Thank you again for this article, I have enjoyed contemplating this conversation over the last few days! I have put some thoughts together in a post because it was too much ground to cover in a comment.
I think your article raises important points and Hippiesq does a great job of clarifying her points where you raised questions. So, I didn't feel like there was much for me to add. I hope I summarized your points accurately and that my thoughts add some value to the conversation. Thanks again for considering my thoughts and giving me a lot to consider!
Abraham, thanks muchly for picking up the conversational ball and running with it. 🙂 Definitely trying to promote a wider discussion on those topics.
And nice to see your own post found some support -- I expect I'll weigh in there myself, apart from posting this comment there, but that will require more time and effort to do justice to it.
However, an important point probably bears some preliminary emphasis. You said:
"in a situation where the community, scientific or not, is telling us something that conflicts with what we intrinsically know to be true, it is important to trust our intuition."
Seems that "what we intrinsically know to be true" is something of a weak reed to be putting much faith in. Many people used think that about the earth being flat and center of the universe. Likewise about humans being the result of special creation by Jehovah.
There are solid reasons for biological definitions for the sexes that you seem to be giving short shrift to. You might want to read a post about a review of a paper by philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths on those definitions, and my conversation with the author of it:
I’m less inclined to believe science can give us a good answer for those with non-functional ovotestes, partial feminization and partial masculinization of their body at puberty. They are born with vaginas and, therefore, appear female at birth, although they may appear androgynous as they go through puberty, with some feminine and some masculine characteristics. Such individuals may just not have all the essential characteristics of a male and/or a female or may have all the essential characteristics of both, in which case they simply cannot be characterized as male or female by science. I believe such people have the right to choose what category to use.
I am not seeing the slippery slope created by the bipedal analogy. The existence of some unipedal or nonpedal (or even tripedal) individuals doesn’t change the basic “design” of human bodies, but is just a variation from the normal design, not a new type of human. Similarly, the existence of .02% of the population that doesn’t fit neatly into the male/female sex binary is just a variation from the normal design, not a new type of human (a new sex or several new sexes).
Besides, even if the sex binary wasn't as real as we think, and even if dsds meant that, in addition to the 99.98% of us that easily fit into one or the other category, there are all these other sexes (yet to be named), how would that justify medically altering teenagers' bodies and telling children they are the sex they think they are?
I could go down a rabbit-hole here, and consider that if if .02% of the population may not be male or female, especially if they may appear as if they are one or the other, then perhaps anyone who appears to be male or female may not really be and we are just too unsophisticated to see the variation in these individuals due to limitations of modern science. Perhaps the idea is that my otherwise healthy daughter knows intrinsically that she is not in fact female despite everything we can see and measure. Perhaps, the idea is that these individuals’ brains can identify that they (people like my teenage daughter) are in fact male although they look, sound, smell and feel female by every objectively known test, and that they have disorders of sexual development that aren't apparent because of limitations of science. The argument goes that these invisible dsds are more likely to exist because other dsds exist and some of those people aren't the sex they appear to be.
Similarly, for men who want to enter women's spaces on the premise that they are "really" "women" although they don't appear to be, perhaps the existence of dsds where people might not appear to be the sex they are "supports" their argument because they intrinsically know that the appearance of their bodies, their functional gonads and penises and male-appearing bodies are all wrong, but science just hasn't caught up with their intrinsic knowledge.
Whether .02% of the population having dsds that render it difficult or impossible to categorize them as male or female, or whether this population are really several other sexes, the same argument would be made about the fact that science hasn't caught up with reality. That is, whether there are people who we cannot categorize as male or female or whether they are actually third, fourth...eighty-fifth sex categories we just haven't realized, the argument is that science just hasn't caught up with the categorization of these individuals. This is why dsds are paraded out by trans activists in support of their arguments.
However, there is absolutely no science behind a person having this intrinsic knowledge of their "true sex category." It's unfalsifiable. It relies purely on the say so of an individual about an amorphous, undefined and undefinable feeling of "maleness" or "femaleness." It also relies on a fictional idea of a dsd that would render someone appearing identical to the male or female sex in all measurable ways (yes, perhaps we lack the measurement techniques these people are intrinsically sensing) being the other sex to the extent that they either must have medical alterations so that their body can appear like the sex they say they are and they must be treated as that sex, or (for many of the space-invading men) it just requires them to be treated as that other sex. What odd dsds indeed! I'm not really seeing how the existence of many sexes in that .02% of people with dsds, versus just not being clearly male or female, supports the existence of this bizarre, unfalsifiable dsd.
I'm also not seeing how the analogy to bipedalness supports these bizarre dsds. It’s simply a way of saying that anomalies don’t disprove basic design. I don’t think it sends us anywhere.
If I’ve lost the point of your essay, I apologize, but I think I”ve addressed your main points.
Hippiesq: "I’m less inclined to believe science can give us a good answer for those with non-functional ovotestes ...."
Seems to me that science has already given a good answer, i.e. sexless. The problem is generally that pretty much everyone is unwilling to accept it.
Hippiesq: "Besides, even if the sex binary wasn't as real as we think ..."
Think that underlines a common misperception, though its an easy one to stumble over, even for so-called biologists and philosophers: there is NO intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female"; they could refer to 2 sexes in a binary, 2 halves in a sex spectrum, or simply two different ones in a myriad of sexes. Those words mean only what we say they mean; they're just labels that we can attach to different sets of properties -- Wright's "collections of sex-related traits" even if it leaves hanging the question of what is meant by "sex" to begin with.
But more particularly, consider what it means to say something is a category in the first place:
Google/OxfordLanguages: "category: a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics."
A category is simply an abstraction, a name we give to a bunch of things that have some "shared characteristics". In the case of the biological definitions for the sexes, those shared characteristics, shared by millions of species and probably trillions of organisms, is "produces sperm" and "produces ova". But the only things that are actually "real" are the brute facts that those organisms which can produce those gametes are able to reproduce, and that those who are unable to produce either aren't. Why Wright reasonably talks about gametes as the center of mass in all of reproductive biology:
But see my "What is a woman?" for some elaborations on those themes, particularly the tweet by one "RadfemBlack" which has to qualify as one of the most brilliant insights I've had the pleasure of running across:
Hippiesq: "... how would that justify medically altering teenagers' bodies and telling children they are the sex they think they are?"
If "we" can't agree on what it means to have a sex in the first place then maybe we shouldn't be surprised that children are just as badly confused. Part of the reason why I emphasize the biological definitions as the most useful ones.
Hippiesq: "... we are just too unsophisticated to see the variation in these individuals due to limitations of modern science."
Kinda think that's further evidence of too many -- not just you, though that is maybe just you hypothesizing, going down the rabbit hole -- putting the cart before the horse. Maybe something of a fine point in the philosophy of language and of science that most people are unaware or don't need to be aware of. But the starting point is those "shared characteristics" -- to which we then give names to. For example, see the article on taxonomy in biology:
Wikipedia: "In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics."
We SEE -- we regard -- a bunch of organisms with some "shared characteristics" and then give a name to them. In the case of those "individuals" you mentioned, if they share the "essential property" of "produces ova" then we call them "females". And if they share the "essential property of "produces sperm" then we call them "males". That's not a "limitation of science"; that is its claim to fame and fortune, its "essential" nature.
Hippiesq: "However, there is absolutely no science behind a person having this intrinsic knowledge of their 'true sex category.' It's unfalsifiable. It relies purely on the say so of an individual about an amorphous, undefined and undefinable feeling of 'maleness' or 'femaleness.' ..."
Exactly right! 👍🙂 Why I emphasize the objective criteria for sex category membership, the properties that are essential to qualify for membership in them.
Hippiesq: "I'm also not seeing how the analogy to bipedalness supports these bizarre DSDs."
Not quite sure what you're getting at there, but I'm not arguing that your bipedal analogy, at least my interpretation of it, is "supporting those bizarre DSDs". What I'm saying is that you apparently want to grant them membership in the sex categories because they LOOK like they might belong there. Which is largely what many transwomen are claiming. You -- and Zach Elliott -- can't very well throw stones at them for that if you're doing pretty much the same thing.
However, by the standard biological definitions, they simply don't qualify as male or female. As you put it, "Our definitions have to function to identify what we really want them to identify or they are essentially useless." Moot how useful it is to identify reproductive status -- particularly in cases of access to toilets, change rooms, and sports. But in many other cases, it is of profound importance. Bastardizing and corrupting those biological definitions, either for inclusivity or other good intentions -- as admirable as they might be on the surface, tends to be something of a fool's bargain.
Hippiesq: "If I’ve lost the point of your essay, I apologize, but I think I've addressed your main points."
Last point first, I'd say that you've given a pretty solid kick at the kitty; thanks muchly, most appreciated. 🙂
As for the "point of my essay" and whether you've "lost it" -- easy enough to do given my verbiage & poor phrasing, or complexity of the topic -- it seems the worst that might be said is that you seem to balk at or stumble over the concept of "essential properties". Bit of a murky concept at best, but consider another analogy [A is to B as C is to D]: the category "teenager" is to "being 13 to 19" as the category "male" is to "has functional testicles". The phrase "is to" can be read as "has essential property of": "teenager" then has the essential property of "being 13 to 19" while "male" has the essential property of "has functional testicles". A transman can no more "self-identify" as a male than someone of 35 can "self-identify" as a teenager because they both lack the essential properties that define those categories. Don't possess the essential property, can't get a category membership card -- even if one might look like one should.
