Skimmed the article and look forward to digging into it further later on. But wanted to respond to this point on collapsing many gender-related dimensions into one:
"mashing everything together is, at least in effect, just ignoring the devils in the details, or trying to sweep them under the carpet."
I disagree. I think it's valuable to highlight the different dimensions that inform our read of someone's gender, but at the end of the day we do collapse those dimensions into one when we decide to refer to someone as "he" or "she" (or "they"). Gender categories are determined by the presence of some "critical mass" of related traits unlike sex categories which are determined by the presence of particular essential traits of that category.
Many thanks for your comment and Restack. Reposting my comment there -- for posterity 🙂. Though really only necessary because Substack is something of a rather unprofessional kludge; in any case:
Seems that we more or less agree on the “different dimensions” and I’ll more or less concede your point about “some ‘critical mass’” However, I think our different “points of view” are on the value of those different dimensions as a system of categorization — largely the objective of my post — and in the problems associated from an over-reliance on that “critical mass”.
Wonder if you’ve ever run across the “Stroop Effect”: words for colours IN colours that don’t match the words themselves. For example, the word “green” written in the red colour — tends to confuse people.
There’s a serious and quite glaring incongruity between a bunch of those “critical mass” dimensions, and a couple of other salient ones.
So what is the “gender” and pronouns for Phil Illy of AGP-Gate “fame”? For Bruce Jenner and his ilk? "feminine"? "masculine"? "She"? "He"?
No doubt that that “critical mass” works in most cases, but it’s the proverbial “edge cases” — the transgendered in particular — that emphasize the fact that they are, in general, engaged in something of a fraudulent bait-and-switch, are trying to sail under a false flag. If not madder than hatters.
However, maybe somewhat more important to the issue of gender ideology in schools, I think the multiple dimensions serve to emphasize that all of those traits are just “dependent variables”; they only correlate to a greater or lesser extent with our sexes, and are not at all definitive of them.
And a Happy New Year to you too, Kari. Live long and prosper. 🙂
And many thanks for the compliments -- warms the cockles of me heart, it does. 🙂
Been thinking of emailing Janet Hyde and a few others on the topic -- any "signal boosting" that you or others are inclined to do on that score will be most appreciated. 🙂
A New Year's treat for you. It's an absolutely dreadful movie but this clip of Richard Dreyfuss playing Richard III as a cross-dressing twit in "The Goodbye Girl" is a moment of true hilarity. Poor Richard (both of them).
Many thanks SCA, particularly for the Restack. But a "Happy and Healthy" to you too. 🙂
Though your claim, and that of many others, to "woman" kind of depends on how one defines the term. If you want to promote a new one -- say, "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality" -- then I'll cheerfully concede the point.
However, betting the farm -- as too many people seem to do -- on "adult human female" is an entirely different kettle of fish.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people seem to think that there is some magic in words -- with some justification as I think "In the beginning was the Word and the Word [as language] was God" illustrates. Words only mean what we agree they mean; Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z so there's no intrinsic meaning or gospel truth in any of them
Not re-joining the debate, but I still don’t see any utility in defining the sexes as including present tense fertility or fertility at all. Instead, bodies that are designed around production of small or large gametes makes more sense to me. Either way, your writing is a fun intellectual exercise and it seems your motives are in the right place so thanks for continuing to plug your unduly narrow but certainly clear definitions of male and female. Happy new year!
A happy new year to you too. And I hope you and your daughter see some light on the issue. I see you liked my Note or comment on Stella O'Malley's Substack about the conflation of sex and gender -- thanks -- or her acknowledgement of the problem -- a large part of the reasons behind this particular post.
But thanks for the "fun intellectual exercise" compliment, though I think your whole comment was erroneously directed at SCA. Though no problemo. 🙂
However, "unduly narrow" is rather more problematic. While I can appreciate the "emotional attachment" of many women to the term "female", the fact of the matter is that those ARE the published biological definitions. If people are going to base their entirely justified fights against transgenderism on a clearly biological definition for "woman" -- i.e., "adult human female" -- then I don't think they can reasonably try to promote, implicitly or explicitly as Wright and Company do, definitions for the sexes that are flatly contradicted by those biological definitions, ones which are published in any number of reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.
