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?
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?