Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[mumblethrax]

If mammals could commonly do this, it would be about as subtle as if megalodon were still in the seas.

Who said it was common?

Bigger picture: No, there are no mammalian species that have been shown to have a class of individuals that reproduce via both oocyte and sperm production - and certainly not humans. Again, the development and maintenance of the mammalian female and male reproductive systems are antagonistic to each other. Further, there are obvious reasons why being a hermaphrodite/auto-fertilization would be selected against.

Who said it was selected for?

But here's where you are really getting DSDs wrong: Suppose mammals did have such a group (i.e. a class capable of successful reproduction with both gametes)- they would be both female and male and presumably a variant under some positive selection.

In contrast, people with DSDs have (often severely) reduced fertility or are completely infertile. On top of that, there are often other health issues. People with CAH (Again, the most common condition considered a DSD, but only in females) have varying degrees of issues with regulating physiological salt levels, which can be lethal.

Where did I make any claim about any of this?

I'm making the narrow claim that it isn't the case that every individual mammal on the planet is either male or female.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I had a short conversation on Twitter with a man who has Klinefelter's syndrome. He said that it's almost impossible to find a support group for people with DSDs that hasn't been infiltrated by, overwhelmed by, or was even set up in the first place by people with imaginary DSD conditions.

He spoke of people refusing to say what their diagnosis was, people getting offended by being asked what their diagnosis was (not considered an intrusive question in a support group for people with such conditions), and people claiming to have impossible chromosome complements.

He was banned from one group for daring to talk about his specific diagnosis and its problems.

I'm curious who. I follow @DaysGoByGoBy (detrans XX/XY mosaic), @XO83766320 (Turner Syndrome), and @CAISFiles (CAIS, obviously).

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not just hypothetically possible, but has in fact happened.


No.


Yes.


Yes, but it's not like we go out into the world looking for animals with both fertile ova and testes.

In some species, it's probably relatively common. Chimerism (including germ line chimerism) is extremely common among marmosets, for example.

In any case, your all-caps claim isn't true. Some individual mammals are in fact genuinely sex ambiguous.

I'd like to reiterate the bit that you skipped:

Take a step back and think about this for just a moment. Would you be willing to say that it just isn't true that humans have a single heart... because there exist some conjoint twins with two hearts?

 

[Louden Wilde]

Not just hypothetically possible, but has in fact happened.




In some species, it's probably relatively common. Chimerism (including germ line chimerism) is extremely common among marmosets, for example.

In any case, your all-caps claim isn't true. Some individual mammals are in fact genuinely sex ambiguous.

If they (any individual mammal) are reproducing, it's by producing oocytes or sperm* And therefore not relevant to people with DSDs. If they are infertile, it's not relevant to a definition of sex/reproductive role

* If the rabbit example gets repeated, I'll amend to that some lagomorphs may be functional hermaphrodites, but I'm doubtful, given that rabbits are raised in large numbers and that they noted that the testes were infertile.
Also chimeras are of course formed by two genetically distinct individuals anyway, so do not disprove the thesis.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Also chimeras are of course formed by two genetically distinct individuals anyway, so do not disprove the thesis.

But, mumblethrax already rejected that! Don't you know that they believe they know what they're talking about based on the talking points they've accepted as truth?

I wonder if mumblethrax would even consider changing their view on that, given your area of expertise?

 

[Louden Wilde]

Who said it was common?


Who said it was selected for?


Where did I make any claim about any of this?

I'm making the narrow claim that it isn't the case that every individual mammal on the planet is either male or female.

If not relevant to DSDs/CCSDs, why are you posting in this thread? This strikes me as sophistry to "pwn" us, rather than making a point. Lets hear the whole argument, if there is one.

It is clear that there are two sexes in mammals. You do not have a cogent counter-argument.

I responded to the latter claim above. Note again that chimeras are two (or more) individuals. If you want to argue that that people with brain-chimerism of XX & XY cells are a kind of DSD that underlies gender dysphoria, go for it.

Or is this all a big motte and bailey?

 

[Louden Wilde]

But, mumblethrax already rejected that! Don't you know that they believe they know what they're talking about based on the talking points they've accepted as truth?

I wonder if mumblethrax would even consider changing their view on that, given your area of expertise?

