of which there are a great many.

But I'll cheerfully concede that you probably know more than I about the history of various "waves" of feminism. And particularly about "how transgender ideology arose from third wave feminism". Though kind of get the impression that some "proximate causes" were that rejection of the biology, and the "anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiments" -- hoist by their own petards.

 

[Steersman]

You have a persistent error in your approach. The error is that you (and you alone, by the way) believe that class membership in the sexes is based on active production of one gamete or the other. But that is NOT the definition of sex, it's not even the definition that YOU provided.

But it's NOT me alone, is it? See the previously mentioned articles in the Wiley Online Library and by Griffiths. And it's implicit in the whole corpus about sequential hermaphrodites which change sex because of changes in the type of gamete produced.

And, as just mentioned, "sex" is, by definition, either of two categories -- "male" and "female". As soon as the sexes are defined on the basis of gametes currently/regularly produced then there's nothing much left to say about the "super-category" of "sex" -- apart from the common element of "has reproductive function", i.e., is able to reproduce.

Class membership is based on the REPRODUCTIVE PHENOTYPE that one has.

Females are those that have the PHENOTYPE THAT PRODUCES large gametes; males are those that have the PHENOTYPE THAT PRODUCES small gametes.

You keep blathering on about "reproductive phenotype" -- like it's some magic wand -- without ever defining exactly what you mean by the term. At least Hilton clearly identifies three distinct stages in a lifetime of varying phenotypes -- i.e., (1) having gonads that might eventually produce gametes; (2) having gonads that are currently producing gametes; and (3) having gonads that might have produced gametes some time in the past. Your "reproductive phenotype" rather clearly seems to encompass those three distinct stages.

Though I might emphasize that those three stages turn each sex into a spectrum of three -- rather risible from those who go out of their way to throw stones at other "spectrumists". Pots and kettles.

If your belief were true, the definition would read differently. Specifically it would say: Females are those that PRODUCE large gametes; males are those that PRODUCE small gametes.

But that's not what the definition says. Your premise is wrong.

"females produce large gametes" is first person singular, but "the sex that produces" is third person singular:

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

But here's the Oxford Dictionary of Biology which says "produce":


https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441

Although I might emphasize that the phrase "the sex that produces" is somewhat misleading or a "category error". Sexes are, by definition, categories -- just abstractions -- and can't do anything by themselves, only members of the categories can. Which is, I suppose, the implication, but it leads to or produces some "cognitive distortions".

 

[hecd2]

"females produce large gametes" is first person singular, but "the sex that produces" is third person singular:

Yet another egregious and elementary grammatical error. Your knowledge of English grammar is so poor as to disqualify you from any valid opinion on the interpretation of English propositions. This, and your bias, are the root causes of the errors which you promulgate so impotently.

"Females produce" is third person plural not first person singular.

First person singular would be "I produce"

Your ignorance of English leads you to think that there is a significant distinction between "produce" and "produces" in the definitions, whereas that simply reflects, in standard English conjugation, whether the subject of the sentence is singular or plural. In the case you quote, the subject is "reproductive organs", plural, hence "produce", third person plural.

 

[smartcooky]

Yet another egregious and elementary grammatical error. Your knowledge of English grammar is so poor as to disqualify you from any valid opinion on the interpretation of English propositions. This, and your bias, are the root causes of the errors which you promulgate so impotently.

"Females produce" is third person plural not first person singular.

First person singular would be "I produce"

Your ignorance of English leads you to think that there is a significant distinction between "produce" and "produces" in the definitions, whereas that simply reflects, in standard English conjugation, whether the subject of the sentence is singular or plural. In the case you quote, the subject is "reproductive organs", plural, hence "produce", third person plural.

Indeed. Steersman's understanding of tense and English grammar is not even up to late primary school level. A 7th grader (12 to 13 year old) could easily point out his glaring errors.
‎
‎

 

[Emily's Cat]

Or more correctly, evolution does "select" but it does so after the fact.

In natural selection, organisms that, as a result of random genetic mutations, become better adapted to their environment, have a greater chance of surviving and passing on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time.

Natural selection is a result or consequence, not a choice or cause!

Exactly

 

[Steersman]

....

"Females produce" is third person plural not first person singular.

First person singular would be "I produce" ...

Fine. I stand corrected. Happy now?

The issue is STILL what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as members of the sex categories. An issue which you seem totally unwilling or even able to address.

 

[hecd2]

Fine. I stand corrected. Happy now?

The issue is STILL what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as members of the sex categories. An issue which you seem totally unwilling or even able to address.

No, the issue is that you are demonstrably incompetent in English grammar to such an egregious extent that it disqualifies you from holding a valid opinion on the interpretation of any even moderately complex proposition formed in English. We can therefore safely discount your opinions on the interpretation of biological definitions of male and female. And we do, with perfect justification. You’re just wrong.

 

[theprestige]

What amuses me today is that the mainstream definition everyone but Steersman is using would work just fine for Steersman. All he has to do is accept the verb conjugation everyone else is using in that definition. All his problems are solved, if he just concedes that yes, that verb can be and is used that way.

 

[d4m10n]

Your "can produce" is still something in the way of a future production.

Those words are not mine, they are from the dictionary definition which you posted earlier.

But none of them are actually producing gametes RIGHT NOW.

The definition you posted doesn't say anything about RIGHT NOW whether in ALL CAPS or somewhat more subtly.

That is the whole point of the "produces" being "regularly"

The definition you posted also doesn't say "produces" or "regularly" with respect to ova.

We might say that Sally, as a prepubescent XXer, isn't producing any ova right now...

We might say that, but we would be wrong. This is because any given immature ovum^WP is at some stage in the production process which eventually culminates in mature ova. The fact that Sally already has immature ova is how we can know—even now—that she is already in the class of people who "can produce" ova under the right conditions.