Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[Rolfe]

I understood from previous conversations on this board that it's the penis havers who are the real problem - those who are prepared to surgically remove their male genitalia to pass as women may be sufficiently committed to be accepted by the vagina havers. Perhaps the females on the forum could chime in? A further complication perhaps but maybe one worth considering now rather than later.

No. Men look like men. By the time I discover that one of them has had his penis amputated, things have gone way too far in a direction I don't want them to go in at all.

If any man at all has the legal right to be in a female-only intimate space, then in effect all of them have the right, because we can't tell which is which without undressing them.

The days of "be kind and don't make a fuss dear" are over. Our kindness and reluctance to make a fuss have been used against us. Men need to step up and accommodate gender nonconforming men in men's spaces and stop expecting women to absolve them of that responsibility.

 

[d4m10n]

But I think we need to focus first on the objective. Which seems to be to keep penis-havers - or those previously sporting them - out of more or less public venues that are deemed - rightly or wrongly - reserved for the exclusive use of vagina-havers.

My objective in creating this particular thread was to clarify those sorts of policy debates by moving DSD discussions (and related metaphysical speculation about the sexes and how they are discovered and denoted) to a sidebar, safely away from the policy discussions in the Other Thread.


Sent from my AC-130H using Tapatalk

 

[Steersman]

Oof. Such terrible analogies! Let's try talking about the thing itself in its own terms: The actual premise is, "the dictionary agrees with Steersman".

Methinks you're barking up the wrong tree, one that isn't even in the right forest. For one thing right out of the chute, you're mashing the definition and the examples into and under one umbrella term, i.e., "dictionary".

But the premise most certainly isn't "the dictionary agrees with Steersman", although your beef seems less with that supposed premise itself than with a supposed conclusion, which you've apparently pulled out of your nether regions, that "therefore Steersman's definition is the correct and widely used one." Though not quite sure how you think one or two examples refutes "widely-used", much less "correct"; one swallow doth not a spring make.

The primary premise is that, for example, the Lexico definition for "male" (below) is what is called an intensional definition, a concept which, as far as I recollect, virtually no one here has so much as genuflected in its direction despite my frequent reference to it. Wonder why that might be ... But, to wit:

male (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

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

IF that definition is, in fact, an intensional definition THEN it necessarily follows that "produces sperm with which a female may be fertilized" qualifies as that "necessary and sufficient condition" which ALL individuals - of ALL sexually reproducing species - MUST "have in order to be counted as referents of that term". No sperm, not a male. Q.E.D.

You MIGHT have something of beef by objecting that that definition doesn't actually qualify as an intensional one. Though you kind of have to then explain what OTHER traits might qualify individuals for members in that category - maybe transmen with their ersatz penises qualify? Maybe it's something one can "self-identify" as? Same things with "female"? Methinks you're painting yourself into a tight corner.

But somewhat more importantly, you have to then argue that the concept of intensional definitions is null and void, that it has no relevance or bearing on examples that you might find a bit more "palatable" than the definitions for "male" and "female" - "bachelor" for example:

bachelor (noun): A man who is not and has never been married.

‘one of the country's most eligible bachelors’

https://www.lexico.com/definition/bachelor

So. Is that an intensional definition or not? Is "be a man who is not and has never been married" the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a bachelor or not? You maybe "think" that because I've found some million examples of people using "married bachelor" in a sentence that that somehow means that some bachelors are actually married? That you're going to try busting my chops if I say that I agree with that definition by pointing to those million (mis)uses?

For starters, a married bachelor is a married man who lives more of a bachelor life.

https://www.interviewarea.com/faq/what-is-a-meaning-of-bachelor

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. The definitions themselves are trump; misuses generally count for diddly-squat.