But that is largely the benefit of the biological definitions: there are clearly specified and objectively defined criteria for category membership, criteria that are not at all subjective.
Hi Steersman - I've been distracted by other things, but I wanted to give at least a quick response to all this. First, while some people whose anatomy is ambiguous may indeed be categorized as "sexless" and some may actually be fine with this nebulous definition, I don't know that we should force people into such a category unless we can be clear on the bright line. You do offer a bright line. However, your bright line, at least to me, makes no sense. You allude to the reason it makes no sense when you agree that which bathroom to use, sports categories, or changing rooms becomes questionable with your definitions.
What would you do with anyone who doesn't fall into the male or female category? Have all sports, bathrooms and changing rooms be neutral? That is one solution but it will take quite a while for the bathrooms and changing rooms to be made appropriately private, and I think we can agree that very few women would end up with any kind of "success" in terms of winning awards of any kind if sports were gender neutral, not to mention the safety issues. And what about prisons? And battered women's shelters?
Further, by your definitions, menopausal and other infertile women are not women, which seems pretty absurd to me, and boys and girls are not ever to be categorized separately for any reasons whatsoever since they aren't "male" or "female." Or, if you do think boys and girls can be categorized separately, what is the basis? If you could answer that question, you might have the real bright line to divide "male" from "female." I don't find your particular bright line of any use.
While I agree that we don't want to put people in categories just because they "look like it," I don't think your bright lines are helpful. We need a better scientific definition for male or female than what you are offering.
Well over 99% of males and females can be easily categorized using our current understanding of male and female - which includes anyone who's body is designed to produce small or large gametes, not just those currently producing them.
While your notion helps the .02% of those whose anatomy is - to current understanding - ambiguous not feel alone because they can be in the same category as children, menopausal women and the infertile, it does nothing else to clarify and creates more questions than it answers.
I know this sounds like I'm totally dismissing your thoughts, but I'm not. I just don't agree that this is a useful way of categorizing males and females. I still appreciate your efforts!
Hello Hippiesq -- thanks muchly for getting back to me. I kinda thought you probably had other irons in the fire, though I was a bit apprehensive that I might have offended you or been too harsh. 🙂
And thanks for acknowledging that "bright line", though I think it makes "no sense" to you -- and to many others -- because you and they are focused, more or less reasonably, on the direct consequences of transgenderism. However, the wider problem is how transgenderism is corrupting biology in which case the only way of dealing with that is that "bright line". I can appreciate that you & they want the "non-functional" definitions for the sexes, but they conflict profoundly and in many ways with the standard biological ones. In which case, promoting the non-functional versions contributes to that corruption.
Apropos of which, you might check out a post by and my conversation with "Ms. M" on her "Two Plus Two" Substack, particularly on the "Scientific" American [SA] article she linked to:
The SA article -- by a couple of so-called "biologists" -- makes something of a reasonable point that what we mean by "male" and "female" is a matter of definitions, but they too are apparently but desperately committed to definitions that somehow include transwomen in the female category. There is SOME scientific merit in their arguments -- which is why that bright line is so important -- but their closing argument proves them to be peddling what is no more than Lysenkoism -- i.e., "the deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lysenkoism&oldid=1139625110):
SA: "So, if 'sex' is the answer, what is the question? This is not so clear, and we have no warrant to make authoritative declarations on this issue from a scientific standpoint that is uninformed by ethical, moral or social considerations."
Since when are "ethical, moral, or social considerations" -- feelings, in fact -- going to be allowed to trump brute "scientific facts and theories"? They, along with Zach Elliott, are engaging in egregious Lysenkoism. How is that different from what you are promoting even if you're doing so with the best of intentions? Roads to hell and all that.
Though I do appreciate your concerns with the practical matters of adjudicating claims to access sports leagues, toilets, and the like. But the problem is in connecting definitions for "man" and "woman" to the terms "male" and "female". You either accept that IF you insist on using "male" and "female" as parts of those definitions THEN some third of us are sexless, OR you have to come up with definitions for "man" and "woman" that aren't joined at the hips with "male" and "female".
In the latter case and as I've argued before, one might define "man" and "woman" as "adult humans with gonads [testicles & ovaries] of past, present, or future functionality". Kinda think that part of the problem is that many people, not just you, seem to think that definitions qualify as gospel truth, and are not just connections between words and facts, connections which can change depending on context. But getting agreement on those definitions, and getting them into the law books may be less difficult than getting biologists to repudiate their definitions which are based on solid facts and sound principles.
In other news, though somewhat related to this and our previous conversations, you might have some interest in a recent post at Broadview. Currently paywalled, but Davis lets through a phrase that you, and I, can probably sympathize with:
LSD (ironic? ...): "Boys and girls can look and act all different kinds of ways."
A great many people seem unclear on the difference between "looking and acting in different kinds of ways" -- AKA, gender -- and BEING "male" or "female" -- AKA, being members of the sex categories. But losing sight of what it means to be male and female in the first place -- which, not to give you (much 🙂) of a hard time, I think you're contributing to -- is what leads to the conflation of sex (reproductive abilities) and gender (traits that typically correlate with our sexes) which is part and parcel of the whole transgender clusterfuck (excuse my French).
Many people, mostly those on the right including people like Matt Walsh, really do seem to think that all of those traits are part and parcel of what it means to be male and female, that those traits are intrinsic to "male" and "female". That, for example, if a "man" isn't out raping and pillaging then he's not a "real man (™)". So to speak ...
But that outlook causes no end of problems as we have both, more or less, recognized. As a case in point, you might have some interest in -- may even wish to weigh-in on -- a conversation I was having with "Rex Landy" (a woman despite the name), and her rather "unhinged" responses to me:
She seems to "think" that me arguing that, for example, there are feminine men means that I'm trying to claim that transwomen are women. Some rather "murky" thought processes there that are also part and parcel of that transgender clusterfuck.
That "bright line" seems the only way of separating wheat and chaff, the only way off the horns of a very serious social dilemma.
No, you didn't offend me. I am not that easily offended. :)
I still disagree with your bright line, although maybe you and I can come to some compromise agreement, where you think "male" and "female" have to do with presently functional gonads (again, I don't see why), but we agree that "man" and "woman" don't require presently functional gonads. Does this work for you?
On the other very related topic, I am continually disappointed in the majority of people for failing to distinguish between "male" and "masculine" or "female" and "feminine." Quite obviously, there are effeminate males and masculine women, in addition to masculine males and effeminate females, as well as men and women who are a mix of masculine and feminine characteristics where neither dominates.
To suggest otherwise is to move backwards into a time when it was totally unacceptable for a woman to be masculine or a man to be feminine (and same for girls and boys), and when homosexuality was heavily frowned upon, and even made illegal! I would hope nobody wants to move back into that era.
Thought so; made of sterner stuff than the average bear. 🙂
Hippiesq: "... presently functional gonads (again, I don't see why)"
Kind of has to do with the application of the definitions to species which change sex. Many people insist that to have a sex is just a matter of chromosomes, but for those species the chromosomes don't change, only the gonads do. There's are fundamental contradictions there that are only resolvable by standing on those functional gonads as the criteria for sex category membership.
Hippiesq: "... we agree that 'man' and 'woman' don't require presently functional gonads. Does this work for you?"
Sure -- at least as long as the definitions you have in mind don't actually use "male" and "female". Why I suggested defining "woman" as "adult human with gonads of past, present, or future functionality".
Hippiesq: "... for failing to distinguish between 'male' and 'masculine' or 'female' and 'feminine'."
Amen to that. But thanks for checking out that thread -- I'd argue my case there myself, but seems I've picked up another ban there ... 😉🙂 Rex has some more or less reasonable criticisms of transgenderism but an unwillingness to differentiate between female and feminine, between sex and gender is part of the problem.
BTW, I'd posted my response to you here as a separate post; you might have some interest in the comments there:
Although we can recognize a human, and we can recognize a male or female - with the rarest of exception - without scientific knowledge, it's the sticky rare cases that make us want scientists to give us these answers. So, to the scientists, I would ask for a good way to categorize male and female that both comports with our intrinsic understanding of same and also accounts for the real scientific differences between males and females.
Such a definition would probably give us a clear answer to whether someone with androgen insensitivity is male or female. They have xy chromosomes, but are insensitive to a hormone that masculinizes the body, and, therefore, their bodies never develop the masculine qualities such as a beard, coarser skin, functioning testes, or even a penis, although their bodies would have been male-appearing had they not been insensitive to this hormone. So are they female because they appear so, or male because their bodies are designed to be male, but just have a certain developmental problem? I don’t know because I’m not sure which are the essential characteristics of a male, although this is one of those cases where my gut would probably say they are female - just looking at them - but there may be cases where the gut is wrong. I believe such people can choose which category to belong to (and can choose to belong to neither or both).
