Interesting ideas. I guess my response regarding Montana and Oklahoma is that they are circumscribing who gets to be in women’s sports - not necessarily changing scientific definitions like the authors of the Scientific American article attempt to do. I agree that their definition leaves out one very small but nonetheless important group - those with DSD’s that leave doubt as to what their bodies were “designed to do.” (They are not leaving out those who don’t develop normally as the whole point of their definition is to include those with abnormal development.). I have suggested in past discussions with you that those with very ambiguous bodies (where we cannot say what they are designed to do) be allowed to make the choice for themselves as they suffer enough and there simply is no clear answer as to which category they belong. Notably, your definitions don’t help these people when it comes to bathrooms and sports, etc. either so we have to devise some other solution and I think this is the most fair - let them choose. It won’t harm anyone because they aren’t a danger and they don’t really have any unfair advantages. - Something to consider further anyway.
As to your last point about what to do about “affirmative care,” Your definitions give me no guidance. Nor do any definitions really. The question is not what is a male or female as much as it is - do we want to push young vulnerable people to try and appear the opposite of or different than what they are in the name of an ambiguous potentially changeable feeling? Whether male and female are transient states does not help with this question. To me, the answer is clear. Young people need a chance to grow up. Nobody is destined to need to alter their appearance and live as if they were born in a different body type. While fully grown adults with no mental deficits can choose to do so, it is nothing to encourage or celebrate. Adults that so choose should not suffer any discrimination, but young people should not be pushed in that direction, it should not be glamorized and it is not a “right” any more than cosmetic surgeries to alter appearance in any other way is a “right.” We probably should not ban it or ban nose jobs, facelifts or Brazilian butt lifts - but I don’t think society should pay for these things either.
I digressed a bit but the end point is that your definitions have their place, but do not further the discussions I want to have. And definitions that enable us to reasonably divide people 99.98% of the time (for sports, changing rooms, prisons, etc.) are not distortions of biology. My proposed solution for the .02% is to allow these people to make their own choice of category since it is so unclear. I think I’ve exhausted this topic.
Hippiesq: "I guess my response regarding Montana and Oklahoma is that they are circumscribing who gets to be in women’s sports - not necessarily changing scientific definitions like the authors of the Scientific American article attempt to do."
Certainly a reasonable objective to "circumscribe who gets into women's sports". However, I think you're missing my point that Montana & Oklahoma are in fact peddling quite unscientific definitions for the sexes -- just as Scientific American are doing.
Hippiesq: "I have suggested in past discussions with you that those with very ambiguous bodies (where we cannot say what they are designed to do) be allowed to make the choice for themselves as they suffer enough and there simply is no clear answer as to which category they belong."
Well, your heart is certainly in the right place. 🙂 However, to say "there simply is no clear answer as to which category they belong" is simply not true. And it is predicated on your own, quite unspecified, definition for the sexes. By the standard biological definitions they are simply sexless. Think you need to specify exactly what you mean by "male" and "female", and the criteria that must be met to qualify as such.
And endorsing the "principle" of "make the choice for themselves" just opens the door to transwomen doing likewise -- why should transwomen have any less right to do that than the intersex? You're playing favourites, engaging in special pleading. If you want to adjudicate claims to access toilets and sports then you simply have to say exactly what are the relevant criteria.
For example, if you were making access to some facilities based on whether someone was a teenager or not then it is clear that to do so requires them to be 13 to 19. Not a question of "make the choice for themselves", but of the objective criteria to qualify as members of particular categories.
Hippiesq: "Your definitions give me no guidance. Nor do any definitions really. The question is ... do we want to push young vulnerable people to try and appear the opposite of or different than what they are ..."
As you argued, we probably shouldn't ban cosmetic surgeries of various types, and that "gender affirmation surgeries" probably qualifies likewise. But the issue is, for example, transwomen claiming to be female. If some "adult" male wants to cut his nuts off then I suppose he's entitled to do so. However, I don't think he's entitled to call himself a female and to take part in women's sports. But we don't have a leg to stand on in that position if we've bastardized and corrupted the definitions for the sexes to the point that the criteria for qualifying as such are entirely subjective.
Hippiesq: "And definitions that enable us to reasonably divide people 99.98% of the time (for sports, changing rooms, prisons, etc.) are not distortions of biology."
Depends on the criteria that you use to do that "dividing". If you want to record babies genitalia and chromosomes at birth then sure, we can "reasonably divide people" into penis-havers or vagina-havers, into XYers or XXers some 98% of the time. But when you try to use the words "male" and "female" then you're contributing to the same "distortions of biology" that Scientific American is engaging in. If you're not subscribing to the biological definitions then you're in the same (leaky) boat as they are.
