Merged Strict biological definitions of male/female

[Steersman]

I asked earlier whether you can come up with a specific example of an individual organism (preferably mammalian) where the structural definition gives one answer and your functional interpretation gives another.

I don't think you're on firm footing if elementary school children are the example you want to use, since if we go by your interpretation of "strict biological definitions based on function" there is no criterion by which we can sort those who can pee standing up (whom I call "boys") from those who invariably pee sitting down (whom I call "girls"). The built environment already takes these differences into account, but your "strict biological definition" doesn't see them, because they are merely structural.

Not just my "functional interpretation" though, is it? It's the definition of Google/OD, Wikipedia, Parker & Lehtonen, and of Griffiths. Just ran across a tweet from a UK philosopher which had quoted some definitions from the Oxford Dictionary of Biology which says pretty much the same thing:



Something that I had included in my Medium essay on The Imperative of Categories (so to speak):

https://medium.com/@steersmann/the-imperative-of-categories-874154213e42

But would you agree that both the structural definitions of Hilton and Company, and those of Lehtonen and Company qualify as stipulative definitions? That we might then have a reasonable debate on which one is the best and most useful?

Somewhat en passant, Griffiths' preprint article raises the quite reasonable question, "Why should evolutionary biology get to define biological sexes?" Some fascinating digressions into alternative viewpoints, but the bottom line is more or less that pretty much all of the sexual dimorphism in humans - physical, biological, psychological, emotional, social, etc. - and in other anisogamic species starts from the two fundamentally different gamete types - and the processes which produce them. Something which even Hilton's definitions recognize in its "present functionality". So then the issue is what relevance or value there is in including past or future functionality.

But if they're both stipulative definitions then it's reasonable to ask, as per your sorting those who "pee standing up" and those who "pee sitting down", how the two definitions affect the definitions for "boys" and "girls". The standard for the former is:

boy (noun): a male child or young man.

But in the case of Hilton's "thesis", you really have modify that definition to qualify "male" - at least in the case of "child" - with "non-functional". You might note theprestige added "functional" in one case of "male", and that, as I had noted, Wikipedia's article on sequential hermaphrodites does the same:

Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female.

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

From which one might reasonably conclude that, by Hilton's lexicon, male and female are at least binaries themselves - or trinaries if you wish to split out "non-functional" into two subcategories. Hilton and Company are clearly making the sexes into polythetic categories, and you can't just do some hand waving and claim each subcategory is the same as the others.

But that's really pretty much the same as the functional definitions, except that now "male" has to be qualified with "pre-" or "probable".

Whether the definitions are changed to explicitly recognize those differences or not doesn't change the fact that the qualifications are implicit in the definitions chosen, and in their consequences. Don't think you can reasonably claim that there should be one type of "sauce" for the goose, and another for the gander.

It might be worth noting that the OP definition was provided in response to sex and gender issues arising amongst Homo sapiens rather than, say, sequential hermaphrodites. It might also be worth noting that the specialists who study sequential hermaphrodites seem not to suffer from confusion when observing how gametic structures change over time.

Sure. And the issue, as you suggested in the OP, is whether the strict biological definitions should apply, or the structure-absent-function ones of Hilton and Company.

But the issue really isn't whether "specialists suffer from confusion" - though clearly some of them do, at least those generalists who "think" every cell has a sex or that sex is a spectrum. Though not sure that Hilton and Company have much of a leg to stand on in throwing stones at the latter since that definition of theirs boils down into a pair of binaries or trinaries. The issue is whether the general public is "dazed and confused" by the competing "theses" - should be manifestly evident that they are: every man and their dogs riding madly off in all directions.

But seems to me you're being a bit disingenuous, at best, in thinking the issue is just a matter of who pees where. Don't see that you've addressed - surprise, surprise - the consequences of, in effect, having one set of definitions for high school classes on biology, and another quite contradictory set for those on social studies.

Once again, your functional definitions have no power to help sort prepubescent children. To you, they are all "sexless," unless you want to infer future function from current structure.

Once again, not just my functional definitions. Somewhat disingenuous, at best, to describe it as such.

