[Merged] Strict biological definitions of male/female

[bobdroege7]

guess what, zero is a countable number.

 

[Matthew Best]

And therefore....?

 

[Rolfe]

Ooh, this should be good...

 

[Emily's Cat]

guess what, zero is a countable number.

A male who is sterile can be said to have zero sperm count. Mathematically speaking, the count of sperm associated with females is not zero, it's null. It's not a set containing the integer zero, it's a null set.

 

[smartcooky]

guess what, zero is a countable number.

Guess what?
Not having a sperm count for females is not the same as having a zero sperm count.
Not having an egg count for males is not the same as having a zero egg count.

When you are talking about spectra and bimodality, you must use terms properly.
EC correctly uses the term "null" to describe a female sperm count.

Zero has definite value, and therefore, has a place on any chart, distribution, spectrum.
Null has no value, and therefore, cannot be plotted on any of the above.

 

[bobdroege7]

So what sex is this ovulating boy?

Spontaneous ovulation in a true hermaphrodite with normal male phenotype and a rare 46,XX/47,XXY Klinefelter's mosaic karyotype - PubMed

The importance of full histological, cytogenetic and molecular investigation and of interdisciplinary approach in every single patient with sex differentiation disorders is highlighted by this rare case of spontaneous ovulation in a true hermaphrodite with normal male external genitalia and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Emily's Cat]

So what sex is this ovulating boy?

Spontaneous ovulation in a true hermaphrodite with normal male phenotype and a rare 46,XX/47,XXY Klinefelter's mosaic karyotype - PubMed

The importance of full histological, cytogenetic and molecular investigation and of interdisciplinary approach in every single patient with sex differentiation disorders is highlighted by this rare case of spontaneous ovulation in a true hermaphrodite with normal male external genitalia and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tell you what - people with mosaicism or chimerism of the reproductive tract get to be whatever the heck they want to call themselves. Do you feel like you've won the internet now?

 

[Rolfe]

He's male, as evidenced by the word "boy". The presence of anomalous female tissue doesn't produce a third sex.

 

[smartcooky]

So what sex is this ovulating boy?

Spontaneous ovulation in a true hermaphrodite with normal male phenotype and a rare 46,XX/47,XXY Klinefelter's mosaic karyotype - PubMed

The importance of full histological, cytogenetic and molecular investigation and of interdisciplinary approach in every single patient with sex differentiation disorders is highlighted by this rare case of spontaneous ovulation in a true hermaphrodite with normal male external genitalia and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

He's male, as evidenced by the word "boy". The presence of anomalous female tissue doesn't produce a third sex.

Oh, the fading excitement as bobdroege7 thinks he's found his "gotcha" moment, only for his hopes to be dashed by those stubborn facts

This boy is a male with Kleinfelter Syndrome Mosaicism

Klinefelter Syndrome Mosaicism 46,XX/47,XXY: A New Case and Literature Review - PMC

Most cases of Klinefelter syndrome (KS) have 47,XXY karyotype. We reported the first case of 46,XX/47,XXY KS whose genital ambiguity was detected prenatally with postnatal confirmation of the mosaicism and ovotesticular disorder of sex development ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

"Klinefelter syndrome (KS), 47,XXY, is a common sex chromosome aneuploidy with an approximate prevalence of 1 in 660 live born males."​

- He still does not produce a third type of gamete that is neither sperm nor eggs
- Any gametes he does produce (if viable) will fulfil the male role in reproduction

Therefore, no third sex. Sorry to disappoint bobdroege7 but your "gotcha" is a nothongburger that has already been addressed multiple times earlier in this thread

 

[bobdroege7]

you missed the point.

Still there is no need for a third sex for sex to be non-binary.

 

[Paul2]

you missed the point.

Still there is no need for a third sex for sex to be non-binary.

Can you offer a rebuttal to this (re-phrased from earlier): It's not sex itself that is on a spectrum, but individual's sex characteristics that are on a spectrum.

 

[smartcooky]

you missed the point.​

Still there is no need for a third sex for sex to be non-binary.

Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong!

binary​

/ˈbʌɪn(ə)ri/​

​

1. relating to, composed of, or involving two things.​

2. relating to, using, or denoting a system of numerical that has 2 rather than 10 as a base.​

When biologists say that “sex is binary,” they mean something straightforward: there are only two sexes. This statement is true because an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm
Females have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of ova.
Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary.

These are facts that cannot be wished away with a wave of the hand. There absolutely MUST be a third sex for sex to be non binary. People with DSDs are not a third sex, they are able to be classified as male or female.

There is not a single example anywhere in science of sometihng that ONLY exists in two states being non-binary (and if you are thinking that
quantum superposition might be a rebuttal... no it isn't!).

 

[smartcooky]

Still there is no need for a third sex for sex to be non-binary.

There is not a single example anywhere in science of something that ONLY exists in two states being non-binary

Still waiting....

 

[Emily's Cat]

you missed the point.

Still there is no need for a third sex for sex to be non-binary.

Let's go back to some basics, and a core understanding of how evolution works. Evolution doesn't have a plan, there's no guidance, there's no decision maker - it's a completely passive process, a giant pachinko machine. And way back in the before-fore times, hundreds of millions of years ago... our very most distant ancestors ended up mixing genetic information from multiple individuals in order to create the next generation. This is in contrast to cloning (single celled organisms that undergo binary fission) or replication (viruses that assemble copies of themselves using a materials stolen from a different organism completely).

This mixing of materials from multiple individuals is reproduction. Sexual reproduction doesn't necessarily imply that the individual specimens are busting out Barry White for some sexy-time shenanigans, it really just means that 1) the reproduction occurs using different sized genetic packages, that 2) take on different burdens in the reproductive process. Sex has to do with those genetic packages, not with the act of intercourse. This is an important technicality, because it prevents a whole pile of confusion down the road. For example... many plants have sexes, but they don't have *sex*. Stamens aren't actually inserted into pistils, after all.

Those genetic packages are called gametes, and in sexually reproductive species, they evolved to have two distinct types - and ONLY two types. There are large packages, which carry a lot of nutrients and move slowly. Those large packages have traded off using the nutrients to fuel their own movement, and instead, they set those nutrients aside to feed the embryo and give the next generation what it needs to develop. There are also small packages, which have evolved a different approach - they have only a small amount of nutrients, and they burn those nutrients as fuel so that they can move more. The large packages are called "eggs" or "ova". The small packages are called "sperm".

It just so happens that the combination of "large target" combine with "lots of birdshot all at once" creates a near optimum for the likelihood of fertilization. Because math is the only true god.

Anyway... these two different genetic packages, two distinct gametes, evolved. And hand in hand with them each species developed the anatomical structures needed to produce those gametes, and to deliver those gametes, and to nurture the fertilized gametes. Birds, fish, and most reptiles produce self-contained eggs that are fertilized and laid outside the body. Many plants produce seeds. Mammals gestate the fetus inside the mother's body.

So at the end of the day, there is a clear evolutionary function that distinguishes one sex from the other. Those functions can be identified based on the type of structures that the individual grew.

Now let's go back to your Klinefelter male.

Does your Klinefelter male have a different kind of gamete than the two known as egg and sperm? Does your Klinefelter male have anatomical structures that have evolved to support this completely different kind of gamete?

 

[Trausti]

you missed the point.

Still there is no need for a third sex for sex to be non-binary.

Can you give an example of a human born that was not the product of the sexual binary?

 

[bobdroege7]

Let's go back to some basics, and a core understanding of how evolution works. Evolution doesn't have a plan, there's no guidance, there's no decision maker - it's a completely passive process, a giant pachinko machine. And way back in the before-fore times, hundreds of millions of years ago... our very most distant ancestors ended up mixing genetic information from multiple individuals in order to create the next generation. This is in contrast to cloning (single celled organisms that undergo binary fission) or replication (viruses that assemble copies of themselves using a materials stolen from a different organism completely).