Something of a bit of house-keeping. I know that Substack's commenting format is somewhat ambiguous and easy to slip-up on, but do please try responding to an actual comment and not at the top level. Thanks. Makes the conversation much easier to follow for all of my many subscribers ... 😉🙂
I think you missed my points though. First, I am not suggesting that we divide people based on feelings. I am suggesting that we divide based on objective criteria that applies to 99.98% of all people. I don't think we can divide in a manner that would provide a sufficient answer for the .02% - and your idea of saying some people are sexless does not fix this issue. I think we are left with a conundrum regarding these people - who have no choice in the fact that they are biologically prevented from conforming to the criteria we would use for 99.98% of the population. This has nothing to do with someone who is clearly male demanding to be called female merely because they would enjoy this. A person whose body lacks sufficient male or female characteristics to be properly categorized is hardly being prioritized above a man who wishes he was a woman if such an uncharacterizable (if that's a word) person is given the option of making their own choice.
I am generally okay with using your "male" and "female" definitions - and making many people "sexless" although I'm still not sure it's accurate. Again, while you say the definitions are clear and involve bodies that are "presently" able to produce small or large gametes, what does "presently" mean? If it means cyclically, then I repeat (since you didn't respond earlier), what of the cycle of childhood to periodic large gamete production to menopause? And are you so sure that "male" and "female" require successful gamete production and current production, and not just the design toward that end? Either way, I don't see how this fixes anything relating to sports, etc.
I also disagree that Montana or Oklahoma are mangling the terms male and female. They are simply stating that we can divide people, for sports purposes, into those with bodies designed to produce large or small gametes, whether currently producing them or not. They are not claiming that sex is on a spectrum, or that one is the sex one wishes one was, or any other mamby-pamby notion. Even if you think there is a category of the sexless, which is anyone who is not presently fertile, and that only presently fertile people are male or female, that would only affect the literal labeling of the words "male" and "female," but not the concepts involved. Your objection would merely be to the use of those words, but you would undoubtedly agree that the means of dividing was fair, reasonable and effective (except for the .02%, but you have not proposed any way to divide them). Or do you have an issue with this means of division as well? If so, how would you divide people - or would you never divide based on anything sex-based?
Your teenager analogy doesn't work completely. It works for 99.98% of the population - and I agree to that extent. All those whose body was designed to produce large gametes are female and those whose bodies are designed to produce small gametes are male, and all people aged 13 to 19.99999 are teenagers. For the .02% for whom we cannot tell which gamete their body was designed to produce, it's unclear if they are male or female, and for those whose exact birthday is unknown (even if it's because we simply failed to keep a record) we cannot say if they are teenagers. Perhaps these people can pick their age - within reason (since we know someone who might be 13 is not 35, but might be 12 or 13 or 11 or 14 - so let them choose. This ability to choose would not apply to someone who simply wishes they were younger (or older).
Hippiesq: "Sorry if I didn't reply to the comment (my bad)."
No problemo, not a big deal -- just keeping the thread easy to follow for the many people hanging on our conversations. 🙂
Hippiesq: "I think you missed my points though."
Entirely possible. Substack is substantially better than Twitter for detailed conversations, but there are still some limitations. Particularly for convoluted and complicated issues like this one.
However, you say that my "sexless doesn't fix the issue" and "doesn't provide sufficient answer". But I think you're missing my point that "sexless" is the answer, that there's nothing anywhere that says everyone has to have a sex. That is just making the sexes into social categories -- which is what "Scientific" American is doing. SA explicitly say -- see their closing paragraphs -- that the categories have to be designed to take due consideration of people's feelings. The biological categories aren't "designed" as participation trophies -- which is what you and SA seem to think is required.
Hippiesq: "I am generally okay with using your 'male' and 'female' definitions - and making many people 'sexless' although I'm still not sure it's accurate."
Hallelujah! Progress! 😉🙂
But that "sexless" is the logical consequence of the definitions. It's what Griffiths and Wiley Online mean when they say that the sexes are "life-history stages":
Still somewhat moot as to how many people are in that sexless category, but I guestimate at least some 15% of us are prepubescent and they certainly qualify. However, see below ...
Hippiesq: "... what does "presently" mean? If it means cyclically, then I repeat (since you didn't respond earlier), what of the cycle of childhood to periodic large gamete production to menopause?"
