• 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

The spectrum paradigm means there's no reason to prevent any women from competing in women's sports, or keep them from women's restrooms, or prevent them from being rape counselors, or keep them out of women's shelters due to the gametes they produce.
By the same logic, why not say that the spectrum paradigm means there's no (categorical) reason not to give genetic males hormones that only female produce endogenously, and vice-versa?
 
By the same logic, why not say that the spectrum paradigm means there's no (categorical) reason not to give genetic males hormones that only female produce endogenously, and vice-versa?
I suspect some folks would make that argument.
 
I don't buy it. Steersman has come out vehemently against this. Bobby D has certainly not come out for it. So I'm still waiting for the thing.
Competition in sports, women's or men's is a privilege not a right, so no, trans people do not have the right to compete in women's sports.

I don't care what bathroom you use as long as you don't commit any crimes in there, and that means not exposing yourself to any women or children you encounter in that restroom.

As for prisons, I think we have enough trans women in prison to give them their own wing.

Rape counselors can be of any sex, men do get raped, but you should have the right to a counselor you feel comfortable with.

Where should men who have been raped go for shelter?

Organs are already being grown, it's only a matter of time before a trans woman can start producing the large immotile gametes.
 
Competition in sports, women's or men's is a privilege not a right, so no, trans people do not have the right to compete in women's sports.

I don't care what bathroom you use as long as you don't commit any crimes in there, and that means not exposing yourself to any women or children you encounter in that restroom.

As for prisons, I think we have enough trans women in prison to give them their own wing.

Rape counselors can be of any sex, men do get raped, but you should have the right to a counselor you feel comfortable with.

Where should men who have been raped go for shelter?

Organs are already being grown, it's only a matter of time before a trans woman can start producing the large immotile gametes.
That's nice, but my question to you is still:

"What is your stance on trans rights in public policy?"

"What are the practical applications of viewing sex as a spectrum rather than a binary?"
 
Males produce estrogen endogenously.
Fair enough, but only at a fraction of the level females do, until around menopause.

Binary thinking might lead people to conclude we shouldn't give anyone cross-sex hormone therapy at all, and I suspect that is why rights activists (and those institutionally captured) are coming after such thinking.
 
Last edited:
In the case of the sex categories, reputable biologists, and reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias are SAYING that "male" and "female" are the definiendums and that "produces small gametes" and "produces large gametes", respectively, are corresponding definiens.
^ Incorrect.

..."male" and "female" are the definiendums and that "has the phenotype that produces small gametes" and "has the phenotype that produces large gametes", respectively, are corresponding definiens.
^ Correct.
 
Don't think you quite understand or appreciate, or want to get, that the "phenotype" changes substantially over the course of our lives
Except that this isn't true. Our reproductive phenotypes don't change substantially over time.

A female fetus from ~7 weeks has fallopian tubes, ovaries, uterus, cervix, and vagina... and they naturally retain all of those until they die. At no point in the development of a female human being do any of those parts atrophy and disappear, nor do they grow new bits that weren't there at the culmination of the mullerian process.

A male fetus has vas deferens, penis, testicles, spermical vesicles... and they keep them throughout their entire life. At no point after the wolffian process completes do any of those vanish all on their own, nor do males grow new parts.
 
Fair enough, but only at a fraction of the level females do, until around menopause.

Binary thinking might lead people to conclude we shouldn't give anyone cross-sex hormone therapy at all, and I suspect that is why rights activists (and those institutionally captured) are coming after such thinking.
This is pure speculation, though. Both you and bob have alluded to this possibility, but neither of you have given even a single example of the medical field giving suboptimal treatment based on binary thinking, or giving more optimal treatment by switching to spectrum thinking.

There hasn't even been an example of a spectrum-advocate advocating for a move to spectrum thinking in order to improve medical outcomes.
 
. . . neither of you have given even a single example of the medical field giving suboptimal treatment based on binary thinking, or giving more optimal treatment by switching to spectrum thinking.
The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.
 
The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.
I don't see how that is solved by moving to spectrum thinking. Gender transition is still gender transition. If Catholics don't want to support that, they're not going to support it.