Hippiesq: "... it's the sticky rare cases that make us want scientists to give us these answers."
I think "scientists" have already given us "those answers". The problem seems to be that too many of us -- most of us, in fact -- are not at all willing to accept them ... 😉🙂 Meant to link to this Note from Colin Wright -- of Reality's Last Stand -- in my last response to you, but still seems relevant, even if I think he's talking out of both sides of his mouth in some ways:
CW: "The push to move away from gametes as the unifying definition of the sexes to collections of sex-related traits is as crazy as modern astronomy going back to the geocentric model of our solar system and adopting complex 'epicycles' to explain aberrant patterns like planetary retrograde motion. .... Gametes are the center of mass in reproductive biology.
The primary benefit, or one of the main benefits, of the biological definitions is that they encompass literally millions of anisogamous species. Trying to modify them to "comport" with some "intrinsic understanding" of humans as male or female is to nullify many of those benefits. Why he talks about the problems that follow from mashing in "collections of sex-related traits" -- might work for some species, but not for all of them which is what the current definitions are designed to do.
Hippiesq: "Such a definition would probably give us a clear answer to whether someone with androgen insensitivity is male or female."
Think you're still grabbing at straws there Hippiesq. IF you want some definitions from "scientists", from reputable sources in mainstream biology, THEN you have to accept the consequences: those with androgen insensitivity are NEITHER male NOR female because they can't produce EITHER type of gamete. Why Wright was right on the money about gametes being the center of mass in reproductive biology.
Hippiesq: "... where my gut would probably say they are female - just looking at them .... I believe such people can choose which category to belong to ..."
Would you say that Bruce Jenner IS a female because he LOOKS like one? And all of the other transwomen, particularly those with their "neovaginas"? Kind of my point in that Reality & Illusion post on Medium: a profound difference between those two, between substance and appearance, between being X and identifying as X.
As a side point, funny enough, your idea about male and female requiring currently functioning
gonads (not pre-pubescent, not menopausal, and not otherwise infertile), if applied to bipedalness, would mean that babies are not bipedal since they don't yet walk. You may be right about that! Definitions of bipedal seem to require the ability to walk, not just the potential to walk, strengthening your argument about functioning gonads!
Back to the point at hand: By my way of looking at it, neither being bipedal nor being male or female are essential characteristics of being human, but humans are nonetheless designed to be bipedal and either male or female. Someone born with only one leg is obviously human, and someone with a DSD that renders it impossible to categorize them as male or female is also obviously human, but these are still characteristics of humans, even though they are nto essential characteristics.
This all having been said, there are some finer points to consider. What are the essential characteristics of being human and what are the essential characteristics of being male or female? You have provided some answers. Your answer for humans: "having “compatible karyotypes” — basically having 23 chromosome pairs, being able to interbreed, at least potentially, with other members of the species." Interesting that here you consider potential, while for male and female, you think potential is unimportant. I'm not so sure about this definition. I'm not a doctor and have no medical background, but aren't there some disorders that involve an extra chromosome? Those individuals are certainly human! Our definitions have to function to identify what we really want them to identify or they are essentially useless. So I'm not sure what characteristics of being human are essential, but I would say neither being categorized as male or female nor being bipedal are such essential characteristics of being human.
As to the essential characteristics of being male or female, I don't think being currently able to make babies (or ever) is such an essential characteristic of being male or female, and nothing you've said here changes my mind. While I can't - because of lack of scientific knowledge - point to the exact characteristics that make someone male or female, I would say we need a definition that accounts for what we intrinsically know to be true - similar to what makes one human.
Hippiesq: "... if applied to bipedalness, would mean that babies are not bipedal since they don't yet walk."
I'm ok with that idea, though I expect many babies would be "offended" by it, might see the assertion as being rather "contemptible" ... 😉🙂 The starting point is our definitions; everything else follows from them. Seem to recollect you said you were a fan of math, having taken a few college or university courses on the topic. So think that our definitions are like the axioms of Euclidean geometry -- the theorems follow logically from them but the axioms themselves are not provable, can only be accepted or not:
Hippiesq: "... strengthening your argument about functioning gonads! "
Thanks! Progress! 😉🙂
Hippiesq: "By my way of looking at it, neither being bipedal nor being male or female are essential characteristics of being human, but humans are nonetheless designed to be bipedal and either male or female. "
So you agree that it's not essential to be male or female to qualify as human? Hallelujah! Do let Sarah Phillimore know that her claim to the latter at least is secure ... 😉🙂
But, as mentioned in my response to your Part I, "designed to be" isn't the issue. Babies are also "designed to be" bipedal, but, as you've conceded, they are not yet in that stage or state. Virtually exactly what a recent Wiley Online Library article is saying, echoing philosopher of science Paul Griffiths, and what I've quoted in the OP:
"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."
Embryos are "not yet" male or female; ergo, sexless.
Hippiesq: "What are the essential characteristics of being human and what are the essential characteristics of being male or female?"
Very good questions, and attempts to answer them. As mentioned, you make a reasonable point about "potential" for species, though it's maybe not necessary to use it. Maybe just list a set of compatible karyotypes which would include, as you suggested, those with an extra chromosome or two. But even if there are some karyotypes that can't interbreed with any other ones, and that their "owners" don't thereby qualify as human, so what? That category is likewise not an identity, only a label that denotes a particular set of properties. As long as those individuals have the same rights as everyone else -- presumably based on some "family resemblances" -- then that seems all that is required.
Hippiesq: "Our definitions have to function to identify what we really want them to identify or they are essentially useless."
Amen to that; agree entirely. Philosopher Will Durant on a related point by Voltaire:
QF: " 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
Hippiesq: "While I can't - because of lack of scientific knowledge - point to the exact characteristics that make someone male or female, I would say we need a definition that accounts for what we intrinsically know to be true - similar to what makes one human."
Kind of think you're trying to square the circle, to have your cake and eat it too. As mentioned, mainstream biology and those biologists worth their salt clearly stipulate that the essential characteristic to "make someone male or female" is to have functional gonads, is to be producing gametes on regular basis. Trying to mash some vague ideas of "what we intrinsically know to be true" into those definitions is likely to be entirely antithetical to and inconsistent with them. There's another fairly durable principle of venerable provenance that underlines the problem there:
Wikipedia: "In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction."
Okay. I’ve tried a few times now not to get lost in this, and I just can’t help myself! So here it is, for what it’s worth (but nowhere near as good as the Buffalo Springfield song!) Also, I tried to post this as one comment and was not allowed, so it will be in parts.
This essay clarifies for me why you are so passionate about your definition of male and female as having to be actively fertile - because it allows for a large swathe of people not to be male or female, and, therefore, makes any person with a DSD that might disqualify them from the male or female categories not feel so alone. That's a nice motive. It's sort of ironic since you get so upset with people wanting to keep infertile people in a male or female category because it might hurt their feelings if they're left out, but it is nonetheless nice. I know that’s not your only motive, and that you truly believe that is the most accurate definition, but it’s interesting that your definition can help some individuals who would otherwise feel rather alone to feel not so strange.
That having been said, I don't agree with your analysis on the bipedal analogy. Let's start with the A to B, and C to D. You say the bipedal analogy is that human (A) to non-bipedal (someone who doesn't have 2 working legs)(B) is like sex(C) to person with DSD (particular DSD that makes someone's sexuality too ambiguous to really categorize)(D). I don't see it that way. To me, the analogy (the A to B and C to D) is human(A) to bipedal(B) and human(C) to sex-binary(D). The further part of that is the analogy of a non-bipedal individual (like someone born with only one leg), to person with a DSD that renders their sex unrecognizable as male or female (like someone with ovotestes). My simple point was that people are designed as bipedal, but the existence of some non-bipedal people doesn't mean people aren't designed to be bipedal, and that some people don't fit neatly into the male or female categories doesn't mean people aren't designed to be male or female.
I commend your taste in music -- you old hippie, you ...😉🙂
Hippiesq: "... That's a nice motive. .... I know that’s not your only motive, and that you truly believe that is the most accurate definition ...."
Thanks.
Hippiesq: "To me, the analogy (the A to B and C to D) is human(A) to bipedal(B) and human(C) to sex-binary(D). ...."
Your analogy of course, and what anyone means by their analogies is often hard to discern. Part of the reason why I said I wasn't sure where you were going with it.
However, it seems you're missing the point (sorry) that the relationship between A & B has to be the same as that between C & D. IF you're saying, by that construction of yours, that non-bipedal people are still members of the category "human" THEN you're saying, analogously, that "non sex-binary people" -- i.e., those who are neither male nor female -- are also still members of the category "human". Which I don't see any objections to.
But a great many other people use that same analogy, or the rough outlines of it, in virtually the same way that I presented it. That is, in insisting that those with DSDs are still either male or female. For instance, the Reddit post seemed to do so. And Sarah Phillimore, a UK lawyer & GC feminist, did likewise -- by way of suggesting that I was "contemptible" for arguing in favour of "sexless":
SP: "That doesn’t mean I have to play along with what I find contemptible. You might as well say because I don’t have two legs I can’t be human."
