Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

I could never 'pay the membership dues' by suckling young (as I'm male), but I'm still in the 'mammal club'. 'Of the class that ...' is the point you've misinterpreted from the outset.

Still haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting. And you clearly don't either, or you're incapable of saying what you mean.

If you're not going to say or even make an effort to address my answers then I'll put you on my ignore list. A waste of time otherwise.

 

[d4m10n]

Male children, you say?

 

[theprestige]

: rolleyes : Haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting at; doubt you do either ...

What he's getting at seems pretty clear to me.

Though you might ask yourself whether you can be a member of a political party if you can't pay the membership dues ...

Around here, political parties don't have membership dues. Being a member is trivial: You just say you're a member.

 

[d4m10n]

But that is not saying that each sex is a spectrum; that is Hilton's argument, not mine.

Where did Hilton invoke a spectrum?

 

[Steersman]

Male children, you say?

(pre-functional) male children, at least by Hilton's lexicon ...

Don't think you're playing with a full deck there mate.

 

[d4m10n]

(pre-functional) male children, at least by Hilton's lexicon...

I don't think your lexical source signed off on your parenthetical there, mate.

 

[Steersman]

Where did Hilton invoke a spectrum?

Christ in a sidecar.

It's not a case of her "invoking" that. I'm SAYING that that is what her definition boils down into. She is specifying 3 mutually exclusive criteria for category membership. Ergo, a polythetic category, ergo a spectrum.

 

[Steersman]

I don't think your lexical source signed off on your parenthetical there, mate.

So what? "descriptive", remember?

 

[d4m10n]

So what? "descriptive", remember?

You appear to trust that native English speakers would agree to the parenthetical addition, but you don't get to invoke any lexicographers in support of that premise.

She is specifying 3 mutually exclusive criteria for category membership.

I disagree.

 

[Steersman]

You appear to trust that native English speakers would agree to the parenthetical addition, but you don't get to invoke any lexicographers in support of that premise.

Clearly, they haven't caught up with Hilton's "new improved!" Trinity (AKA, spectrumist definition) ...

I disagree.

I await, with bated breath, your detailed and well-evidenced rebuttal ...

You seem to "think" that ipse dixits qualify as arguments. Skeptics? What a joke ...

 

[d4m10n]

But that is not saying that each sex is a spectrum; that is Hilton's argument, not mine.

*disagreeing noises*

She is specifying 3 mutually exclusive criteria for category membership.

*more disagreeing noises*

I await, with bated breath, your detailed and well-evidenced rebuttal...

Okay, let's count the criteria for membership in the class male:

1) Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing small...gametes

That's it. Just the one. Shall we do female next?

 

[d4m10n]

Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?

 

[GlennB]

Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?

No, it's a pair of tits. He's just been having a laugh all along ... this much has become clear.

 

[d4m10n]

No, it's a pair of tits.

People exist in the motorboat zone.

 

[Elaedith]

Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?

Ratio of male to female sex essences?

 

[theprestige]

Ratio of male to female sex essences?

Ah, the thirst:milkshake factor.

 

[Steersman]

Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?

Sexes - plural, a multitude of them. Novella's "ideas" are rather half-baked at best - being charitable, but one can sort of see the method in his madness:

First we need to consider all the traits relevant to sex that vary along this bimodal distribution. The language and concepts for these traits have been evolving too, but here is a current generally accepted scheme for organizing these traits:

1. Genetic sex
2. Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
3. Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
4. Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
5. Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

The most I can get out of that dog's breakfast is that each of those 5 "factors" constitutes a dial, each of which has a number of positions, and each combination of which constitutes a separate sex on that discrete spectrum.

Haven't the foggiest idea how to integrate gender identity into the mix since it seems entirely subjective, but expanding four of them we might have 6 different "dials", each with a range of options - sex categories as a smorgasbord:

1. Chromosomes: {XX, XY, XXY, XO};
2. Gonads: {ovaries, testicles, none};
3. Genitalia: {penis, vagina, none};
4. Attraction: {to$penis, to$vagina, to$neither};
5. Gender: {male$gender, female$gender, transgender, gender neutral, non-binary, agender, pangender, genderqueer, two-spirit, third gender, none};
6. Secondary: {breasts, no$breasts}

So any combination of those, in Novella's fevered imagination, constitutes a separate "sex". So: {XX, testicles, vagina, to$penis, breasts, two-spirit} represents one sex, and all of the other combinations are different "sexes". Which might be ordered somehow and put on a linear scale and graph, the x-axis representing a spectrum of all of those different combinations.

