[Merged] Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

You keep on saying this. It is wrong. The fact that a handful of biologists hold this view is irrelevant.

In your entirely unevidenced opinion.

The overwhelming number of biologists do not hold the view that prepubescent children are sexless.

What does the Oxford Dictionary of Biology say?

https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)

Just because a bunch of so-called biologists haven't gotten the memo doesn't change the fact that it was sent out -- and by some very reputable sources indeed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, it is. Much of the "arguments" from transactivists are based on denying the biological definitions for the sexes. Which is what you're also doing.

Pots and kettles; motes and beams.

If that's what you think I'm doing, you haven't been paying any attention at all. I'm completely on board with a biological definition. Always have been. But you aren't helping with that, at all. Just stop. We all know the distinction between male and female humans, it's not a mystery.

 

[Steersman]

Again, the article you linked to states:

Quote:
Hence, as an operational “definition” it may be justified to call it a “male embryo.”

You left that part out. Are you suggesting that any person not currently capable of producing gametes is neither male nor female?

Not "suggesting" at all. I'm flatly stating that those incapable of producing gametes "right now" are neither male nor female, that they are sexless. As does that Wiley Online Library article by a couple of actual biologists:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

As for "male embryo", do you seriously think that a "female brain" -- sitting there in a vat all by its lonesome -- is an actual female? That, even by folk-biology definitions, it has a reproductive system that is potentially, currently, or previously able to produce ova?

"female brain" and "male embryo" mean ONLY the brain OF a female, or the embryo OF a male. Or typical of such individuals. Not that they are females or males in themselves.

Fairly decent article in Weekly Worker -- of all places -- by Amanda MacLean that emphasizes the point:

Decoupled from reality
Genderist ideology is based on flawed science and worse logic, argues Amanda MacLean

https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1247/decoupled-from-reality/

Of particular note:

Reductionist disciplines that look at different parts of organisms - such as genes, tissues, physiology or neurobiology - use the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ as shorthand for ‘of males/females’ or ‘typical of males/females’.

Further:

We identify traits like chromosomes or hormone profiles as typical of male or female by first dividing the population into male or female categories on the basis of other characteristics. Having made that distinction, we can then compare the two groups and ask questions about how and why they differ. Thus, the reason we call the XX chromosome combination ‘female’ and XY ‘male’ is because each genotype usually plays an important role in determining the development of male or female anatomy, and thus is very closely associated with those sexes. But the reason we can say this is that we first divided the population into males and females, using other criteria, before checking what chromosomes they had.

"male chromosomes" are most certainly NOT males in themselves; they're ONLY the chromosomes OF males or typical of them.

 

[sphenisc]

The debate about trans rights in public policy would be very different if it were about giving newly hatched clownfish access to women's restrooms.

I'd be in favour, partly for the inclusivity but mainly for the palindrome.






NEMO/WOMEN

 

[Steersman]

If that's what you think I'm doing, you haven't been paying any attention at all. I'm completely on board with a biological definition. Always have been. But you aren't helping with that, at all. Just stop. We all know the distinction between male and female humans, it's not a mystery.

Horse feathers. You clearly haven't a flaming clue what the actual biological definitions are -- the ones published by reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias.

You might actually try reading them, this one for example:

Lehtonen: “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 [present tense] the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972)” [my emphasis]

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1

 

[theprestige]

I'd be in favour, partly for the inclusivity but mainly for the palindrome.






NEMO/WOMEN

Suddenly I want to identify as a clownfish.

 

[Emily's Cat]

However, in some related news, I see that the tweet that is the basis for the screen-shot of Emma Hilton's definitions for the sexes that you started this thread with has apparently been deleted:

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554

It's still there. You have to log in to see it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You don't seem to have a flaming clue about the principles undergirding biology. The definitions HAVE to work for ALL anisogamous species -- no exceptions.

Emily's Cat made a categorical statement about the sexes which is flatly untrue, so much arrant nonsense and quite antiscientific claptrap:

I'll reference the source that YOU provided:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

Biological sex reflects two distinct evolutionary strategies to produce offspring: the female strategy is to produce few large gametes and the male strategy is to produce many small (and often motile) gametes. This fundamental definition is valid for all sexually reproducing organisms.

With respect to your prior quote:

Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] 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. However, with a reasonably high probability we can predict this embryo to be on a developmental trajectory that will lead to becoming a reproductively competent (sperm producing) male. Hence, as an operational “definition” it may be justified to call it a “male embryo.”

I've added the portion that you left out. I'll also add some additional commentary to this.

Among humans, embryos before about 6 weeks in have an undifferentiated reproductive system. The embryo at that stage has undifferentiated gonads, as well as the preliminary elements for both fallopian tubes and sperm ducts and several other elements. At that stage, sexual differentiation takes place, and the embryo follows either a mullerian path or a wolffian path. In a mullerian path, the preliminary ductwork for a male reproductive system atrophy, and the female system develops; in a wolffian path the vestigial female elements atrophy and the male system develops.

If you want to get super duper technical, I'd be willing to concede that prior to the sixth week of development, a human embryo has no sex.

After that stage, however, we must fall back to the definition provided by your source: it's based on the reproductive strategy. And that reproductive strategy is expressed via the type of reproductive system that develops. We develop either a male system (that associated with the production of sperm) or a female system (that associated with the production of ova).

 

[Steersman]

It's still there. You have to log in to see it.

You sure? I can see other tweets from Emma without logging -- like this one:

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154

But that one about the UK Times gives me "Hmm...this page doesn’t exist. Try searching for something else."

https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554

If it's there then I'd appreciate a screen-shot of it.

 

[Roboramma]

I'll reference the source that YOU provided:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R


With respect to your prior quote:

I've added the portion that you left out. I'll also add some additional commentary to this.