But what makes the cheese more binding is that Lexico's (intensional) definitions for "male" and "female" are more or less exactly what biologists stipulate they MEAN by those terms - see Wikipedia, Parker & Lehtonen, Griffiths, the Journals of Molecular Human Reproduction and of Theoretical Biology, along with a further cast of thousands of equally reputable sources saying the SAME thing:

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

I'm STILL waiting for you to put your cards on the table, to show the same number of equally credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and biological journals that provide similar intensional definitions for that structure-absent-function schlock of Hilton and Wright.

 

[d4m10n]

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. The definitions themselves are trump; misuses generally count for diddly-squat.

The argument was that dictionaries invoke examples of real world usage to clarify their definitions.

The definition is correct and the examples are correct. They complement one another to give a fuller definition than either one alone.

I cannot find any instances of "married bachelor" at Lexico.

 

[Steersman]

The argument was that dictionaries invoke examples of real world usage to clarify their definitions.

So what if they do? How does that necessarily mean that they so "clarify" those definitions? You think lexicographers are infallible?

But you - Yourself - started this thread with a question:

what fraction of people born with DSDs are really ambiguous between male and female?

Not quite sure how you think we can answer that question if everyone and their dogs, cats, and gerbils have entirely different definitions for the terms in question.

The "argument" in question is whether we're going to go with the biological definitions by which functional gonads of either of two types are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership, or whether we're going to go with ad-hoc ones based on folk biology which have absolutely no clearly defined criteria that can be applied coherently and consistently to all sexually-reproducing species.

STILL waiting for y'all to post definitions published in reputable dictionaries, encyclopedias, and biological journals that endorse that latter pile of unscientific claptrap. Rather than some hand-waving about "they say ..."

I cannot find any instances of "married bachelor" at Lexico.

So ******* what? Maybe the desk at Lexico in charge of the "b" words has a better appreciation of the principles behind intensional definitions - and related ones like contradictions-in-terms (oxymorons) - than those in charge of the "f" and "m" words?:

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/34704

You're still not addressing the question of whether the definitions for "bachelor", "female", "male", and "teenager" qualify as intensional definitions or not.

 

[d4m10n]

Not quite sure how you think we can answer that question if everyone and their dogs, cats, and gerbils have entirely different definitions for the terms in question.

The question itself presumes that many people can be correctly identified as either male or female at birth. Since you don't share that presumption, I don't expect that you'll even try to answer the question from the OP.

How does that necessarily mean that they so "clarify" those definitions?

It's not a matter of logical necessity, it's just why lexicographers include examples.

 

[Steersman]

The question itself presumes that many people can be correctly identified as either male or female at birth.

What a pile of intellectually dishonest horse crap. Rather ubiquitous these days.

But say I'm an anthropologist from Mars and want to know exactly what uniquely differentiates ALL males from ALL females of ALL sexually-reproducing species on the planet. And wants to see journals that endorse those defining traits. What do you answer with?

You'd think I was trying to get a Muslim to convert to Christianity or to piss on the Quran. Maybe the same sort of articles of faith ... bit surprising on a Skeptics forum ...

Since you don't share that presumption, I don't expect that you'll even try to answer the question from the OP.

Think I already have. You've said that intersex are neither male nor female but still have a sex yet you refuse to say whether that makes them a third sex and sex itself a spectrum, or whether that makes "intersex" a polite euphemism for "sexless".

I'm open to hearing other possibilities - you have any?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv16t6n2p

It's not a matter of logical necessity, it's just why lexicographers include examples.

Progress. So you'll concede that an given example may not do so, may serve not to clarify, but to "muddify"?

 

[d4m10n]

Think I already have.

Post number?

You've said that intersex are neither male nor female but still have a sex...

Post number?

But say I'm an anthropologist from Mars...

Anthropologists are generally content to study just one species at a time, by definition.

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Steersman
You've said that intersex are neither male nor female but still have a sex...

Post number?

#490:

You are confusing me with someone else; I've already said that some individuals are neither female nor male but rather intersex, that is, born with a mix of male and female characteristics and unable to ever produce viable gametes as a result.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13873794#post13873794

How many sexes are there? Two? Or you going to go with PZ's 7?