But I think that emphasizes how we all have to be clear on our definitions and logic -- incredibly easy to trip ourselves up through carelessness or motivated reasoning or unexamined assumptions. Why I often quote Francis Bacon: "shoddy and inept uses of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways." And Richard Feynman, one of the patron saints of science, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
Hippiesq: "My simple point was that people are designed as bipedal, but the existence of some non-bipedal people doesn't mean people aren't designed to be bipedal, and that some people don't fit neatly into the male or female categories doesn't mean people aren't designed to be male or female."
Speaking of fooling oneself ... 😉🙂 Of course people are "designed" (by who?) to be bipedal and to have a sex. But that isn't the issue. It is whether everyone actually IS bipedal and HAS a sex, i.e., IS a member of the two sex categories. I can sympathize with your presumed desire to be "inclusive", but it still looks to be putting feelings before facts -- trying to turn the sexes into a "social category" rather than accepting them as a biological pair with circumscribed membership.
Apropos of which, you might be interested in my rather "lengthy" essay on Medium several years ago, "Reality and Illusion: Being vs Identifying As". Some broken links, and overly cumbersome wording that needs clarification & correction -- hope to post it shortly on Substack:
But of particular note therein, is a bit of a conversation on that post I've had recently with "J Carr" who seems to want to make both "male" and "female", and "man" and "woman" into those "social categories":
If your definitions are also such social categories -- as they apparently are -- then why should yours be preferred over his? Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is to go with the biological definitions which have solid justifications for them in logic, biology, and epistemology.
Thank you for this thoughtful article! "Accidental & Essential Properties" is a great way to frame the discussion, perhaps the perfect way, not just of the bipedal analogy, but also the sex binary discussion in general. Your reply in which you bring up anisogamous species was helpful in thinking about this as well. I would love to contribute to the discussion when I have a little more time. Thanks for opening up the discussion and giving me something to think about!
Re the "anisogamous", you might also have some interest in this Note from Colin Wright:
CW: "Just like every astronomical observation of our solar system suddenly makes elegant sense when you properly center the Sun when constructing models of our solar system, the patterns in reproductive biology across the natural world suddenly snap into place and make sense when you center gametes."
I think his own set of definitions -- based on gonads of "past, present, or future functionality" -- are risibibly unscientific, hardly better than folk biology, but I think he has a solid point there.
Thanks muchly Hippiesq. My apologies if I've made the discussion more complicated than necessary. But devils are in the details and all that, even if I haven't described them very well. 🙂
However, it seems that the only way of grappling with them is to be clear on the definitions and principles involved. Again, I really do think that gender as feminine and masculine personality traits is something of a turning point, a way forward out of the mess that too many have turned the issue into. And worth some effort refining and promoting.
Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in a discussion on the topic I'm having with "Apple Pie", particularly since I've referenced our conversation here and, I think, your comments thereon. 🙂 "He" seems to be something of a knowledgeable academic or student in sociology, but I think he -- and his whole field -- is contributing to the dog's breakfast by the same sloppy definitions and motivated reasoning -- and "good" intentions -- that apparently motivates Zach Elliott:
His post is actually a response to me and my comments in another thread -- link in that new post -- and he does make a few good points that are worth delving into. For instance, he more or less accepts than gender CAN be defined as a spectrum, even if he rejects that idea.
However, his alternative is "apparently" to argue that the intersex (AKA, those with DSDs) are a third sex. Or that there are only 3 genders -- female, male, and intersex. And he has actually used "male" and "female" as genders despite acknowledging that sex and gender are different kettles of fish. Bit of a mess of motivated reasoning and sloppy "thinking" that I'm at a loss how to respond to -- you may wish weigh-in there if you were so inclined. 🙂 Or even just to see the mess that "academics" have made of the issue.
I think Apple Pie was using the word gender, but meant it as sex, as you'll see from the comment I just left. I largely agree with the assessment, assuming I understood it correctly.
Thanks for weighing- in over there -- which I'll try to respond to shortly. Though I think "Apple"is terribly confused -- at best -- since he apparently insists on using "male" and "female" as both sexes and genders. Not sure whether his conclusion is arguing that there are three sexes or three genders -- not sure whether he knows himself.
But, in other news, thanks for your lengthy response here -- a four-parter in fact! 🙂 Hope to respond in detail in the next day or two, but sort of on a working holiday and restricted to a smartphone at the moment -- which really isn't adequate for the responses required.
Though en passant, generally a good point about using "potential" for species, but not for the sexes. But not really the same kettles of fish as I'm not aware of any organism changing species whereas many species change sex. And I expect the species definition could be changed so as to not use "potential". But I think your comment emphasises the importance of being clear and unambiguous in our definitions.
i don't really undertand this discussion you have been having. But might it be irrelevant, if we accept that all humans are either female or male: because each DSD person, is still actually, overall, clearly in one specific sex category. (BTW, we don't say disabled people are not people- though they have grown or developed differently from the majority of people. Similarly, the existence of DSD people does not invalidate the sex binary.) Just sayin' ... please feel free to ignore this, if it is not helpful...
Pretty much all comments are "helpful" and most appreciated 🙂. Not least in drawing attention to different points that may bear emphasis or further discussion.
More particularly, my argument is NOT that DSDs "invalidate the sex binary". It is that those with DSDs are "outside" that binary. Consider an analogy:
IF there were only TWO religions -- say Christianity and Islam -- THEN we would say that religion is a binary. But the existence of atheists doesn't "invalidate the religion binary". We just say that there are many people who are "religion-less", who are without a religion. We say that the religion categories -- Christianity and Islam -- are not exhaustive.
Virtually the same thing with the sexes. As I've argued elsewhere, some two thirds of us are male or female, while the remaining third -- including DSDs and the prepubescent -- are sexless. The sex category is definitely a binary one -- by definition. But it is not an exhaustive one, it doesn't include all members of all anisogamous species, including the human one:
(Just a quick comment- I wouldn't think that pre-pubescent children are not part of the M/F sex binary.) But the point I was adding before- I have heard that biologically, DSD people are still, in fact, more of one sex than the other, even with their different developments. So this does not invalidate the binary.
Whether DSDs or prepubescent kids or any other groups are "part of the M/F sex binary" depends very much on how you DEFINE the binary to begin with. And it IS a matter of definitions; there is NO intrinsic meaning to the words "male" & "female". A point which even so-called biologists Colin Wright and Emma Hilton don't get or don't want to consider.
But that was largely why I considered BOTH the strict biological definitions and the much sloppier and the quite unscientific definitions of folk-biology and of Wright and Company.
You might try reading that "Binarists vs. Spectrumists" post of mine for some details on the profound differences between the two. But I had quoted the Wiley Online Library which emphasized the logical consequences of the strict version, and which you might pay close attention to:
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."
Neither the DSDs nor the prepubescent qualify as members of the sex categories, male and female, because they're not "reproductively competent" because they don't have any functional gonads, i.e., testes and ovaries respectively.
You may wish to put less weight on "what you've heard", and more on what reputable biological journals and dictionaries actually SAY.
I can see you have done much research on this. I suppose I am saying that the status of male or female, is something we (usually) all recognise at a deeper level. It would be a combination of chromosomes and other things, which overall would place everybody in either one side or the other. (I said 'I have heard' so as not to appear to claim any authority on the subject- I think it may have been Emma Hilton or Kathleen Stock who said it). But I don't think I should be trying to talk to you about this now, as you are very much deeper into the issue than me. All the best
The problem is that if we're going to be using the sexes for social gatekeeping purposes -- somewhat of a bad idea to begin with, but like access to toilets and sports -- then we pretty well have to say, in writing, exactly what we mean by those terms. Why would we go with manifestly unscientific definitions?
But thanks for the well wishes. Though you might help matters by not being so quick to endorse so-called experts -- like Stock & Hilton, both of whom have come up with some real howlers on the topic. Likewise Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater and many others for their own mantra, their risibly antiscientific "sex is immutable!!11!!" (🙄 it ain't).
But for example, I'll cheerfully defer to Emma on actual biology, but she and her partners in crime, Heather Heying & Colin Wright, are remarkably pigheaded and cluelessly dogmatic when it comes to the philosophical principles that are foundational to their whole field. A great many so-called "experts" are more a part of the problem than of the solution. As Alexander Pope put it: "a little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring."
Thank you again for this article, I have enjoyed contemplating this conversation over the last few days! I have put some thoughts together in a post because it was too much ground to cover in a comment.
https://open.substack.com/pub/abr4ham/p/thinking-about-accidental-and-essential?r=nlgen&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I think your article raises important points and Hippiesq does a great job of clarifying her points where you raised questions. So, I didn't feel like there was much for me to add. I hope I summarized your points accurately and that my thoughts add some value to the conversation. Thanks again for considering my thoughts and giving me a lot to consider!
Abraham, thanks muchly for picking up the conversational ball and running with it. 🙂 Definitely trying to promote a wider discussion on those topics.
And nice to see your own post found some support -- I expect I'll weigh in there myself, apart from posting this comment there, but that will require more time and effort to do justice to it.