Among humans, embryos before about 6 weeks in have an undifferentiated reproductive system. The embryo at that stage has undifferentiated gonads, as well as the preliminary elements for both fallopian tubes and sperm ducts and several other elements. At that stage, sexual differentiation takes place, and the embryo follows either a mullerian path or a wolffian path. In a mullerian path, the preliminary ductwork for a male reproductive system atrophy, and the female system develops; in a wolffian path the vestigial female elements atrophy and the male system develops.

If you want to get super duper technical, I'd be willing to concede that prior to the sixth week of development, a human embryo has no sex.

After that stage, however, we must fall back to the definition provided by your source: it's based on the reproductive strategy. And that reproductive strategy is expressed via the type of reproductive system that develops. We develop either a male system (that associated with the production of sperm) or a female system (that associated with the production of ova).

/thread

 

[Steersman]

I'll reference the source that YOU provided:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.202200173?af=R

With respect to your prior quote:

Quote:
Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage.[33] 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. However, with a reasonably high probability we can predict this embryo to be on a developmental trajectory that will lead to becoming a reproductively competent (sperm producing) male. Hence, as an operational “definition” it may be justified to call it a “male embryo.”

I've added the portion that you left out.

"reasonably high probability" -- all that they are saying is that some markers typical of particular "developmental trajectories" -- hormones and genitalia for examples -- qualify as "proxy variables". They correlate to a high degree with being "reproductively competent". But proxies are still NOT the same as the variable they're linked to, are STILL not the criteria for actual category membership:

In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)

A great many people -- including many biologists -- are unclear on that concept. You might want to take a gander at Griffiths PhilArchives post -- "What are biological sexes?" -- for his discussion of "operational definitions" which is what those proxies boil down into or are equivalent to. See:

https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on scientific realism, written by Richard Boyd, indicates that the modern concept owes its origin in part to Percy Williams Bridgman, who felt that the expression of scientific concepts was often abstract and unclear. Inspired by Ernst Mach, in 1914 Bridgman attempted to redefine unobservable entities concretely in terms of the physical and mental operations used to measure them.

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

Not easy to see the state of our gonads -- generally "unobservable" -- so we "operationalize" the concept by using traits that correlate with them. In many cases they're adequate, but they are STILL NOT the criteria for sex category membership, at least by the strict biological definitions thereof.

I'll also add some additional commentary to this.

Among humans, embryos before about 6 weeks in have an undifferentiated reproductive system. ...

If you want to get super duper technical, I'd be willing to concede that prior to the sixth week of development, a human embryo has no sex.

Many thanks as that "human embryo has no sex" is the crux of the matter, the whole ball game. "Yuge" in fact ...

A great many people -- "biologist" Jerry Coyne in particular -- are dogmatically insisting that every last one of us is male or female from conception to death which obscures what are the actual criteria for sex category membership. Most people seem to view "sexless" on par with "Voldemort", although I see that Colin Wright, in the recent kerfuffle over Ian Copeland, tweeted that "sexless" is at least "theoretically" possible:

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/ian-copeland-is-confused-about-the

Though not sure where I saw that particular tweet of his and I don't have access to that RLS post of his.

But I understand that you, in effect, favour Hilton's definitions -- "gonads of past, present, or future functionality" -- but what type of gonads do newly hatched clownfish have? Even those that are older but are still producing neither type of gamete? If human embryos, at least before 6 weeks, have "undifferentiated reproductive systems" and thereby qualify as "sexless" then why shouldn't that be the case for clownfish before they're "reproductively competent"?

Wikipedia's old article on "Sequential Hermaphroditism" -- at least before some feminists devotees of Judith Butler got their dirty mitts on it -- accepted that perspective:

Wikipedia: "If the female dies, the male gains weight and BECOMES the female for that group. The largest non-breeding fish then sexually matures and BECOMES the male of the group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequential_hermaphroditism&oldid=890717544

Can't "become" a male if it is a male right from the moment of hatching as the current version insists is the case.

But that's the reason for making functional gonads as the sine qua non for sex category membership. You in particular might want to take close look at Griffiths' paper on that score, and also the article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, although much of it is outside my own salary range:

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary for the definitions)

After that stage, however, we must fall back to the definition provided by your source: it's based on the reproductive strategy. And that reproductive strategy is expressed via the type of reproductive system that develops. We develop either a male system (that associated with the production of sperm) or a female system (that associated with the production of ova).

My source is still using Griffiths' "life-history stage" definition -- the same ones published by Springer, Molecular Human Reproduction, and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology -- whence the "yet". But what you're "falling back on" is still only the proxies for the "necessary and sufficient" criteria for sex category membership, i.e., functional gonads.

And, for example, "male reproductive strategy" is STILL only the reproductive strategies OF males. "male reproductive strategy" is, as I've argued above, like "female brains" and "male embryos" -- they're not male and female in themselves. It can't be a "male reproductive strategy" if it's not implemented by an actual male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"reasonably high probability" -- all that they are saying is that some markers typical of particular "developmental trajectories" -- hormones and genitalia for examples -- qualify as "proxy variables". They correlate to a high degree with being "reproductively competent". But proxies are still NOT the same as the variable they're linked to, are STILL not the criteria for actual category membership:

I guarantee I don't need a lecture on statistics from you. The fact that all you can manage to do is to link to random crap on the internet instead of being able to explain the concepts and inform people of them on your own makes it very highly probably that you have nothing more than a passing familiarity with statistics.

Many thanks as that "human embryo has no sex" is the crux of the matter, the whole ball game. "Yuge" in fact ... ����

A great many people -- "biologist" Jerry Coyne in particular -- are dogmatically insisting that every last one of us is male or female from conception to death which obscures what are the actual criteria for sex category membership. Most people seem to view "sexless" on par with "Voldemort", although I see that Colin Wright, in the recent kerfuffle over Ian Copeland, tweeted that "sexless" is at least "theoretically" possible

And here's the crux of the problem with your approach: WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Why do you think it's so incredibly important that human embryos prior to the 6th week have a bipotential sex? What's the relevance to any topic at all? Why is it important to you?