While you didn't actually say - that I can find in a quick search - that the intersex still have a sex, if they're neither male nor female and if there are only two sexes then they have to be, by definition, sexless:

sexless (noun): Neither male nor female.

https://www.lexico.com/definition/sexless

And if they're not sexless then "intersex" has to be a third sex.

Make up your mind; **** or get off the pot.

Anthropologists are generally content to study just one species at a time, by definition.

 

[d4m10n]

How many sexes are there?

Two, obviously.

And if they're not sexless then "intersex" has to be a third sex.

I think it's enough to say that people who never have and never will produce either male gametes are not male, and people who never have and never will produce female gametes are not female, for definitions of male and female centered around the process of reproduction (rather than, say, body habitus, which may be much more relevant in the public restroom context).

Not sure why you're so focused on sexlessness; no one here is arguing for a third sex, much less seven.

 

[Steersman]

I understood from previous conversations on this board that it's the penis havers who are the real problem - those who are prepared to surgically remove their male genitalia to pass as women may be sufficiently committed to be accepted by the vagina havers. Perhaps the females on the forum could chime in? A further complication perhaps but maybe one worth considering now rather than later.

I'm certainly "sympathetic" to that "sufficiently committed" perspective - largely why I've suggested one set of toilets and change rooms for the vagina-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof, and another set for the penis-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof.

Rolfe was particularly unimpressed with that idea, boxed my ears for it which are still ringing ...

Although I think her "creepy behaviour" characterization of the "reasonable facsimile" tribe, as I think she put it, was something of a thin beef. Not quite sure how far we would have to go in fashioning go/no-go gauges - thought police with lie-detectors at the entrances to all the loos? One would think the removal of any possibility of rape should be the bottom line, so to speak.

But, to play the Devil's Advocate a bit, it seems one might reasonably surmise that some lesbians might be getting a bit of sexual "frisson" in being in close proximity to all the sweet young things in various change rooms and the like. "creepy behaviour" is hardly unique to men, although I'll concede it's probably more prevalent in that tribe.

Something of a case in point is provided by this tale of a transman and "his" brand-spanking new "neo-penis" which he is maybe too quick to want to show off:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/...J46qbIYj15p-MScKDqGARn0PbRN2Ww&smid=url-share

A few months later, in the Port Authority Bus Terminal, a stranger wondered aloud if he was in the wrong bathroom. “I was like, ‘Want to see my dick, bro?’” The man apologized, and Ben relieved himself, relieved. By this measure alone, the surgery was a success.

Such a bizarre phenomenon, the roots of which go rather deep and into some toxic territory. Much of which derives from some pervasive and ubiquitous intellectual dishonesty which characterizes far too many on virtually all sides of this "debate".

 

[Steersman]

Two, obviously.

Hallelujah ...

I think it's enough to say that people who never have and never will produce either male gametes are not male, and people who never have and never will produce female gametes are not female, for definitions of male and female centered around the process of reproduction (rather than, say, body habitus, which may be much more relevant in the public restroom context).

Apparently some 7% of adult "males" are infertile, have never and will never produce sperm:

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

So. Sexless? Or you going to lump them in with the intersex?

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

Not sure why you're so focused on sexlessness; no one here is arguing for a third sex, much less seven.

Because I'm trying to pin you down - and most others here - as to what you think are the necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify ALL individuals - of ALL sexually-reproducing species - as either male or female. Or as neither.

That you're unwilling or unable to do so seems to be prima facie evidence of egregious intellectual dishonesty. Reminds me a scene from the move Pete 'n' Tillie where they trick an older woman who was desperate to avoid revealing her age into having to do so at a police station as part of the process of registering some charity; seem to recollect that being caught between that rock and a hard place caused her to collapse with a heart-attack.

Rolfe had a cogent observation on the general problem:

The days of "be kind and don't make a fuss dear" are over.