However, an important point probably bears some preliminary emphasis. You said:
"in a situation where the community, scientific or not, is telling us something that conflicts with what we intrinsically know to be true, it is important to trust our intuition."
Seems that "what we intrinsically know to be true" is something of a weak reed to be putting much faith in. Many people used think that about the earth being flat and center of the universe. Likewise about humans being the result of special creation by Jehovah.
There are solid reasons for biological definitions for the sexes that you seem to be giving short shrift to. You might want to read a post about a review of a paper by philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths on those definitions, and my conversation with the author of it:
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/the-failings-of-philosophy/comment/41100436
Part IV (Last part):
I’m less inclined to believe science can give us a good answer for those with non-functional ovotestes, partial feminization and partial masculinization of their body at puberty. They are born with vaginas and, therefore, appear female at birth, although they may appear androgynous as they go through puberty, with some feminine and some masculine characteristics. Such individuals may just not have all the essential characteristics of a male and/or a female or may have all the essential characteristics of both, in which case they simply cannot be characterized as male or female by science. I believe such people have the right to choose what category to use.
I am not seeing the slippery slope created by the bipedal analogy. The existence of some unipedal or nonpedal (or even tripedal) individuals doesn’t change the basic “design” of human bodies, but is just a variation from the normal design, not a new type of human. Similarly, the existence of .02% of the population that doesn’t fit neatly into the male/female sex binary is just a variation from the normal design, not a new type of human (a new sex or several new sexes).
Besides, even if the sex binary wasn't as real as we think, and even if dsds meant that, in addition to the 99.98% of us that easily fit into one or the other category, there are all these other sexes (yet to be named), how would that justify medically altering teenagers' bodies and telling children they are the sex they think they are?
I could go down a rabbit-hole here, and consider that if if .02% of the population may not be male or female, especially if they may appear as if they are one or the other, then perhaps anyone who appears to be male or female may not really be and we are just too unsophisticated to see the variation in these individuals due to limitations of modern science. Perhaps the idea is that my otherwise healthy daughter knows intrinsically that she is not in fact female despite everything we can see and measure. Perhaps, the idea is that these individuals’ brains can identify that they (people like my teenage daughter) are in fact male although they look, sound, smell and feel female by every objectively known test, and that they have disorders of sexual development that aren't apparent because of limitations of science. The argument goes that these invisible dsds are more likely to exist because other dsds exist and some of those people aren't the sex they appear to be.
Similarly, for men who want to enter women's spaces on the premise that they are "really" "women" although they don't appear to be, perhaps the existence of dsds where people might not appear to be the sex they are "supports" their argument because they intrinsically know that the appearance of their bodies, their functional gonads and penises and male-appearing bodies are all wrong, but science just hasn't caught up with their intrinsic knowledge.
Whether .02% of the population having dsds that render it difficult or impossible to categorize them as male or female, or whether this population are really several other sexes, the same argument would be made about the fact that science hasn't caught up with reality. That is, whether there are people who we cannot categorize as male or female or whether they are actually third, fourth...eighty-fifth sex categories we just haven't realized, the argument is that science just hasn't caught up with the categorization of these individuals. This is why dsds are paraded out by trans activists in support of their arguments.
However, there is absolutely no science behind a person having this intrinsic knowledge of their "true sex category." It's unfalsifiable. It relies purely on the say so of an individual about an amorphous, undefined and undefinable feeling of "maleness" or "femaleness." It also relies on a fictional idea of a dsd that would render someone appearing identical to the male or female sex in all measurable ways (yes, perhaps we lack the measurement techniques these people are intrinsically sensing) being the other sex to the extent that they either must have medical alterations so that their body can appear like the sex they say they are and they must be treated as that sex, or (for many of the space-invading men) it just requires them to be treated as that other sex. What odd dsds indeed! I'm not really seeing how the existence of many sexes in that .02% of people with dsds, versus just not being clearly male or female, supports the existence of this bizarre, unfalsifiable dsd.
I'm also not seeing how the analogy to bipedalness supports these bizarre dsds. It’s simply a way of saying that anomalies don’t disprove basic design. I don’t think it sends us anywhere.
If I’ve lost the point of your essay, I apologize, but I think I”ve addressed your main points.
Hippiesq: "I’m less inclined to believe science can give us a good answer for those with non-functional ovotestes ...."
Seems to me that science has already given a good answer, i.e. sexless. The problem is generally that pretty much everyone is unwilling to accept it.
Hippiesq: "Besides, even if the sex binary wasn't as real as we think ..."
Think that underlines a common misperception, though its an easy one to stumble over, even for so-called biologists and philosophers: there is NO intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female"; they could refer to 2 sexes in a binary, 2 halves in a sex spectrum, or simply two different ones in a myriad of sexes. Those words mean only what we say they mean; they're just labels that we can attach to different sets of properties -- Wright's "collections of sex-related traits" even if it leaves hanging the question of what is meant by "sex" to begin with.
But more particularly, consider what it means to say something is a category in the first place:
Google/OxfordLanguages: "category: a class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics."
A category is simply an abstraction, a name we give to a bunch of things that have some "shared characteristics". In the case of the biological definitions for the sexes, those shared characteristics, shared by millions of species and probably trillions of organisms, is "produces sperm" and "produces ova". But the only things that are actually "real" are the brute facts that those organisms which can produce those gametes are able to reproduce, and that those who are unable to produce either aren't. Why Wright reasonably talks about gametes as the center of mass in all of reproductive biology:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_mass
But see my "What is a woman?" for some elaborations on those themes, particularly the tweet by one "RadfemBlack" which has to qualify as one of the most brilliant insights I've had the pleasure of running across:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
Hippiesq: "... how would that justify medically altering teenagers' bodies and telling children they are the sex they think they are?"
If "we" can't agree on what it means to have a sex in the first place then maybe we shouldn't be surprised that children are just as badly confused. Part of the reason why I emphasize the biological definitions as the most useful ones.
Hippiesq: "... we are just too unsophisticated to see the variation in these individuals due to limitations of modern science."
Kinda think that's further evidence of too many -- not just you, though that is maybe just you hypothesizing, going down the rabbit hole -- putting the cart before the horse. Maybe something of a fine point in the philosophy of language and of science that most people are unaware or don't need to be aware of. But the starting point is those "shared characteristics" -- to which we then give names to. For example, see the article on taxonomy in biology:
Wikipedia: "In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
We SEE -- we regard -- a bunch of organisms with some "shared characteristics" and then give a name to them. In the case of those "individuals" you mentioned, if they share the "essential property" of "produces ova" then we call them "females". And if they share the "essential property of "produces sperm" then we call them "males". That's not a "limitation of science"; that is its claim to fame and fortune, its "essential" nature.
Hippiesq: "However, there is absolutely no science behind a person having this intrinsic knowledge of their 'true sex category.' It's unfalsifiable. It relies purely on the say so of an individual about an amorphous, undefined and undefinable feeling of 'maleness' or 'femaleness.' ..."
Exactly right! 👍🙂 Why I emphasize the objective criteria for sex category membership, the properties that are essential to qualify for membership in them.
Hippiesq: "I'm also not seeing how the analogy to bipedalness supports these bizarre DSDs."
Not quite sure what you're getting at there, but I'm not arguing that your bipedal analogy, at least my interpretation of it, is "supporting those bizarre DSDs". What I'm saying is that you apparently want to grant them membership in the sex categories because they LOOK like they might belong there. Which is largely what many transwomen are claiming. You -- and Zach Elliott -- can't very well throw stones at them for that if you're doing pretty much the same thing.
However, by the standard biological definitions, they simply don't qualify as male or female. As you put it, "Our definitions have to function to identify what we really want them to identify or they are essentially useless." Moot how useful it is to identify reproductive status -- particularly in cases of access to toilets, change rooms, and sports. But in many other cases, it is of profound importance. Bastardizing and corrupting those biological definitions, either for inclusivity or other good intentions -- as admirable as they might be on the surface, tends to be something of a fool's bargain.
Hippiesq: "If I’ve lost the point of your essay, I apologize, but I think I've addressed your main points."
Last point first, I'd say that you've given a pretty solid kick at the kitty; thanks muchly, most appreciated. 🙂
As for the "point of my essay" and whether you've "lost it" -- easy enough to do given my verbiage & poor phrasing, or complexity of the topic -- it seems the worst that might be said is that you seem to balk at or stumble over the concept of "essential properties". Bit of a murky concept at best, but consider another analogy [A is to B as C is to D]: the category "teenager" is to "being 13 to 19" as the category "male" is to "has functional testicles". The phrase "is to" can be read as "has essential property of": "teenager" then has the essential property of "being 13 to 19" while "male" has the essential property of "has functional testicles". A transman can no more "self-identify" as a male than someone of 35 can "self-identify" as a teenager because they both lack the essential properties that define those categories. Don't possess the essential property, can't get a category membership card -- even if one might look like one should.
But that is largely the benefit of the biological definitions: there are clearly specified and objectively defined criteria for category membership, criteria that are not at all subjective.