Good question, $64,000 one, suitably adjusted for inflation. Although, from my notes, it seems I already answered you on that score with a reference to and quote of a Grammarly article:
Grammarly: "We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it’s sometimes called present indefinite). Depending on the person, the simple present tense is formed by using the root form or by adding s or es to the end."
"regularly: with a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual items. 'regularly spaced buildings' ..."
Women, of course, produce one or two ova a month whereas men produce thousands of spermatozoa every day, the former being a much more complicated and resource-demanding process -- each ovum is some 100,000 times the volume of a single spermatozoa . The difference between Ferraris and Volkswagen Beetles. 🙂
But that is the crux and consequence of the "produces gametes" in all of the reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias. And it means that if gametes aren't being produced "regularly" -- with the same time interval between each, more or less -- then the individual doesn't qualify for a sex category membership card.
Hippiesq: "I also disagree that Montana or Oklahoma are mangling the terms male and female."
They are clearly and unambiguously defining "male" and "female" in ways that are diametrically opposed to that "produces (regularly)".
Hippiesq: "All those whose body was designed to produce large gametes are female ..."
You're backtracking from your earlier "okay with using your 'male' and 'female' definitions". The definitions have absolutely diddly-squat to do with any "design", but only with the presence of a regular process of producing gametes. Do try taking a close look at what they actually say, not what you want them to say:
"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."
Yes, I'm sure there are many who await my responses! :)
At this point, both your position and mine regarding these issues are pretty clear, and any further response would just be repetitive. I think we shake hands at this point, and agree that we have some common ground, but disagree on certain specifics. Nothing wrong with that!
I do want to make one thing clear though (since I just can't help myself). I am not at all proposing that we define male or female or divide people on the basis of their feelings (other than the .02% for whom we have no other means of division, given the distinctive ambiguity of their bodies). Nor am I saying anything about a participation trophy. I wouldn't care about some people being defined as "sexless" (although I'm still not so clear this is true or necessary), but, however we label people ("male" "female" or "sexless"), we still have to divide them up for sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc., and leaving one third of people "sexless" would do nothing to clarify that division.
Hippiesq: "... but, however we label people ('male' 'female' or 'sexless'), we still have to divide them up for sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc., and leaving one third of people 'sexless' would do nothing to clarify that division."
I agree entirely. Why I've said -- several times in fact ... 😉🙂 -- that the sexes are simply the wrong tool for the jobs that society is trying to press them into doing. As I've also said, repeatedly, that is like using a screwdriver to pound nails -- "sexless" simply underlines that point. And why I've said, many times, we'd be further ahead to explicitly use genitalia and karyotypes instead of "male" and "female".
All of which is something that Paul Griffiths emphasized in an old Aeon article which I've picked up and been running with for some time:
PG: "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]. ....
On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition [e.g., in law], 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."
Well put and succinct! Sounds like Paul Griffiths and you are on exactly the same page. I'm not at all bothered by the idea, even if, due to lack of knowledge, I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the definition. And thanks for the intro to Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog - I was not familiar with them.
Steersman, your comment exchange with SCA was useful. It gets to the real crux of the issue here, which is that we are all debating not just the definitions of "male" and "female," but trying to speak sensibly about the issues of: How do we divide bathrooms, sports, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters (or do we not divide these things at all); and is there any benefit to so-called "affirmative care" and what medical, psychological, social or other interventions (or lack of interventions) might be appropriate for people suffering mental or emotional distress over their sexed bodies?
While you have centered on the scientific definitions of "male" and "female," and seem to have found - somewhere, but I think we can agree that the definitions of these two words may be found in various sources, with at least some variations amongst them - a definition that involves a life-stage, an impermanent situation that not all people even experience, to define these terms. That is, your preferred definition involves the existence within a person's body of presently functioning sex organs producing either small or large gametes. By "presently," of course, that is not moment to moment, but within a cycle, at least for females - which arguably could be widened to include a longer cycle that involves a period of preparation for such production called childhood, and a period after which the production is no longer active in females, called menopause, but you don't seem to be open this idea. I won't debate further on this only because I don't see the point, as reflected below.
Your definition may or may not be the holy grail of definitions for these terms. I am not a scientist or a researcher, and I don't care to explore this in any detail, mostly because I don't think it will matter in the end whether this particular definition of "male" and "female" rules.