It's only the latter -- those reputable sources -- that are able to unhorse the transloonie nutcases and their ilk, "No ovaries? Sorry, you can't possibly be a female." But that's a "weapon" that y'all are more or less throwing away by promoting the folk-biology definitions of Wright and Company.
Sorry if I accidentally replied to SCA instead of just commenting on your article. I was using my phone, and it's not always as clear as I would like. Anyway, I do understand where you're coming from, but simply disagree as to your interpretation of those reputable biological journals. Also, you seem to be disconnecting "woman" from "female," in which case you still need to define "woman," which is the point of contention these days, much more so than "female." Quite clearly, a menopausal woman is a woman. Quite clearly, a man who takes synthetic estrogen and has various surgeries to appear female is not a "woman," although he may function as one in various circumstances. Certainly, those circumstances would not include prisons, sports, changing rooms, etc. So, if a woman is not a "female" because a "female" must not only have ovaries, but have ovaries that are currently able to produce ova, then what is a woman? If you have no answer, that's fine, but this is the question of the day.
I gather you object to "adult human female" as being too narrow a definition for "woman," given your limited definition of "female," but I disagree with your definition. I believe children are "male" or "female," as, by design, young of our species are not to reproduce before a certain age but their bodies are in a readying state, preparing for that time; that menopausal women are female, as their bodies have completed the portion of their lives in which they are meant to be fertile, and by design, they no longer are; and that there are males and females who never become fertile due to problems with their systems, but their bodies are still designed to produce sperm or ova, which is what makes them "male" or "female."
You sucked me into the debate again! How did you do that?
But no problemo on the comment to SCA -- Substack on smartphones leaves a lot to be desired. I find commenting thereon to be particularly cumbersome and error-prone for anything more than a few sentences.
Hippiesq: "... but [I] simply disagree as to your interpretation of those reputable biological journals ..."
It really isn't just MY interpretation as I had indicated with a quote from a paper in the Wiley Online Library:
Wiley: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET." [my emphasis]
"Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles"
Hippiesq: "... in which case you still need to define 'woman,' which is the point of contention these days, much more so than 'female'. ... this is the question of the day."
Indeed, agree entirely. Largely why I've periodically suggested, not entirely or always with my tongue in my cheek, something like "adult human with ovaries of past, present or future functionality". Which is, of course, something of a genuflection to the definitions that "biologist" Emma Hilton had had published in a letter to the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper, but a long ways from a peer-reviewed biological journal:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
But many people, many "women" including SCA, insist on the "adult human female". And often without being able or willing to say exactly what it is that qualifies anyone as a female -- beyond some "mythical essence" which is, of course, the claim of various transwomen. If that's all it takes then can you deny their claim to that exalted estate? 🙄 Y'all either need to define the term or accept the consequences of not doing so.
Hippiesq: "I gather you object to 'adult human female' ..."
I don't really "object" to it -- Alex Byrne has something of a reasonable, if somewhat biased, argument in favour of it -- like "mare" and "vixen":
I'm just pointing out that it is rather unwise for "women" to be betting the farm on that definition. IF they accept the biological definitions for the sexes then "women" lose their "female" cards at menopause -- something of a rough break, particularly given what the "membership dues" consist of. But IF they DON'T accept those definitions then they're obliged to be peddling folk-biology -- as Emma Hilton is, rather sadly, doing.
Hippiesq: "I believe children are 'male' or 'female,' ...."
It really isn't a matter of belief, but of "the rules of the road", of what biologists MEAN when they use those terms. Do you "believe" that, in North America, the right side of the road to drive on is the right-hand side? Or do you recognize that that is what the law STIPULATES? SAME thing with the biological definitions.
Is it "true and factual" that definitions for the sexes have been published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries which STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, and that those with neither are sexless?