This mixing of materials from multiple individuals is reproduction. Sexual reproduction doesn't necessarily imply that the individual specimens are busting out Barry White for some sexy-time shenanigans, it really just means that 1) the reproduction occurs using different sized genetic packages, that 2) take on different burdens in the reproductive process. Sex has to do with those genetic packages, not with the act of intercourse. This is an important technicality, because it prevents a whole pile of confusion down the road. For example... many plants have sexes, but they don't have *sex*. Stamens aren't actually inserted into pistils, after all.

Those genetic packages are called gametes, and in sexually reproductive species, they evolved to have two distinct types - and ONLY two types. There are large packages, which carry a lot of nutrients and move slowly. Those large packages have traded off using the nutrients to fuel their own movement, and instead, they set those nutrients aside to feed the embryo and give the next generation what it needs to develop. There are also small packages, which have evolved a different approach - they have only a small amount of nutrients, and they burn those nutrients as fuel so that they can move more. The large packages are called "eggs" or "ova". The small packages are called "sperm".

It just so happens that the combination of "large target" combine with "lots of birdshot all at once" creates a near optimum for the likelihood of fertilization. Because math is the only true god.

Anyway... these two different genetic packages, two distinct gametes, evolved. And hand in hand with them each species developed the anatomical structures needed to produce those gametes, and to deliver those gametes, and to nurture the fertilized gametes. Birds, fish, and most reptiles produce self-contained eggs that are fertilized and laid outside the body. Many plants produce seeds. Mammals gestate the fetus inside the mother's body.

So at the end of the day, there is a clear evolutionary function that distinguishes one sex from the other. Those functions can be identified based on the type of structures that the individual grew.

Now let's go back to your Klinefelter male.

Does your Klinefelter male have a different kind of gamete than the two known as egg and sperm? Does your Klinefelter male have anatomical structures that have evolved to support this completely different kind of gamete?

Spare me the biology lesson, I have had college level Biology and Biochemistry.

So not a completely different gamete, but a single individual that produces both types of gametes.

And math does not exist in the real world, it's its own separate entity, and discoverable by any sentient species.

I believe in the holy trinity, the strong force, the electroweak force, and gravity. Those are the three Gods.

 

[bobdroege7]

Can you give an example of a human born that was not the product of the sexual binary?

If you mean a human that was not produced from the union of a sperm and an egg, then yes.

And it's a normal natural thing that happens sometimes, no doctors or Frankensteins needed.

But you should look for that yourself, or you can pay me 50 bucks and I will tell you.

 

[bobdroege7]

These are facts that cannot be wished away with a wave of the hand. There absolutely MUST be a third sex for sex to be non binary. People with DSDs are not a third sex, they are able to be classified as male or female.

The title of the thread is strict biological definitions of male and female.

Yes, some people can classify them as either of two sexes, I find that arbitrary and forced.

Others are free to classify them differently.

You see my point, you are not using a strict biological definition.

Do you not understand strict or is biological the term giving you fits?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Spare me the biology lesson, I have had college level Biology and Biochemistry.

And yet here you are arguing that sex is not binary, but exists on a spectrum.

So not a completely different gamete, but a single individual that produces both types of gametes.

I asked a specific question: Does your Klinefelter male have a different kind of gamete than the two known as egg and sperm? Does your Klinefelter male have anatomical structures that have evolved to support this completely different kind of gamete?

For sex to be non-binary, there MUST exist at least one gamete that is NOT an egg or a sperm. It must be either an in-between gamete (a spergg) or it must be an entirely new type of gamete. Hand-in-hand with that, there MUST exist a reproductive anatomy that has evolved specifically to produce this gamete.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you mean a human that was not produced from the union of a sperm and an egg, then yes.

Post proof or retract

 

[Trausti]

Post proof or retract

I think he means Jesus.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think he means Jesus.

Lol, that's something that would never have occurred to me.

ETA... although it is an opportunity for me to express my sympathy with Mary. It's really hard to get a rape conviction when your rapist is god.

