Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

^ 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:

Gamete Size

'Gamete Size' published in 'Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science'

link.springer.com

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) ...

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

 

[Steersman]

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 ....

 

[Steersman]

"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:

Every Cell Has a Sex: X and Y and the Future of Health Care

Dr. David C. Page discusses the origin of the X and Y chromosomes and what it means for the future of health care at Grand Rounds, sponsored by the Women’s

medicine.yale.edu

Every Cell Has a Sex - Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health - NCBI Bookshelf

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 ...

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

 

[Steersman]

<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:

Principle of explosion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

 

[Steersman]

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.

You seem to have an affinity for "bespoke" -- a new "word-of-the-day" for you? Though not to say that it doesn't have some utility which I hadn't been aware of -- learn something new every day:

Etymology​

In sense “custom-made”, 1755, from earlier bespoken (c. 1600), form of bespeak, in sense “arrange beforehand” (1580s), a prefixed variant of speak; compare order, made-to-order.

bespoke - Wiktionary, the free dictionary

en.wiktionary.org

But still rather a stretch to argue that my "interpretation" is "tailor-made". You might actually try reading this article on the topic:

In genetics, the phenotype (from Ancient Greek φαίνω (phaínō) 'to appear, show' and τύπος (túpos) 'mark, type') is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior. .... Either way, the term phenotype includes inherent traits or characteristics that are observable or traits that can be made visible by some technical procedure. .... Behaviors and their consequences are also phenotypes, since behaviors are observable characteristics. Behavioral phenotypes include cognitive, personality, and behavioral patterns. ....

Phenotype - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The phenotype of a juvenile -- or of an embryo -- is clearly not the same phenotype of an adult. Which is why one has to qualify and describe which phenotype is of relevance or is definitive -- e.g., the phenotype that currently produces gametes, not the one that might eventually produce them -- embryos or the prepubescent -- or might have produced them in the past. HTH ...

 

[Emily's Cat]

The phenotype of a juvenile -- or of an embryo -- is clearly not the same phenotype of an adult. Which is why one has to qualify and describe which phenotype is of relevance or is definitive -- e.g., the phenotype that currently produces gametes, not the one that might eventually produce them -- embryos or the prepubescent -- or might have produced them in the past.

By your logic, an infant who hasn't yet learned to walk is legless.

 

[Matthew Best]

If you're discussing with Steersman, legless is definitely the way to be.

 

[Steersman]

If you're discussing with Steersman, legless is definitely the way to be.

"Extremely drunk"? A British colloquialism by the look of it.

Though "footless" seems to be the way most of my interlocutors actually are ...

lacking foundation : unsubstantial

Definition of FOOTLESS

having no feet; lacking foundation : unsubstantial; stupid, inept… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

But I suppose both might be applicable ...

 

[Steersman]

By your logic, an infant who hasn't yet learned to walk is legless.

The "set of observable characteristics or traits" -- AKA phenotype -- of a typical newborn is clearly different from someone of 50 who lost their legs in an accident.

At least try thinking that constructions like "X is the phenotype that exhibits properties A, B, & C" is just equating or defining the entity X as the body that currently exhibits those properties.

An embryo is the phenotype that has undifferentiated reproductive structures;
A polydactyl is the phenotype that has extra fingers or toes;
An oligodactyl is the phenotype that has fewer than the typical number of fingers or toes;
A teenager is the phenotype that is between the ages of 13 and 19 inclusive.

Polydactyly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oligodactyly - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"oh why can't the English learn to speak" ...

 

[smartcooky]

By your logic, an infant who hasn't yet learned to walk is legless.

If you're discussing with Steersman, legless is definitely the way to be.

Indeed. It appears that Steersman's mind is bolted shut, and the nuts are welded in place. He's locked into a spiral of bespoke, personal, unique-to-him definitions, a spiral of his own making. Its entire response set involves link spamming the same flawed sources over and over. It isn't possible to have an honest debate with someone who behaves like that.... its why I no longer engage....

 

[Rolfe]

And in Gaelic a "deugaire" (the equivalent of a teenager) is anyone aged 11 to 19 inclusive. So what?

