• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

No matter how many times that chart is posted, it is still incomplete.

As I have already pointed out there are humans who do not fit into the three classifications, male, female, and DSMs.
You haven't demonstrated this, just asserted it. There are only two classifications: male and female - DSDs (not sure what DSMs are) come under one or other of those two classifications. Prove me wrong.
 
No matter how many times that chart is posted, it is still incomplete.

As I have already pointed out there are humans who do not fit into the three classifications, male, female, and DSMs.

The male female binary is artificial, not representative of the variations that exist.
False. If people are capable of reproduction, it's because they can produce either oocytes or sperm. With people who don't produce either, we can tell which one they would produce if it were not for the defect. But note - even if we couldn't tell which gamete type they would produce - they wouldn't be relevant to a definition of a reproductive class. I'll ask again, Why are you so attached to this false belief?
 
Light switches come in a spectrum: on, off, and broken.
Fail2.png
Broken = Off
Its binary

It was a light switch that was claimed to be binary, a dimmer switch allows a spectrum of light levels.

It can be bright, or not too bright.
Fail2.png
I used the words "On/Off light switch" for a reason. It excludes the light dimmer

Your sex is binary is because you have defined sex as binary, it's a classic circular argument.
Fail2.png
The male female binary is artificial, not representative of the variations that exist.
Fail2.png
That sex is binary is the default fact. The onus is on you to PROVE otherwise. You have failed to do so.

You have also yet to prove that any of these "variations" you imagine exist are neither male nor female

It's not a mistake assertion, it follows from the data, intersex individuals do exist, and no matter how you define sex, there will be individuals that don't fit neatly into your binary system.
Fail2.png
As I have already pointed out there are humans who do not fit into the three classifications, male, female, and DSMs.
Fail2.png
No matter how many times that chart is posted, it is still incomplete.
Fail2.png
OK, I challenge you to complete that chart then.

Show us all which DSD are not listed on that chart, and show us that any person with any of those unlisted DSD cannot be categorized as "male" or "female", is instead categorized as a third sex, and has a body organized around the production of gametes that are neither sperm nor eggs; gametes that have a role or function in sexual reproduction.

You see, this is the issue you keep dodging - you won't address it, and I can see why - its the thorn in your side, the elephant in the room, the inconvenient fact. For sex to be anything other than binary, there MUST be a third sex, and therefore there MUST be a third gamete type too.... there isn't, there never can be....

....and that is why you fail!
 
Last edited:
No matter how many times that chart is posted, it is still incomplete.

As I have already pointed out there are humans who do not fit into the three classifications, male, female, and DSMs.

The male female binary is artificial, not representative of the variations that exist.
The DSM is an American publication of mental disorders.

DSDs, which is what I think you must mean, are not a different category from male or female; they are part of those categories. Some DSDs only affect males and the rest only affect females.

Humans are a species with four limbs, but someone with a disorder of limb development is not something other than human. In exactly the same way, a male with a disorder of sex development is not something other than male, and a female with a disorder of sex development is not something other than female.

You have not pointed out any human who does not fit into either male or female.
 
My sympathies lie with Coyne et al, but I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Here's an instructive exercise, perhaps. For those in sympathy with Coyne, can you imagine an guest article posted up to a national non-profit blog that you would approve removal for similar reasons as Coyne's article was removed?
This is a tricky exercise, because we'd have to posit first that the non-profit waded into the issue on one side and then approved a rebuttal and then subsequently took it down in order to squelch the conversation which they started. The squelching won't work, of course, because someone else will just repost the (Streisand-boosted) rebuttal like so:


The problem with trying to steel-man this is that most thoughtful non-profits aren't going to embroil themselves in an argument against something manifestly false and harmful (e.g. vaccine denial) unless those false claims have been gaining traction in the broader culture. If such ideas have been gaining a following, though, then it's probably good to take the strongest version of them apart in public. All that said, Grant's article isn't a very strong example of the genre and Coyne's isn't particularly responsive to it. The former is mostly about "woman" as a social role (e.g. people who use the women's changing room and restroom in places that accept progressive thinking on gender) whereas the latter is mostly about "woman" as a reproductive role (i.e. people born with oocytes). Since words carry different meaning in different contexts, it's hard to say whether linguistic battle has substantively been joined here.

Grant gets some pretty basic stuff wrong about sex, e.g. patients "who receive bottom surgery have vaginas." She They ought to look up what this organ actually does and run through the checklist.

By the same token, Coyne gets some pretty basic stuff wrong about gender, such as claiming "it still has two camel’s-hump modes around 'male' and 'female,'" when in point of fact (1) female refers to sex; feminine to gender and (2) there is no ordinal variable which would allow such a plot to even exist.

This latest kerfuffle isn't a battle of steel-men, it's Amateur Hour On Sex and Gender.
 
Last edited:
Just because you can pick two things out of a spectrum does not make it binary.

Too many factors affect sexual development for the result to be binary.

That's another, better fact.
JFC. Sexual DEVELOPMENT is not SEX.

Secondary sexual characteristics are not SEX
Sex-correlated attributes are not SEX
The mechanics that determine sex are not SEX
And in case it needs to be said, eye color and hair color and a preference for strawberry ice cream are also not SEX
 
Your sex is binary is because you have defined sex as binary, it's a classic circular argument.
No, that's not true.

Sex is binary because EVERY SINGLE SPECIES THAT WE'VE OBSERVED THAT REPRODUCES VIA SEXUAL REPRODUCTION HAS TWO AND ONLY TWO GAMETE TYPES, AND CONSEQUENTLY TWO AND ONLY TWO REPRODUCTIVE ANATOMY SETS THAT HAVE EVOLVED TO SUPPORT THOSE GAMETES.

It's based on observation across every single mammal, every single bird, and the overwhelming majority of reptiles and fish and even most insects! As well as a substantial number of plants.

Every single species we've ever looked at - both current and historic - that engages sexual reproduction in order to propagate has two distinct germ cell types, and has evolved the physical structures to support one or the other of those germ cell types. These are distinctly different structures, that have evolved for distinct purposes. Just like a liver and a spleen are both organs in the human body, but have evolved to perform different functions, so too have our reproductive systems - one evolved to support and produce large gametes, the other to support and produce small gametes.
 
No matter how many times that chart is posted, it is still incomplete.
What is missing?
As I have already pointed out there are humans who do not fit into the three classifications, male, female, and DSMs.
What is DSM and why on earth do you think it's not male or female?
The male female binary is artificial, not representative of the variations that exist.
All you have to do to win this argument is to present a human being that has a distinctly different reproductive system that has evolved to support the production of either an in-between sperg gamete or a completely new and distinctly different third gamete. That's all. Show just one single example and you win.

Go on, I'll wait.
 
You have not pointed out any human who does not fit into either male or female.
Yes I have.

Pseudohermaphrodites do not fit neatly into either male or female.

Sex is not binary.

 
Broken = Off


You see, this is the issue you keep dodging - you won't address it, and I can see why - its the thorn in your side, the elephant in the room, the inconvenient fact. For sex to be anything other than binary, there MUST be a third sex, and therefore there MUST be a third gamete type too.... there isn't, there never can be....

....and that is why you fail!
First, broken can also be always on, you fail on that one.

Second, I have already addressed your requirement that there must be a third sex or a third gamete, that's false.
 
False. If people are capable of reproduction, it's because they can produce either oocytes or sperm. With people who don't produce either, we can tell which one they would produce if it were not for the defect. But note - even if we couldn't tell which gamete type they would produce - they wouldn't be relevant to a definition of a reproductive class. I'll ask again, Why are you so attached to this false belief?
I'll answer the why, and the belief is not false.

It's become political, I don't think law makers should get between doctors and patients.

If I don't stand up for trans people there will be nobody to stand up for me when they come for me.

It's a basic human rights issue.

I do know a handful of trans people, and their rights should not be restricted.
 
Yes I have.

Pseudohermaphrodites do not fit neatly into either male or female.
Fail2.png

Pseudohermaphrodites are either classified as male: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/male-pseudohermaphroditism

Or they are classified as female: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topic...ceutical-science/female-pseudohermaphroditism

There are no pseudohermaphrodites that are classified as neither, therefore, no third sex, no third gamete type, and sex remains binary.

You are really are not very good at this!
 
Last edited:
I'll answer the why, and the belief is not false.
Delusional
It's become political, I don't think law makers should get between doctors and patients.
You're right, including not getting between battered woman and/or rape victims, and their counselors!
If I don't stand up for trans people there will be nobody to stand up for me when they come for me.
You think transpeople are coming for you? Paranoid much?
It's a basic human rights issue.
Yes it is a basic human rights issue. The human rights of half the population should NOT be trampled over to satisfy the predilections of a tiny minority.
I do know a handful of trans people, and their rights should not be restricted.
Oooh, you're playing the "some of my best friends" card. Are any of you best friends women? Or Black?

[OFF TOPIC] but related
Well guess what. I know several LGBTQ+ people too. One of the activities I am involved in (competitive equestrian sports) has a lot of them. NOT ONE OF THEM thinks that sex is on a spectrum. They all believe (correctly) that it is binary (I've asked them).

The three transwomen I know are all pissed off with this Liberal political zeal to legalize fiat self ID. Its ruined everything for them - they used to be able to go about their business and private lives including using women's rest rooms, and no-one would bat an eyelid. Now, they feel like they are being watched and stared at wherever they go and whatever they do. It is biological revisionists like you who are the direct cause of this - you're hurting the very people you claim to be protecting!
 
Last edited:
Yes I have.

Pseudohermaphrodites do not fit neatly into either male or female.

Sex is not binary.

A pseudohermaphrodite is still either male or female.

That article keeps trying to conflate sex, gender and sexuality, and is pushing the idea that people with DSDs are something other than male or female.

ETA and to show jut how far away from facts that site is, another article on that site claims that trans people change sex, and that sports competitors can choose their own sex.
 
Last edited:
The three transwomen I know are all pissed off with this Liberal political zeal to legalize fiat self ID. Its ruined everything for them - they used to be able to go about their business and private lives including using women's rest rooms, and no-one would bat an eyelid. Now, they feel like they are being watched and stared at wherever they go and whatever they do. It is biological revisionists like you who are the direct cause of this - you're hurting the very people you claim to be protecting!
This is the current situation in Hawaii as well. Here they say "we had this stuff figured out long before recorded history and now some haoles want to come in, pretend to great white savior for us and turn us into victims". It was never an issue, past the un-PC jokes that every group is part of here until some Portland/Seattle/San Fran SJWs decided to come in and White Knight for people who didn't want any
 
I guess I'm at the point where I'm less interested in rebutting bob's argument, and more interested in finding out what practical application, if any, does his definition have.

@bobdroege7 what are the practical applications you envision, for the concept of biological sex as a spectrum?
 
The entire point is that non-ordinal categories are *arbitrarily* laid out. You get to choose the order, based on whatever whim you wish, and it has nothing to do with any innate characteristic of what's being plotted. And because it's arbitrary, any suggestion of a pattern that sort of looks like a defined probability density function is an illusion.

<snip>

Because there is no innate orderability to the categories... any apparent "function" is artificial and illusory.

In your example... the only spectrum that exists in with respect to height - and height is ordinal. There is no spectrum for karyotype, as there is no innate way to order them.

So what if there's no way to order a range or series of nominal categories? That doesn't mean that they don't constitute a spectrum, only that there's a limited number of arithmetic operations that can be done with the data.

Relative to the first point, you -- and several others here -- might try reading these articles on spectrum and on categorical variables:

Spectrum has since been applied by analogy to topics outside optics. Thus, one might talk about the "spectrum of political opinion", or the "spectrum of activity" of a drug, or the "autism spectrum". In these uses, values within a spectrum may not be associated with precisely quantifiable numbers or definitions. Such uses imply a broad range of conditions or behaviors grouped together and studied under a single title for ease of discussion.


In statistics, a categorical variable (also called qualitative variable) is a variable that can take on one of a limited, and usually fixed, number of possible values, assigning each individual or other unit of observation to a particular group or nominal category on the basis of some qualitative property.


Relative to my previous joint probability distribution by heights and karyotypes, karyotype is a nominal categorical variable and all of the different karyotypes are nominal categories. Which can still be arranged in a somewhat arbitrary spectrum.

And, relative to my second point above, what can not be done -- as you and others reasonably point out -- is to use the distribution to get, for examples, measures of median and standard deviations. See:

A nominal scale [AKA spectrum] consists only of a number of distinct classes or categories, for example: [Cat, Dog, Rabbit]. Unlike the other scales, no kind of relationship between the classes can be relied upon. Thus measuring with the nominal scale is equivalent to classifying. .... No form of arithmetic computation (+, −, ×, etc.) may be performed on nominal measures. The nominal level is the lowest measurement level used from a statistical point of view.
 
You saying it multiple times doesn't make it true. Your "standard" definition is NOT the standard definition. It's your personal interpretation, based on what you are assuming beforehand then wedging the definition into.
And you -- and Emma Hilton & Colin Wright -- saying "eventually produces" or "previously produced" as criteria for sex category membership doesn't make it true either. Only your "misinterpretation". As saying that 2+2=5 doesn't make that true. As saying that freemartins are female doesn't make that true either:

A freemartin or free-martin (sometimes martin heifer) is an infertile cow with masculinized behavior and non-functioning ovaries. Phenotypically, the animal appears female, but various aspects of female reproductive development are altered due to acquisition of anti-Müllerian hormone from the male twin.

"phenotypically female" is not the same thing as "reproductively competent", the sine qua non for sex category membership. At least by the standard biologically definitions which are published, and utilized, in reputable journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:

For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet.



Twitter_EmmaHilton_VolteFace.jpg
ParkerLehtonenDefinitions1A.jpg
Twitter_PZ_Myers_NotFemale1A.jpg
 
Yes I have.

Pseudohermaphrodites do not fit neatly into either male or female.

Sex is not binary.
That sex is -- by definition -- a binary does not mean that every member of every anisogamous species -- including the human one -- is either male or female. Technically speaking, some third of us, at any one time, are sexless. Including the prepubescent, most of the intersex, and transwomen who cut their nuts off.

You might try reading this article:

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

 
<...>

I do know a handful of trans people, and their rights should not be restricted.

Funny (but not surprising) how all the clownfish/DSD/what-sodding-ever distraction roads from any source always seem to lead to "... which is why men with functioning wedding tackle need to be allowed to swim competitively against all those other people sporting a vag.".
 
I do know a handful of trans people, and their rights should not be restricted.
Whether the OP is true or false, it's not obvious how it should impact trans rights.

Care to unpack how biological definitions of male and female would do that?
 
ETA and to show jut how far away from facts that site is, another article on that site claims that trans people change sex, and that sports competitors can choose their own sex.
So source credibility =ZERO. That's just the kind of sites that bobdroege7 usually links to!
 
Funny (but not surprising) how all the clownfish/DSD/what-sodding-ever distraction roads from any source always seem to lead to "... which is why men with functioning wedding tackle need to be allowed to swim competitively against all those other people sporting a vag.".
I have already stated that I am against that, only those with testosterone levels in the female range should be able to compete against those sporting a vag.

Edited to add: especially contact sports such as women's lacrosse and field hockey.
 
Last edited:
Once someone has gone through male puberty they have and retain male advantage irrespective of current testosterone concentration. Which is an extremely movable feast in any case. You can't unbake that cake.
 
Delusional

You're right, including not getting between battered woman and/or rape victims, and their counselors!

You think transpeople are coming for you? Paranoid much?

Yes it is a basic human rights issue. The human rights of half the population should NOT be trampled over to satisfy the predilections of a tiny minority.

Oooh, you're playing the "some of my best friends" card. Are any of you best friends women? Or Black?

[OFF TOPIC] but related
Well guess what. I know several LGBTQ+ people too. One of the activities I am involved in (competitive equestrian sports) has a lot of them. NOT ONE OF THEM thinks that sex is on a spectrum. They all believe (correctly) that it is binary (I've asked them).

The three transwomen I know are all pissed off with this Liberal political zeal to legalize fiat self ID. Its ruined everything for them - they used to be able to go about their business and private lives including using women's rest rooms, and no-one would bat an eyelid. Now, they feel like they are being watched and stared at wherever they go and whatever they do. It is biological revisionists like you who are the direct cause of this - you're hurting the very people you claim to be protecting!
Wow, you are a really nice guy.

But you can't read very well.

Did I say I think trans people are coming for me, no I did not, but that does not mean Trump and Mush are not coming for my social security.

And how are the rights of half the population being trampled by allowing trans people their rights.

Note that I didn't any of my friends are trans.

And I note you claim it is a belief they have. Still, some don't fit neatly into the male female binary.
 
Once someone has gone through male puberty they have and retain male advantage irrespective of current testosterone concentration. Which is an extremely movable feast in any case. You can't unbake that cake.
Yes, I agree with that statement.

Competing in sports is not a right, it's a privilege.

I agree with this person's take


"Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion.
 
and that sports competitors can choose their own sex.
That was a court ruling.

"The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) ruled that athletes can determine their own sex in international sports like the Olympics until a foolproof way is found to differentiate men from women.[3]"

Take it up with the Swiss.
 
