Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

[theprestige]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual#Terminology

Covers a lotta ground but, given my shots at Jenner & Ben with their new equipment, and being sexless eunuchs, one would have thought that that would have been sufficient evidence that I had an idea ...

But you seem to think that I, at least, am some sort of mind reader, that I divine what examples and cases you have in mind.



Don't know how often I have to say this, but if XYers still have their "original equipment" and are in the lady's loos then they're in the wrong lane. At least by the principle I've been pushing of "original equipment or reasonable facsimiles thereof".

Or how often I have to say XYers without that equipment are, in fact, sexless eunuchs. You seem desperately committed to the idea that they're still males - looks like an open-and-shut case of monkey trap to me ...

At least try entertaining that idea ...



https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/aristotle_100584
Even if that's something of a misquote.

Removing the equipment after puberty doesn't remove the male advantages in bone, muscle, size, and weight that develop during puberty. So they're still male in terms of the sex segregation in sports and prisons. And that's good enough for me. Clownfish and nematodes aren't trying to get into women's NCAA swimming, for example.

Removing the equipment before puberty doesn't stop them from being male either, since the developmental pathway and all the other attributes that go along with being genetically male are still genetically male.

 

[Steersman]

Idea entertained. Some time ago actually. Idea rejected as both in contravention of established usage and ludicrous.

"Preposterous!" "Inconceivable!" "Worthless nonsense!"

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/78634-the-four-stages-of-acceptance-1-this-is-worthless-nonsense



Not quite sure how you "think" that "established usage" should carry much, if any weight at all. Any decently and intellectually honest review of the history of such should disabuse people of any great reliance on it at all.

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science:

https://www.amazon.ca/Fads-Fallacies-Name-Science-Popular-ebook/dp/B00A73ITVW

"Groupthink" over puberty-blockers being the latest;

The Tavistock scandal shows the dangers of civil service groupthink

https://archive.ph/2022.07.30-17291...e-groupthink-5bj2z26c7#selection-827.0-827.67

One would think that any "skeptic" worthy of the title would be a bit more circumspect in following others over that particular cliff. Particularly since no one here has managed to put any evidence on the table of any reputable dictionaries, encyclopedias, and biological journals endorsing that schlock, that quite unscientific "structure-absent-function" ad hoc "definition" for the sexes ...

 

[Steersman]

Removing the equipment after puberty doesn't remove the male advantages in bone, muscle, size, and weight that develop during puberty. So they're still male in terms of the sex segregation in sports and prisons. And that's good enough for me. Clownfish and nematodes aren't trying to get into women's NCAA swimming, for example.

Removing the equipment before puberty doesn't stop them from being male either, since the developmental pathway and all the other attributes that go along with being genetically male are still genetically male.

Not disputing that at all.

While "still male in terms of the sex" may be "good enough" for you, I'm still not quite sure how you apparently think your opinion should qualify as trump, that this thread constitutes any sort of inner circle of popes and bishops tasked with promulgating principles for the faithful.

"Clownfish and nematodes aren't trying to get into women's NCAA swimming" is something of an egregious red herring - one the size of Moby Dick in fact. The problem - which you and most others here refuse to face despite my putting it on the table in more than a few different comments - is that there are two quite antithetical and inconsistent definitions for the sexes in play:

"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"

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

You seem to "think" that, analogously, Galileo and Darwin should have been restricted to Academia where they could contemplate their "theories" in isolation while society continued to promote the "ideas" that the earth was the center of the universe, that it was 6000 years old, that humanity was the result of special creation by Jehovah Himself.

 

[theprestige]

When you're in such vehement agreement that you go all the way through and somehow end up back in disagreement again.

 

[Steersman]

When you're in such vehement agreement that you go all the way through and somehow end up back in disagreement again.

That I agree with some facts you've put on the table does NOT mean that I have to agree with some of your further inferences.

Do try separating the two.

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Steersman
Methinks you're evading my point that you've tendered two quite different if not entirely contradictory definitions for the sexes

Your point would be worth addressing if true, but acknowledging an emergent consensus is not the same as tendering a definition.