🤔🙄
Getting offended by facts or sticking your head in the sand in response to them is really not a good look at all.
I should put my faith in them Experts of Science? Expert scientific views change every 30 years or so on average.
I'm so old as to remember when reputable scientific journals insisted newborns couldn't feel pain. All those dummies needed to do was ask that category of woman known as "mother."
I'm not scornful, in general, of an interest in precise meanings of words and the nuances in between the straightforward definitions. But on this subject, revile my stance as you choose, I ain't interested.
But--we can still be friends, right? You ain't gonna burn a slip of paper with my name written on it at the very stroke of midnight, are ya?
And you have a kid under your belt so your claim to fame if not fortune is pretty solid. "Served with distinction, an honorable discharge from the ranks." 🙂
I can sympathize. Many others make the same argument, that denying a claim to having a sex is tantamount to denying a claim to being human. As I had indicated, Rukhsana Sukhan so argues:
This might be one of the reasons I ain't got no use for intellectuals or philosophers. That which is self-evident is turned into fountains of bilgewater.
A rabbit don't need no degree in botany to figure out what a salad is.
Skimmed the article and look forward to digging into it further later on. But wanted to respond to this point on collapsing many gender-related dimensions into one:
"mashing everything together is, at least in effect, just ignoring the devils in the details, or trying to sweep them under the carpet."
I disagree. I think it's valuable to highlight the different dimensions that inform our read of someone's gender, but at the end of the day we do collapse those dimensions into one when we decide to refer to someone as "he" or "she" (or "they"). Gender categories are determined by the presence of some "critical mass" of related traits unlike sex categories which are determined by the presence of particular essential traits of that category.
Many thanks for your comment and Restack. Reposting my comment there -- for posterity 🙂. Though really only necessary because Substack is something of a rather unprofessional kludge; in any case:
https://substack.com/@humanuseofhumanbeings/note/c-46574712
Quote:
However …
Regan: " 'mashing everything together is, at least in effect, just ignoring the devils in the details, or trying to sweep them under the carpet.'
I disagree."
You say po-tat-oe, I say po-ta-toe … 😉🙂 You ever see this “meme” ⬇ about “three sides to every story”?
https://imgur.com/gallery/7eF4H/
Seems that we more or less agree on the “different dimensions” and I’ll more or less concede your point about “some ‘critical mass’” However, I think our different “points of view” are on the value of those different dimensions as a system of categorization — largely the objective of my post — and in the problems associated from an over-reliance on that “critical mass”.
Wonder if you’ve ever run across the “Stroop Effect”: words for colours IN colours that don’t match the words themselves. For example, the word “green” written in the red colour — tends to confuse people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroop_effect
Similar to what comedian Dave Chappelle was getting at with his joke about the transgendered here in a post by @Barbara Wegner:
https://www.thedramaofitall.com/p/a-quick-joke-from-dave-chappelle
There’s a serious and quite glaring incongruity between a bunch of those “critical mass” dimensions, and a couple of other salient ones.
So what is the “gender” and pronouns for Phil Illy of AGP-Gate “fame”? For Bruce Jenner and his ilk? "feminine"? "masculine"? "She"? "He"?
No doubt that that “critical mass” works in most cases, but it’s the proverbial “edge cases” — the transgendered in particular — that emphasize the fact that they are, in general, engaged in something of a fraudulent bait-and-switch, are trying to sail under a false flag. If not madder than hatters.
However, maybe somewhat more important to the issue of gender ideology in schools, I think the multiple dimensions serve to emphasize that all of those traits are just “dependent variables”; they only correlate to a greater or lesser extent with our sexes, and are not at all definitive of them.
Unquote
Happy New Year, Steersman!
I see you took on the Big 5/trans angle: nailed it. Well researched, and a great read!