Also, last time I checked, there was no good evidence that gender transition treatment is a good prescription for gender dysphoria.
 
I don't see how that is solved by moving to spectrum thinking.
To the extent that rigidly binary thinking implies we mustn't ever help natal males become more like females (or vice-versa) such thinking precludes the possibility of transition, as a sort of a priori moral/ontological prescription. This is faith-based nonsense, not skeptical reasoning rooted in science.

Also, last time I checked, there was no good evidence that gender transition treatment is a good prescription for gender dysphoria.
Wrong thread.
 
To the extent that rigidly binary thinking implies we mustn't ever help natal males become more like females (or vice-versa) such thinking precludes the possibility of transition, as a sort of a priori moral/ontological prescription. This is faith-based nonsense, not skeptical reasoning rooted in science.
Do you have any examples of this in practice?
Wrong thread.
I'm talking about good medical outcomes related to binary vs. spectrum paradigms about sex. The medical treatment you're talking about isn't even known to produce good outcomes. So getting more of it via the spectrum paradigm isn't going to be an example of improved medical outcomes from adopting that paradigm.
 
The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.
Okay... and what's suboptimal about that from a medical perspective? What material long-term benefit is gained from giving cross-sex hormones for gender identity issues?

Honestly, it's kind of like prescribing ozempic for an anorexic.
 
To the extent that rigidly binary thinking implies we mustn't ever help natal males become more like females (or vice-versa) such thinking precludes the possibility of transition, as a sort of a priori moral/ontological prescription. This is faith-based nonsense, not skeptical reasoning rooted in science.
On the other hand, you're a priori presuming that medicalization based on gender identity confusion is something that ought the be done in the first place... You are assuming that there's some consensus or agreement hat helping males mimic female secondary sex characteristics is beneficial in the first place.
 
On the other hand, you're a priori presuming that medicalization based on gender identity confusion is something that ought the be done in the first place...
No, I'm assuming that medicalization ought to be on the table rather than ruled out by faith-based thinking. If the bishops had their way, we'd never have any evidence to judge the efficacy of CSH at all.
Okay... and what's suboptimal about that from a medical perspective?
I'm not going to discuss the medical efficacy of CSH in this thread; it is enough to note that rigid binary thinking would prevent us from gathering any evidence to answer that question.
 
Last edited:
The Catholic Church embraces binary thinking (rooted ultimately in Genesis 1:27) and as a result U.S. Bishops have directed Catholic hospitals to abstain from providing gender transition care such as cross-sex hormones.
IDK, saying you can switch from one sex to the other is still binary. So, not providing gender transition is less binary than providing gender transition services.
 
No, I'm assuming that medicalization ought to be on the table rather than ruled out by faith-based thinking. If the bishops had their way, we'd never have any evidence to judge the efficacy of CSH at all.

I'm not going to discuss the medical efficacy of CSH in this thread; it is enough to note that rigid binary thinking would prevent us from gathering any evidence to answer that question.
I don't think I agree with your argument, nor your premise. But I'm also having a tough time putting it into words.

Rigid binary thinking is that sex is binary - that there are males and females, there is not spectrum of sex. What you're holding up as a counter to that doesn't seem to suggest that medically sex should be viewed or even considered as a spectrum. Allowing medical interventions to mimic the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex - or even to negate or minimize the characteristics of one's actual sex - doesn't require viewing sex as a spectrum at all. I think it still relies on sex being binary.

To be more blunt... "Can I make a male look less like a typical male and more like a typical female" doesn't suggest that sex itself needs to be viewed as a spectrum. Viewing sex as the binary that it is doesn't preclude cosmetic mimicry.
 