I have already stated that I am against that, only those with testosterone levels in the female range should be able to compete against those sporting a vag.

Edited to add: especially contact sports such as women's lacrosse and field hockey.
"Testosterone levels in the female range" and "sporting a vag" both seem like binary criteria to me.
 
Wow, you are a really nice guy.
True
But you can't read very well.
I can read perfectly well
Did I say I think trans people are coming for me
Yes, you did
If I don't stand up for trans people there will be nobody to stand up for me when they come for me

And how are the rights of half the population being trampled by allowing trans people their rights.
Men and women each have the right to their own, sex-segregated safe spaces. Women are half the population.

When biological males are allowed access to women's toilets, bathrooms and changing rooms, that tramples on those rights.
When biological males are allowed access to women's domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centres that tramples on those rights.
When biological males are incarcerated in women's prisons, that tramples on those rights
When biological males are allowed to enter women's sporting competitions, that tramples on those rights

Note that I didn't any of my friends are trans.
You implied it, and in any case, the "some of my best friends" card is functionally indistinguishable from the "some of the people I know" card
And I note you claim it is a belief they have. Still, some don't fit neatly into the male female binary.
And I note, you have yet to provide a single example of this that survived being quickly and comprehensively debunked by Agatha, or b, or Louden Wilde, or Rolfe or a number of others, including myself.

Until you can come up with an example that is NOT male and NOT female, and is instead a third sex, you have nothing. No argument, no evidence, no proof, so in accordance with Hitchens's razor, your claim that sex is on a spectrum is dismissed
 
I have already stated that I am against that, only those with testosterone levels in the female range should be able to compete against those sporting a vag.

Edited to add: especially contact sports such as women's lacrosse and field hockey.

Not enough.
Lowering testosterone levels in adult competitions is ineffective. Male puberty imparts additional strength, muscle tone, lung capacity, bone density and other physical attributes that cannot be reversed. Its a bell that cannot be unrung.
 
More strictly, it's determined by what gamete the body has been evolutionarily designed is organized to produce.
FTFY.

Its just a nitpick, but evolution is not a design, its a result of random mutations.

"Designed" necessarily implies a purpose and a designer.
"Organized" does not necessarily imply an organizer.
 
Last edited:
I have already stated that I am against that, only those with testosterone levels in the female range should be able to compete against those sporting a vag.

Edited to add: especially contact sports such as women's lacrosse and field hockey.

Okay, then can you list a specific right or rights which you feel trans people should be given, which would require defining biological sex as a spectrum rather than a binary? I don't mean something general like 'to be able to live as their authentic selves' or the like. But at least one specific 'should be allowed to ____' right which would not be possible if biological sex were binary, but would if it were a spectrum?
 
<snip>

By the same token, Coyne gets some pretty basic stuff wrong about gender, such as claiming "it still has two camel’s-hump modes around 'male' and 'female,'" when in point of fact (1) female refers to sex; feminine to gender and (2) there is no ordinal variable which would allow such a plot to even exist.
Coyne has been blathering away on "bimodal" for a coon's age though previously on sex itself:

Seem to recollect that, at that time, both Colin Wright and Emma Hilton, in a series of tweets, attempted to show him the errors of his ways, though he certainly didn't seem willing to give any thought to their arguments.

As for "feminine gender", and as a point of reference, consider a rather cogent and illuminating analogy from the late great US Justice Anton Scalia which emphasized that dichotomy, and the usefulness of separate words for each:

The word "gender" has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine to male.


This latest kerfuffle isn't a battle of steel-men, it's Amateur Hour On Sex and Gender.
Amen to that. Pretty much everyone is riding madly off in all directions, largely due to inconsistent and contradictory definitions for both "sex" and "gender".
 
Coyne's view was discussed before. He argued that sex is a categorical variable where almost all cases fit in to one of two categories, but a miniscule number might not be obviously allocated to one of these categories due to unusual DSDs. Therefore he said that sex is technically bimodal but for nearly all intents and purposes it is binary (as you could say that a tossed coin could land heads, tails or on its edge, but for practical purposes a coin toss is binary).
I don't know whether he has revised this view. However, this is nothing to do with what Novella and others are arguing, which is more related to trying to represent sex as a continuous variable ranging from male to female, with two peaks representing male and female modes, and no indication of how maleness and femaleness are quantified.
 
Back
Top Bottom