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/ian-copeland-is-confused-about-the

Though not sure where I saw that particular tweet of his and I don't have access to that RLS post of his.

But I understand that you, in effect, favour Hilton's definitions -- "gonads of past, present, or future functionality" -- but what type of gonads do newly hatched clownfish have? Even those that are older but are still producing neither type of gamete? If human embryos, at least before 6 weeks, have "undifferentiated reproductive systems" and thereby qualify as "sexless" then why shouldn't that be the case for clownfish before they're "reproductively competent"?

Wikipedia's old article on "Sequential Hermaphroditism" -- at least before some feminists devotees of Judith Butler got their dirty mitts on it -- accepted that perspective:



https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sequential_hermaphroditism&oldid=890717544

Can't "become" a male if it is a male right from the moment of hatching as the current version insists is the case.

But that's the reason for making functional gonads as the sine qua non for sex category membership. You in particular might want to take close look at Griffiths' paper on that score, and also the article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, although much of it is outside my own salary range:

https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary for the definitions)



My source is still using Griffiths' "life-history stage" definition -- the same ones published by Springer, Molecular Human Reproduction, and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology -- whence the "yet". But what you're "falling back on" is still only the proxies for the "necessary and sufficient" criteria for sex category membership, i.e., functional gonads.

And, for example, "male reproductive strategy" is STILL only the reproductive strategies OF males. "male reproductive strategy" is, as I've argued above, like "female brains" and "male embryos" -- they're not male and female in themselves. It can't be a "male reproductive strategy" if it's not implemented by an actual male.

I've noticed that you seem to get extremely bogged down on the technicalities of the words chosen to express an idea, rather than taking that additional step of understanding the concept itself.

For example, you read "reproductively competent" and you interpret that as meaning "actively produces gametes right this moment". The problem is that your interpretation adds a layer of specificity that isn't actually there. This leads you to the errant conclusion that female children don't have a sex, or that males who have lost their testicles due to injury or illness are no longer males. But that's not true at all. In the context in which it's being used, "reproductively competent" means "having developed the system associated with reproduction". Thus, a fetus of 3 months gestation would be considered reproductively competent because they've developed the reproductive system of one sex or the other. A menopausal female is still considered reproductively competent, because they developed the reproductive system of a female human. An infertile male, within this context, is still reproductively competent, because they have the reproductive system of a male.

Consider - your home is "water delivery competent". It has all of the plumbing necessary to deliver water, as well as to remove waste water. If one of your pipes break, that doesn't make your home incompetent - it merely makes it momentarily nonfunctional. If your faucet gets clogged up and no longer issues water, that doesn't mean your home is incompetent, it' just means something needs fixed. Your home, on the whole, is still water delivery competent - even when it's not currently delivering water, and even when something is broken.

You're doing the same thing with "male reproductive strategy". You're getting stuck on the order of the words, and you're missing the concept at play. You're interpreting is as "the reproductive strategy used by males" and you're attributing a degree of choice and sentience to it. But that's not what the concept itself means. In fact, you actually touch on what the concept means yourself: "And, for example, "male reproductive strategy" is STILL only the reproductive strategies OF males." That's pretty much what it means - it's the evolutionary strategy (which does not require any intelligence or sentience at all) that is in place in the group of critters that are males.

Here's where your lack of deeper comprehension leads to a misunderstanding on your part. If you had a better grounding in how the sexes evolved, and why we have two sexes in the overwhelming majority of life-forms on the planet, you would not get caught up on the order of the words.

Interestingly, the dynamic by which we end up with most life-forms reproducing via the merging of two different genetic strains is statistical in nature. So is the fact that the vast majority of those that reproduce this way do so via two sexes. They both boil down to the probabilities of 1) passing along non-harmful genes and mitigating the impact of harmful mutations and 2) finding a reproductively compatible mate and 3) using bodily resources in an efficient method that increases the likelihood of a successful genetic merge occurring and developing to fruition. At the end of the day, it's a massive pachinko machine, and sexual reproduction with two different sized gametes is the optimal path.

 

[Elaedith]

"reasonably high probability" -- all that they are saying is that some markers typical of particular "developmental trajectories" -- hormones and genitalia for examples -- qualify as "proxy variables". They correlate to a high degree with being "reproductively competent". But proxies are still NOT the same as the variable they're linked to, are STILL not the criteria for actual category membership:

You still haven't explained what the point of this is. For a species that is gonochoric the sex class and individual is in will not change and can be identified regardless of the production of gametes. Most of the time, in social and in scientific contexts, this is more relevant than current gamete production. As I said before, if you change insist the meanings of 'male' and 'female' to refer to only those who currently produce gametes (which cannot easily be determined in many cases) you render the terms useless in almost all circumstances, and we would immediately need new terms to replace them. Instead, where gamete production is relevant we can refer to fertile males and females.

 

[Steersman]

You still haven't explained what the point of this is.

Good "question", the $64,000 one in fact. Though I've already sort of answered it in several different ways.

But the short answer is that a whole bunch of ostensibly or previously credible newsmagazines -- like Nature and "Scientific" American -- are busily engaged in corrupting the biological definitions by insisting that sex is a spectrum. See my "Binarists Vs. Spectrumists" post for details:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists

But physicist Sean Carroll somewhat recently argued -- with some justification -- that those biological definitions were mere "terms of art" within biology, and shouldn't have much if any bearing in social circumstances:

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-recap-524

Rather amused to note that the author, Colin Wright -- he of the letter to the UK Times that started this thread topic -- rather dogmatically and quite hypocritically insisted that "Biological sex is real, immutable, and binary" since it conflicts with his later tweet that "sexless" is "theoretically possible". Hardly "immutable" then is it?