Rigid binary thinking is that sex is binary - that there are males and females, there is not spectrum of sex.
By rigid I mean to imply also a sort of moral commitment to keep people in their assigned lane.
What you're holding up as a counter to that doesn't seem to suggest that medically sex should be viewed or even considered as a spectrum. Allowing medical interventions to mimic the sexual characteristics of the opposite sex - or even to negate or minimize the characteristics of one's actual sex - doesn't require viewing sex as a spectrum at all.
What the spectrumists mean by "viewing sex as a spectrum" is confusing and often unclear, but I think Novella gets it right when he says "the development of sexual characteristics...can vary along a spectrum," which is to say that individual sexed characteristics (e.g. breast development, laryngeal development) may vary continuously from clearly male to clearly female in size/shape/appearance. Rigid binary thinking (of the sort demonstrated by the Catholic bishops) is that someone biologically destined to have an ordinary male chest and Adam's apple mustn't be hormonally or surgically assisted in their desire to change those specific outcomes to something which we'd expect to see on a female.
 
By rigid I mean to imply also a sort of moral commitment to keep people in their assigned lane.

What the spectrumists mean by "viewing sex as a spectrum" is confusing and often unclear, but I think Novella gets it right when he says "the development of sexual characteristics...can vary along a spectrum," which is to say that individual sexed characteristics (e.g. breast development, laryngeal development) may vary continuously from clearly male to clearly female in size/shape/appearance. Rigid binary thinking (of the sort demonstrated by the Catholic bishops) is that someone biologically destined to have an ordinary male chest and Adam's apple mustn't be hormonally or surgically assisted in their desire to change those specific outcomes to something which we'd expect to see on a female.
Not seeing that. I could believe in a spectrum and come to the same conclusion as the Catholic Bishops that transitions are not merited. Anywhere you lie on the spectrum is just as valid an expression of your biological sex or identified gender as any other, so transition is unnecessary medical intervention. It just means society should be more accepting of folks on the tale ends of the bell curve. Frankly, that does make more sense to me than sex is a binary so no transition.

I could believe in a strict binary and conclude that medical intervention is often warranted regardless of where the patient is on the spectrum of gender/sex expression. If you are either one or the other and you think you are not the sex you born, well then Transition is needed. And that makes more sense to me than sex is s strict binary so no transition or sex is spectrum so we need transitions.

Any rate, its basically undeniable that gender expression and sexually dimorphic phenotypes in humans is on a spectrum with lots of males being more feminine than lots of females and vice versa. I still don't think that comes close to showing that biological sex is on a spectrum. I'll go back to my star vs planet analogy. The mass and density of stars and planets are on a spectrum that overlaps. That does not show that the categories of star and planet are also on a spectrum.
 
I could believe in a spectrum and come to the same conclusion as the Catholic Bishops that transitions are not merited.
Not in the same way to be sure. Their reasoning is rooted in "constitutive male-female sexual difference" which shouldn't be denaturalised (i.e. tampered with via medical intervention) in favor of decisions rooted in "feelings of the human subject."
Anywhere you lie on the spectrum is just as valid an expression of your biological sex or identified gender as any other, so transition is unnecessary medical intervention.
It's not clear to me how the second half of that sentence follows from the first half. If any place on the spectrum (for any given sexual characteristic) is "just as valid" as any other, why bother to forbid doctors from helping patients move along that spectrum?
I could believe in a strict binary and conclude that medical intervention is often warranted regardless of where the patient is on the spectrum of gender/sex expression.
I've never yet met a person capable of holding both of these beliefs. Are you perchance an Electric Monk?
 
Last edited:
Not in the same way to be sure. Their reasoning is rooted in "constitutive male-female sexual difference" which shouldn't be denaturalised (i.e. tampered with via medical intervention) in favor of decisions rooted in "feelings of the human subject."
To be sure.
It's not clear to me how the second half of that sentence follows from the first half. If any place on the spectrum (for any given sexual characteristic) is "just as valid" as any other, why bother to forbid doctors from helping patients move along that spectrum?
Simple in my opinion. Being a man in a woman's body or vice versa is no less wrong a way of being as being a particularly masculine women or a particularly feminine woman. Its a spectrum, all points on the spectrum good and there is no need for surgery or hormones. Society and the person should just come to terms with very masculine women.
I've never yet met a person capable of holding both of these beliefs. Are you perchance an Electric Monk?
No but in my opinion it really only makes sense to transition if sex is a binary. What's the point of transitioning someone at one end of a bell curve to the other end of the bell curve. If its a binary you can only be a women or a man so, then transition is needed.
 