This definition does nothing to further the conversation about: so-called "affirmative care" (medical interventions designed to make individuals appear as the opposite "sex" - the last word being made contentious by this debate), which is, as you might imagine, my main focus in this discussion This definition also does nothing to further the conversation about bathrooms, changing rooms, rape crisis centers, battered women's centers, prisons, or sports - which I also think is important.
In other words, even if "male" and "female" require a person to have a body containing presently functioning sex organs producing small or large gametes, respectively, what does that say about "affirmative care?" What does it say about division, if any, of bathrooms, changing rooms, rape crisis centers, battered women's centers, prisons, or sports?
To me, we want to discuss "boys" and "girls" and "men" and "women" and what that means. If someone "feels like a woman," or "feels like a man" (or a girl or a boy) what does that even mean? I won't go on and on, because I think you get what I'm saying. The discussion that matters is the one that addresses these issues. While the "bright line" of "male" and "female" may be useful for certain reasons, it really doesn't answer any of the above-noted pressing questions of our time.
I truly appreciate that you are trying to stay true to science, and I think your goal is a noble one, but don't let it get in the way of the serious social issues affecting many millions of people, most of whom are vulnerable in one way or another. How do we protect the vulnerable? Will your discussion of transitory life stages help them? If so, please let me know how because that is a discussion I want to have.
Thanks Hippiesq. Good points, good questions -- and nicely paragraphed too ... 😉🙂
But quite agree with your closing one and your stated objective of "furthering the conversation about bathrooms, .... prisons or sports". However, the bottom line there is the question of which criteria, which "properties" we are going to use to adjudicate access to those facilities and opportunities. Seems to me that you EITHER specify EXACTLY what those criteria are to be -- in the case of access to toilets and sports, reproductive status is irrelevant so we should specify they're segregated on the basis of genitalia or chromosomes. For women's sports, no XY need apply, so to speak. OR you try to fashion a definition for the sexes that will do those jobs.
In the latter case, some US States have actually made some more or less credible efforts to do that -- for examples, Montana and Oklahoma. See:
MontanaFreePress: "The bill also describes 'female' as a human who, under 'normal development,' produces 'relatively large, relatively immobile gamete, or egg,' and defines the term 'male' as a human who 'under normal development, produces small, mobile gametes, or sperm.' ..."
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female.' ...."
However, as admirable as those efforts are, as good as the intentions are that motivate them, the bottom line is still that they conflict rather profoundly with the biological definitions. Maybe not a "deal-breaker" in itself, but they still tend to cause the bastardization and corruption of the biological definitions which are foundational to all of biology. Really not all that far removed from the efforts of "Scientific" American and the many transactivists who are bound and determined to turn "male" and "female" into meaningless and entirely subjective categories. A difference in degree but not kind; pots and kettles, at least as far as the biological "bright line" is concerned.
Apropos of which, thanks for your Like of my comment on Ms. M's Two Plus Two, but you might want to take a close look at that article in The Critic and the Medium post by Kim Hipwell for how that corruption is playing out:
However, even apart from that conflict, there are still some serious problems with the definitions that Montana and Oklahoma are writing into their law books -- which Hipwell and others have some reason to draw attention to. For examples, what does Montana intend to do about those who don't exhibit "normal development", i.e., all the intersex to begin with? And exactly how is Oklahoma going to determine what an individual was "designed" to do -- what about those with complete androgen insensitivity who look female but have XY chromosomes and internal but non-functional testicles?
The crux of the matter is that the biological definitions are simply the wrong tools for the jobs society is trying to press them into doing. So people have to bastardize the definitions which corrupts biology. Like using a screwdriver to pound nails -- inefficient and likely to damage the tool beyond performing its intended function. Trying to shoehorn the foot of social justice -- even through policies like those in Montana and Oklahoma -- into the glass slipper of biology (so to speak) just cripples the former and shatters the latter: lose, lose.
Seems to me that many if not most people have their minds stuck in the proverbial monkey trap on this issue. Basically, a monkey will reach into a container to grab a banana but can't pull its hand out until it lets go of the banana -- which it refuses to do so it goes kind of mental. I remember seeing a film clip of some poor monkey running around screeching because it couldn't gets its hand out of the trap while still holding onto the banana. Takes some ability, self-awareness, and willingness to step back far enough to understand the reasons for one's predicament:
But to address, somewhat briefly, your understandable emphasis on "affirmative care", the answer, or an avenue towards one, is sort of in your own "appear as the opposite sex". IF one can't say what it is that qualifies someone as either sex THEN how can we possibly say whether someone has changed their sex or not by that "care"? If changing one's sex is simply a matter of changing one's genitalia -- as the Kindergarten Cop definitions basically endorse -- then how -- dare you? -- deny the transgendered their "right" to do so?