But the point there is that the only definitions for the sexes that are philosophically, biologically, and logically tenable are the biological ones. If one abandons that position right out of the chute -- as Wright and Hilton and their ilk are doing -- then they hardly have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to the bearing biology has on other issues -- like gender and transwomen in women's sports, toilets, and change rooms.

For a species that is gonochoric the sex class and individual is in will not change and can be identified regardless of the production of gametes.

That is very much a conclusion that crucially depends on the premises you start out with. And clearly, you're most certainly not using the standard biological definitions as they lead to a very different conclusion -- notably that the prepubescent and transwomen who cut their nuts off are, in fact, sexless.

Just exactly how are you any different from Nature and Scientific American and their ilk in bastardizing and corrupting those biological definitions?

Most of the time, in social and in scientific contexts, this is more relevant than current gamete production. As I said before, if you change insist the meanings of 'male' and 'female' to refer to only those who currently produce gametes (which cannot easily be determined in many cases) you render the terms useless in almost all circumstances, and we would immediately need new terms to replace them. Instead, where gamete production is relevant we can refer to fertile males and females.

That IS sort of the points made by both Carroll and Griffiths: sex category membership -- however you define the terms, strictly or (sloppily) loosely -- is largely irrelevant to adjudicating access to things like sports and toilets. For example, see Griffiths' "Sex is real", these bits in particular:

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

On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake.

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

But more appropriate criteria in such cases are karyotypes or genitalia. But most people -- mostly women for some strange unfathomable reason ... -- object to changing the definition for "woman" accordingly. A better bet, as I've argued, is "adult human vagina-haver" or, genuflecting to Emma and Company, "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality".

Definitions aren't cast in concrete, they're not gospel truth; there are often sound reasons for them or for changing them.

But as long as "we" are unproductively engaged in squabbling over such definitions so long will "we" be unable to address and resolve those problems. The biological definitions are something of a line in the sand, a way of separating wheat and chaff, the only way off the horns of a "problematic" social dilemma.

 

[Steersman]

I guarantee I don't need a lecture on statistics from you. The fact that all you can manage to do is to link to random crap on the internet instead of being able to explain the concepts and inform people of them on your own makes it very highly probably that you have nothing more than a passing familiarity with statistics.

Seems rather moot -- you don't seem to have much of a handle on the difference between proxies and the "unobservable or immeasurable variables" that qualify as "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)

Nor do you seem to have much of a handle on the philosophical, biological, and logical principles which undergird your discipline. Though, to be fair, that problem seems rather common in your profession. Apropos of which, you might reflect on this article and quote from Marc Van Regenmortel, a very well-regarded Belgian virologist -- hardly chopped liver:

Regenmortel: "Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students."

https://www.researchgate.net/public...tes_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species

And here's the crux of the problem with your approach: WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Why do you think it's so incredibly important that human embryos prior to the 6th week have a bipotential sex? What's the relevance to any topic at all? Why is it important to you?

I think my recent response to Elaedith is an adequate answer to that.

But somewhat more briefly, I don't think you have a clue about the problems that a general scientific illiteracy is creating. Not least of which is the dogmatic insistence that "sex is immutable!!11!!" which your own endorsement of "sexless" repudiates.

As a few "amusing" cases in point, see Yale's [?] "Every Cell Has a Sex: X and Y and the Future of Health Care" and NCBI's own "Every Cell Has a Sex":

https://medicine.yale.edu/ycci/news...-a-sex-x-and-y-and-the-future-of-health-care/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222291/

You seriously think that that is the case, that every cell has a sex? That's what sloppy and ideologically motivated "science" leads to.

I've noticed that you seem to get extremely bogged down on the technicalities of the words chosen to express an idea, rather than taking that additional step of understanding the concept itself. For example, you read "reproductively competent" and you interpret that as meaning "actively produces gametes right this moment".

The devils are in the details. Which you and too many others seem bound and determined to sweep under the carpet. In particular, "reproductively competent" -- i.e., producing gametes right now, or regularly -- IS what the definitions SAY.

And it is a crucially important distinction, sex being all about reproduction -- which Emma's definitions more or less preclude. Unless you can explain how non-functional gonads are conducive to that ...

You might take a gander at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on mechanisms -- processes, not structures alone -- for some justifications of those biological definitions:

Machamer, Darden and Craver’s “Thinking about Mechanisms” (Machamer, Darden, and Craver 2000; familiarly known as “MDC”) drew these strands together and became for many the lightening rod of the new mechanist perspective. MDC suggested that the philosophy of biology, and perhaps the philosophy of science more generally, should be restructured around the fundamental idea that many scientists organize their work around the search for mechanisms.

https://plato.stanford.edu/Archives/win2021/entries/science-mechanisms/

Biologically speaking, the sexes are DEFINED as processes -- mechanisms, not "identities", much less "immutable" ones.

 

[Paul2]

You still haven't explained what the point of this is. For a species that is gonochoric the sex class and individual is in will not change and can be identified regardless of the production of gametes. Most of the time, in social and in scientific contexts, this is more relevant than current gamete production. As I said before, if you change insist the meanings of 'male' and 'female' to refer to only those who currently produce gametes (which cannot easily be determined in many cases) you render the terms useless in almost all circumstances, and we would immediately need new terms to replace them. Instead, where gamete production is relevant we can refer to fertile males and females.

The highlight above is the crux, for me. Requiring current production of gametes for the definition of the sexes adds no value for distinguishing between males and females that isn't present with merely considering gamete type - whether currently in production or not. Requiring current gamete production for the definition of the sex is, in that sense, superfluous.

 

[Steersman]

The highlight above is the crux, for me. Requiring current production of gametes for the definition of the sexes adds no value for distinguishing between males and females that isn't present with merely considering gamete type - whether currently in production or not. Requiring current gamete production for the definition of the sex is, in that sense, superfluous.