By rigid I mean to imply also a sort of moral commitment to keep people in their assigned lane.

What the spectrumists mean by "viewing sex as a spectrum" is confusing and often unclear, but I think Novella gets it right when he says "the development of sexual characteristics...can vary along a spectrum," which is to say that individual sexed characteristics (e.g. breast development, laryngeal development) may vary continuously from clearly male to clearly female in size/shape/appearance. Rigid binary thinking (of the sort demonstrated by the Catholic bishops) is that someone biologically destined to have an ordinary male chest and Adam's apple mustn't be hormonally or surgically assisted in their desire to change those specific outcomes to something which we'd expect to see on a female.
So... you're arguing against a position that nobody in this thread has taken, with a bespoke interpretation of "rigid" that only has utility to your argument?

Okay then.
 
How about policies which allow females to receive prescriptions of testosterone, either to transition or boost libido?
Females can get a prescription for testosterone for whatever the hell reason their doctor is willing to write it for. That said... insurance doesn't cover libido boosters.

Is there some specific MEDICAL benefit to pretending that SEX IS A SPECTRUM that somehow makes females taking testosterone for transition make more sense? Like, pretending that they're not females, that they're something in-between male and female makes a difference to the effect of testosterone on their body?

This is my point, d4m10n - all of the examples you have presented are examples where GENDER is not being viewed as binary. But nothing you've presented actually supports the idea that the medical system should view sex as a spectrum.

ETA: If it makes any difference, I also recognize that there are a huge number of cases where sex is irrelevant from a medical perspective. For example, when you're getting stitches because you sliced your thumb open, sex doesn't matter. But that doesn't suggest that sex is not binary. I mean, getting a bunion removed from you left foot has nothing at all to do with your hair color, but that lack of relevance neither supports nor contradicts a claim that green is a naturally occurring hair color in humans ;).
 
Last edited:
Females can get a prescription for testosterone for whatever the hell reason their doctor is willing to write it for.
Not at Catholic hospitals where the priestly class overrides medical judgement. They stand against violating the sanctity of the sex binary, which they take to be divinely ordained rather than an accident of natural selection.

Is there some specific MEDICAL benefit to pretending that SEX IS A SPECTRUM that somehow makes females taking testosterone for transition make more sense?
I'd rather leave the question of medical benefits to the thread about trans issues, seeing as those posts tend to get AAH binned.

Like, pretending that they're not females, that they're something in-between male and female makes a difference to the effect of testosterone on their body?
Aside from the question begging nature of "pretending" I'm pretty sure this is the argument that Novella is building towards with his arguments that the brain is itself sexed.

…all of the examples you have presented are examples where GENDER is not being viewed as binary.
The specific examples I brought up were secondary sex characteristics (e.g. Adam's apple).
 
Last edited:
Aside from the question begging nature of "pretending" I'm pretty sure this is the argument that Novella is building towards with his arguments that the brain is itself sexed.
Well... the cells in the brain are sexed, and there's at least some dimorphism in the structure of the brain. More relevant perhaps is that there's a pretty well documented difference in behavioral tendencies on the basis of sex. But those tendencies are descriptive, not prescriptive - a female who just isn't interested in taking care of babies isn't any less female than one who goes gaga every time an infant coos. A male who just isn't very aggressive or competitive is no less male than one who can't get enough fantasy football.

Because sex is defined by our reproductive anatomy, not our personality, nor by our likes and dislikes and skills.
The specific examples I brought up were secondary sex characteristics (e.g. Adam's apple).
Okay, I'll direct you back to like page one of this thread, where we start out by explaining that sex is defined based on the type of reproductive system an individual has... and NOT by their secondary sex characteristics, nor by any sex-correlated traits.
 