But of course we can so infer: methinks there are very few "pre-males" who go on to produce ova. Largely why I suggested that "pre-" or "probable" is implicit in the definitions for "boy" and "girl". As "non-functional" is in both cases.

People using the OP definition require no such qualification, since they are free to assign sex based on structural features.

Methinks that's just trying to sweep the elephant in the living room under the rug. Probably something like a 67% chance that any given penis-haver is in fact a (functional) male, and in 2 times out of 3 making that inference probably won't be wrong or cause many problems. Likewise with vagina-havers.

But the issue is that that structural definition conflicts rather badly with the functional one. It's not just of academic interest that "from contradictions, anything follows":

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

We might just as well say that black is white as to have both definitions in play. Little more than following suit with Ignatius Loyola's Rules for Thinking with the Church:

That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity[...], if [the Church] shall have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appears to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...er_Secondary_School,_Dindigul&oldid=797030740

"Priestesses" Heying and Hilton, and "Priest" Wright in the "Sex is Immutable" Church ...

 

[casebro]

Is this a good place for a statistical question?

"in 4% of newborns the doctors can't tell male or female"? Sounds out of the bounds of everything I ever heard.

 

[d4m10n]

Not just my "functional interpretation" though, is it? It's the definition of Google/OD, Wikipedia, Parker & Lehtonen, and of Griffiths.

Neither the OED nor Wikipedia have any problem referring to postmenopausal females, prepubescent males, male/female infants, etc. and thus you don't get to claim these sources for your quixotic crusade to narrow the common definitions of male and female to exclude all those who haven't yet or no longer produce gametes, and by now it seems increasingly dishonest for you to continue doing so.

But would you agree that both the structural definitions of Hilton and Company, and those of Lehtonen and Company qualify as stipulative definitions? That we might then have a reasonable debate on which one is the best and most useful?

Stipulative definition^WP is a term of art for a definition which has been clearly laid out for the purposes of a specific conversation, publication, discussion, argument, etc. & it will often differ from all the lexical definitions on offer.

So then the issue is what relevance or value there is in including past or future functionality.

We've already mentioned locker rooms and bathrooms and sports leagues, all of which are segregated by sex (structurally speaking) rather than by sex in the sense you take the term to mean. If a middle-aged man has a vasectomy, he (they?) don't become eligible to compete against the postmenopausal women in the "sexless" category.

But if they're both stipulative definitions...

They are not, AFAICT.

But in the case of Hilton's "thesis", you really have modify that definition to qualify "male" - at least in the case of "child" - with "non-functional".

No, you don't, since Hilton & co. are free to infer future functionality from the presence of structures such as testicles.

Hilton and Company are clearly making the sexes into polythetic categories, and you can't just do some hand waving and claim each subcategory is the same as the others.

If you are correct that Hilton is saying the sexes are polythetic, then you should be able to come up with at least two criteria which she is using, neither of which is a defining property present in all members of the defined class.

Probably something like a 67% chance that any given penis-haver is in fact a (functional) male, and in 2 times out of 3 making that inference probably won't be wrong or cause many problems.

Can you come up with a situation (not involving sperm donation) where that 1/3 inference is problematic?

 

[Rolfe]

Is this a good place for a statistical question?

"in 4% of newborns the doctors can't tell male or female"? Sounds out of the bounds of everything I ever heard.

The figure I have encountered is 0.018% either so ambiguous as to require further testing, or in which the sex is misidentified.

Sounds like someone has read the vastly overinflated figure for "intersex" dreamed up by a trans activist by adding in things like hypospadias and various adrenal hyperplasia conditions (which are neither "intersex" nor do they cause any difficulty with correct sexing of the neonate) and assumed that all these cases are characterised by ambiguous genitalia. Which they are not.

Actually I think they've gone even further, because even the hyperinflated figure that I came across was only something like 0.7% "intersex". Where the idea of 4% came from I don't know.

 

[d4m10n]

"in 4% of newborns the doctors can't tell male or female"?

I cannot tell whom you are quoting, but the correct figure is closer to 0.13%.