Amen to that; "those days" shouldn't have ever had very much credence or currency in the first place. That's been a common trope or theme from the transloonies - which many feminists have, quite reasonably, had their fill of:

https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1411965894805360640

Even if they don't appreciate it much when the shoe is on the other foot.

But same thing with the intersex. You and many others seem to think that refusing to say that the intersex are sexless is "being kind" to them, but don't seem to realize the long term consequences; one white lie often leads to bigger and blacker ones to cover the inconsistences created by the first one. With often horrific consequences.

Same thing with many women getting their knickers in a twist on being informed that the biological definitions for the sexes don't justify their rather unscientific claims that "sex is immutable (!!11!! ):

I am not sexless at any f*cking point in my existence. What purpose to pick hairs to label non-gamete producing ppl as sexless. Buzz off. I won’t reply any further. Your idea is insulting.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum/comment/8333249

"How dare you? How DARE you?"

Whole pile of mendacity, Big Daddy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTWqUhvqXx8

And no more evident than in virtually all "discussions" having anything at all to do with sex and gender - the upshot of which, the egregious consequence of which is the butchering of autistic and defenseless children. Maybe the most odious of the crimes to be laid against a too-common intellectual dishonesty, but it sure ain't the only one.

 

[d4m10n]

Apparently some 7% of adult "males" are infertile, have never and will never produce sperm

Only around one in seven of those males suffer from azoospermia^WP.

Or you going to lump them in with the intersex?

Depends on aetiology, but quite possibly.

Because I'm trying to pin you down - and most others here - as to what you think are the necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify ALL individuals - of ALL sexually-reproducing species - as either male or female.

This isn't a thread about "all sexually-reproducing species," check the OP.

That's been a common trope or theme from the transloonies - which many feminists have, quite reasonably, had their fill of...

This isn't the thread for trans issues, by design.

 

[Steersman]

Only around one in seven of those males suffer from azoospermia^WP.

So what? The numbers are secondary.

By your definition - at least the one you're pushing today - they're not males.

Originally Posted by Steersman
Or you going to lump them in with the intersex?

Depends on aetiology, but quite possibly.

So, just to be clear, your position is that intersex is neither a sex nor not-a-sex (i.e., sexless)? Have I got that right?

This isn't a thread about "all sexually-reproducing species," check the OP.

You SAID:

I would say that the rabbit hole isn't entirely pointless, since it's generally good to clarify what we mean by "male" or "female" in threads like this one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13871219&postcount=306

Not quite sure how you can justify special pleading for a definition that's the very antithesis of the one that's applicable to "all sexually-reproducing species" ...

This isn't the thread for trans issues, by design.

Seem to recollect you saying something to the effect that "what we mean by 'male' and 'female' in threads like this one" encompassed "trans issues" as well - by design.

The issue is the pervasive and pernicious dishonesty exhibited in peddling definitions for "what we mean by 'male' and 'female'" that are flatly contradicted by the standard biological ones.

 

[Lplus]

I'm certainly "sympathetic" to that "sufficiently committed" perspective - largely why I've suggested one set of toilets and change rooms for the vagina-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof, and another set for the penis-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof.

The bedicked and the unbedicked eh?

Rolfe was particularly unimpressed with that idea, boxed my ears for it which are still ringing ...

Although I think her "creepy behaviour" characterization of the "reasonable facsimile" tribe, as I think she put it, was something of a thin beef. Not quite sure how far we would have to go in fashioning go/no-go gauges - thought police with lie-detectors at the entrances to all the loos? One would think the removal of any possibility of rape should be the bottom line, so to speak.

Depends on what Rolfe defined as creepy behaviour. Wanting to be taken as a different sex might be considered creepy in itself, but that's a matter of personal opinion.
Dressing and behaving as female but retaining male genitalia may or may not be suspect, but I can understand (and agree with) the extreme reluctance of born females to accept it in either case. Self mutilation to achieve "femaleness" does seem to indicate a dedication to the principle that is hard to ignore and does eliminate the oft quoted danger of rape.