Okay, I'll direct you back to like page one of this thread, where we start out by explaining that sex is defined based on the type of reproductive system an individual has... and NOT by their secondary sex characteristics, nor by any sex-correlated traits.
What the spectrumists mean by "viewing sex as a spectrum" is confusing and often unclear, but I think Novella gets it right when he says "the development of sexual characteristics...can vary along a spectrum," which is to say that individual sexed characteristics (e.g. breast development, laryngeal development) may vary continuously from clearly male to clearly female in size/shape/appearance. Rigid binary thinking—demonstrated by the Catholic bishops—contends that someone biologically destined to have an ordinary male chest and Adam's apple mustn't be hormonally or surgically assisted in their desire to change those specific outcomes to something which we'd expect to see on a female.
 
Last edited:
What the spectrumists mean by "viewing sex as a spectrum" is confusing and often unclear, but I think Novella gets it right when he says "the development of sexual characteristics...can vary along a spectrum," which is to say that individual sexed characteristics (e.g. breast development, laryngeal development) may vary continuously from clearly male to clearly female in size/shape/appearance. Rigid binary thinking—demonstrated by the Catholic bishops—contends that someone biologically destined to have an ordinary male chest and Adam's apple mustn't be hormonally or surgically assisted in their desire to change those specific outcomes to something which we'd expect to see on a female.
Okay, but none of that has anything to do with this thread.
 
Well... the cells in the brain are sexed, and there's at least some dimorphism in the structure of the brain. More relevant perhaps is that there's a pretty well documented difference in behavioral tendencies on the basis of sex. But those tendencies are descriptive, not prescriptive - a female who just isn't interested in taking care of babies isn't any less female than one who goes gaga every time an infant coos. A male who just isn't very aggressive or competitive is no less male than one who can't get enough fantasy football.

Because sex is defined by our reproductive anatomy, not our personality, nor by our likes and dislikes and skills.
Okay, I'll direct you back to like page one of this thread, where we start out by explaining that sex is defined based on the type of reproductive system an individual has... and NOT by their secondary sex characteristics, nor by any sex-correlated traits.
Indeed!

These differences in brain structures, behavioural tendencies and personalities are a RESULT of our sex, NOT the cause of our sex.

This something that the "sex-is-a-spectrum" crowd simply don't understand. They see a "spectrum" of behaviours and personalities and seize
upon that with "AHA! There! See, sex is a spectrum". But the reality is, when you drill down to the ultimate causes, you find there are only two.

With regard to sex, the human species is divided into two groups that are roughly equal in numbers - biological males, and biological females. There are NO other sexes, therefore sex must be binary.
 
Well... the cells in the brain are sexed ...
No, they're not. Cells don't have a sex; most of them have nuclei which include the sex chromosomes which most certainly don't have any of the functions of ovaries or testicles. Even by the OP, cells most certainly don't have any gonads of "past, present, or future functionality".


More relevant perhaps is that there's a pretty well documented difference in behavioral tendencies on the basis of sex. But those tendencies are descriptive, not prescriptive - a female who just isn't interested in taking care of babies isn't any less female than one who goes gaga every time an infant coos. A male who just isn't very aggressive or competitive is no less male than one who can't get enough fantasy football.
Exactly. Sexual dimorphism writ large -- AKA gender:


FourthWaveNow_PersonalityDistributions.jpg
 
What the spectrumists mean by "viewing sex as a spectrum" is confusing and often unclear, but I think Novella gets it right when he says "the development of sexual characteristics...can vary along a spectrum," which is to say that individual sexed characteristics (e.g. breast development, laryngeal development) may vary continuously from clearly male to clearly female in size/shape/appearance. Rigid binary thinking—demonstrated by the Catholic bishops—contends that someone biologically destined to have an ordinary male chest and Adam's apple mustn't be hormonally or surgically assisted in their desire to change those specific outcomes to something which we'd expect to see on a female.
And I think the guy is a bit of an idiot from square one -- and that's being charitable:

It is fair to say when it comes to reproduction the system is binary, but sex is about more than reproduction.