 

[Rolfe]

That was higher than I read, but note the conclusions section.

The frequency of ambiguous genitalia was higher than in previous studies, but, as with any experiment, the finding should be met with caution because this study was conducted in tertiary care hospitals.

 

[theprestige]

Think I've already answered that question - several times, directly or indirectly, here or other threads. Don't think you're paying attention or are particularly honest in your responses - or the lack of them. See here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13903162&postcount=32

The only confusion I see here is the confusion that has arisen for you by insisting that the functional definition must be adopted.

I'm asking you for practical, everyday examples of confusion arising from use of the structural definition.

In every real-world example we've discussed so far, it seems to me that the structural definition, when used, either does not cause confusion, or eliminates confusion.

So again I ask: What confusion arises from using the structural definition, Steersman?

And to be clear - since you seem to be... confused about the nature of the question - I'm not asking for theoretical or philosophical answers. I'm not asking for answers based on your preferred interpretation of dictionary definitions.

I'm asking for real-world, practical-application answers about the structural definition as used in everyday life. Give me an example of where using the structural definition of male and female causes confusion.

Restrooms? Obviously not. Prisons? Obviously not. Sports? Recognition? Sexual attraction? Obviously not!

So where in everyday life does this confusion arise, Steersman? Who gets confused when a structurally male person is referred to as male? You?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13903363&postcount=60

This post doesn't even attempt to answer my question.

 

[GlennB]

...

So where in everyday life does this confusion arise, Steersman? Who gets confused when a structurally male person is referred to as male? You?

It reminds me of that corny old joke, where a boy is in a school marching band. As the band passes his parents in the street, one says "Hey! They're all out of step except our little Johnny!"

 

[Steersman]

Neither the OED nor Wikipedia have any problem referring to postmenopausal females, prepubescent males, male/female infants, etc. and thus you don't get to claim these sources for your quixotic crusade to narrow the common definitions of male and female to exclude all those who haven't yet or no longer produce gametes, and by now it seems increasingly dishonest for you to continue doing so.

So what if OED "refer to postmenopausal females"? We've agreed that dictionaries are descriptive. They'll say black is white if some group is saying X is black, and another group is saying X is white.

But if some definitions are stipulative, if they match stipulative definitions of biology - as I've shown to be the case - then it's absolutely immaterial that some usages contradict those definitions. You might just as well argue that we should change the rules of arithmetic because someone once said "2+2=5".

Stipulative definition is a term of art for a definition which has been clearly laid out for the purposes of a specific conversation, publication, discussion, argument, etc. & it will often differ from all the lexical definitions on offer.

Think you've got your thumbs - to the elbows - on the scales because that Wiki article doesn't say anything of the sort. What it DOES say is this:

When the term already exists, this definition may, but does not necessarily, contradict the dictionary (lexical) definition of the term.

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

Bottom line is that you seem rather desperately committed to rejecting any stipulative definitions - even those of Hilton and Company - that specify necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership. Even where there seems to be some urgent necessity for them to separate wheat and chaff.

We've already mentioned locker rooms and bathrooms and sports leagues, all of which are segregated by sex (structurally speaking) rather than by sex in the sense you take the term to mean. If a middle-aged man has a vasectomy, he (they?) don't become eligible to compete against the postmenopausal women in the "sexless" category.

Is there any such sports leagues for the sexless?

They are not, AFAICT.

You entirely unevidenced opinion then - noted ...

No, you don't, since Hilton & co. are free to infer future functionality from the presence of structures such as testicles.

Horse feathers. The Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites clearly found it necessary to qualify their use of "male" and "female" with "functional". Manifest evidence that, by the HHWH definitions they apparently subscribe to, there are "non-functional" "males" and "females". Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander ...

If you are correct that Hilton is saying the sexes are polythetic, then you should be able to come up with at least two criteria which she is using, neither of which is a defining property present in all members of the defined class.

Clearly you're not listening, or you refuse to address my arguments since I've explained several times that the criteria she is using are past, present, and future functionality. There are three mutually exclusive conditions for category membership which makes their categorization into a trinary, into a spectrum - however you want to order the individual conditions.