Nope. Nope, nope, nope ... Don't think you really read much of what I'd written.

But what sex is a recently hatched clownfish? It may eventually produce both types of gametes. Is it male AND female? Massive amounts of research characterizing them as SEQUENTIAL hermaphrodites is now suspect if not cause for anathematization. As I've pointed out before.

Or how about a human embryo -- under 6 weeks of age as per Emily, or her cat?

The issue is the criteria we are going to use to qualify individuals as members of particular categories, the sexes in particular.

As long as people are blathering on about how sex is "immutable", that question remains germane if not crucial.

 

[Paul2]

Nope. Nope, nope, nope ... Don't think you really read much of what I'd written.

Nolo contendere.

But what sex is a recently hatched clownfish? It may eventually produce both types of gametes. Is it male AND female? Massive amounts of research characterizing them as SEQUENTIAL hermaphrodites is now suspect if not cause for anathematization. As I've pointed out before.

I've read a biologist - who shall remain nameless, but whose name rhymes with Kerry Joyne - who says that it is useful to distinguish between (1) the definition of sexes in biology - from which the sex binary comes from, as there are only two gamete types, and not a third, and (2) determining the sex of some individual, which may present a mixed situation or one that doesn't lend itself to quick and easy determinations.

Or how about a human embryo -- under 6 weeks of age as per Emily, or her cat?

See above

The issue is the criteria we are going to use to qualify individuals as members of particular categories, the sexes in particular.

As long as people are blathering on about how sex is "immutable", that question remains germane if not crucial.

Ironically, what part of your post to me addresses any of the particulars that I said, in contrast to merely presenting arguments against my position?

 

[Steersman]

Nolo contendere.

Bit unreasonable to try busting my chops if you haven't read the arguments ...

I've read a biologist - who shall remain nameless, but whose name rhymes with Kerry Joyne - who says that it is useful to distinguish between (1) the definition of sexes in biology - from which the sex binary comes from, as there are only two gamete types, and not a third, and (2) determining the sex of some individual, which may present a mixed situation or one that doesn't lend itself to quick and easy determinations.

LoL. Kinda think that "Kerry" is also clueless about the difference between proxy variables and defining ones. And a great many other points of more than passing relevance -- something he shares with many of his equally clueless commentariat:

“Sex is never determined at conception.”

That’s just wrong. Sex in people is determined at conception, absolutely and immutably. .... In people, sex is binary and immutable. Period.

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/04/sf-chronicle-sex-and-gender-are-not-binaries/

Emily, or her cat, may wish to weigh-in on that conversation ...

However, I'm amused to note that "Kerry" seems to accept that some of us at least are neither male nor female, i.e., "sexless":

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

He may wish to have a word or two with one "Zach Elliott" who's clearly quite peeved at exclusion of the intersex from the exalted estates of "male" and "female":

Zachary Elliott @zaelefty
Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes.

https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1592711689438662656

Since when do "morally problematic claims" trump scientific principles, theories, and facts? Galileo, Darwin, his "bulldog" (T.H. Huxley) are rolling over in their graves.

But "Kerry" is quite justified in arguing that, by definition, "Biological sex is binary", but he hasn't yet, apparently, realized that not all binaries are exhaustive. He's clearly admitted that by his "1/6000" so the issue is only whether that percentage is justified. And, by standard biological definitions, it ain't -- I figure about a third of us, at any one time, are in that boat.

Ironically, what part of your post to me addresses any of the particulars that I said, in contrast to merely presenting arguments against my position?

??? Kinda think my earlier response covers it:

Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
For a species that is gonochoric the sex class and individual is in will not change and can be identified regardless of the production of gametes. ...

That is very much a conclusion that crucially depends on the premises you start out with. And clearly, you're most certainly not using the standard biological definitions as they lead to a very different conclusion -- notably that the prepubescent and transwomen who cut their nuts off are, in fact, sexless.

Just exactly how are you any different from Nature and Scientific American and their ilk in bastardizing and corrupting those biological definitions?

Clearly, neither Elaedith nor "Kerry" are working from the biological definitions -- the latter at least while claiming -- rather fraudulently -- that he has the high ground on that point.

 

[smartcooky]

And here's the crux of the problem with your approach: WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Why do you think it's so incredibly important that human embryos prior to the 6th week have a bipotential sex? What's the relevance to any topic at all? Why is it important to you?

I've noticed that you seem to get extremely bogged down on the technicalities of the words chosen to express an idea, rather than taking that additional step of understanding the concept itself.

The bogging down is intentional - it is a ploy used by TRAs who are desperate to introduce confusion and complication into something that is very, very simple. This confusion and complication in their arguments is not a bug, its a feature, one that people like Steerman promote to further their agenda.

In humans, there two, and only two types of gametes - large gametes and small gametes. There is no third or intermediate type of gamete.

In humans, large gametes are produced exclusively by females of the species, who never produce small gametes. Large gametes are never produced by males of the species. Only females can produce large gametes.

In humans, small gametes are produced exclusively by males of the species, who never produce large gametes, and small gametes are never produced by females of the species. Only males can produce small gametes.

In humans, since there are two, and only two types of gametes (an indisputable scientific fact), and since they are produced exclusively by each of two sexes in the species (another scientific fact), neither of which produces the only other type of gametes (yet another scientific fact) then the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, is that there are only two sexes.

Now, Steersman can bring up all the junk-science, pseudo-biology and other inane claptrap he wants to about clownfish, alligators and embryos. Its is all entirely irrelevant, and plays no part whatsoever in the discussion.
‎
‎

 

[theprestige]

The bogging down is intentional - it is a ploy used by TRAs who are desperate to introduce confusion and complication into something that is very, very simple.‎

I don't think Steersman is a TRA, though. Rather quite the opposite. He just seems to be dialing in on some irrelevant detail and insisting that no practical questions can be asked or answered until this detail is addressed to his satisfaction. Completely antagonistic to the fact that society at large has already moved on from that detail and answered the practical questions just fine.

 

[smartcooky]

Bit unreasonable to try busting my chops if you haven't read the arguments ...

Members here don't read your arguments because they are dog-turds that form part of your fringe reset - they are the same dog-turds you have argued before - they were dog-turds then, and they are still dog-turds now. All you have done is polish them, and dressed them up in new clothes.

 

[smartcooky]

I don't think Steersman is a TRA, though. Rather quite the opposite. He just seems to be dialing in on some irrelevant detail and insisting that no practical questions can be asked or answered until this detail is addressed to his satisfaction. Completely antagonistic to the fact that society at large has already moved on from that detail and answered the practical questions just fine.

I am an adherent of "duck theory".

In this case, if it

- sounds like a TRA
- argues like a TRA
- makes the same points as a TRA
- links to the same sources as a TRA

.... then it is probably a TRA

 

[theprestige]

Sometimes it's a duck billed platypus

 

[Steersman]

I don't think Steersman is a TRA, though. Rather quite the opposite. He just seems to be dialing in on some irrelevant detail and insisting that no practical questions can be asked or answered until this detail is addressed to his satisfaction. Completely antagonistic to the fact that society at large has already moved on from that detail and answered the practical questions just fine.

Thanks. Though hardly "irrelevant detail". Devils in the details and all that.

If "we" can't even agree on what it means to be "male" and "female", what are the "necessary and sufficient criteria" to qualify as such then I doubt we're going to be able to resolve any problems that turn on them.

And the ONLY definitions that have ANY credibility or justification at all are the biological ones. As much as they may "offend" many on both, on all sides.

 

[smartcooky]

Thanks. Though hardly "irrelevant detail". Devils in the details and all that.

If "we" can't even agree on what it means to be "male" and "female", what are the "necessary and sufficient criteria" to qualify as such then I doubt we're going to be able to resolve any problems that turn on them.
And the ONLY definitions that have ANY credibility or justification at all are the biological ones. As much as they may "offend" many on both, on all sides.

"We" don't have any trouble understanding what male and female are or how to define them. Its you who seems to be one of the very few here who have a problem.

 

[Paul2]

Bit unreasonable to try busting my chops if you haven't read the arguments ...

I didn't think I was, and I certainly was not trying to. Sorry if it came off that way.

LoL. Kinda think that "Kerry" is also clueless about the difference between proxy variables and defining ones. And a great many other points of more than passing relevance -- something he shares with many of his equally clueless commentariat:

That he might be clueless about other things doesn't address what he said about the distinction between defining sex and determining the sex of an individual. Do you have an opinion about that distinction?

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/04/sf-chronicle-sex-and-gender-are-not-binaries/

Emily, or her cat, may wish to weigh-in on that conversation ...

However, I'm amused to note that "Kerry" seems to accept that some of us at least are neither male nor female, i.e., "sexless":



He may wish to have a word or two with one "Zach Elliott" who's clearly quite peeved at exclusion of the intersex from the exalted estates of "male" and "female":


https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1592711689438662656

Since when do "morally problematic claims" trump scientific principles, theories, and facts? Galileo, Darwin, his "bulldog" (T.H. Huxley) are rolling over in their graves.

But "Kerry" is quite justified in arguing that, by definition, "Biological sex is binary", but he hasn't yet, apparently, realized that not all binaries are exhaustive. He's clearly admitted that by his "1/6000" so the issue is only whether that percentage is justified.

He compares it to the odds of flipping a nickel and having it land on its edge - which will about at about the same rate as intersex - but no one ever calls, "heads, tails, or edge?" By that standard, we have a binary.

But hasn't Emily Cat also posted here that the large majority of intersex have only one type of gamete?

And, by standard biological definitions, it ain't -- I figure about a third of us, at any one time, are in that boat.

But that's using the definition of sex to include currently producing gametes, see below.

??? Kinda think my earlier response covers it:

Sorry, I was looking for that point in a reply from you to my post. Anyway. . . .

Clearly, neither Elaedith nor "Kerry" are working from the biological definitions -- the latter at least while claiming -- rather fraudulently -- that he has the high ground on that point.

I still haven't seen a rebuttal to this point, sorry if I missed it:

For a species that is gonochoric the sex class and individual is in will not change and can be identified regardless of the production of gametes. Most of the time, in social and in scientific contexts, this is more relevant than current gamete production. As I said before, if you change insist the meanings of 'male' and 'female' to refer to only those who currently produce gametes (which cannot easily be determined in many cases) you render the terms useless in almost all circumstances, and we would immediately need new terms to replace them. Instead, where gamete production is relevant we can refer to fertile males and females.

 

[Steersman]

"We" don't have any trouble understanding what male and female are or how to define them. Its you who seems to be one of the very few here who have a problem.

Well bully for you. You seem to "think" -- if anything you've said qualifies as evidence of that -- that your definitions should be taken as gospel truth.

The issue is that several so-called science magazines are peddling other definitions for the sexes as spectra. And that much more reputable sources are arguing, with far more justification, that they're anything but "immutable".

I rather doubt you qualify as a biologist, much less a reputable one.

 

[Steersman]

That he might be clueless about other things doesn't address what he said about the distinction between defining sex and determining the sex of an individual. Do you have an opinion about that distinction?

You don't seem to be paying attention. See my comments about the differences between proxy and defining variables, and about operational definitions.

He compares it to the odds of flipping a nickel and having it land on its edge - which will about at about the same rate as intersex - but no one ever calls, "heads, tails, or edge?" By that standard, we have a binary.

I'm NOT disputing the binary. Only that everyone has to be in it. Most people don't seem to have a flaming clue that the sex categories are not exhaustive, that there are individuals who are neither male nor female. All that "male" and "female" denote is the ability to produce EITHER sperm OR ova, but many produce NEITHER.

Even "Kerry" acknowledged that by his assertion that SOME intersex are "NEITHER male NOR female" -- i.e., sexLESS. Although I think he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

But hasn't Emily Cat also posted here that the large majority of intersex have only one type of gamete?

So what? The issue is those who produce neither, and putting them into some category -- i.e., "sexless".

But that's using the definition of sex to include currently producing gametes, see below.

Yes. And that IS the standard biological definition. Do you dispute that or not?

People don't get to make up their own definitions. If you say otherwise then you have to accept those peddled by Nature and Scientific American.

I still haven't seen a rebuttal to this point, sorry if I missed it:

Again, I don't think you're paying attention as I think I have "rebutted" it. Elaedith asserted that "the sex class and individual is in will not change", but, as I said, that "conclusion" is contingent on how we define the sexes. And by the standard biological definitions -- and even by Emily's and "Kerry's" concessions -- there are objective criteria that MUST be met to qualify as members of the sex categories.

And in the former case -- the standard biological definitions -- to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types. Transwomen who cut their nuts off then lose their membership cards in the "male" sex category -- their "sex class HAS changed". Q.E.D.

You might reflect on the types of definitions:

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

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

 

[Paul2]

You don't seem to be paying attention.

Maybe for some people it doesn't matter, and maybe it doesn't matter for you, I don't know either way, but, for me, I'm not here in this thread to have someone tell me I'm not paying attention, so I will let others carry on with you.

 

[Steersman]

Maybe for some people it doesn't matter, and maybe it doesn't matter for you, I don't know either way, but, for me, I'm not here in this thread to have someone tell me I'm not paying attention, so I will let others carry on with you.

If the shoe fits ...

 

[smartcooky]

Well bully for you. You seem to "think" -- if anything you've said qualifies as evidence of that -- that your definitions should be taken as gospel truth.

Nope. Its just that the definitions I use suffice for nomenclature.

Would the definition I use be able determine

- whether a person is likely to be capable, at some time in their life, of either fathering a child or bearing one.

- whether a person would be expected, in a normal* society, to use the male restrooms or the female restrooms

- whether a person would be expected, in a normal* society, to play in the female or the male division of a sport

(by normal I mean a society that recognizes the need to defend biological females' safe spaces and fair competition)

If the answers to the above questions is "yes" than that is good enough for me. I don't give a fat rat's arse regarding the rest of your nitpicking pedantry over edge cases.

The issue is that several so-called science magazines are peddling other definitions for the sexes as spectra. And that much more reputable sources are arguing, with far more justification, that they're anything but "immutable".

I rather doubt you qualify as a biologist, much less a reputable one.

The idea that sex is on a spectrum is ludicrous on its face. What criteria would be used to determine where on this spectrum an individual should be positioned.

Is a male who has fathered more children more "male" than one who has fathered less, or a woman who has borne more children more "female" than one who has borne less?

Its a male with a big dick more "male" than one with a small dick, or a woman with big tits more "female" than one with small tits?

 

[Steersman]

Nope. Its just that the definitions I use suffice for nomenclature.

<snip>

(by normal I mean a society that recognizes the need to defend biological females' safe spaces and fair competition)

And which "definitions" might they be? You have yet to say -- probably haven't a flaming clue -- as to what are the criteria to qualify any human as male or female, much less members of other species. Probably no better than the Kindergarten Cop versions: "boys ('males') have penises and girls ('females') have vaginas".

They might have some utility, but those are no better than folk-biology -- at best. That's all you're peddling if not engaging in science denial.

If the answers to the above questions is "yes" than that is good enough for me. I don't give a fat rat's arse regarding the rest of your nitpicking pedantry over edge cases.

"edge cases" Literally millions of species don't at all fit what you presume to call your "definitions". What a joke ...

The idea that sex is on a spectrum is ludicrous on its face. What criteria would be used to determine where on this spectrum an individual should be positioned. ....

You clearly haven't a flaming clue about how categories work and are apparently too "obstinate" to even try rectifying that ignorance. "Sex" or the "sexes" as spectra are not a particularly useful idea, but not really "ludicrous". In fact Hilton's and Wright's rather risible and quite unscientific "gonads of past, present, or future functionality" is in fact a definition of the sexes as spectra. There are three -- count em, three -- criteria for sex category membership which is what it takes to qualify as a spectrum. See:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists

 

[smartcooky]

And which "definitions" might they be? You have yet to say -- probably haven't a flaming clue -- as to what are the criteria to qualify any human as male or female, much less members of other species. Probably no better than the Kindergarten Cop versions: "boys ('males') have penises and girls ('females') have vaginas".

I have posted them several times.. please try to keep up

"edge cases" Literally millions of species don't at all fit what you presume to call your "definitions". What a joke ...

Those other "millions" of species aren't at risk of being raped in a women's toilet by a predator, or suffer a lifelong injury in a sporting context.

You clearly haven't a flaming clue about how categories work and are apparently too "obstinate" to even try rectifying that ignorance. "Sex" or the "sexes" as spectra are not a particularly useful idea, but not really "ludicrous". In fact Hilton's and Wright's rather risible and quite unscientific "gonads of past, present, or future functionality" is in fact a definition of the sexes as spectra. There are three -- count em, three -- criteria for sex category membership which is what it takes to qualify as a spectrum. See:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists

Let me make this clear to you in case it isn't already...

I DON'T GIVE A FLYING **** ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF DETERMINING THE SEX OF ANY OF THE MILLIONS OF SPECIES OTHER THAN HUMANS.

or, in meme form...