Hi Steersman - I've been distracted by other things, but I wanted to give at least a quick response to all this. First, while some people whose anatomy is ambiguous may indeed be categorized as "sexless" and some may actually be fine with this nebulous definition, I don't know that we should force people into such a category unless we can be clear on the bright line. You do offer a bright line. However, your bright line, at least to me, makes no sense. You allude to the reason it makes no sense when you agree that which bathroom to use, sports categories, or changing rooms becomes questionable with your definitions.
What would you do with anyone who doesn't fall into the male or female category? Have all sports, bathrooms and changing rooms be neutral? That is one solution but it will take quite a while for the bathrooms and changing rooms to be made appropriately private, and I think we can agree that very few women would end up with any kind of "success" in terms of winning awards of any kind if sports were gender neutral, not to mention the safety issues. And what about prisons? And battered women's shelters?
Further, by your definitions, menopausal and other infertile women are not women, which seems pretty absurd to me, and boys and girls are not ever to be categorized separately for any reasons whatsoever since they aren't "male" or "female." Or, if you do think boys and girls can be categorized separately, what is the basis? If you could answer that question, you might have the real bright line to divide "male" from "female." I don't find your particular bright line of any use.
While I agree that we don't want to put people in categories just because they "look like it," I don't think your bright lines are helpful. We need a better scientific definition for male or female than what you are offering.
Well over 99% of males and females can be easily categorized using our current understanding of male and female - which includes anyone who's body is designed to produce small or large gametes, not just those currently producing them.
While your notion helps the .02% of those whose anatomy is - to current understanding - ambiguous not feel alone because they can be in the same category as children, menopausal women and the infertile, it does nothing else to clarify and creates more questions than it answers.
I know this sounds like I'm totally dismissing your thoughts, but I'm not. I just don't agree that this is a useful way of categorizing males and females. I still appreciate your efforts!
Hello Hippiesq -- thanks muchly for getting back to me. I kinda thought you probably had other irons in the fire, though I was a bit apprehensive that I might have offended you or been too harsh. 🙂
And thanks for acknowledging that "bright line", though I think it makes "no sense" to you -- and to many others -- because you and they are focused, more or less reasonably, on the direct consequences of transgenderism. However, the wider problem is how transgenderism is corrupting biology in which case the only way of dealing with that is that "bright line". I can appreciate that you & they want the "non-functional" definitions for the sexes, but they conflict profoundly and in many ways with the standard biological ones. In which case, promoting the non-functional versions contributes to that corruption.
Apropos of which, you might check out a post by and my conversation with "Ms. M" on her "Two Plus Two" Substack, particularly on the "Scientific" American [SA] article she linked to:
https://twoplustwo.substack.com/p/224-vol-11-anti-women-men-children-human/comment/42716242
The SA article -- by a couple of so-called "biologists" -- makes something of a reasonable point that what we mean by "male" and "female" is a matter of definitions, but they too are apparently but desperately committed to definitions that somehow include transwomen in the female category. There is SOME scientific merit in their arguments -- which is why that bright line is so important -- but their closing argument proves them to be peddling what is no more than Lysenkoism -- i.e., "the deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable" (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lysenkoism&oldid=1139625110):
SA: "So, if 'sex' is the answer, what is the question? This is not so clear, and we have no warrant to make authoritative declarations on this issue from a scientific standpoint that is uninformed by ethical, moral or social considerations."
Since when are "ethical, moral, or social considerations" -- feelings, in fact -- going to be allowed to trump brute "scientific facts and theories"? They, along with Zach Elliott, are engaging in egregious Lysenkoism. How is that different from what you are promoting even if you're doing so with the best of intentions? Roads to hell and all that.
Though I do appreciate your concerns with the practical matters of adjudicating claims to access sports leagues, toilets, and the like. But the problem is in connecting definitions for "man" and "woman" to the terms "male" and "female". You either accept that IF you insist on using "male" and "female" as parts of those definitions THEN some third of us are sexless, OR you have to come up with definitions for "man" and "woman" that aren't joined at the hips with "male" and "female".
In the latter case and as I've argued before, one might define "man" and "woman" as "adult humans with gonads [testicles & ovaries] of past, present, or future functionality". Kinda think that part of the problem is that many people, not just you, seem to think that definitions qualify as gospel truth, and are not just connections between words and facts, connections which can change depending on context. But getting agreement on those definitions, and getting them into the law books may be less difficult than getting biologists to repudiate their definitions which are based on solid facts and sound principles.
In other news, though somewhat related to this and our previous conversations, you might have some interest in a recent post at Broadview. Currently paywalled, but Davis lets through a phrase that you, and I, can probably sympathize with:
LSD (ironic? ...): "Boys and girls can look and act all different kinds of ways."
https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/this-is-what-gender-education-should
A great many people seem unclear on the difference between "looking and acting in different kinds of ways" -- AKA, gender -- and BEING "male" or "female" -- AKA, being members of the sex categories. But losing sight of what it means to be male and female in the first place -- which, not to give you (much 🙂) of a hard time, I think you're contributing to -- is what leads to the conflation of sex (reproductive abilities) and gender (traits that typically correlate with our sexes) which is part and parcel of the whole transgender clusterfuck (excuse my French).
Many people, mostly those on the right including people like Matt Walsh, really do seem to think that all of those traits are part and parcel of what it means to be male and female, that those traits are intrinsic to "male" and "female". That, for example, if a "man" isn't out raping and pillaging then he's not a "real man (™)". So to speak ...
But that outlook causes no end of problems as we have both, more or less, recognized. As a case in point, you might have some interest in -- may even wish to weigh-in on -- a conversation I was having with "Rex Landy" (a woman despite the name), and her rather "unhinged" responses to me:
https://rexlandy.substack.com/p/where-are-we-9b3/comment/42602522
https://rexlandy.substack.com/p/where-are-we-9b3/comment/42514118
She seems to "think" that me arguing that, for example, there are feminine men means that I'm trying to claim that transwomen are women. Some rather "murky" thought processes there that are also part and parcel of that transgender clusterfuck.
That "bright line" seems the only way of separating wheat and chaff, the only way off the horns of a very serious social dilemma.
No, you didn't offend me. I am not that easily offended. :)
I still disagree with your bright line, although maybe you and I can come to some compromise agreement, where you think "male" and "female" have to do with presently functional gonads (again, I don't see why), but we agree that "man" and "woman" don't require presently functional gonads. Does this work for you?
On the other very related topic, I am continually disappointed in the majority of people for failing to distinguish between "male" and "masculine" or "female" and "feminine." Quite obviously, there are effeminate males and masculine women, in addition to masculine males and effeminate females, as well as men and women who are a mix of masculine and feminine characteristics where neither dominates.
To suggest otherwise is to move backwards into a time when it was totally unacceptable for a woman to be masculine or a man to be feminine (and same for girls and boys), and when homosexuality was heavily frowned upon, and even made illegal! I would hope nobody wants to move back into that era.
I'll check out that thread you referenced.
Hippiesq: "I am not that easily offended."
Thought so; made of sterner stuff than the average bear. 🙂
Hippiesq: "... presently functional gonads (again, I don't see why)"
Kind of has to do with the application of the definitions to species which change sex. Many people insist that to have a sex is just a matter of chromosomes, but for those species the chromosomes don't change, only the gonads do. There's are fundamental contradictions there that are only resolvable by standing on those functional gonads as the criteria for sex category membership.
Hippiesq: "... we agree that 'man' and 'woman' don't require presently functional gonads. Does this work for you?"
Sure -- at least as long as the definitions you have in mind don't actually use "male" and "female". Why I suggested defining "woman" as "adult human with gonads of past, present, or future functionality".
Hippiesq: "... for failing to distinguish between 'male' and 'masculine' or 'female' and 'feminine'."
Amen to that. But thanks for checking out that thread -- I'd argue my case there myself, but seems I've picked up another ban there ... 😉🙂 Rex has some more or less reasonable criticisms of transgenderism but an unwillingness to differentiate between female and feminine, between sex and gender is part of the problem.
BTW, I'd posted my response to you here as a separate post; you might have some interest in the comments there:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/scientific-americans-lysenkoism
Part III:
Although we can recognize a human, and we can recognize a male or female - with the rarest of exception - without scientific knowledge, it's the sticky rare cases that make us want scientists to give us these answers. So, to the scientists, I would ask for a good way to categorize male and female that both comports with our intrinsic understanding of same and also accounts for the real scientific differences between males and females.
Such a definition would probably give us a clear answer to whether someone with androgen insensitivity is male or female. They have xy chromosomes, but are insensitive to a hormone that masculinizes the body, and, therefore, their bodies never develop the masculine qualities such as a beard, coarser skin, functioning testes, or even a penis, although their bodies would have been male-appearing had they not been insensitive to this hormone. So are they female because they appear so, or male because their bodies are designed to be male, but just have a certain developmental problem? I don’t know because I’m not sure which are the essential characteristics of a male, although this is one of those cases where my gut would probably say they are female - just looking at them - but there may be cases where the gut is wrong. I believe such people can choose which category to belong to (and can choose to belong to neither or both).
Hippiesq: "... it's the sticky rare cases that make us want scientists to give us these answers."