And a Happy New Year to you too, Kari. Live long and prosper. 🙂
And many thanks for the compliments -- warms the cockles of me heart, it does. 🙂
Been thinking of emailing Janet Hyde and a few others on the topic -- any "signal boosting" that you or others are inclined to do on that score will be most appreciated. 🙂
Of course
Send me the deets and keep me posted on the developments. x
A New Year's treat for you. It's an absolutely dreadful movie but this clip of Richard Dreyfuss playing Richard III as a cross-dressing twit in "The Goodbye Girl" is a moment of true hilarity. Poor Richard (both of them).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlrgSu8xtjQ
Anyway--a Happy and Healthy. And--I'm a woman! Don't ask why or how! I just know it's true!
Many thanks SCA, particularly for the Restack. But a "Happy and Healthy" to you too. 🙂
Though your claim, and that of many others, to "woman" kind of depends on how one defines the term. If you want to promote a new one -- say, "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality" -- then I'll cheerfully concede the point.
However, betting the farm -- as too many people seem to do -- on "adult human female" is an entirely different kettle of fish.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people seem to think that there is some magic in words -- with some justification as I think "In the beginning was the Word and the Word [as language] was God" illustrates. Words only mean what we agree they mean; Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z so there's no intrinsic meaning or gospel truth in any of them
I'm just living my truth, Steersman--and I guarantee the genuine and authentic constitution of my privates. Original issue. Thoroughly tested.
Not re-joining the debate, but I still don’t see any utility in defining the sexes as including present tense fertility or fertility at all. Instead, bodies that are designed around production of small or large gametes makes more sense to me. Either way, your writing is a fun intellectual exercise and it seems your motives are in the right place so thanks for continuing to plug your unduly narrow but certainly clear definitions of male and female. Happy new year!
A happy new year to you too. And I hope you and your daughter see some light on the issue. I see you liked my Note or comment on Stella O'Malley's Substack about the conflation of sex and gender -- thanks -- or her acknowledgement of the problem -- a large part of the reasons behind this particular post.
But thanks for the "fun intellectual exercise" compliment, though I think your whole comment was erroneously directed at SCA. Though no problemo. 🙂
However, "unduly narrow" is rather more problematic. While I can appreciate the "emotional attachment" of many women to the term "female", the fact of the matter is that those ARE the published biological definitions. If people are going to base their entirely justified fights against transgenderism on a clearly biological definition for "woman" -- i.e., "adult human female" -- then I don't think they can reasonably try to promote, implicitly or explicitly as Wright and Company do, definitions for the sexes that are flatly contradicted by those biological definitions, ones which are published in any number of reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries.
It's only the latter -- those reputable sources -- that are able to unhorse the transloonie nutcases and their ilk, "No ovaries? Sorry, you can't possibly be a female." But that's a "weapon" that y'all are more or less throwing away by promoting the folk-biology definitions of Wright and Company.
Sorry if I accidentally replied to SCA instead of just commenting on your article. I was using my phone, and it's not always as clear as I would like. Anyway, I do understand where you're coming from, but simply disagree as to your interpretation of those reputable biological journals. Also, you seem to be disconnecting "woman" from "female," in which case you still need to define "woman," which is the point of contention these days, much more so than "female." Quite clearly, a menopausal woman is a woman. Quite clearly, a man who takes synthetic estrogen and has various surgeries to appear female is not a "woman," although he may function as one in various circumstances. Certainly, those circumstances would not include prisons, sports, changing rooms, etc. So, if a woman is not a "female" because a "female" must not only have ovaries, but have ovaries that are currently able to produce ova, then what is a woman? If you have no answer, that's fine, but this is the question of the day.
I gather you object to "adult human female" as being too narrow a definition for "woman," given your limited definition of "female," but I disagree with your definition. I believe children are "male" or "female," as, by design, young of our species are not to reproduce before a certain age but their bodies are in a readying state, preparing for that time; that menopausal women are female, as their bodies have completed the portion of their lives in which they are meant to be fertile, and by design, they no longer are; and that there are males and females who never become fertile due to problems with their systems, but their bodies are still designed to produce sperm or ova, which is what makes them "male" or "female."
You sucked me into the debate again! How did you do that?
Hippiesq: "You sucked me into the debate again! How did you do that?"