Can you come up with a situation (not involving sperm donation) where that 1/3 inference is problematic?

LoL. Apart from all the cases where the ability to actually produce sperm is an essential element - see the above re sequential hermaphrodites - there are no cases where producing them is an essential element, where "that 1/3 inference is problematic" ...

You clearly refuse to address my arguments, notably that the structure-absent-function definitions clearly conflicts with the standard biological definitions of Parker & Lehtonen, of the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, of Griffiths and Del Giudice. Which you've conceded does in fact cause confusion. And in a wide range of circumstances, some of which I've clearly described - repeatedly.

You've put diddly-squat on the table in the way of any actual definitions, apart from those Hilton and Company had published in the UK Times - hardly any sort of peer-reviewed biological journal. If anyone is being "increasingly dishonest" in this "debate", methinks you're rather more guilty of that than I am.

 

[Steersman]

....

I'm asking for real-world, practical-application answers about the structural definition as used in everyday life. Give me an example of where using the structural definition of male and female causes confusion. ....

I've explained it several times relative to several situations - you're just not listening. Or you refuse to address them because they contradict the dogma you subscribe to - "Every one - of every anisogamic species - is either male or female, no exceptions! The Bible tells me so!"

"Despite Their Superficial Openness To Criticism, People In EA Are Only Willing To Engage With A Narrow Selection Of Critiques That Flatter Their Preconceptions, While Truly Threatening Criticisms Are Excluded From The Window Of Acceptable Discourse."

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/criticism-of-criticism-of-criticism

 

[d4m10n]

But if some definitions are stipulative, if they match stipulative definitions of biology - as I've shown to be the case - then it's absolutely immaterial that some usages contradict those definitions.

Once again, some definitions are stipulated for the purposes of a specific argument, discussion, etc. but there are no "stipulative definitions of biology" since no one has the authority to stipulate usage for an entire scientific field.

Bottom line is that you seem rather desperately committed to rejecting any stipulative definitions - even those of Hilton and Company - that specify necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership.

Where did Hilton & co. claim to be stipulating definitions for the sake of a limited discussion rather than relating their understanding of common usage within the field?

Is there any such sports leagues for the sexless?

No, because sports leagues are segregated based on structural considerations rather than gamete production.

The Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites clearly found it necessary to qualify their use of "male" and "female" with "functional".

Let me double check the OP to see if I'm interested in arguing about clownfish.

Clearly you're not listening, or you refuse to address my arguments since I've explained several times that the criteria she is using are past, present, and future functionality. There are three mutually exclusive conditions for category membership which makes their categorization into a trinary, into a spectrum - however you want to order the individual conditions.

Every mammal can be sorted into functional or non-functional, taking into account their entire lifetime. The sexually functional ones can be sorted further into either male or female based on the function performed. That leaves three categories, but it's not even a discrete spectrum because there is no x-axis (measure) upon which to plot the data.

You clearly refuse to address my arguments, notably that the structure-absent-function definitions clearly conflicts with the standard biological definitions of Parker & Lehtonen, of the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, of Griffiths and Del Giudice.

You clearly refuse to come up with a real world example where Parker & Lehtonen outperform the definitions given in the OP, despite being asked to do so so many times that I've lost count.

 

[theprestige]

I've explained it several times relative to several situations - you're just not listening.

That may be so. I apologize. Please. Humor me one last time. What, in your opinion, is the best example of day to day confusion that might arise, from my use of the structural definition? Or if not the best example, the one that comes first to your mind.

 

[Susheel]

I don't know if this had been addressed earlier but per OP, he has limit the scope for a useful answer. The strict biological definition of male/female is already well established.
However, the question is whether one should adhere to those characteristics when it concerns man/woman. One differetiation is purely biological the other more socially constructed and psychological in nature. Is it necessary for there to be a one to one binary correspondence one in traditionally acceptable pairing?
Again, even in the biological realm, the male/female is not a binary category, with variations in between. So should these be accepted or rejected because it makes some people feel icky.

 

[Rolfe]

How is male/female not a binary category? What is in between, other than developmental anomalies affecting bodies which are nevertheless one or the other?