I think "scientists" have already given us "those answers". The problem seems to be that too many of us -- most of us, in fact -- are not at all willing to accept them ... 😉🙂 Meant to link to this Note from Colin Wright -- of Reality's Last Stand -- in my last response to you, but still seems relevant, even if I think he's talking out of both sides of his mouth in some ways:
CW: "The push to move away from gametes as the unifying definition of the sexes to collections of sex-related traits is as crazy as modern astronomy going back to the geocentric model of our solar system and adopting complex 'epicycles' to explain aberrant patterns like planetary retrograde motion. .... Gametes are the center of mass in reproductive biology.
https://substack.com/@colinwright/note/c-40114942
The primary benefit, or one of the main benefits, of the biological definitions is that they encompass literally millions of anisogamous species. Trying to modify them to "comport" with some "intrinsic understanding" of humans as male or female is to nullify many of those benefits. Why he talks about the problems that follow from mashing in "collections of sex-related traits" -- might work for some species, but not for all of them which is what the current definitions are designed to do.
Hippiesq: "Such a definition would probably give us a clear answer to whether someone with androgen insensitivity is male or female."
Think you're still grabbing at straws there Hippiesq. IF you want some definitions from "scientists", from reputable sources in mainstream biology, THEN you have to accept the consequences: those with androgen insensitivity are NEITHER male NOR female because they can't produce EITHER type of gamete. Why Wright was right on the money about gametes being the center of mass in reproductive biology.
Hippiesq: "... where my gut would probably say they are female - just looking at them .... I believe such people can choose which category to belong to ..."
Would you say that Bruce Jenner IS a female because he LOOKS like one? And all of the other transwomen, particularly those with their "neovaginas"? Kind of my point in that Reality & Illusion post on Medium: a profound difference between those two, between substance and appearance, between being X and identifying as X.
Part II:
As a side point, funny enough, your idea about male and female requiring currently functioning
gonads (not pre-pubescent, not menopausal, and not otherwise infertile), if applied to bipedalness, would mean that babies are not bipedal since they don't yet walk. You may be right about that! Definitions of bipedal seem to require the ability to walk, not just the potential to walk, strengthening your argument about functioning gonads!
Back to the point at hand: By my way of looking at it, neither being bipedal nor being male or female are essential characteristics of being human, but humans are nonetheless designed to be bipedal and either male or female. Someone born with only one leg is obviously human, and someone with a DSD that renders it impossible to categorize them as male or female is also obviously human, but these are still characteristics of humans, even though they are nto essential characteristics.
This all having been said, there are some finer points to consider. What are the essential characteristics of being human and what are the essential characteristics of being male or female? You have provided some answers. Your answer for humans: "having “compatible karyotypes” — basically having 23 chromosome pairs, being able to interbreed, at least potentially, with other members of the species." Interesting that here you consider potential, while for male and female, you think potential is unimportant. I'm not so sure about this definition. I'm not a doctor and have no medical background, but aren't there some disorders that involve an extra chromosome? Those individuals are certainly human! Our definitions have to function to identify what we really want them to identify or they are essentially useless. So I'm not sure what characteristics of being human are essential, but I would say neither being categorized as male or female nor being bipedal are such essential characteristics of being human.
As to the essential characteristics of being male or female, I don't think being currently able to make babies (or ever) is such an essential characteristic of being male or female, and nothing you've said here changes my mind. While I can't - because of lack of scientific knowledge - point to the exact characteristics that make someone male or female, I would say we need a definition that accounts for what we intrinsically know to be true - similar to what makes one human.
Hippiesq: "... if applied to bipedalness, would mean that babies are not bipedal since they don't yet walk."
I'm ok with that idea, though I expect many babies would be "offended" by it, might see the assertion as being rather "contemptible" ... 😉🙂 The starting point is our definitions; everything else follows from them. Seem to recollect you said you were a fan of math, having taken a few college or university courses on the topic. So think that our definitions are like the axioms of Euclidean geometry -- the theorems follow logically from them but the axioms themselves are not provable, can only be accepted or not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiomatic_system
Hippiesq: "... strengthening your argument about functioning gonads! "
Thanks! Progress! 😉🙂
Hippiesq: "By my way of looking at it, neither being bipedal nor being male or female are essential characteristics of being human, but humans are nonetheless designed to be bipedal and either male or female. "
So you agree that it's not essential to be male or female to qualify as human? Hallelujah! Do let Sarah Phillimore know that her claim to the latter at least is secure ... 😉🙂
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/my-first-space-how-did-it-go/comment/39492610
But, as mentioned in my response to your Part I, "designed to be" isn't the issue. Babies are also "designed to be" bipedal, but, as you've conceded, they are not yet in that stage or state. Virtually exactly what a recent Wiley Online Library article is saying, echoing philosopher of science Paul Griffiths, and what I've quoted in the OP:
"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."
Embryos are "not yet" male or female; ergo, sexless.
Hippiesq: "What are the essential characteristics of being human and what are the essential characteristics of being male or female?"
Very good questions, and attempts to answer them. As mentioned, you make a reasonable point about "potential" for species, though it's maybe not necessary to use it. Maybe just list a set of compatible karyotypes which would include, as you suggested, those with an extra chromosome or two. But even if there are some karyotypes that can't interbreed with any other ones, and that their "owners" don't thereby qualify as human, so what? That category is likewise not an identity, only a label that denotes a particular set of properties. As long as those individuals have the same rights as everyone else -- presumably based on some "family resemblances" -- then that seems all that is required.
Hippiesq: "Our definitions have to function to identify what we really want them to identify or they are essentially useless."
Amen to that; agree entirely. Philosopher Will Durant on a related point by Voltaire:
QF: " 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
Hippiesq: "While I can't - because of lack of scientific knowledge - point to the exact characteristics that make someone male or female, I would say we need a definition that accounts for what we intrinsically know to be true - similar to what makes one human."
Kind of think you're trying to square the circle, to have your cake and eat it too. As mentioned, mainstream biology and those biologists worth their salt clearly stipulate that the essential characteristic to "make someone male or female" is to have functional gonads, is to be producing gametes on regular basis. Trying to mash some vague ideas of "what we intrinsically know to be true" into those definitions is likely to be entirely antithetical to and inconsistent with them. There's another fairly durable principle of venerable provenance that underlines the problem there:
Wikipedia: "In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus (falsely attributed to Duns Scotus), is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
Okay. I’ve tried a few times now not to get lost in this, and I just can’t help myself! So here it is, for what it’s worth (but nowhere near as good as the Buffalo Springfield song!) Also, I tried to post this as one comment and was not allowed, so it will be in parts.
This essay clarifies for me why you are so passionate about your definition of male and female as having to be actively fertile - because it allows for a large swathe of people not to be male or female, and, therefore, makes any person with a DSD that might disqualify them from the male or female categories not feel so alone. That's a nice motive. It's sort of ironic since you get so upset with people wanting to keep infertile people in a male or female category because it might hurt their feelings if they're left out, but it is nonetheless nice. I know that’s not your only motive, and that you truly believe that is the most accurate definition, but it’s interesting that your definition can help some individuals who would otherwise feel rather alone to feel not so strange.
That having been said, I don't agree with your analysis on the bipedal analogy. Let's start with the A to B, and C to D. You say the bipedal analogy is that human (A) to non-bipedal (someone who doesn't have 2 working legs)(B) is like sex(C) to person with DSD (particular DSD that makes someone's sexuality too ambiguous to really categorize)(D). I don't see it that way. To me, the analogy (the A to B and C to D) is human(A) to bipedal(B) and human(C) to sex-binary(D). The further part of that is the analogy of a non-bipedal individual (like someone born with only one leg), to person with a DSD that renders their sex unrecognizable as male or female (like someone with ovotestes). My simple point was that people are designed as bipedal, but the existence of some non-bipedal people doesn't mean people aren't designed to be bipedal, and that some people don't fit neatly into the male or female categories doesn't mean people aren't designed to be male or female.
Hippiesq: "nowhere near as good as the Buffalo Springfield song!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp5JCrSXkJY
I commend your taste in music -- you old hippie, you ...😉🙂
Hippiesq: "... That's a nice motive. .... I know that’s not your only motive, and that you truly believe that is the most accurate definition ...."
Thanks.
Hippiesq: "To me, the analogy (the A to B and C to D) is human(A) to bipedal(B) and human(C) to sex-binary(D). ...."
Your analogy of course, and what anyone means by their analogies is often hard to discern. Part of the reason why I said I wasn't sure where you were going with it.
However, it seems you're missing the point (sorry) that the relationship between A & B has to be the same as that between C & D. IF you're saying, by that construction of yours, that non-bipedal people are still members of the category "human" THEN you're saying, analogously, that "non sex-binary people" -- i.e., those who are neither male nor female -- are also still members of the category "human". Which I don't see any objections to.
But a great many other people use that same analogy, or the rough outlines of it, in virtually the same way that I presented it. That is, in insisting that those with DSDs are still either male or female. For instance, the Reddit post seemed to do so. And Sarah Phillimore, a UK lawyer & GC feminist, did likewise -- by way of suggesting that I was "contemptible" for arguing in favour of "sexless":
SP: "That doesn’t mean I have to play along with what I find contemptible. You might as well say because I don’t have two legs I can’t be human."