Unfortunately, I suspect that's the case. To paraphrase Rolfe, the logic will likely be because one paper 30+ years ago claimed a rabbit self-fertilized, it therefore means that people with DSDs/CCSDs are additional sexes and anyone who claims an "intersex identity" can use whatever spaces they want...

 

[ponderingturtle]

If not relevant to DSDs/CCSDs, why are you posting in this thread? This strikes me as sophistry to "pwn" us, rather than making a point. Lets hear the whole argument, if there is one.

It is clear that there are two sexes in mammals.

So there is reproductive male, reproductive female and sterile? That works for definitions but people don't like to be forced into a third category. The hard binary only works if you toss out all samples that are not clearly part of it.

 

[theprestige]

So there is reproductive male, reproductive female and sterile? That works for definitions but people don't like to be forced into a third category. The hard binary only works if you toss out all samples that are not clearly part of it.

There is reproductive male and reproductive female, and failure modes in development along those two sexual development paths, and artificial "hacks" of those two sexes (e.g., vasectomies and hysterectomies).

None of those other things - developmental failure modes, end of life degradation, surgical intervention - amount to anything even remotely resembling additional sexes or a spectrum of sexes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So there is reproductive male, reproductive female and sterile? That works for definitions but people don't like to be forced into a third category. The hard binary only works if you toss out all samples that are not clearly part of it.

Nope, wrong from the start. There are males, some of whom are reproductively capable and some of whom are not. There are females, some of whom are reproductively capable and some of whom are not. There is no third category.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm curious who. I follow @DaysGoByGoBy (detrans XX/XY mosaic), @XO83766320 (Turner Syndrome), and @CAISFiles (CAIS, obviously).

Sorry, the conversation was quite a few weeks ago and I don't remember the poster's handle. As far as I remember he wasn't someone I follow.

 

[Rolfe]

Speaking as someone who has both published in the field of biology and acted as a scrutineer for journals in the field of biology, I do not believe a word of that self-fertilisation in rabbits (or even in one rabbit) claim. As my late supervisor used to say at times, "paper takes on anything". Or perhaps electrons in this case. The number of published papers making claims which were tenuous at the time and have never been repeated is astronomical.

However, even if it was true, so what? There are still only two sexes, nobody has ever found an organism that was a third sex or produced a third sort of gamete, and absolutely none of that either paints people with DSDs as somehow not real men or women, or gives any Tom Dick or Harry the right to enter and occupy women's intimate spaces on his say-so.

 

[Elaedith]

Sorry, the conversation was quite a few weeks ago and I don't remember the poster's handle. As far as I remember he wasn't someone I follow.

It sounds like somebody who used to use the handle 'Nick of Wessex'. I was following him but he deleted his previous account. He described himself as a CCSD activist and I think I mentioned him in the other thread.

 

[mumblethrax]

I'd like to reiterate the bit that you skipped:

I don't know why people have so much trouble with this. "Human beings have one heart" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. If challenged by someone who wants to consider conjoint twins to be a single organism, and you agree that they are the same organism, then you have to concede that human beings sometimes have two hearts, and clarify that "human beings normally only have one heart."

"Human beings are normally either male or female" is a reasonable thing to say. Insisting that they are only male or female, in light of the fact that they are not, is not reasonable.

Also chimeras are of course formed by two genetically distinct individuals anyway, so do not disprove the thesis.

This is a disingenuous genetic fallacy. "Formed by" does not mean "are."

If not relevant to DSDs/CCSDs, why are you posting in this thread? This strikes me as sophistry to "pwn" us, rather than making a point. Lets hear the whole argument, if there is one.

I posted in this thread because someone made the insistent claim that all mammals are either male or female. This claim is false. You have to walk quite some way to get from correcting a falsehood to sophistry, not least because correcting a falsehood is not an argument.

If you want my view on it, "male" and "female" are best understood as developmental pathways, and attempting to force literally everyone into one box or the other is a fool's errand.

 

[mumblethrax]

But, mumblethrax already rejected that! Don't you know that they believe they know what they're talking about based on the talking points they've accepted as truth?

No, I rejected your claim that both mosaicism and chimerism are "two individuals mixed together" because it's false. It's just not true at all in the case of mosaicism, and it's a very poor representation of chimerism. Chimeras are a single organism, not "two individuals mixed together".

I wonder if mumblethrax would even consider changing their view on that, given your area of expertise?