Two gametes. Every individual arises as the result of the fusion of one of each type. You can't get more binary than that.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know if this had been addressed earlier but per OP, he has limit the scope for a useful answer. The strict biological definition of male/female is already well established.
However, the question is whether one should adhere to those characteristics when it concerns man/woman. One differetiation is purely biological the other more socially constructed and psychological in nature. Is it necessary for there to be a one to one binary correspondence one in traditionally acceptable pairing?

This thread was created intentionally and explicitly to examine the biological question only. Social constructs of gender, traditions in pairing, etc., are out of scope for this thread. Try the Other Thread, if you really want to discuss those questions.

Again, even in the biological realm, the male/female is not a binary category, with variations in between. So should these be accepted or rejected because it makes some people feel icky.

Male and female in mammals is indeed a binary category, with no variations "in between".

There are exactly two development paths, genetically determined. All mammals get one or the other path, or very rarely some mix of both. This mixture does not create a third sex or a spectrum of sexes between male and female.

 

[d4m10n]

This thread was created intentionally and explicitly to examine the biological question only. Social constructs of gender, traditions in pairing, etc., are out of scope for this thread.

I agree with all of this, and I'd like to add that the definitions I (personally) use vary considerably based on intended application. Are we sorting dogs for breeding purposes? Are we sorting primates to keep the females safe from aggressive males? Are we trying to comply with legislatively mandated sex quotas in Irish politics? Are you trying to find the highest paid female CEO?

I think it's fine to say which definition you're using for which purposes, but I'd rather not delve overmuch into questions of sex/gender & public policy here in this thread since there are already one or two threads doing that.

Male and female in mammals is indeed a binary category, with no variations "in between".

There is already an intersex thread as well, where we get into what might count as ambiguous between the two sexes.

(I mention this for those reading along who haven't been there before.)

 

[Steersman]

Once again, some definitions are stipulated for the purposes of a specific argument, discussion, etc. but there are no "stipulative definitions of biology" since no one has the authority to stipulate usage for an entire scientific field.

You seem to think that it's somehow necessary for there to be some Pope of biology who puts on his cloak of Papal Infallibility and promulgates some definitions for the faithful. Any biologist can assert, can stipulate, what they mean by specific terms; whether anyone else follows suit is a contingent on how useful such stipulations are.

You at least should know that such stipulative definitions are ubiquitous in mathematics in particular - for instance, ran across this paper recently which is littered with such definitions:

Definition: We say two points x, y in X are stably equivalent and write x s∼ y if ....

https://www.math.uvic.ca/~buricd/colloquiumuvic.pdf

There's no Central Clearing House of Mathematicians which gives their benedictions. If they're useful, sound, and logically coherent then they're kept, and if they're not then they aren't.

Where did Hilton & co. claim to be stipulating definitions for the sake of a limited discussion rather than relating their understanding of common usage within the field?

Where did she say that their letter was "relating their understanding"?

If some biologist is asserting authoritatively what they mean by "male" and "female" - as Hilton was clearly doing - then that is, ipso facto, a stipulative definition. See:

1950 R. Robinson Definition ii. 19 By ‘stipulative definition’ I mean establishing or announcing or choosing one's own meaning for a word.

https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/190481?redirectedFrom=stipulative&p=emailAerlJphZmm/GU&d=190481

No, because sports leagues are segregated based on structural considerations rather than gamete production.

Then maybe we should cut to the chase and segregate based on bedrock "structural considerations"? Like karyotypes?

Let me double check the OP to see if I'm interested in arguing about clownfish.

LoL. No true Scotsman strict biological definition ...

You opened the door to clownfish by the heading of your OP: "strict biological definitions of male/female". What makes you think that such definitions are restricted to some small segment of all anisogamic species? But that is further underlined by the fact that NOTHING in what Hilton said restricts her definitions to mammals; in fact, it clearly refers to ALL anisogamic species. Period. No exceptions.