 

[Steersman]

I have posted them several times.. please try to keep up

No, you most certainly have not done so. Simply saying "large gametes are produced exclusively by females" means diddly-squat. Prepubescent XXers and menopausees don't produce ANY gametes, much less large ones. Are they sexless?

Those other "millions" of species aren't at risk of being raped in a women's toilet by a predator, or suffer a lifelong injury in a sporting context.

Red herrings, a boatload of them. But if you won't or can't say what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as females then your arse is out in the cold when it comes adjudicating access to those facilities.

I expect this is beyond your abilities, but you might try reading and thinking about this bit on basic definitions:

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

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

Late me make this clear to you in case it isn't already

I DON'T GIVE A FLYING **** ABOUT THE SCIENCE OF DETERMINING THE SEX OF ANY OF THE MILLIONS OF SPECIES OTHER THAN HUMANS.

So you're saying then that you don't have any way of determining the sex of humans, that you have no definitions at all for the sexes, much less scientific ones? That you're a science-denier?

Good to know ... What a scientific illiterate.

 

[smartcooky]

No, you most certainly have not done so. Simply saying "large gametes are produced exclusively by females" means diddly-squat. Prepubescent XXers and menopausees don't produce ANY gametes, much less large ones. Are they sexless?

Its clear that you are just ignoring anything anyone says that does not satisfy your apparent egotistical need to be a ******* know-it-all, so I will again repeat what I said earlier... with emphasis...

In humans, there two, and only two types of gametes - large gametes and small gametes. There is no third or intermediate type of gamete (therefore there is no third sex!!!)

In humans, large gametes are produced exclusively by females of the species, who never produce small gametes. Large gametes are never produced by males of the species. Only females can produce large gametes. Only females are likely to be capable, at some time in their life, of bearing a child.

In humans small gametes are produced exclusively by males of the species, who never produce large gametes, and small gametes are never produced by females of the species. Only males can produce small gametes. Only males are likely to be capable, at some time in their life, of either fathering a child.

The bolded parts in red account for your requirement to include pre-pubescent and post menopausal individuals in the definition

Red herrings, a boatload of them. But if you won't or can't say what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as females then your arse is out in the cold when it comes adjudicating access to those facilities.

NOT red herrings at all

Your millions of other specials ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE HERE TALKING OR DEBATING ABOUT ANY SPECIES OTHER THAN HUMANS

We do not need definitions for the sexes of plankton, or clownfish, or alligators or any of the other species of life that exists on this planet, to be able to have definitions for the sexes of humans. Discussion of what it means to be a human male or a human female, or how to define what they are DOES NOT NEED TO GO OUTSIDE THE DISCUSSION OF HUMAN BIOLOGY.

I expect this is beyond your abilities, but you might try reading and thinking about this bit on basic definitions:



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

Its not "beyond my ability" its just that I AM NOT *******-WELL INTERESTED

So you're saying then that you don't have any way of determining the sex of humans, that you have no definitions at all for the sexes, much less scientific ones? That you're a science-denier?

Good to know ... What a scientific illiterate.

Again, you are completely misrepresenting my position, and you have been corrected on this so many times, I have to believe you are doing so deliberately.

How can I make this clearer to you? Are you really interested in clarification at all? I don't think you are.

 

[Steersman]

Its clear that you are just ignoring anything anyone says that does not satisfy your apparent egotistical need to be a ******* know-it-all, so I will again repeat what I said earlier... with emphasis...

And you seem to be an effen know-nothing -- and proud of it too. But you can repeat "2+2=5" -- with emphasis, in colour, and 24 point bold -- until the cows come home and it still won't be true.

All you've got are your own incoherent, idiosyncratic and quite risibly unscientific definitions that you can't quote any sources that corroborate or justify them.

You seem rather pigheadedly clueless that the transgender issue is characterized by and largely due to the fact that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has their own definitions for both "sex" and "gender", the former in particular. Andrew Doyle of GB News had a more or less neat summary of that point:

Doyle: The New Gay Conversion Therapy
The ignorance of politicians is putting gay people at risk.

One of the more maddening aspects of the culture war is that language has been rendered meaningless. Most of the disputes are destined to remain unresolved because there are few shared definitions among competing parties. We are left with armies of straw men thrashing about on an imaginary battlefield, while most of us look on in a state of bewilderment.

https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-new-gay-conversion-therapy

The scientific illiteracy and outright ignorance of the "man in the street" isn't helping much either.

But I don't think that issue will be resolved until we can agree on some definitions, and the scientific ones for the sexes seem to be the only defensible ones. Don't think you're helping much by pigheadedly continuing to peddle incoherent twaddle.

 

[lionking]

And you seem to be an effen know-nothing -- and proud of it too. But you can repeat "2+2=5" -- with emphasis, in colour, and 24 point bold -- until the cows come home and it still won't be true.

All you've got are your own incoherent, idiosyncratic and quite risibly unscientific definitions that you can't quote any sources that corroborate or justify them.

You seem rather pigheadedly clueless that the transgender issue is characterized by and largely due to the fact that virtually every last man, woman, and otherkin has their own definitions for both "sex" and "gender", the former in particular. Andrew Doyle of GB News had a more or less neat summary of that point:



https://andrewdoyle.substack.com/p/the-new-gay-conversion-therapy

The scientific illiteracy and outright ignorance of the "man in the street" isn't helping much either.

But I don't think that issue will be resolved until we can agree on some definitions, and the scientific ones for the sexes seem to be the only defensible ones. Don't think you're helping much by pigheadedly continuing to peddle incoherent twaddle.

I get it at last. Performance Art.

You had me going for quite a while. Well done.

 

[smartcooky]

I get it at last. Performance Art.

You had me going for quite a while. Well done.

Indeed LK. I should have learned by now not to argue with....ahem... "performance artists", lest they drag me down... oh never mind!

 

[8enotto]

Until DNA tests come up wit something other than the X or Y detail I am going with the basics here.