 

[Steersman]

And in Gaelic a "deugaire" (the equivalent of a teenager) is anyone aged 11 to 19 inclusive. So what?

So you're not paying attention -- being charitable. The point is the format of the statement:

"An embryo is the phenotype that has undifferentiated reproductive structures"

Four examples were given including one referencing "teenager". It is totally immaterial, a red herring, whether another language uses a different word for about the same age range.

 

[Steersman]

He's locked into a spiral of bespoke, personal, unique-to-him definitions, a spiral of his own making.

"Liar, liar, pants on fire."

I've shown you and others here, dozens of times in fact, various quotes of many reputable biologists -- like Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and the 3 authors of the Wiley Online Library article -- who endorse the concept of sexless because there's no functional gonads.

And I've likewise shown you that that is the defacto interpretation in the description of many other species including clownfish, alligators, and various bees and ants.

its why I no longer engage....

You "no longer engage" because you know you don't have a leg to stand on. And don't have enough intellectual honesty to admit it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Its entire response set involves link spamming the same flawed sources over and over.

... about two-thirds of which are links to their own personal blogs and twitter posts, literally referencing themself as if they were an expert.

 

[angrysoba]

Not watched it yet, but it looks like the video of Steve Novella's talk is out...

 

[Elaedith]

Not watched it yet, but it looks like the video of Steve Novella's talk is out...

Yes, it's already been posted under the 'evidence-based podcasts' forum. Perhaps we should go there for a critical discussion, because 'sex is a bimodal spectrum' fans won't come here into this den of blasphemy.

 

[jt512]

Interview yesterday of Jerry Coyne by Piers Morgan, followed by a debate in which Brianna Wu eviscerates radical trans activist.

 

[smartcooky]

Interview yesterday of Jerry Coyne by Piers Morgan, followed by a debate in which Brianna Wu eviscerates radical trans activist.

Eviscerates her/him/it? That wasn't just an evisceration, that was closer to a ritual disembowel with a blunt object.

BriannWu complaining that they don't have adults leading their movement, and that the TRAs are making them look stupid really does comport with what we have been saying here, - that in general, transpeople (including the few that I know personally) have had enough of the complete BS being peddled by radical transgender ideologues.


@Steersman often quotes this Professor Coyne as being an advocate for his bat-**** crazy idea that prepubescent humans, sterile males, and post-menopausal women are sexless - neither male nor female. I wish to call his attention to 15:04 in the video

Prof. Coyne: "There's so many things wrong with what's said. First of all, sex IS binary - we have males and females, they're defined by the type of gametes they produce - sperm versus eggs, or the reproductive apparatus that produce sperm or eggs - if you're a sterile male, you're still a male"

Oh dear old chap. Looks like your Professor Coyne has left the building!!

 

[Rolfe]

Brianna Wu is on a carefully planned mission to have certain vetted and approved males (including him of course) legally permitted to use female-only spaces - just not those horrible people who don't try to pass. Thus the appearance of being on the gender-critical side. It's Debbie Hayton all over again. It's just a different way of gaining acceptance into women's spaces, by appearing to be on the side of women. Don't fall for it.

 

[smartcooky]

Brianna Wu is on a carefully planned mission to have certain vetted and approved males (including him of course) legally permitted to use female-only spaces - just not those horrible people who don't try to pass. Thus the appearance of being on the gender-critical side. It's Debbie Hayton all over again. It's just a different way of gaining acceptance into women's spaces, by appearing to be on the side of women. Don't fall for it.

True, but he still disemboweled the TRA with considerable brutality.

What I would ask is, is he trying to return to the "good old days" when women routinely and quietly accepted/tolerated transvestites into their spaces? If that is all he is trying to achieve, then I could be convinced that might be OK. If it is more than that, well then I would question his motives.

 

[Rolfe]

I think that genie is out of the bottle and unlikely to go back in. Women routinely and quietly tolerated cross-dressing men because on the whole we didn't know what they were like. We know now.

 

[Rolfe]

We've got another live one on Twitter, a woman who is asserting that everyone with a Y chromosome is male and everyone without is female, insisting that Swyer's women are men and DLC men are women. It's a hell of a shouting-match and I bowed out early on. It's the same bone-headed semantic argument as Steersman makes, just over a different point.

 

[jt512]

Good Morning, America! Welcome to Day 1 of the Post-Woke Era.

 

[angrysoba]

Good Morning, America! Welcome to Day 1 of the Post-Woke Era.

Not everyone lives in America, mate. Not yet.

 

[d4m10n]

Good Morning, America! Welcome to Day 1 of the Post-Woke Era.

Godwin's Law but for Drumpf instead of Schicklgruber.

 

[bobdroege7]

Good Morning, America! Welcome to Day 1 of the Post-Woke Era.

Yes, where men are men, and the sheep, cows, steers, and goats know it.

Where marriage is between a man and a woman, where we can pray in school, and an AR-15 in every pot.

 

[d4m10n]

My god can there be no respite from it.

BRB; going to change my signature.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh dear old chap. Looks like your Professor Coyne has left the building!!

By the way, I posted a link to his CSIcon talk which is on topic in this thread.

Thread 'Sex and Race: Handling the Ideological Hot Potatoes | Jerry Coyne at CSICon 2024'

Monday at 3:07 PM

• d4m10n
• Replies: 22
• Forum: Evidence based Podcasts, Youtube Channels etc

 

[Steersman]

We've got another live one on Twitter, a woman who is asserting that everyone with a Y chromosome is male and everyone without is female, insisting that Swyer's women are men and DLC men are women.

You might give her this article to read:

Patients: A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-abstract/93/1/182/2598461

If that woman insists that the Y chromosome is definitive then she has to accept that some men can conceive, gestate a fetus, and give birth. Reductio ad absurdum writ large.

It's a hell of a shouting-match and I bowed out early on. It's the same bone-headed semantic argument as Steersman makes, just over a different point.

Devils in the details. If you don't want to grapple with them then don't be surprised by cases like Tickle vs. Giggle where the "judge" accepted that "Ms." Tickle -- with her brand-spanking new neovagina -- had changed sex:

Transgender woman Roxanne Tickle wins discrimination case after being banned from women-only Giggle for Girls app

Tickle successfully sued social media platform Giggle for Girls with judge stating ‘on its ordinary meaning sex is changeable’

www.theguardian.com

Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960

www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au

It's a matter of definitions, and which one is going to be trump.

 

[Steersman]

<snip>


@Steersman often quotes this Professor Coyne as being an advocate for his bat-**** crazy idea that prepubescent humans, sterile males, and post-menopausal women are sexless - neither male nor female. I wish to call his attention to 15:04 in the video

Prof. Coyne: "There's so many things wrong with what's said. First of all, sex IS binary - we have males and females, they're defined by the type of gametes they produce - sperm versus eggs, or the reproductive apparatus that produce sperm or eggs - if you're a sterile male, you're still a male"

Oh dear old chap. Looks like your Professor Coyne has left the building!!

Think you can answer a question there old sport? Did or did not "Professor Coyne" say:

Those 1/6000 individuals are intersexes, neither male nor female.

SF Chronicle gets biological sex badly wrong

If ever there were a headline designed to get my dander up, it’s this one from a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed (click screenshot below to read, or see it archived here). The author’s se…

whyevolutionistrue.com

I see he's still using the same analogy of "a nickel tossed in the air will wind up on its edge" in the Morgan video as he used in that old (2023) post of his. But the point is that regardless of how wide that "edge" is, he at least accepted the concept of "sexless" there. He's crossed the Rubicon, and is now, at best, talking out of both sides of his mouth.

But you might note that Trump's Executive order on the topic more or less explicitly endorses the standard biological definition for the sexes, and which say absolutely diddly-squat about any "reproductive apparatus":

(d) “Female” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government – The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United

www.whitehouse.gov

Trump Signs Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”

The sweeping order, which defines sex as binary and fixed and seeks to exclude biological males from women's prisons and rape shelters, will inevitably be challenged by multiple lawsuits.

benryan.substack.com

 

[Steersman]

... about two-thirds of which are links to their own personal blogs and twitter posts, literally referencing themself as if they were an expert.

So you collated all of my comments thither and yon and found that two-thirds number? Pics or it didn't happen ...

