So, there I was minding my own business when I went to check the status of my comment on Heather’s recent post about “On Fraud; And Being Science-ish”, and there it was — gone. Which is somewhat ironic as events have turned out. But that link now shows dead space — crickets, but I had fortunately taken a screen shot of a comment on her audio post which shows it to have been a valid link:
While the above comment more or less summarizes my argument, I’ll post the bulk of the original below as a reference point:
Excellent essay; lots of insightful comments, damning accusations, useful links, and cogent observations and allusions - Potemkin village and Titanic-sinking icebergs, indeed. Bravo. Seriously.
Reminds me of a quip by Richard Feynman - one of science's more credible "patron saints":
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."
Of maybe some interest or relevance is his classic essay on "What is science?":
http://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/whatisscience-feynman.pdf
However, not to be a wet-blanket or anything of that nature ... 😉, I kind of get the impression that, as a "fer instance", you and Colin Wright and Emma Hilton are likewise fooling yourselves, and are trying to fool others - intentionally or not - with your rather idiosyncratic, entirely unevidenced, and quite unscientific definitions for the sexes:
As evidence to justify that "charge", you might note the standard biological definitions "promulgated" by biologists Parker (FR S) and Lehtonen in [the Glossary of] their classic 2014 article - something of a "gold standard" - in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Which is basically the definition endorsed by many credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and biological journals, Lexico for example:
"male (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
https://www.lexico.com/definition/male
I see absolutely diddly-squat there about any "past, present, or future functionality" [the crux of Hilton’s tweet and their rather bogus claims; see below]
Somewhat amused to note that Lexico has apparently been taken into Room 101 at the Ministry of Truth and has repudiated their earlier endorsement of the standard biological definitions of Parker and Company; thank gawd for screenshots:
In any case, while it is not readily evident in the above without clicking on the indicated tweets, here are the specific claims of Heying, Hilton, and Wright:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
That is from Hilton’s tweet of a letter they had had published in the UK Times (December 2019) — hardly what anyone would call a “peer-reviewed biological journal”, much less one of any credibility. But they are many quite serious problems with their definitions, not least because they are flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions that have, more or less, been prescribed by credible biologists and biological journals (see above).
But, one might ask, “where’s the beef?” However, as I’ve argued above and elsewhere, while their redefinitions seem, at first blush, to comport with what one might call “folk-biology” — not much to bet the farm on, the fact of the matter is that their “definitions” bestow sex category membership on those who are infertile, who have no ability to reproduce, whereas the standard biological definitions make actual fertility into an essential property — no gametes, no sex.
In some cases the differences between those two definitions would be “academic” — of minor import if not irrelevance, particularly when applied to mammals. However, the biological definitions are designed to encompass all 7-odd million sexually reproducing species on the planet — at last count, not just the human one. And in many of those species, the differences between the two definitions cause serious problems with the nomenclature, terminology, and categorization of many of those species. Problems which Heying and Company apparently refuse to address, much less even consider how that might be the case. Not a good look at all that I’ve been “deplatformed” by Heying for attempting to broach the issue — particularly since at least 2 of the 3 have likewise been deplatformed for challenging various similar and related orthodoxies.
In any case, if it was just me that was sounding the alarums then people might reasonably dismiss my claims as “sour grapes”. But more than a few others — including some very heavy hitters indeed — have been doing likewise. For instance, consider this passage from the “Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender” by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
The definitions of Heying and Company most definitely qualify as “purely descriptive ‘patchwork’ definitions lacking a functional rationale”. They basically assert that virtually all members of all sexually-reproducing species can thereby be characterized as either male or female while lacking the ability to reproduce, while having no reproductive function at all. Completely and profoundly antithetical to the standard biological definitions prescribed by Parker (FRS), Lehtonen, and the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction — hardly chopped liver.