Every mammal can be sorted into functional or non-functional, taking into account their entire lifetime. The sexually functional ones can be sorted further into either male or female based on the function performed. That leaves three categories, but it's not even a discrete spectrum because there is no x-axis (measure) upon which to plot the data.

Christ in a sidecar. Moot whether that's disingenuous or intellectually dishonest.

EACH sex, by Hilton's stipulated definitions, has THREE - count 'em, three - quite distinct and mutually exclusive criteria for category membership, i.e., past functionality (structures that maybe used to produce gametes), present functionality (structures which produce, regularly, habitually, gametes), and future functionality (structures, which may, in the sweet bye-and-bye, produce gametes). There are three quite distinctly different types of structures there.

Each of those 6 conditions - 3 for males, 3 for females - provides a point on the X axis which will correlate with the population size associated with each of the 6 - which can be plotted on the Y axis. A population distribution which clearly makes the two sexes into spectrum, not a binary but a spectrum. Well done, Hilton & Company! Bravo!, bravo!

Though one might note that it probably leaves a significant percentage of any anisogamic population out in the cold, i.e., those that can't ever produce, aren't producing, and haven't ever produced gametes of either type.

You clearly refuse to come up with a real world example where Parker & Lehtonen outperform the definitions given in the OP, despite being asked to do so so many times that I've lost count.

You refuse to address the cases I've provided, notably clownfish.

 

[d4m10n]

You refuse to address the cases I've provided, notably clownfish.

Please allow me to quote from the OP:

Resolved: Hilton, Wright, & Heying are essentially correct about what makes a mammal either female or male.

Quick question: Are clownfish mammals?

But that is further underlined by the fact that NOTHING in what Hilton said restricts her definitions to mammals; in fact, it clearly refers to ALL anisogamic species.

As it turns out, though, I stipulated a significantly narrower topic of discussion quite clearly in the OP.

There's no Central Clearing House of Mathematicians which gives their benedictions. If they're useful, sound, and logically coherent then they're kept, and if they're not then they aren't.

Stipulative definitions needn't be "kept" beyond the scope of the paper or discussion in which they are initially promulgated, although they can be adopted more widely over time. One of the ways you can spot a stipulated definition is that the authors make it clear upfront how they are using a word or phrase for the purposes of a specific discussion or publication. If the authors are not stipulating but reporting on general usage, they will say something like "'Sex' refers to one of the two reproductive roles in this process" rather than "We will refer to 'sex' as one of the two reproductive roles in this process."

If some biologist is asserting authoritatively what they mean by "male" and "female" - as Hilton was clearly doing - then that is, ipso facto, a stipulative definition.

Sorry, no, you are misunderstanding how the process of stipulation works. Please reread the first sentence from the wiki: "A stipulative definition is a type of definition in which a new or currently existing term is given a new specific meaning for the purposes of argument or discussion in a given context." No indication has been given that the OP definition is providing a "new specific meaning" rather than simply reporting what biologists generally mean when they use the words in question.

1950 R. Robinson Definition ii. 19 By ‘stipulative definition’ I mean establishing or announcing or choosing one's own meaning for a word.

This is clearly not what Hilton, Wright, & Heying are doing. There is nothing to indicate "own meaning" here rather than expert witness reporting on how the words "male" and "female" are generally used in their fields of study.

Then maybe we should cut to the chase and segregate based on bedrock "structural considerations"?

Yes.

Each of those 6 conditions - 3 for males, 3 for females - provides a point on the X axis which will correlate with the population size associated with each of the 6 - which can be plotted on the Y axis.

You are not measuring anything on the x-axis, you're just throwing categories on there in any order. Have another look at the wiki page for discrete spectrum^WP and notice that the x-axes have quantity labels such as "wavelength (nm)" or what-have-you.

 

[theprestige]

Then maybe we should cut to the chase and segregate based on bedrock "structural considerations"?

Not maybe, but certainly. And not should, but already have.

 

[Steersman]

Not maybe, but certainly. And not should, but already have.

Don't think either of you are playing with a full deck there - surprise, surprise ... - as I clearly qualified that question with my own answer:

Then maybe we should cut to the chase and segregate based on bedrock "structural considerations"? Like karyotypes?