But, to play the Devil's Advocate a bit, it seems one might reasonably surmise that some lesbians might be getting a bit of sexual "frisson" in being in close proximity to all the sweet young things in various change rooms and the like. "creepy behaviour" is hardly unique to men, although I'll concede it's probably more prevalent in that tribe.

Indeed, but no change there from back when the first dedicated toilet facilities were introduced.

Something of a case in point is provided by this tale of a transman and "his" brand-spanking new "neo-penis" which he is maybe too quick to want to show off:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/10/...J46qbIYj15p-MScKDqGARn0PbRN2Ww&smid=url-share



Such a bizarre phenomenon, the roots of which go rather deep and into some toxic territory. Much of which derives from some pervasive and ubiquitous intellectual dishonesty which characterizes far too many on virtually all sides of this "debate".

Not quite the same thing but ok....

snip

Because I'm trying to pin you down - and most others here - as to what you think are the necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify ALL individuals - of ALL sexually-reproducing species - as either male or female. Or as neither.

That you're unwilling or unable to do so seems to be prima facie evidence of egregious intellectual dishonesty.

snip

Seems like the only way to achieve that would be genetic analysis, and any species that can't be classified by that means could be considered sexless. But then again I don't care if the likes of nematode worms or whatever don't have sexes, it's the humans that are the subject of this discussion. Presumably any human anomalies arising from karyotyping would just have to suck it up?

 

[Rolfe]

No. Men look like men. By the time I discover that one of them has had his penis amputated, things have gone way too far in a direction I don't want them to go in at all.

If any man at all has the legal right to be in a female-only intimate space, then in effect all of them have the right, because we can't tell which is which without undressing them.

The days of "be kind and don't make a fuss dear" are over. Our kindness and reluctance to make a fuss have been used against us. Men need to step up and accommodate gender nonconforming men in men's spaces and stop expecting women to absolve them of that responsibility.

We also need to remember that a proportion of men who have their dicks amputated are extreme autogynaephiles who demand entry into women's intimate spaces as part of that fetish. I do not wish to be compelled to be a prop in any man's fetish enactment, penis or no penis.

 

[d4m10n]

By your definition - at least the one you're pushing today - they're not males.

Nope. I said they wouldn't be males if they never have and never will produce male gametes.

So, just to be clear, your position is that intersex is neither a sex nor not-a-sex (i.e., sexless)?

People who have a mix of male and female characteristics and cannot be sexed by gamete production are neither male, female, nor a third sex.

Not quite sure how you can justify special pleading for a definition that's the very antithesis of the one that's applicable to "all sexually-reproducing species"

This thread is about people, not fish. Some rabbit holes go too far down even for me.

Seem to recollect you saying something to the effect that "what we mean by 'male' and 'female' in threads like this one" encompassed "trans issues" as well - by design.

I don't think so. People like Caster Semenya^WP are used as a conversational red herring to distract from people like Andraya Yearwood^WP.

 

[Lplus]

No. Men look like men. By the time I discover that one of them has had his penis amputated, things have gone way too far in a direction I don't want them to go in at all.

If any man at all has the legal right to be in a female-only intimate space, then in effect all of them have the right, because we can't tell which is which without undressing them.

The days of "be kind and don't make a fuss dear" are over. Our kindness and reluctance to make a fuss have been used against us. Men need to step up and accommodate gender nonconforming men in men's spaces and stop expecting women to absolve them of that responsibility.

We also need to remember that a proportion of men who have their dicks amputated are extreme autogynaephiles who demand entry into women's intimate spaces as part of that fetish. I do not wish to be compelled to be a prop in any man's fetish enactment, penis or no penis.

Damn those loathesome men eh?