But you might try getting your head out of the sand and actually look at my blog posts. I'm hardly cutting my argument and conclusions from whole cloth. There are solid and sound epistemological reasons why the mechanisms of actually producing either large gametes or small gametes are taken as the "essence" of, the defining trait for the sex categories as that is what is ubiquitous and common across literally millions of anisogamous species:

Rerum cognoscere causas

Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints

humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com

Why the sexes are taken as "natural kinds":

Muhammad Ali Khalidi, Are sexes natural kinds? - PhilPapers

Asking whether the sexes are natural kinds amounts to asking whether the categories, female and male, identify real divisions in nature, like the distinctions between biological species, or whether they mark ...

philpapers.org

Which even Kathleen Stock endorses in her Material Girls and spends some time and effort elaborating on in some detail:

As most people do, philosophers often distinguish between natural kinds of things and artificial kinds of things, known as ‘artefacts’. Artefacts, unlike natural objects, tend to be thought of as existing only as a result of human intentions [spears, knives, bowls, chairs, etc. [pg. 71]

 

[smartcooky]

Yes, where men are men, and the sheep, cows, steers, and goats know it.

Where marriage is between a man and a woman, where we can pray in school, and an AR-15 in every pot.

This would have to be one of the most stupid, irrelevant statements you have made. None of any of this has to do with the transgender issues

 

[Rolfe]

Think you can answer a question there old sport? Did or did not "Professor Coyne" say:

SF Chronicle gets biological sex badly wrong

If ever there were a headline designed to get my dander up, it’s this one from a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed (click screenshot below to read, or see it archived here). The author’s se…

whyevolutionistrue.com

I see he's still using the same analogy of "a nickel tossed in the air will wind up on its edge" in the Morgan video as he used in that old (2023) post of his. But the point is that regardless of how wide that "edge" is, he at least accepted the concept of "sexless" there. He's crossed the Rubicon, and is now, at best, talking out of both sides of his mouth.

But you might note that Trump's Executive order on the topic more or less explicitly endorses the standard biological definition for the sexes, and which say absolutely diddly-squat about any "reproductive apparatus":

Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government – The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 7301 of title 5, United

www.whitehouse.gov

Trump Signs Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to Federal Government”

The sweeping order, which defines sex as binary and fixed and seeks to exclude biological males from women's prisons and rape shelters, will inevitably be challenged by multiple lawsuits.

benryan.substack.com

Steersman, if you seriously think the definitions in that executive order mean that around a third of the US population is now categorised as "sexless", well, there isn't enough popcorn in the world.

 

[smartcooky]

Steersman, if you seriously think the definitions in that executive order mean that around a third of the US population is now categorised as "sexless", well, there isn't enough popcorn in the world.

Yup. Doubling down on stupid.... as usual

 

[Rolfe]

Here's the relevant part of the order.



It's very clear that the population is being divided into exactly two groups, not three. No reference at all is made to any individuals who are not male or female. The references to "girl" and "boy" specifically include immature individuals who do not ovulate or produce sperm. (I'm still not sure how Steersman classes girls and women though, given that baby girls are born with all the ova they will ever have - they don't produce them because they already produced them in utero. I have a vague recollection that he shifted the goalpost to ovulation.)

The references to "at conception" make it very clear that individuals are considered to be male or female from that point, not when they start producing viable ova or sperm. Again, the grammar of "the sex that produces..." is perfectly clear to everyone except Steersman.

I note that the classification includes individuals with DSDs who were incorrectly registered at birth as their true sex, not "sex recorded at birth". I would doubt there are many 5ARD boys in America who are misregistered as girls, but that definition makes them boys even if that were to happen.

 

[d4m10n]

This would have to be one of the most stupid, irrelevant statements you have made. None of any of this has to do with the transgender issues

Which are not even the topic at hand, really.

This thread is about whether sex is binary or not.

 

[ahhell]

My god can there be no respite from it.

BRB; going to change my signature.

Can we get a subforum where its forbidden to bring up Trump?

 

[Rolfe]

Well, too bad, but this is absolutely directly relevant to this thread. I can't see what would be more relevant in fact, than the President of the USA issuing a strict definition of make and female.