 

[smartcooky]

Spare me the biology lesson, I have had college level Biology and Biochemistry.

It doesn't show.

So not a completely different gamete, but a single individual that produces both types of gametes.

Still not a third sex.

And math does not exist in the real world, it's its own separate entity, and discoverable by any sentient species.

.... and?

I believe in the holy trinity, the strong force, the electroweak force, and gravity. Those are the three Gods.

...and?

 

[smartcooky]

The title of the thread is strict biological definitions of male and female.

...and?

Yes, some people can biologists classify them as either of two sexes,

FTFY

I find that arbitrary and forced.

Then you are one of the few... and you are still wrong

Others are free to classify them differently.

Others can believe anything they wish... it still doesn't make them right

You see my point, you are not using a strict biological definition.

Do you not understand strict or is biological the term giving you fits?

The OP in this thread quoted Dr. Emma Hilton, who was EXCLUSIVELY talking about humans. Not clownfish, not trees, or plants, but humans.
If you want to talk about the reproductive biology of species other than humans, go make your own thread about it so that all the people who are interested in that discussion (that will be no-one other than you) can join you there.

And yes, I understand both the words "strict" and "biological" very well... and a lot better than you do it seems.

Human biological reproduction (sex) is a strict binary. It consists or two, and only two gamete types. Those gamete types are small (male, sperm) and large (female, ova). For it to be anything other than binary, there would need to be...

1. A third gamete type, something that is not sperm and not ova. No such gamete type exists.
2. A third type of human individual whose reproductive system is organised for production of a third gamete type. No such individual exists.
3. A third type of reproductive role for this proposed gamete. No such reproductive roles exists.

And if you want to talk about who is being "Strict", and who isn't, it is posters such as myself, Emily's Cat, Paul2, Trausti, Rolfe, Louden Wilde, MatthewBest, jt512, Agatha, ahhell et al, who have remained strict in their insistence that human biological reproduction is binary, and that no third sex or gamete type exists.

Meanwhile, you are all over the place like pig-**** in a sty... you've been flailing about giving us beehives, people with DSD's, claims that sex is bimodal (which is also wrong), botany etc as you desperately Google for a gotcha you are never going to find.... because it doesn't exist!

 

[Elaedith]

One thing that I keep encountering in these arguments is that people promoting the idea of sex as bimodally distributed or a spectrum make the claim that this is based in advances in knowledge, and those who disagree are out of date. The opposing view is that the deconstruction of sex is ideologically rather than scientifically motivated (based on postmodern ideas that there is no objective truth, and all knowledge just reflects the interests of the groups that produced it, therefore concepts like sex binary are constructed in the interests of those with power to oppress other groups).

A key requirement of genuine scientific knowledge is that it only changes based on actual improvements in understanding (ie new discoveries), not for social, political or religious reasons. I have only ever seen two reasons given for the idea that sex is not binary; 'intersex' people, and sexual characteristics being bimodally distributed. But neither of these represent new knowledge. We have known about DSDs for decades at least, and have always known that many characteristics associated with sex are bimodally distributed with overlap between male and female. But nobody ever claimed that either of these demonstrate sex is non-binary, until it became politically fashionable to do so. There have been recent claims that 'intersex' is more common than once thought, but that was based on changing the definition to include conditions where sex is completely unambiguous based on observation at birth.

It did occur to me that some people who are very scientifically illiterate might think that DSDs have only very recently been discovered, but I find it hard to believe that applies in many cases. I would be curious to hear if anyone has heard any claims about what 'new discoveries' supposedly underpin the deconstruction of sex. I have never been able to get advocates to say what these are.

 

[bobdroege7]

Post proof or retract

Proof is fifty bucks.

Odds are you know one of them.

3% to 4% of live births in the US.

 

[bobdroege7]

It did occur to me that some people who are very scientifically illiterate might think that DSDs have only very recently been discovered, but I find it hard to believe that applies in many cases. I would be curious to hear if anyone has heard any claims about what 'new discoveries' supposedly underpin the deconstruction of sex. I have never been able to get advocates to say what these are.

I know the DSMs are not recent, I did find an 19th century picture of a pseudohermaphrodite on the web, but forgot where I found it, so yeah, not recent.

Some of the discoveries, though, did come with the complete transcription of the human genome. That was 2003, so relatively recent.

 

[bobdroege7]

...and?

FTFY


Then you are one of the few... and you are still wrong

Others can believe anything they wish... it still doesn't make them right

The OP in this thread quoted Dr. Emma Hilton, who was EXCLUSIVELY talking about humans. Not clownfish, not trees, or plants, but humans.
If you want to talk about the reproductive biology of species other than humans, go make your own thread about it so that all the people who are interested in that discussion (that will be no-one other than you) can join you there.

And yes, I understand both the words "strict" and "biological" very well... and a lot better than you do it seems.

Human biological reproduction (sex) is a strict binary. It consists or two, and only two gamete types. Those gamete types are small (male, sperm) and large (female, ova). For it to be anything other than binary, there would need to be...

1. A third gamete type, something that is not sperm and not ova. No such gamete type exists.
2. A third type of human individual whose reproductive system is organised for production of a third gamete type. No such individual exists.
3. A third type of reproductive role for this proposed gamete. No such reproductive roles exists.

And if you want to talk about who is being "Strict", and who isn't, it is posters such as myself, Emily's Cat, Paul2, Trausti, Rolfe, Louden Wilde, MatthewBest, jt512, Agatha, ahhell et al, who have remained strict in their insistence that human biological reproduction is binary, and that no third sex or gamete type exists.

Meanwhile, you are all over the place like pig-**** in a sty... you've been flailing about giving us beehives, people with DSD's, claims that sex is bimodal (which is also wrong), botany etc as you desperately Google for a gotcha you are never going to find.... because it doesn't exist!

Try this guy, who thinks you are full of it.

Steven P. Novella, MD – Founder and Executive Editor

Email: SNovella@theness.comTwitter: @stevennovellaFounder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University S

sciencebasedmedicine.org

The Science of Biological Sex

What does the science actually say about biological sex?

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Try reading it.

And you posted that only Queen bees lay eggs and then immediately contradicted yourself.

And I am talking about human beings, not the gametes that they produce, and some individuals produce both.

 

[bobdroege7]

I think he means Jesus.

Nope, Jesus, assuming he existed, was the natural born son of Joseph and Mary.

Escaped the crucifixion and died in what is now France, but that is off topic and my pet conspiracy theory, everyone should have one and only one.

 

[Elaedith]

I know the DSMs are not recent, I did find an 19th century picture of a pseudohermaphrodite on the web, but forgot where I found it, so yeah, not recent.

Some of the discoveries, though, did come with the complete transcription of the human genome. That was 2003, so relatively recent.

What new discoveries from the transcription of the human genome show that sex is bimodal? Be specific.

 

[Elaedith]

Try this guy, who thinks you are full of it.

Steven P. Novella, MD – Founder and Executive Editor

Email: SNovella@theness.comTwitter: @stevennovellaFounder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University S

sciencebasedmedicine.org

The Science of Biological Sex

What does the science actually say about biological sex?

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Try reading it.

And you posted that only Queen bees lay eggs and then immediately contradicted yourself.

And I am talking about human beings, not the gametes that they produce, and some individuals produce both.

It has obvious for a while that you swallowed Novella's nonsense.

 

[Matthew Best]

So it's your theory that twins are not the product of the sexual binary?

 

[bobdroege7]

What new discoveries from the transcription of the human genome show that sex is bimodal? Be specific.

I have already shown sex to be bimodal, what more do you want, be specific.

Ambiguous genitalia should be enough.

 

[bobdroege7]

So it's your theory that twins are not the product of the sexual binary?

My theory!

Not only no, but you should know the rest.

Identical twins are due to the splitting of an already fertilized egg, so one small gamete plus one large gamete, and you get two babies, only one act of sexual reproduction.

Is that not asexual reproduction?

 

[Elaedith]

I have already shown sex to be bimodal, what more do you want, be specific.

Ambiguous genitalia should be enough.

No, ambiguous genitalia do not show sex to be bimodal.
I was specific. I want to know what recent new discoveries have lead to changes in our understanding of sex, showing that these changes represent an advance in scientific understanding rather than the subordination of science to ideology. Nobody can ever name any.
You tried to claim that these advances come from the human genome project, but it seems you were bluffing.

 

[bobdroege7]

No, ambiguous genitalia do not show sex to be bimodal.

Yeah, I can play that game.

Yes, ambiguous genitalia do show sex to be bimodal.

 

[Elaedith]

Yeah, I can play that game.

Yes, ambiguous genitalia do show sex to be bimodal.

We can conclude that you have no evidence of any new discoveries that have changed our understanding of sex, from the human genome project or elsewhere. Unless you think we only recent discovered ambiguous genitalia.

 

[Matthew Best]

Identical twins are due to the splitting of an already fertilized egg, so one small gamete plus one large gamete, and you get two babies, only one act of sexual reproduction.

Is that not asexual reproduction?

 

[smartcooky]

Try this guy, who thinks you are full of it.

Steven P. Novella, MD – Founder and Executive Editor

Email: SNovella@theness.comTwitter: @stevennovellaFounder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University S

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Not sure what I am suppose to be reading here... a couple iof CVs?

The Science of Biological Sex

What does the science actually say about biological sex?

sciencebasedmedicine.org

Try reading it.

Have read it before. Have read most of his stuff before.
It was ideologically-driven nonsense then, and it is ideologically-driven nonsense now. Novella is a once-respected individual who has climbed onto the TRA grift train. He is the Andrew Wakefield of gender biology (without the falsification of research results).

And you posted that only Queen bees lay eggs and then immediately contradicted yourself.

You really do have a problem with cherry picking what people say don;t you... THIS is what I actually said

Worker bees and the queen are BOTH female - only the queen lays eggs. The drones are the male bees. Their only job is to mate with the queen, and the queen's job is to lay eggs. , Workers are generally infertile, however, they can lay viable eggs in rare circumstances, (such as when the queen dies) but those can only ever develop into drones. ​

I have to ask if English is your first language? Uou clearly do not undertand the difference between a contradiction and a clarification.

Once again, you seem to feel the need to resort to dishonesty to advance your arguments. What you did there was deliberately cherry-pick what I said, conveniently leaving out the other things I said that gave it context.

And I am talking about human beings, not the gametes that they produce, and some individuals produce both.

That may be so, but they still do not produce gametes that differ in nature from sperm or ova. Humans are completely anisogamous - there are no circumstances under which humans produce gametes that are anything other than eggs or sperm. Since anisogamy is fundamental to the biological definition of "male" and "female" ("The Origin and Evolution of Gamete Dimorphism and the Male-Female phenomenon" - G.A. Parker, R.R. Baker, V.G.F. Smith, 1972)... there are only two sexes. No matter how many mealy-mouthed weasel words you can dream up, there is simply no way around this.

No third gamete type = no third sex.
No third sex = sex is binary
Sex is binary = No sex spectrum

That is a definitive, scientifically irrefutable fact.

 

[Paul2]

Identical twins are due to the splitting of an already fertilized egg, so one small gamete plus one large gamete, and you get two babies, only one act of sexual reproduction.

Is that not asexual reproduction?

Wikipedia says you're correct, my bolding:

Polyembryony is a widespread form of asexual reproduction in animals, whereby the fertilized egg or a later stage of embryonic development splits to form genetically identical clones. Within animals, this phenomenon has been best studied in the parasitic Hymenoptera. In the nine-banded armadillos, this process is obligatory and usually gives rise to genetically identical quadruplets. In other mammals, monozygotic twinning has no apparent genetic basis, though its occurrence is common. There are at least 10 million identical human twins and triplets in the world today.

ETA: Still don't see how asexual production leads to more than 2 sexes.