You're still obliged to say what you mean by "male" and "female" which then puts you back in the position of accepting or rejecting the biological definitions, into that monkey trap. You simply can't have your cake, or banana, and eat it too -- which is, somewhat sadly, a fact of life. But that reminds me of a sci-fi story in which someone used a time travel machine to do just that ... 😉🙂
However, those definitions based "transitory life stages" at least emphasize that people who remove their gonads can no longer reproduce -- an awareness of which seems rather important, and in many ways, and which many people seem to be losing sight of.
Yes, discussions such as these do seem to point out issues with the concept of biological sex. I ran into this troublesome state of affairs when I first read one of your posts back when gender identity and transgender, etc. were really starting to become contentious. It is rather tricky (impossible, actually) to try to define "biological" sex strictly and succinctly so that it covers the entire lifespan of the individual. If you base it on gamete size, then it doesn't apply until gametes are produced (for human non-females, this won't be until spermatogenesis commences which does not occur until you get the rise in testosterone levels in puberty). Likewise, as you point out here referring to the other blog post, during early development neither 'male' nor 'female' can be identified by the 'size-o-the-gametes' definition. Worse, it seems to me, is the use of some sort of reproductive capacity-related definition, whereby no one's sex could be defined before puberty, and all manner of complications may arise later in life (e.g. menopause, male impotence, ovarectomy/castration for medical reasons, accidents, etc. I'm not sure there is any easy way out of this problem. However, to my mind, I do think that in humans sex is inherently binary because this seems to be the case in terms of the evolutionary 'program.' At it's core, sex determination in the embryo is determined by a single gene - SRY - located on the Y chromosome. Without a functional SRY gene, development will proceed along a default pathway to what we tend to call 'female'. There are, of course, very many ways things can go awry during this complicated process; but these are correctly considered to be 'errors' or 'abnormalities' that interfere with the basic molecular plan which seems (at least to me) to be quite clearly binary. Also, of course, like any other trait/system in biology there will be some inevitable degree of variation in the exact outcome, but this still, to me, does nothing to invalidate the basic fact that, at its heart, sex determination is fundamentally binary. It's all a matter of physics and chemistry; and, despite it's complexity, we now understand the system (the development of the reproductive system) well enough to know how it is 'meant' to work (Unfortunately, I find it hard to discuss this EVOLVED biological system without resorting to the use of words that seem to imply conscious, intelligent design!). The natural biological variation inherent in the system, plus the many, many ways things can go wrong cause a LOT of problems when one tries to discuss the binary nature of human sex determination or tries to come up with a simple definition for male and female.
Alan: “... rather tricky (impossible, actually) to try to define ‘biological’ sex strictly and succinctly so that it covers the entire lifespan of the individual. .... a LOT of problems when one ... tries to come up with a simple definition for male and female.”
Quite agree on the “impossible”, not least because species that change sex means that a “universal” definition can only be a “life-history stage”. Really wonder you think about that Wiley Online Library post which spoke to that point and that I had mentioned earlier:
Though not quite sure how there can be a simpler definition than “to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither are sexless”. The problem there is that most people balk at even the phrase “sexless” as they’ve turned the sexes into “immutable” identities – which is, of course, what the transgendered are trying to do, though with less justification than most of us.
But I wonder if you’ve ever had the occasion to read the definitions for the sexes in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology or in the Glossary in an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, and likewise wonder what you think of them:
Diddly-squat there in any of those definitions about chromosomes for the very good reason that, of course, many species don’t even use X & Y chromosomes.
Alan: “At it's core, sex determination in the embryo is determined by a single gene ...”
Nice to see you use “determine”, although my focus – as indicated above – is generally less on definitions for sex in humans than those that apply to all anisogamous species. But particularly appreciate the reference to "determination" as many people seem to miss the difference between that “determine” and “define”. While I’ve often given biologist Emma Hilton a shot or two, particularly for her rather unscientific definitions published in the UK Times letter section, she still had a “nice” tweet that more or less underlined that difference:
EH: “In humans, chromosomes (well, genetic info) determine sex, that is, they are the mechanism that drives sex differentiation.
It’s not the same sense as saying ‘I determined the ball was red (by looking at it)’.”
While her “the ball was red” is something of an imperfect analogy to definitions, I think it still emphasizes the difference between, on the one hand, chromosomes as the mechanisms that lead to the presence of functional gonads, and, on the other hand, the presence of those functional gonads themselves as the criteria specified in those definitions that must be met to qualify individuals as members of the sex categories “male” and “female”.