ETA: https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/my-first-space-how-did-it-go/comment/39492610
But I think that emphasizes how we all have to be clear on our definitions and logic -- incredibly easy to trip ourselves up through carelessness or motivated reasoning or unexamined assumptions. Why I often quote Francis Bacon: "shoddy and inept uses of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways." And Richard Feynman, one of the patron saints of science, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
Hippiesq: "My simple point was that people are designed as bipedal, but the existence of some non-bipedal people doesn't mean people aren't designed to be bipedal, and that some people don't fit neatly into the male or female categories doesn't mean people aren't designed to be male or female."
Speaking of fooling oneself ... 😉🙂 Of course people are "designed" (by who?) to be bipedal and to have a sex. But that isn't the issue. It is whether everyone actually IS bipedal and HAS a sex, i.e., IS a member of the two sex categories. I can sympathize with your presumed desire to be "inclusive", but it still looks to be putting feelings before facts -- trying to turn the sexes into a "social category" rather than accepting them as a biological pair with circumscribed membership.
Apropos of which, you might be interested in my rather "lengthy" essay on Medium several years ago, "Reality and Illusion: Being vs Identifying As". Some broken links, and overly cumbersome wording that needs clarification & correction -- hope to post it shortly on Substack:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/reality-and-illusion-being-vs-identifying-as-77f9618b17c7
But of particular note therein, is a bit of a conversation on that post I've had recently with "J Carr" who seems to want to make both "male" and "female", and "man" and "woman" into those "social categories":
https://medium.com/@jcarr250/it-is-definitely-complex-57047ef8fec3
If your definitions are also such social categories -- as they apparently are -- then why should yours be preferred over his? Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is to go with the biological definitions which have solid justifications for them in logic, biology, and epistemology.
Thank you for this thoughtful article! "Accidental & Essential Properties" is a great way to frame the discussion, perhaps the perfect way, not just of the bipedal analogy, but also the sex binary discussion in general. Your reply in which you bring up anisogamous species was helpful in thinking about this as well. I would love to contribute to the discussion when I have a little more time. Thanks for opening up the discussion and giving me something to think about!
Thanks. Do weigh-in when have some time. 🙂
Re the "anisogamous", you might also have some interest in this Note from Colin Wright:
CW: "Just like every astronomical observation of our solar system suddenly makes elegant sense when you properly center the Sun when constructing models of our solar system, the patterns in reproductive biology across the natural world suddenly snap into place and make sense when you center gametes."
https://substack.com/@colinwright/note/c-40114942
I think his own set of definitions -- based on gonads of "past, present, or future functionality" -- are risibibly unscientific, hardly better than folk biology, but I think he has a solid point there.
I will respond later. I started, but it got to convoluted!
Thanks muchly Hippiesq. My apologies if I've made the discussion more complicated than necessary. But devils are in the details and all that, even if I haven't described them very well. 🙂
However, it seems that the only way of grappling with them is to be clear on the definitions and principles involved. Again, I really do think that gender as feminine and masculine personality traits is something of a turning point, a way forward out of the mess that too many have turned the issue into. And worth some effort refining and promoting.
Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in a discussion on the topic I'm having with "Apple Pie", particularly since I've referenced our conversation here and, I think, your comments thereon. 🙂 "He" seems to be something of a knowledgeable academic or student in sociology, but I think he -- and his whole field -- is contributing to the dog's breakfast by the same sloppy definitions and motivated reasoning -- and "good" intentions -- that apparently motivates Zach Elliott:
https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/is-gender-just-on-a-spectrum
His post is actually a response to me and my comments in another thread -- link in that new post -- and he does make a few good points that are worth delving into. For instance, he more or less accepts than gender CAN be defined as a spectrum, even if he rejects that idea.
However, his alternative is "apparently" to argue that the intersex (AKA, those with DSDs) are a third sex. Or that there are only 3 genders -- female, male, and intersex. And he has actually used "male" and "female" as genders despite acknowledging that sex and gender are different kettles of fish. Bit of a mess of motivated reasoning and sloppy "thinking" that I'm at a loss how to respond to -- you may wish weigh-in there if you were so inclined. 🙂 Or even just to see the mess that "academics" have made of the issue.
I think Apple Pie was using the word gender, but meant it as sex, as you'll see from the comment I just left. I largely agree with the assessment, assuming I understood it correctly.
Thanks for weighing- in over there -- which I'll try to respond to shortly. Though I think "Apple"is terribly confused -- at best -- since he apparently insists on using "male" and "female" as both sexes and genders. Not sure whether his conclusion is arguing that there are three sexes or three genders -- not sure whether he knows himself.
But, in other news, thanks for your lengthy response here -- a four-parter in fact! 🙂 Hope to respond in detail in the next day or two, but sort of on a working holiday and restricted to a smartphone at the moment -- which really isn't adequate for the responses required.
Though en passant, generally a good point about using "potential" for species, but not for the sexes. But not really the same kettles of fish as I'm not aware of any organism changing species whereas many species change sex. And I expect the species definition could be changed so as to not use "potential". But I think your comment emphasises the importance of being clear and unambiguous in our definitions.
i don't really undertand this discussion you have been having. But might it be irrelevant, if we accept that all humans are either female or male: because each DSD person, is still actually, overall, clearly in one specific sex category. (BTW, we don't say disabled people are not people- though they have grown or developed differently from the majority of people. Similarly, the existence of DSD people does not invalidate the sex binary.) Just sayin' ... please feel free to ignore this, if it is not helpful...
Pretty much all comments are "helpful" and most appreciated 🙂. Not least in drawing attention to different points that may bear emphasis or further discussion.
More particularly, my argument is NOT that DSDs "invalidate the sex binary". It is that those with DSDs are "outside" that binary. Consider an analogy:
IF there were only TWO religions -- say Christianity and Islam -- THEN we would say that religion is a binary. But the existence of atheists doesn't "invalidate the religion binary". We just say that there are many people who are "religion-less", who are without a religion. We say that the religion categories -- Christianity and Islam -- are not exhaustive.
Virtually the same thing with the sexes. As I've argued elsewhere, some two thirds of us are male or female, while the remaining third -- including DSDs and the prepubescent -- are sexless. The sex category is definitely a binary one -- by definition. But it is not an exhaustive one, it doesn't include all members of all anisogamous species, including the human one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy
(Just a quick comment- I wouldn't think that pre-pubescent children are not part of the M/F sex binary.) But the point I was adding before- I have heard that biologically, DSD people are still, in fact, more of one sex than the other, even with their different developments. So this does not invalidate the binary.
Whether DSDs or prepubescent kids or any other groups are "part of the M/F sex binary" depends very much on how you DEFINE the binary to begin with. And it IS a matter of definitions; there is NO intrinsic meaning to the words "male" & "female". A point which even so-called biologists Colin Wright and Emma Hilton don't get or don't want to consider.
But that was largely why I considered BOTH the strict biological definitions and the much sloppier and the quite unscientific definitions of folk-biology and of Wright and Company.
You might try reading that "Binarists vs. Spectrumists" post of mine for some details on the profound differences between the two. But I had quoted the Wiley Online Library which emphasized the logical consequences of the strict version, and which you might pay close attention to:
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."
Neither the DSDs nor the prepubescent qualify as members of the sex categories, male and female, because they're not "reproductively competent" because they don't have any functional gonads, i.e., testes and ovaries respectively.
You may wish to put less weight on "what you've heard", and more on what reputable biological journals and dictionaries actually SAY.
I can see you have done much research on this. I suppose I am saying that the status of male or female, is something we (usually) all recognise at a deeper level. It would be a combination of chromosomes and other things, which overall would place everybody in either one side or the other. (I said 'I have heard' so as not to appear to claim any authority on the subject- I think it may have been Emma Hilton or Kathleen Stock who said it). But I don't think I should be trying to talk to you about this now, as you are very much deeper into the issue than me. All the best
"all recognise at a deeper level"
Like "other ways of knowing"?
The problem is that if we're going to be using the sexes for social gatekeeping purposes -- somewhat of a bad idea to begin with, but like access to toilets and sports -- then we pretty well have to say, in writing, exactly what we mean by those terms. Why would we go with manifestly unscientific definitions?
But thanks for the well wishes. Though you might help matters by not being so quick to endorse so-called experts -- like Stock & Hilton, both of whom have come up with some real howlers on the topic. Likewise Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater and many others for their own mantra, their risibly antiscientific "sex is immutable!!11!!" (🙄 it ain't).
But for example, I'll cheerfully defer to Emma on actual biology, but she and her partners in crime, Heather Heying & Colin Wright, are remarkably pigheaded and cluelessly dogmatic when it comes to the philosophical principles that are foundational to their whole field. A great many so-called "experts" are more a part of the problem than of the solution. As Alexander Pope put it: "a little learning is a dangerous thing, drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring."
Thanks. As I say, I don't know enough about 'Biology' to comment further.