No, I won't consider changing my view of your false claims in light of Louden's area of expertise. What a bizarre idea.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I don't know why people have so much trouble with this. "Human beings have one heart" is a perfectly reasonable thing to say. If challenged by someone who wants to consider conjoint twins to be a single organism, and you agree that they are the same organism, then you have to concede that human beings sometimes have two hearts, and clarify that "human beings only normally have one heart."

"Human beings are normally either male or female" is a reasonable thing to say. Insisting that they are only male or female, in light of the fact that they are not, is not reasonable.

There is likely no characteristic of humans or other organisms that
we can't find a deleterious mutation or accident that can alter. it adds nothing to the discussion or the argument. You are again conflating pathology with benign/adaptive variation.

This is a disingenuous genetic fallacy. "Formed by" does not mean "are."

Disingenuous is the above (conflating medical conditions/accidents with adaptive or neutral variants, when the difference has been pointed out to you repeatedly).

I posted in this thread because someone made the insistent claim that all mammals are either male or female. This claim is false. You have to walk quite some way to get from correcting a falsehood to sophistry, not least because correcting a falsehood is not an argument.

If you want my view on it, "male" and "female" are best understood as developmental pathways, and attempting to force literally everyone into one box or the other is a fool's errand.

Again, there are only two reproductive roles, which are produced by the developmental pathways. Apart from pathological conditions, each mammal falls into one of those two body plans. You have not proved that false (& if you had, you'd be writing in a flashy journal).

Each individual human has developed along either the female or male pathway, and/or possibly had a pathogenic genetic variant that hindered that development (the subject of this thread). This is important to recognize because: Females are oppressed/subject to discrimination on the basis of that pathway/reproductive role and those with DSDs/CCSDs have fertility and often other issues because of defects in those pathways. In the case of the latter, we can tell which pathway they were developing along or would have without the mutation.

It's not 'forcing people into boxes' - these are not identities, but descriptors of physical realities. And they don't apply just to people - any definition has to work in a comparative context. If I find an infertile XY hamster and discover a mutation in SRY or the androgen receptor gene, I note that it is a male with a developmental defect. Unless you want to try a creationist argument, humans don't get differential treatment here.

Who are the people you think are not either female or male?

 

[mumblethrax]

There is likely no characteristic of humans or other organisms that
we can't find a deleterious mutation or accident that can alter. it adds nothing to the discussion or the argument. You are again conflating pathology with benign/adaptive variation.

Am I? I think I'm just saying that pathological cases exist.

You seem to think there's some significance to the fact that there likely no characteristic of human being that can't be altered, but I'm unclear about what you're inferring from that.

Disingenuous is the above (conflating medical conditions/accidents with adaptive or neutral variants, when the difference has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

No such conflation has occurred.

Again, there are only two reproductive roles, which are produced by the developmental pathways. Apart from pathological conditions, each mammal falls into one of those two body plans. You have not proved that false (& if you had, you'd be writing in a flashy journal).

I don't need to prove it false. "Apart from" isn't doing the work you think it is.

Each individual human has developed along either the female or male pathway, and/or possibly had a pathogenic genetic variant that hindered that development (the subject of this thread). This is important to recognize because: Females are oppressed/subject to discrimination on the basis of that pathway and those with DSDs/CCSDs have fertility and often other issues because of defects in those pathways.

I'd think the most important reason to recognize that would be that it's true.

It's not 'forcing people into boxes' - these are not identities, but physical realities. And they don't apply just to people - any definition has to work in a comparative context.

I'm not claiming they're identities. I'm saying it's foolish to try to force people into these boxes because it isn't the physical reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It sounds like somebody who used to use the handle 'Nick of Wessex'. I was following him but he deleted his previous account. He described himself as a CCSD activist and I think I mentioned him in the other thread.

I suspect you're right. That's who I was thinking of, but I couldn't recall the name.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm saying it's foolish to try to force people into these boxes because it isn't the physical reality.

Hmm. It's foolish to try to force bicycles into having two wheels, because it isn't the physical reality... because this manufacturer over here had a production line error that ended up missing the back wheel, so this one bicycle only has one wheel.

And the inevitable leap from Motte to Bailey: Therefore unicycles are bicycles!

 

[Rolfe]

I suspect you're right. That's who I was thinking of, but I couldn't recall the name.

The name does ring a bell but I really can't remember.