Somewhat more problematic is that their definitions for the sexes basically boil down into spectra. Each of their sexes has 3 mutually exclusive conditions — i.e., past, present, or future functionality (ability to reproduce) — for sex category membership, each of which bestows a membership card on virtually all applicants. All it takes to create a spectrum is two end points and one or more in between. But their definitions basically comprise what are known as polythetic categories — membership based on what are essentially family resemblances — which, by their very nature qualify as spectra. See, for example, the article by Rodney Needham (Oxford University) titled Polythetic Classification: Convergence and Consequences. And a similar one by Marc van Regenmortel (Medical University of Vienna) on Classes, taxa and categories in hierarchical virus classification. Of particular note and of more than passing relevance is this passage from the latter:
Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
Methinks that none of the three have anything much in the way of any grasp of the relevant principles of “logic, ontology, and epistemology” under their belts. Many of which are, as Regenmortel emphasizes, rather crucial and foundational to pretty much all of biology.
In any case, to round out and close my “J’accuse” with a broader and more damning overview, consider these passages from an article by Paul Griffiths — university of Sydney, philosopher of biology, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy — at Aeon magazine:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]." [my emphasis ...]
"On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."
That’s what Heying and Company are basically engaged in, whether they realize it or not. The more or less deliberate distortion, corruption, and bastardization of the standard biological definitions on which much of the entire edifice of biology is founded. And on which much of our civilization rests, rather precariously. Little better than Lysenkoism — the “deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable.”
Classy bunch …
I am finding this and related discussions interesting but also at times frustrating and confusing. I am quite skeptical of many recent concepts such as, "Gender fluidity" and the like, as well as the idea that gender is a completely social construct, although all of these issues and the discussions surrounding them seem often times to be severely blurred (is gender purely a social construct, or is it also socially influenced? If so, to what degree?) I found your comments via the recent post by Heather Heying (or rather, remnants and references to your apparently deleted comments therein). I find I am in agreement with much of what I have read of yours on this topic so far; however, I am still left feeling somewhat confused as to why you feel the biologically-based definitions of sex you cite should apparently reign supreme? Although I agree that they are much more precise than the one proffered by Heying, they nevertheless seem to me to be flawed in that they appear overly restrictive, creating large groups of people who seemingly must fail to fall into either category - male or female, unless I am interpreting this incorrectly.
As I understand it, the definitions of male and female sex you champion are strictly and narrowly defined based upon (1) the ability to produce gametes and (2) the relative size and perhaps also mobility status, of those gametes. Is that correct?
What Heying seems to be doing with her definitions is to broaden this in order to allow for inclusion of individuals who may, for instance, have lost their previous ability to produce said gametes. For instance, if an adult male who fits the definition you champion develops normally to adulthood, but then develops testicular cancer and then undergoes bilateral orchiectomy - or one who is a victim of some horrible accident that included his castration - would such a person suddenly now no longer be considered "male"? Similarly for female ovarian cancer patients or postmenopausal females, how then are they to be categorized? Do they go in an instant from having a sex to now being sexless?
It seems to me that, although inelegant and rather clunky, Heying's broadened definition allows one to retain their status as either male or female in such situations, which seems to me to be eminently reasonable.
I can't comment on Heather's blog because I am not a paid subscriber but I don't understand how exactly you disagree with her? Here are quotes from two of the papers you posted:
"Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we define females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males"
"Biologically, males are defined as the sex that produces the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm)"
How is that different than what Heather says?
"Females are individuals who do or did or will or would, but for developmental or genetic anomalies, produce eggs. Eggs are large, sessile gametes. Gametes are sex cells. In plants and animals, and most other sexually reproducing organisms, there are two sexes: female and male. Like “adult,” the term female applies across many species. Female is used to distinguish such people from males, who produce small, mobile gametes (e.g. sperm, pollen)." -Heather Heying
My initial assumption when you opened your comment on Heather's blog by denying that a baby's sex is identifiable was was that you are a TRA who has bought into the whole woke "fluidity" narrative. After looking through a couple of your blogs I see that is not accurate. But your arguments are very complicated and opaque. I still don't understand where you stand. Heather's essay was very simple and clear.
A baby's sex is identifiable at birth and even before birth using U/S because he or she has secondary sex characteristics of the genitalia which indicate whether he or she will produce eggs (large gametes), or sperm (small gametes) (unless the baby has "developmental or genetic anomalies" as Heying noted). The doctor, mother, father, u/s tech are not "assigning" or "guessing", they are observing the evidence.
The immutable genes (XX and XY) are not observable with the naked eye, nor are the gametes, but the secondary sex characteristics are an observable and reliable indicator.
So the "category" of male or female contains: gamete size, chromosome combination, secondary sex characteristics. Right?