I note you still use men and women instead of male and female. Personally I think the battle has been lost for man and woman as synonyms for male and female, hence the present discussion about defintion of sex in terms of male and female as part of the last stand against "transloonies" as someone on here tends to call them.

So it seems you are intent on the definition of male and female to hang purely on the presence of the Y gene, and any anomalies can just put up with it.

So be it.

 

[Lithrael]

I don’t think there is any way to do it that can make the Rolfes happy. Even if we just straight up say “the ladies’ room is only for people who clearly ping female” the only people who will be excluded would be poorly passing trans women and mannish women, and I suspect the Rolfes would still be second guessing your Bea Arthurs and Michelle Obamas.

To tackle that completely you’d have to go beyond “Karotype plus caveats for CAIS etc” until you had a rule that told you exactly where to put everyone that the internet says “that’s a man!” about. Because people do routinely ping (what we are actually trying to talk about as meaningfully female) people as (what we are actually trying to talk about as meaningfully male).

If Rolfe argues that she has never pinged anyone incorrectly I propose that Rolfe could be in charge of the bathroom gender check. It might put a crimp on her free time. Maybe she could codify her ping.

 

[Steersman]

The bedicked and the unbedicked eh?

Works for me Bedick the halls with balls of "Holly"? ... so to speak.

Why I've periodically suggested replacing the signs on toilets with "blades" and "chalices" to follow suit from Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

Or maybe pictures of plumbing and electrical connectors for those requiring more tangible examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
https://www.amazon.ca/Anderson-Metals-Garden-Fitting-Connector/dp/B000FPCK3U/
https://www.amazon.ca/Anderson-Metals-Fitting-Coupling-Female/dp/B000LWXB44

Depends on what Rolfe defined as creepy behaviour. Wanting to be taken as a different sex might be considered creepy in itself, but that's a matter of personal opinion.

Dressing and behaving as female but retaining male genitalia may or may not be suspect, but I can understand (and agree with) the extreme reluctance of born females to accept it in either case. Self mutilation to achieve "femaleness" does seem to indicate a dedication to the principle that is hard to ignore and does eliminate the oft quoted danger of rape.

Agreed. Seems that "creepiness" is very much in the eye-of-the-beholder. The whole problem with the highly subjective nature of gender and gender-identity in particular.

Seems "incongruous" at best that those throwing stones at the latter are willing to give much weight to the former. But, de gustibus ...

Not quite the same thing but ok....

You mean "Ben" and "his" new "penis"? Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch. But seem to recollect from the article - looked for it and couldn't find it, or maybe I just inferred it, that he seemed to be keen about flashing his new equipment in the men's loos. Unlikely to be a wise idea; "creepy" at best.

But I wonder whether Rolfe would be keen to see "her" in the lady's loos ...

Seems like the only way to achieve that would be genetic analysis, and any species that can't be classified by that means could be considered sexless. But then again I don't care if the likes of nematode worms or whatever don't have sexes, it's the humans that are the subject of this discussion. Presumably any human anomalies arising from karyotyping would just have to suck it up?

Yes, I quite understand that "humans are the subject of this discussion". But what many don't seem to realize - or wish to consider - is that how we name and categorize other species has a great deal of relevance to humans:

[Argument from analogy] is also implicit in much of science; for instance, experiments on laboratory rats typically proceed on the basis that some physiological similarities between rats and humans entails some further similarity (e.g. possible reactions to a drug).

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

Will we have different names for the sexes in 99.99% of biology and a different set of names for the sexes in humans?

Rank insanity.

And that's even apart from the highly questionable accuracy and utility of the "developmental pathway" "definition (i.e., antiscientific schlock)" in its mashing together of past, present, and future functionality. For example, relative to the "joint-probability distribution" of "agreeableness" by "sex" that I had posted here earlier, one might reasonably surmise that XXers in each of those 3, quite distinct and mutually exclusive, categories may exhibit very different degrees of "agreeableness" - on average, of course ...

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg