Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[d4m10n]

That "a spectrum requires a measure"? That one can't use "categorical variables"? More BS.

A spectrum^WP by definition is "not limited to a specific set of values but can vary, without gaps, across a continuum."

There has to be

1) (at least one) feature being measured, which is

2) variable across a continuum,

3) without gaps

It may be possible to show that "sex is a spectrum" but I'd like to have a close look at what is being measured and how the plot turns out.

 

[theprestige]

"Gender" might qualify, except that it can't be measured.

 

[Steersman]

A spectrum^WP by definition is "not limited to a specific set of values but can vary, without gaps, across a continuum."

There has to be

1) (at least one) feature being measured, which is

2) variable across a continuum,

3) without gaps

It may be possible to show that "sex is a spectrum" but I'd like to have a close look at what is being measured and how the plot turns out.

A physical quantity is said to have a discrete spectrum if it takes only distinct values, with gaps between one value and the next.

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

But where have I said anything to the effect that sex itself is a spectrum?

And Oxford Premium:

Used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points:
the left or the right of the political spectrum

All that's required is some way of ordering the entities on the scale and some stipulated end points.

Just because someone publishes something is no guarantee that it is coherent with anything else; some judgement, some analysis is required.

 

[Steersman]

"Gender" might qualify, except that it can't be measured.

You may wish to take a look at my Welcome post, particularly the section on "Rationalized Gender" which attempts to put gender on a more scientific footing:

A great many sources and credible researchers - Malone & Hyde in particular - endorse the view that gender is more or less synonymous with personalities and personality types. However, even limiting gender to what are called The Big Five personality traits means at least 5 dimensions to gender. But one might reasonably argue that any trait that shows some differences - on average - between males and females - like heights for example - also constitutes another entirely different dimension, another axis in that multi-dimensional gender spectrum.

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/i/64264079/rationalized-gender

Some merit in the concept of gender as a spectrum, though a multidimensional one seems more applicable. Some possibility of "mapping" that to a single dimension, but the mathematics of that is somewhat murky at best - largely outside of my salary range.

 

[theprestige]

You may wish to take a look at my Welcome post, particularly the section on "Rationalized Gender" which attempts to put gender on a more scientific footing:

Then again, I may not so wish.

Confusion about what, Steersman? What might the structural scientific definition of sex leave me confused about, in your opinion? Give an example.

 

[Steersman]

Then again, I may not so wish.

"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up", amirite?

But others might not be quite so narrow-minded ...

Confusion about what, Steersman? What might the structural scientific definition of sex leave me confused about, in your opinion? Give an example.

Not much point in giving examples if you refuse to look at them - a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man. Or to one who will not see ...

 

[theprestige]

"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up", amirite?

But others might not be quite so narrow-minded ...



Not much point in giving examples if you refuse to look at them - a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man. Or to one who will not see ...

Confusion about what, Steersman?

 

[d4m10n]

But where have I said anything to the effect that sex itself is a spectrum?

Remind me why we're talking about spectra (either continuous or discrete) in a thread about sex?

 

[Steersman]

Given that you do not get to decide which definition we or anyone else uses, how would you like to proceed from here?

Maybe go back to first principles? Maybe have some discussion on what the objectives are, which definitions might be the most useful for reaching them?

Just a thought or two ...

You might try reading that Cambridge Core article, even the first section or two:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...case-studies/6372514DD31945C1F489FAC0D0FE49C8

Likewise the article on categorization:

Categorization is grounded in the features that distinguish the category's members from nonmembers. Categorization is important in learning, prediction, inference, decision making, language, and many forms of organisms' interaction with their environments.

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

There's some rhyme and reason to the process; it's not a free-for-all. Unless you maybe want to accept the "definitions" of the TRAs by which Laurel Hubbard qualifies as a female and gets to play in women's sports? "How dare you deprive her of that right?"

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

 

[Steersman]

Remind me why we're talking about spectra (either continuous or discrete) in a thread about sex?

Do pay attention there Double-Oh Seven ...

I said pretty much right out of the chute that something of a major problem with the HHWH is that it boils down into a polythetic category, a discrete spectrum:

However, assuming that they are stipulative and intensional definitions, one of the biggest, though not the only flaws in it is that, as I've argued, it basically boils down into a polythetic category - which constitutes a spectrum.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13901859&postcount=7

 

[Myriad]

Maybe go back to first principles? Maybe have some discussion on what the objectives are, which definitions might be the most useful for reaching them?

Just a thought or two ...

You might try reading that Cambridge Core article, even the first section or two:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...case-studies/6372514DD31945C1F489FAC0D0FE49C8

Likewise the article on categorization:


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

There's some rhyme and reason to the process; it's not a free-for-all. Unless you maybe want to accept the "definitions" of the TRAs by which Laurel Hubbard qualifies as a female and gets to play in women's sports? "How dare you deprive her of that right?"

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

I don't currently have any objectives that require, or would be facilitated in any way by, altering the definitions of male and female, in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals.

So, how about you? What objectives are you talking about?

 

[theprestige]

Remind me why we're talking about spectra (either continuous or discrete) in a thread about sex?

There seems to be some confusion there.

 

[Steersman]

I don't currently have any objectives that require, or would be facilitated in any way by, altering the definitions of male and female, in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals.

The sun never sets on the British Myriad empire?

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

I've explained dozens of times that the HHWH and the folk-biology definitions conflict rather badly with the standard biological definitions of Griffiths, Parker, Lehtonen, & Google/OED:

Many people assume that if there are only two sexes, that means everyone must fall into one of them. But the biological definition of sex doesn’t imply that at all. As well as simultaneous hermaphrodites, which are both male and female, sequential hermaphrodites are first one sex and then the other. There are also individual organisms that are neither male nor female. ....

Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from defining each sex by the ability to do one thing: to make eggs or to make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can’t do either. ....

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

 

[d4m10n]

I said pretty much right out of the chute that something of a major problem with the HHWH is that it boils down into a polythetic category, a discrete spectrum

Two things here.

1) The people who claim sex is a spectrum do not invoke either polythetic categories or discrete spectra. They almost certainly mean "spectrum" in the usual (continuous) sense of the term.

2) If you think the definition from the OP leads to a discrete spectrum^WP, what measures are being plotted?

 

[theprestige]

Confusion about what, Steersman? Give an example from everyday life.

 

[Steersman]

Two things here.

1) The people who claim sex is a spectrum do not invoke either polythetic categories or discrete spectra. They almost certainly mean "spectrum" in the usual (continuous) sense of the term.

So what? You say po-ta-toe, I say po-tat-oe, still a spectrum ...

2) If you think the definition from the OP leads to a discrete spectrum^WP, what measures are being plotted?

It's there in Hilton's tweet, as bold as brass: past, present, or future functionality. See:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13902446&postcount=15

But in the case of Sally's [polythetic] family the "necessary and sufficient conditions" are EITHER "A and B and C and not-D", XOR "A and B and not-C and D", XOR "A and not-B and C and D", XOR "not-A and B and C and D".

Either one set is sufficient, but at least one set is necessary for category membership. Which is more or less exactly the case with the HHWH schlock:

Either:
structures with future reproductive functionality (functional gonads), or
structures with current reproductive functionality, or
structures with past reproductive functionality.

Past, present, and future are intrinsically mutually exclusive. Rather a stretch to see how a prepubescent "child" can be said to have any present or past reproductive functionality. Same thing with the other possible cases.

Hard to imagine a more ridiculous, logically incoherent, and totally useless definition than the HHWH. "teenager (noun): person with past, present, or future age of 13 to 19 inclusive" ...

Helen Joyce, for all her many flaws and desperate "prior commitments" of her own, had a nice summary of the issue:

The intention here is to be “inclusive.” But inclusive definitions miss the point. The way you define something is to state criteria that enable you to distinguish between things that qualify and things that don’t.

https://web.archive.org/web/2020071...tte.com/2020/06/20/she-who-must-not-be-named/

 

[Myriad]

The sun never sets on the British Myriad empire?

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

What's that supposed to mean? This doesn't appear to be any kind of argument. Are you just making noise because you can't answer the question?

I've explained dozens of times...

"Johnny, I've explained dozens of times, 'the whole substance of bread [has been changed] into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine [has been changed] into the substance of the Blood of Christ' ..."

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

...that the HHWH and the folk-biology definitions conflict rather badly with the standard biological definitions of Griffiths, Parker, Lehtonen, & Google/OED:

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

Even supposing that's true despite a large amount of clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary, what problems does that conflict cause, that a different definition of male and female in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals would solve?

 

[theprestige]

Steersman, I'm only interested in practical applications, not philosophical speculation. What confusion arises from a structural definition of sex?

 

[GlennB]

Steersman, does it bother you that nobody is using your 'system'? In everyday life, medicine, general science ... You're alone here. Isn't that a worry?

 

[Steersman]

What's that supposed to mean? This doesn't appear to be any kind of argument. Are you just making noise because you can't answer the question?

Meant to suggest that you seem to have a rather "parochial" attitude - if something isn't within your sight then it doesn't exist.

"Johnny, I've explained dozens of times, 'the whole substance of bread [has been changed] into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine [has been changed] into the substance of the Blood of Christ' ..."

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

Drawing a comparison between your "I've explained dozens of times..." and those peddling religious dogma. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true - particularly where you've offered diddly-squat in the way of evidence.

Even supposing that's true despite a large amount of clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary ...

LoL; whotta thigh-slapper. Only in your own mind ...

... what problems does that conflict cause, that a different definition of male and female in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals would solve?

For one thing, the HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female.

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

Maybe not a big problem in itself, but it conflicts rather badly with the claim that there are no human hermaphrodites:

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

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window and will have to be anathematized and expunged from the lexicon. All of the journals and biologists writing about the phenomenon will have to get visits from the Ministry of Truth and the Minister-in-Charge, Emma Hilton Dolores Umbridge, explaining the errors of their ways:

Sequential hermaphroditism (called dichogamy in botany) is a type of hermaphroditism that occurs in many fish, gastropods, and plants.

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

Besides which, there will have to be separate definitions for high school biology classes and those for "social justice" ones ... rank insanity.

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