LoL. What a fraud. You say po-ta-toe, I say po-tat-oe; you say "emergent consensus", I say "definitions".

From post #642:

Originally Posted by d4m10n:
Nope. I said they wouldn't be males if they never have and never will produce male gametes.

Yes, and you've also agreed that "This thread has already achieved such a consensus: The developmental pathways definition."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1778

By which those "who never have and never will produce sperm" qualify as males.

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13877804&postcount=642

You SAY that those who never have and never will produce sperm are NOT males, but then you turn around and an insist that those who are merely on the pathway to producing sperm - even if they never actually do produce sperm, as with those past the age of puberty but who remain infertile thereafter while still exhibiting the "male habitus/phenotype", as per your requirements - ARE still males. See:

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

But YOU started this thread off with a question:

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

How the hell do you "think" that question can be answered if you yourself haven't an ******* clue what puts anyone in any one of those categories?

What an ******* joke.

You remind me of someone who forgets to address the argument instead of the arguer.

You don't HAVE an argument; all you've got is a dog's breakfast of contradictory and self-serving "definitions".

Bottom line is that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth there mate. You don't have any coherent and consistent definitions at all. And you think being offended should carry the day in cases near and dear to your heart but not in those of other people.

Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Criticism_as_a_fallacy

 

[d4m10n]

How the hell do you "think" that question can be answered if you yourself haven't an ******* clue what puts anyone in any one of those categories?

I've already said what I think makes someone male or female for the purposes of this thread.

Once you put the people who come into the world with the equipment to create sperm in the "male" bin and the people who come equipped to do oögenesis in the "female" bin, who is left and how should they be classified?

That's just one example, though.

You don't HAVE an argument; all you've got is a dog's breakfast of contradictory and self-serving "definitions".

Once again, I've already said (at #306) what I think makes someone male or female for the purposes of this thread. Whether or not there is an emergent consensus in a thread about trans rights doesn't change my stance.

Bottom line is that you're talking out of both sides of your mouth there mate.

You are confusing, once again, what I've said about how I'm using the terms here and what I've said about how other people are using the terms elsewhere on ISF.

 

[d4m10n]

You SAY that those who never have and never will produce sperm are NOT males, but then you turn around and an insist that those who are merely on the pathway to producing sperm - even if they never actually do produce sperm, as with those past the age of puberty but who remain infertile thereafter while still exhibiting the "male habitus/phenotype", as per your requirements

I don't recall saying that those folks are male for our purposes here. Care to find a quote?

 

[Emily's Cat]

1) 0.00000 ....0%
2) maybe 90%?
3) male
4) 0.00000....00%

But generally a bunch of red herrings.

The conclusion should be that by your definition, this person "may not" become "male"... but they absolutely cannot become female, right? In other words they are 100% not-female.

IF there are only two sexes in humans, and IF an individual is categorically unable to ever be one of those sexes... then WHY is it so important to you to insist that such an individual be considered "sexless"? Why the need to say "potential male", instead of just accepting that a non-gamete-producing individual that can never ever be female in any way simply be referred to as male?

I am NOT, in any way shape or form, trying to argue that mammals can change sex.

What I am trying to get you to address - like pulling teeth or convincing YECs that the Earth is older than 6000 years - is that the structure of Lexico/Google-OED/Wikipedia/Parker-Lehtonen-essay definitions makes "produces gametes" into necessary and sufficient conditions: no gametes, no sex.

Try looking and thinking about what I'm actually saying, not what you THINK I'm saying - some rather significant differences by the look of it.

I am looking at what you're actually saying, and I have been directly addressing what you're actually saying.

None of your references claims that gamete production is a necessary and sufficient condition. And that is the element of your argument that I object to. My objections have been fairly straightforward.

Gamete production is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.

How about you give that some though, actually think about what I'm actually saying, why I'm saying it, and why your interpretation may not be a good one?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd like to see how you could rationalize having one definition for 99.9% of the 7 million sexually-reproducing species on the planet and another quite contradictory one for one of them .... Some fancy footwork, indeed; championship quality special pleading:

I'd like to see how you can have one definition for 75% of the species on the planet and another quite contradictory one for lots of bacteria, algae, fungi, and some plants.

ETA: and by the way, that definition DOES hold for clownfish as well, the only difference being that the sex of clownfish isn't immutable at birth, and for some small period of time while the fish is actively changing sex, it's not definitively male or female. But as soon as it's done changing, that clownfish is either male or female depending on the anatomy that developed, regardless of whether a specific clownfish actually produce gametes in that phase.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trying to insist that the biological definitions that apply to some 7 million sexually-reproducing species shouldn't apply to one of them - which, mirabile dictu, happens to be us - IS.

Absolute hogwash. A gelding is still a male horse, a freemartin is still a female cow.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Males are those members of the species that have the anatomical apparatus that is associated with the production of small motile gametes. Females are those members of the species that have the anatomical apparatus that is associated with the production of large sessile gametes.

Let me try a bit of logic here:
IF the individual does NOT have (or NEVER had, or Is INCAPABLE OF having) the anatomy associated with the production of large gametes, THEN the individual is male
IF the individual does NOT have (or NEVER had, or Is INCAPABLE OF having) the anatomy associated with the production of small gametes, THEN the individual is female.

 

[Steersman]

The conclusion should be that by your definition, this person "may not" become "male"... but they absolutely cannot become female, right? In other words they are 100% not-female.

Not quite sure which person you're referring to, but I can probably agree that "they are 100% not-female".

Though "not-female" covers a lot of ground ...

IF there are only two sexes in humans, and IF an individual is categorically unable to ever be one of those sexes... then WHY is it so important to you to insist that such an individual be considered "sexless"? Why the need to say "potential male", instead of just accepting that a non-gamete-producing individual that can never ever be female in any way simply be referred to as male?

A fair question, and one of some import.

But one I've also discussed in some detail, the crux of which is it leads to and promotes the "argument" that "sex is immutable (!!11!!): - a mantra hardly less ridiculous and untenable than the TRA's own "trans women are women". And because it is flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions.

Because we simply can not reasonably, or sanely, have two such definitions in play; at the very least it leads to the corruption and distortion of biology - Griffiths' point and argument.

I am looking at what you're actually saying, and I have been directly addressing what you're actually saying.

Where - EXACTLY - have you addressed the article on extensional and intensional definitions that I've referred to and quoted, probably, dozens of times?

For a point of reference, do try focusing on this section:

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

None of your references claims that gamete production is a necessary and sufficient condition. And that is the element of your argument that I object to. My objections have been fairly straightforward.

Gamete production is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.

How about you give that some thought, actually think about what I'm actually saying, why I'm saying it, and why your interpretation may not be a good one?

All covered under that extensional and intensional definitions article. Which you apparently refuse to address.

 

[Emily's Cat]

All covered under that extensional and intensional definitions article. Which you apparently refuse to address.

I have addressed it, quite explicitly. Gamete production is a sufficient but not necessary condition.

 

[Steersman]

I have addressed it, quite explicitly. Gamete production is a sufficient but not necessary condition.

No, you most certainly haven't.

You don't quite seem to get that just because you - all by your little own lonesome - have, rather imperiously, said that does not at all mean that it holds any water at all. Or that it has any common currency. You think you're covered by some cloak of Papal Infallibility?

You have yet to put ANY credible dictionary, encyclopedia, or biological journal on the table which explicitly endorses that structure-absent-function schlock of "biologists" Hilton, Heying, and Wright:

"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."

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

Which endorses that "patchwork definition" of the so-called social sciences:

On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)

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

You're really not a helluva lot better than the transloonies wanting to redefine "male" and "female" as genders or, gawd help us all, gender-identities:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/male

Categories and the names for them are generally useless - if not worse than useless - if we can't stipulate the objective properties and qualities that qualify individuals for membership. And get some sort of consensus on them - as evidenced by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and professional journals.

Since you seem to have bit philosophical knowledge under your belt, you might want to take a gander at the articles at SEP on natural kinds and on necessary & sufficient conditions:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

... where the essence of a natural kind is a property or set of properties whose possession is a necessary and sufficient condition for a particular’s being a member of the kind. That fact is a so-called essential fact concerning the kind; it is a fact that, in Fine’s terms, stems from the identity or nature of the kind (Fine 1994).

Gets pretty murky pretty quickly, and I'm sure no pro-from-Dover on the finer details - even many of the bigger ones, but even the introductions provide something in the way of rough handles and reasonable starting points.

 

[d4m10n]

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

Pretty solid definition, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

The only obvious problem is where to draw the line in the edge cases, e.g. CAIS people who have the external anatomy associated with humans who produce large gametes but are born without the anatomical structures to (ever) do so.

Then again, Heying/Hilton/Wright weren't addressing DSDs but rather self-ID.

Sent from my Emperor ETR-1 using Tapatalk

 

[Steersman]

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

Pretty solid definition, thanks for bringing it to my attention.

De nada; Ima helper ...

But certainly a fairly succinct one underwriting and making explicit that "developmental pathways" perspective, although I'd question "solid". Seems to me that the authors have crossed the Rubicon and bet the farm with it since I don't think - Del Giudice & Griffiths don't think - it holds much if any water at all.

The only obvious problem is where to draw the line in the edge cases, e.g. CAIS people who have the external anatomy associated with humans who produce large gametes but are born without the anatomical structures to (ever) do so.

You might note that Emily's Cat opened the Transwoman thread - at least one stage of it - with a link to a tweet on Walsh's documentary that, in turn, links to one by Heather Heying which gives some evidence of them painting themselves into a tight corner:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13825221&postcount=1
https://twitter.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1508834511877918720

Women are adult human females….Females are individuals who do or did or will or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs.

Not quite sure how that doesn't rope in all of the Intersex - many of whom seem quite annoyed - if not "offended" - by that arbitrary inclusion.

Somewhat more importantly, it raises a bunch of questions about, as you suggested, which "anatomical structures" are going to qualify as essential in the process of producing eggs - or sperm in the case of males. And that's compounded if we want to answer that question for all of the other 7 million or so sexually reproducing species on the planet.

Now you have not an intensional definition - as the biological definitions clearly are despite Emily's Cat's insistence to the contrary - but an extensional one where you have to list all of the exceptions and qualifications and members:

This [intensional definition] is the opposite approach to the extensional definition, which defines by listing everything that falls under that definition – an extensional definition of bachelor would be a listing of all the unmarried men in the world.

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

And that's apart from the argument that they've turned the natural kind definitions for the sexes - those of mainstream biology - into artificial kinds that are largely antithetical to foundational principles of science, biology in particular:

A large part of our exploration of the world consists in categorizing or classifying the objects and processes we encounter, both in scientific and everyday contexts. There are various, perhaps innumerable, ways to sort objects into different kinds or categories, but it is commonly assumed that, among the countless possible types of classifications, one group is privileged. Philosophy refers to such categories as natural kinds. .... The naturalness in question is not the naturalness of the entities being classified, but that of the groupings themselves. Groupings that are artificial or arbitrary are not natural; they are invented or imposed on nature. Natural kinds, on the other hand, are not invented, and many assume that scientific investigations should discover them.

https://iep.utm.edu/nat-kind/

Hard to imagine a more "artificial or arbitrary" kind than what Heying, Hilton, and Wright are peddling.

Bloody ridiculous - seems rather clear that they haven't an ******* clue about any of the logical and epistemological principles undergirding biology. To a not inconsiderable extent, a bunch of self-important and deluded grifters, too pigheaded to even consider that they might have their arses hanging out in the cold. And are leading a bunch of lemmings over the cliff.

Then again, Heying/Hilton/Wright weren't addressing DSDs but rather self-ID.

Maybe. Though I'm not sure that the reason for it is terribly relevant. Not particularly useful to have a whole bunch of ad hoc and quite inconsistent definitions for the sexes created for different applications. Makes comparing apples and apples - or apples and oranges - rather difficult if there isn't any common terminology or points of reference.

 

[d4m10n]

Not particularly useful to have a whole bunch of ad hoc and quite inconsistent definitions for the sexes created for different applications.

Hard disagree on this one, I'd say the sorting criteria depend on what you're trying to do.

For the sake of discussions about sporting leagues, I'd adopt Rolfe's definition which hinges on functional SRY genes and receptors; fairness and safety require that we segregate those who undergo male puberty.

For the sake of discussions about sexual reproduction (like this one) I'd use different criteria based on reproductive potentiality/capacity.

For the sake of discussions about traditional Korean spas and other sex-segregated nude spaces, I'd go with external body habitus.

Sent from my Fathon FQ2 using Tapatalk

 

[Steersman]

Originally Posted by Steersman:
Not particularly useful to have a whole bunch of ad hoc and quite inconsistent definitions for the sexes created for different applications.

Hard disagree on this one, I'd say the sorting criteria depend on what you're trying to do.

That's the problem that the transloonie nutcases are creating by redefining "male" and "female" as genders and gender identities. You want to follow suit? One joker to another?

But maybe it would help to realize that it's the objectively quantifiable criteria that are the tickets, that the names we attach to various collections of them are largely irrelevant, if not red herrings the size of Moby Dick?

For the sake of discussions about sporting leagues, I'd adopt Rolfe's definition which hinges on functional SRY genes and receptors; fairness and safety require that we segregate those who undergo male puberty.

Sure, more or less. But, again, it's less the definition than the underlying trait. Why I've argued that the subtext of the entry requirements for women's sports should be no XY need apply; SRY, not SRY.

Pretty much all that those who have dicks, or who had them have that gene; probably 98% if not more. If there's a question then do the genetic analysis. Easy peasy ...

For the sake of discussions about sexual reproduction (like this one) I'd use different criteria based on reproductive potentiality/capacity.

Aye, there's the rub. WHICH criteria? Any that have even the least passing resemblance - past, present, or future - to any traits that might have anything to do with actually producing [habitually, present tense indefinite] gametes of one sort or the other? What a joke.

There's absolutely diddly-squat about any "potentiality" in ANY of the biological definitions that are endorsed by no end of credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, biological journals, biologists, and philosophers of biology.

What you're talking about, what Hilton and her partners in crime are talking about is family resemblances and polythetic categories. Which boil down into spectra. Bravo, bravo ... See Regenmortel JPG:

For the sake of discussions about traditional Korean spas and other sex-segregated nude spaces, I'd go with external body habitus.

That's a bit vague; methinks you need to learn how to call a spade an ******* shovel. Try voicing, even mentally for starters, the phrase, "one set of spaces for vagina-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof, and another set of such spaces for penis-havers and reasonable facsimiles thereof". Gets easier with practice ...

Sent from my Fathon FQ2 using Tapatalk

You must have a lot of spare cellphones floating about ...

 

[d4m10n]

That's the problem that the transloonie nutcases are creating by redefining "male" and "female" as genders and gender identities.

I'd likely be interested in discussing such attempts at redefinition (assuming you have one in mind) in the thread about trans issues.

But maybe it would help to realize that it's the objectively quantifiable criteria that are the tickets...

Yes, but the criteria for eligibility to undertake surrogate motherhood are different than the criteria to compete in women's sport, and each of those are different than the criteria to visit Michfest^WP.

Why I've argued that the subtext of the entry requirements for women's sports should be no XY need apply; SRY, not SRY.

People with de la Chapelle syndrome^WP probably shouldn't be in women's sport; karyotype isn't enough information here.

Aye, there's the rub. WHICH criteria?

Already asked and answered.

There's absolutely diddly-squat about any "potentiality" in ANY of the biological definitions that are endorsed by no end of credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, biological journals, biologists, and philosophers of biology.

None of the credible lexicographers, encyclopedists, or biologists have adopted your habit of calling newborns with 46, XY karyotype "pre-males," though. Either they misunderstand what "male" means in English, or you do.

Sent from my Emperor Vectre using Tapatalk