This is another concept that many people get caught up on, thinking in evolutionarily simplistic ways. The argument often goes that “sex is only about reproduction”, and since gametes are binary, sex in total is binary. This is incredibly reductionist, and misses the fact that traits often simultaneously serve multiple evolutionary ends. Sex, for example, is also about bonding, social relationships, power, and dominance.


Totally clueless that sex is, by definition, all about reproduction, all about having "reproductive function". If there's no reproductive function then no sex category membership cards are issued. Easy peasy:

Oxford_Dictionaries_Sex1B.jpg
 
^ Incorrect.

..."male" and "female" are the definiendums and that "has the phenotype that produces small gametes" and "has the phenotype that produces large gametes", respectively, are corresponding definiens.
^ Correct.
👍🙂 Kinda think we're saying pretty much the same thing. Though you seem to be reading something -- "body type, ..., something, something, ..., organized around ..." -- in between the lines that clearly isn't there -- 😉🙂

But that "has the phenotype that produces ..." seems to be something of an idiosyncrasy of Parker & Lehtonen. Even if there may well be some justification for it. For example, a later publication by Lehtonen himself is more consistent with both popular, though reputable, dictionaries, and with the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:


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 (Parker et al. 1972) ...

Oxford_Dictionaries_Male1A.jpg

 
Except that this isn't true. Our reproductive phenotypes don't change substantially over time.
You think that changing from having functional gonads to not having them, from being fertile to being infertile -- and back -- isn't a "substantial" change?

The first direction is, of course, mostly all about the onset of puberty. And the second about menopause, sterilization, and castration. Seems fairly "substantial" to me ....
 
"Well... the cells in the brain are sexed ..."

Indeed!
A more unscientific bit of claptrap is scarcely imaginable. Though some of the "best" have been peddling it for some time:


These differences in brain structures, behavioural tendencies and personalities are a RESULT of our sex, NOT the cause of our sex.
Correlation is not causation ...
This something that the "sex-is-a-spectrum" crowd simply don't understand. They see a "spectrum" of behaviours and personalities and seize
upon that with "AHA! There! See, sex is a spectrum". .
Well, you got that much right anyway ... 😉🙂
With regard to sex, the human species is divided into two groups that are roughly equal in numbers - biological males, and biological females. There are NO other sexes, therefore sex must be binary.
More or less. Though technically speaking, not that you're listening, it's about a third males, a third females, and a third sexless. HTH ...

Memes_ReproductiveCategories_2A.jpg
 
👍🙂 Kinda think we're saying pretty much the same thing. Though you seem to be reading something -- "body type, ..., something, something, ..., organized around ..." -- in between the lines that clearly isn't there -- 😉🙂
I'm almost out of patience, but I'll give it one more go.

Let's talk about hair. Some people have straight hair, some people have curly hair. Unlike sex, the curl of our hair *is* a spectrum. Curliness is governed by the shape of the follicle. People whose follicles are perpendicular to the skin have straight hair. People whose follicles are straight but at an angle to the skin have wavy hair. People whose follicles are curved and at an angle to the skin have curly hair.

If a person has follicles that are curved and at an angle to the skin shaves their head... do you think it reasonable to then say that curliness or straightness of hair doesn't apply because they're now hairless? Even if the follicles exist and are observable?
 
You think that changing from having functional gonads to not having them, from being fertile to being infertile -- and back -- isn't a "substantial" change?
At this point, I've decided you don't know what a phenotype is. And you're so wrapped up in your bespoke definition that you're unwilling to even try to learn. You are now arguing from belief.
 
<snip>

If a person has follicles that are curved and at an angle to the skin shaves their head... do you think it reasonable to then say that curliness or straightness of hair doesn't apply because they're now hairless? Even if the follicles exist and are observable?
Something of a tenuous if not bogus or false analogy, though I'll still play. How can the hairless be said to have any hair unless you say that the follicles by themselves also qualify as hairs?

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You might reflect on the "age-old" concept of the principle of explosion, the idea that something can't be both A and Not-A at the same time and in the same sense:


And, relative to your analogy, the hairless though not follicle-ness once had curly or straight hair but now they don't. People who once had functional gonads once had a sex but now they don't.
 
Back
Top Bottom