"ve haf vays of making you talk"😉 🙂
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ve_haf_vays_of_making_you_talk
But no problemo on the comment to SCA -- Substack on smartphones leaves a lot to be desired. I find commenting thereon to be particularly cumbersome and error-prone for anything more than a few sentences.
Hippiesq: "... but [I] simply disagree as to your interpretation of those reputable biological journals ..."
It really isn't just MY interpretation as I had indicated with a quote from a paper in the Wiley Online Library:
Wiley: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET." [my emphasis]
"Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Hippiesq: "... in which case you still need to define 'woman,' which is the point of contention these days, much more so than 'female'. ... this is the question of the day."
Indeed, agree entirely. Largely why I've periodically suggested, not entirely or always with my tongue in my cheek, something like "adult human with ovaries of past, present or future functionality". Which is, of course, something of a genuflection to the definitions that "biologist" Emma Hilton had had published in a letter to the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper, but a long ways from a peer-reviewed biological journal:
UK Times: "Individuals that have developed anatomies [gonads?] 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
But many people, many "women" including SCA, insist on the "adult human female". And often without being able or willing to say exactly what it is that qualifies anyone as a female -- beyond some "mythical essence" which is, of course, the claim of various transwomen. If that's all it takes then can you deny their claim to that exalted estate? 🙄 Y'all either need to define the term or accept the consequences of not doing so.
Hippiesq: "I gather you object to 'adult human female' ..."
I don't really "object" to it -- Alex Byrne has something of a reasonable, if somewhat biased, argument in favour of it -- like "mare" and "vixen":
"Are women adult human females?"
https://philpapers.org/archive/BYRAWA.pdf
I'm just pointing out that it is rather unwise for "women" to be betting the farm on that definition. IF they accept the biological definitions for the sexes then "women" lose their "female" cards at menopause -- something of a rough break, particularly given what the "membership dues" consist of. But IF they DON'T accept those definitions then they're obliged to be peddling folk-biology -- as Emma Hilton is, rather sadly, doing.
Hippiesq: "I believe children are 'male' or 'female,' ...."
It really isn't a matter of belief, but of "the rules of the road", of what biologists MEAN when they use those terms. Do you "believe" that, in North America, the right side of the road to drive on is the right-hand side? Or do you recognize that that is what the law STIPULATES? SAME thing with the biological definitions.
Happy New Year to you too.
Not all solutions can fit all circumstances but when it's warranted I think the Gordian knot approach should be used.
There's plenty in life that's true and factual and the truth and factuality predated the invention of language.
Is it "true and factual" that definitions for the sexes have been published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries which STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, and that those with neither are sexless?
🤔🙄
Getting offended by facts or sticking your head in the sand in response to them is really not a good look at all.
I should put my faith in them Experts of Science? Expert scientific views change every 30 years or so on average.
I'm so old as to remember when reputable scientific journals insisted newborns couldn't feel pain. All those dummies needed to do was ask that category of woman known as "mother."
I'm not scornful, in general, of an interest in precise meanings of words and the nuances in between the straightforward definitions. But on this subject, revile my stance as you choose, I ain't interested.
But--we can still be friends, right? You ain't gonna burn a slip of paper with my name written on it at the very stroke of midnight, are ya?
👍🏆🎀🙂
And you have a kid under your belt so your claim to fame if not fortune is pretty solid. "Served with distinction, an honorable discharge from the ranks." 🙂
I ain't giving up my claim. You can be sexless if you really truly want to be. I shall not join you.
I can sympathize. Many others make the same argument, that denying a claim to having a sex is tantamount to denying a claim to being human. As I had indicated, Rukhsana Sukhan so argues:
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/the-end-of-gender-a-talisman-against-the-wokification-of-transgender-health/
As did Sarah Phillimore.
But, as argued, that does some damage to the biological definitions for the sexes which are foundational to all of biology.
This might be one of the reasons I ain't got no use for intellectuals or philosophers. That which is self-evident is turned into fountains of bilgewater.
A rabbit don't need no degree in botany to figure out what a salad is.