Madder than hatters and profoundly unscientific if not anti-scientific, but it seems that that is what Novella, Shermer, and the rest of the spectrumist nutcases have in "mind".

But that is sort of why I try to emphasize that there's some rhyme and reason to how we define the sexes, that it's not a free-for-all, that there are some fundamental principles of logic, philosophy, and biology in play. And why I think Hilton and company are basically aiding and abetting those nutcases by refusing to consider and utilize those principles.

 

[theprestige]

Steersman, I'm genuinely curious: Have you ever convinced anyone to adopt your interpretation of these things? If so, which of your arguments or pieces of evidence did they find most convincing?

 

[Steersman]

Steersman, I'm genuinely curious: Have you ever convinced anyone to adopt your interpretation of these things? If so, which of your arguments or pieces of evidence did they find most convincing?

I'm not cutting my arguments from whole cloth, you know? They're based on solid facts, and sound philosophical, logical, taxonomic, and linguistic principles from any number of credible sources. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants - so to speak - even if some of them can't see quite as far as I do, largely for that very reason.

Even Griffiths doesn't seem quite ready, yet, to go with "sexless", but he's at least danced around that conclusion in his Aeon article:

Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]. [my editorializing ...]

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

And his preprint article further underlines that, in his quite reasonable and eminently sensible view, having a sex is a transitory state of affairs:

Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are regions of phenotypic space that individual organisms pass in and out of one or more times during their lives (Figure 1).

The sexes "male" and "female" are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities. They are not any sort of "immutable" identity - which too many insist on trying to turn them into. Not just the transloonie nutcases, but pretty much everyone else. That's the crux of the problem, that's the justification for emphasizing the standard biological definitions of Parker and Lehtonen, of Google/OD, and of Wikipedia (in their more sensible moments).

 

[d4m10n]

It's not just "anatomies", but three different types of structures, each of which qualifies as a sufficient condition for membership in a polythetic category.

Nope; you are misinterpreting what Hilton wrote. There is only one sufficient condition for maleness, that is, the development of anatomical structures adapted to the production of small gametes. That's two fewer than three "types of structures."

If a kid has balls at six years old and still has them ten years later, those aren't different "types" of structures at all. They are the same structures, differently matured, and either way they are adapted to producing small gametes. At no time was this kid in possession of the only other type of reproductive structures, the type which produces large gametes.

That's why the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites had to emphasize the difference between functional males and non-functional males.

Take it to the clownfish thread.

 

[theprestige]

I'm not cutting my arguments from whole cloth, you know? They're based on solid facts, and sound philosophical, logical, taxonomic, and linguistic principles from any number of credible sources. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants - so to speak - even if some of them can't see quite as far as I do, largely for that very reason.

Even Griffiths doesn't seem quite ready, yet, to go with "sexless", but he's at least danced around that conclusion in his Aeon article:



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

And his preprint article further underlines that, in his quite reasonable and eminently sensible view, having a sex is a transitory state of affairs:



The sexes "male" and "female" are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities. They are not any sort of "immutable" identity - which too many insist on trying to turn them into. Not just the transloonie nutcases, but pretty much everyone else. That's the crux of the problem, that's the justification for emphasizing the standard biological definitions of Parker and Lehtonen, of Google/OD, and of Wikipedia (in their more sensible moments).

Fascinating stuff. I'll return to it in a future post. For now, though, I'm still hoping you'll answer the question I asked, instead of quoting it and then ignoring it.

 

[Steersman]

Fascinating stuff. I'll return to it in a future post. For now, though, I'm still hoping you'll answer the question I asked, instead of quoting it and then ignoring it.

I answered it; you're just not paying attention, probably because you're fixated on some article of faith: "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female! Because the Bible tells me so!"

 

[Steersman]

I paid very close attention to your post. You replied to my question, but never answered it.

Have you actually changed anyone's mind? Ever? On this topic?

If so, what was the convincing argument or evidence you deployed?

Unbloody believable. Griffiths is basically already convinced if not there ahead of me. Del Giudice, Parker, and Lehtonen likewise. And probably because of the "arguments and evidence" I've described.

But I did convince one transwoman of that:



Try just whispering "sexless" - even when no one else is around ...

 

[theprestige]

Unbloody believable. Griffiths is basically already convinced if not there ahead of me. Del Giudice, Parker, and Lehtonen likewise. And probably because of the "arguments and evidence" I've described.

But I did convince one transwoman of that:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_77127632bcba452861.jpg[/qimg]

Try just whispering "sexless" - even when no one else is around ...

There's no way I'm giving you credit for people who clearly arrived at their own conclusions without your help.

I'll grant you the transwoman, though. That can be your high water mark.

 

[Steersman]

*disagreeing noises*

*more disagreeing noises*

"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens's_razor

Okay, let's count the criteria for membership in the class male:

1) Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing small...gametes

That's it. Just the one. Shall we do female next?

Rather large "elephant" that you're trying to sweep under the carpet there, i.e., reproductive structures with "past, present, or future functionality":



It's not just "anatomies", but three different types of structures, each of which qualifies as a sufficient condition for membership in a polythetic category. One of the structures might eventually produce gametes - the prepubescent - and one structure is capable of producing gametes right now - functional males and functional females - and one structure might have been able to produce gametes some time in the distant past.

Why if you were to take a close look at the article on gametogenesis then you would see that those three structures are rather profoundly and fundamentally different:

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

You simply cannot tie a ribbon around all three and claim they're identical because they most certainly aren't.

That's why theprestige had recourse to "functional" in one of his comments. And that's why the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites had to emphasize the difference between functional males and non-functional males. The latter of which Hilton is splitting into pre-functional males and post-functional males. A "trinity", a "spectrum".

Something you seem unwilling to deal with.

 

[Steersman]

There's no way I'm giving you credit for people who clearly arrived at their own conclusions without your help.

LoL And that conclusion would be what? That "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female! Because the Bible tells me so!" ?

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

"We will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information sought."

I'll grant you the transwoman, though. That can be your high water mark.

Maybe just the beginning ..

 

[Steersman]

Nope; you are misinterpreting what Hilton wrote. There is only one sufficient condition for maleness, that is, the development of anatomical structures adapted to the production of small gametes. That's two fewer than three "types of structures."

Nope; only in your entirely unevidenced opinion.

If you're going to lump Hilton's own "past, present, and future functionalities" into her "anatomical structures" then you might just as well claim that there's only one colour because red, green, & blue are all members of the category "colours".

There are 3 distinct and mutually exclusive conditions for membership in Hilton's polythetic categories which makes them into spectra.

But why else would Wikipedia differentiate between functional and non-functional females? A binary. Why else would theprestige do likewise?

Methinks you're grabbing at straws there mate.

If a kid has balls at six years old and still has them ten years later, those aren't different "types" of structures at all. They are the same structures, differently matured, and either way they are adapted to producing small gametes. At no time was this kid in possession of the only other type of reproductive structures, the type which produces large gametes.

A person as a child of 10, as an adult 35, and as a senior citizen of 70 are all "the same structures, just differently matured"?

The testicles of the 6 year old can't actually produce sperm, while those of the sixteen year old probably can. Completely different biochemical structures inside them that differentiate being able to actually produce sperm or not. Of course they're different structures which is why they have different functionalities in the first place; you think the new functionality is just a matter of some magic? Peter Pan sprinkling some pixie dust at the onset of puberty?

Why else do you think Hilton says, "regardless of past, present, or future functionality"?

 

[d4m10n]

There are 3 distinct and mutually exclusive conditions for membership in Hilton's polythetic categories which makes them into spectra.

I'm still seeing just the one condition for individual membership in the class "male."

1) Anatomy adapted to producing small gametes

2) ??????

3) ??????

Presumably you have some idea what goes in the place of those question marks, but you haven't shared it with us yet.

A person as a child of 10, as an adult 35, and as a senior citizen of 70 are all "the same structures, just differently matured"?

They have all the same structures, barring tragic accidents or surgery. That's why we use the same labels for all of their organs the entire time.

Why else do you think Hilton says, "regardless of past, present, or future functionality"?

At a guess, it's to clarify whether the gametic structures need to be up and running or not. For example, a postmenopausal female retains the structures associated with producing large gametes.

"Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"

#FakeQuotes

 

[theprestige]

LoL And that conclusion would be what? That "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female! Because the Bible tells me so!" ?

No, that conclusion would be the conclusion you claimed to have helped them reach, when you listed Griffiths et al. as people whose minds you'd changed on this matter.

It's pretty clear that Griffiths et al reached whatever conclusion they reached without consulting you. So I'm not counting them as people whose minds you've changed.

Maybe just the beginning ..

If that potato-quality screenshot, of some internet rando saying something that looks like it might agree with you, is the best story you have to tell about changing someone's mind, it's not even really a beginning.

Do you want to try again? Have you ever actually changed someone's mind, on this matter? If so, which of your arguments did they find most convincing?

 

[Steersman]

I'm still seeing just the one condition for individual membership in the class "male."

Probably because you don't want to see anything else. Think there is a word or two or a dozen for that state of affairs, none of which are particularly flattering or commendatory.

They have all the same structures, barring tragic accidents or surgery. That's why we use the same labels for all of their organs the entire time.

Nope. You clearly didn't read - probably didn't want to read - that article on gametogenesis. If you had done so then you would have seen your argument to be so much arrant nonsense.

#FakeQuotes

LoL. #AccurateSummationOfConventionalWisdom, at least in some benighted necks of the woods.

You're apparently still unwilling, or unable, to say whether you agree or not with the assertion, something of a mantra - implicit or not, that ""Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"

"We will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information sought."

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

 

[d4m10n]

Probably because you don't want to see anything else.

To the contrary, I was expecting you would try to fill in the blanks that I'd provisionally filled with question marks.

One more time, okay?

1) Anatomy adapted to producing small gametes

2) ??????

3) ??????

You've said Hilton has three criteria for the class "male" now here's your chance to list them out.

"Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"

I'd be interested in seeing if the three authors from the OP have ever written something approaching this claim.

 

[Steersman]

It's pretty clear that Griffiths et al reached whatever conclusion they reached without consulting you. So I'm not counting them as people whose minds you've changed.?

So what? My point is, again, that I'm hardly the only one basically rejecting, on solid evidence, the apparent conventional "wisdom" in this neck of the woods that, "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"

Think I have some pretty solid heavy hitters on my team. Yours? A letter published in some newspaper - hardly any sort of credible peer-reviewed biological journal - by a couple of philosophically illiterate "biologists"?

 

[Steersman]

You've said Hilton has three criteria for the class "male" now here's your chance to list them out.

I've done so - several times:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13906210&postcount=117

You're clearly not paying attention. Being charitable.

 

[d4m10n]

I've done so - several times

Do you mean these three?

1) past functionality (structures that maybe used to produce gametes)

2) present functionality (structures which produce, regularly, habitually, gametes),

3) future functionality (structures, which may, in the sweet bye-and-bye, produce gametes)

If so, you've badly misunderstood the OP.

 

[Steersman]

Do you mean these three?

Yup.

If so, you've badly misunderstood the OP.

Nope.

 

[d4m10n]

"regardless"

 

[Steersman]

"regardless"

So?

Do people who have non-functional gonads qualify as having a sex or not?

Yes or no?

Think you can answer a simple question or two there sport?

For bonus points, try answering the question, "Are all members of all anisogamic species either male or female?"

 

[d4m10n]

So?

So we aren't supposed to regard those three things at all, much less interpret them as the OP's central criteria.

He jogs every day regardless of the weather.

This doesn't mean that the weather is the key criterion determining whether he jogs.

Do people who have non-functional gonads qualify as having a sex or not?

I know what Hilton would say, but I'm going to let you figure this one out.

 

[Steersman]

So we aren't supposed to regard those three things at all, much less interpret them as the OP's central criteria.

This doesn't mean that the weather is the key criterion determining whether he jogs.

I know what Hilton would say, but I'm going to let you figure this one out.

Close, but no cigar. Methinks you're not really comparing apples and apples; more like apples and oranges if not apples and aardvarks.

The weather and going jogging aren't joined at the hips; "anatomies for producing gametes" and "past, present, OR future functionality" IS:



Unless you, perchance, know of a temporal state other than past, present, and future that those "anatomies for producing gametes" might be said to exist in?

Methinks it's clearly a case of Hilton specifying and defining a polythetic category. It's regardless of whether the functionality is present, or future, or past, but one of those is clearly necessary say that some member of some anisogamic species has, has had, or will have "anatomies for producing gametes". It's not regardless of all three of those conditions, only one or two of them.

That's the same way it is with Sally's (polythetic) family - 4 sets of sufficient conditions, only one of which is necessary for category membership.

 

[d4m10n]

Methinks it's clearly a case of Hilton specifying and defining a polythetic category.

Methinks you're regarding the part she told you to disregard. Try to interpret what she wrote without that part included.

Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes...are referred to as "males" and "females," respectively.

Sounds present tense to me.

Anyone else care to weigh in?