Adam: “...without resorting to the use of words that seem to imply conscious, intelligent design! ...”
Indeed. Reminds me of a quip by J.B.S. Haldane:
“Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public.”
So I guess you’re in good company. 🙂
BTW, something of a housekeeping point. I know that Substack’s commenting framework is a bit confusing – it’s often not clear how to make a top-level comment versus making ones in response to previous comments by others. But do please try “following suit” – makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. Thanks. 🙂
One recent definitional pet peeve of my own concerns the labeling of Scientific American as a scientific journal. From my point of view as an academic researcher this raises the hackles on the back of my neck. To my mind, a scientific journal is one in which the results of /peer-reviewed/ scientific research are reported. Thus, venues such as the various online PLOS journals are close to but are not considered true scientific journals. rather, they are a repository for pre-prints that may some day be peer-reviewed and then be published in a scientific journal. Scientific American, on the other hand, is basically popular articles written about science, but it is not a true 'scientific journal' because what is published has not been peer-reviewed (on top of also not presenting actual scientific research). This is a dangerous conflation that I've seen in the news recently, and now here also; one that incorrectly lends legitimacy to whatever claims are made in the articles published in SA.
Good points. I was somewhat amused to note that Scientific American at least put some sort of a disclaimer at the bottom of that article:
SA: "This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American."
But as a biology professor, I wonder what you think about a recent article in the Wiley Online Library that, following philosopher of science Paul Griffiths, argues that the prepubescent -- and others, about a third of us -- are sexless:
As some corroboration for that view, see this recent article in Wiley Online Library and this passage in particular:
WOL: "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."
Basically, from zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless.
Griffiths' PhilPapers article which emphasizes that "life-history stage" idea:
PG: "Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes - one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
Finally, you may know of "biologist" and blogger PZ Myers -- at the sadly misnamed Freethought Blogs -- who at least underlined the consequences of those biological definitions:
PZMyers: " 'female' is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female."
I am appalled at Scientific American when I see this. What a tragedy for science education and biology in particular that this famous magazine has gone off the rails. Terrible.
ICYMI, a recent post at The Free Press which seems to have a very different take on that "gender-affirming care" (AKA turning dysphoric children into sexless eunuchs):
"‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It."
what if we stopped all the marsh-wading and said this:
how does our species reproduce? does it matter if the party with the vagina (to start the mechanical process) looks like a lumberjack and the party with the penis looks like dr. frank n. furter? if all their necessary parts work as functionally designed, no. the rest is irrelevant to the definition.
there will always be pre-fertile and post-fertile stages. and defects of each basic model. they are irrelevant too.
However, I think you’re missing the point, that the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads, that those with neither are thereby sexless.
In many cases, the difference may be somewhat “academic”, but in many others they are of profound import. Trying to say — in effect, and for example — that a transwoman who cuts his nuts off is either still a male or, in the view of transactivists, that he’s become a female is to engage in the same Lysenkoism that “Scientific” American is peddling.
The scientific definitions are clear and unambiguous — the general problem is that too many can’t face those facts and their consequences:
PZM: " 'female' is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female."
As I've argued, you CAN come up with definitions for the sexes that grant most of us membership in the sex categories from birth to death, but they are NOT the biological definitions. Not quite sure how one can justify using definitions for social gatekeeping that have little to no scientific justification or credibility; you might just as well go with those that Scientific American is peddling by which transwomen, at least those with their nuts removed, can qualify as females.
well, this is why i wrote what i did. scientific writing in this our weird era is clearly less than useful.
i know how you feel, but to paraphrase the emperor in amadeus--too many words.
but this might have been stopped from turning into a spreading pool of smelly water if someone with brains had quickly refuted the fairytale in "heather has two mommies." because heather wouldn't be here without a daddy too.
like i keep saying in a lot of contexts--nobody uses the right arguments. not even, i think, you--despite my extreme fondness for you in the general sort of way.
But the general problem is that we often don't really know what the consequences will be of various policies, laws, and definitions until after they're on the books -- see Wikipedia's article on "perverse incentives" for some "amusing" examples:
A case in point probably being your comment about "heather has two mommies". However, one might reasonably say the same thing about "woman" as "adult human female" -- not sure how much happier you would be, as I had argued, with "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality" ...
You're quite correct that "scientific writing in this our weird era is clearly less than useful", but that doesn't mean or justify bastardizing scientific principles, theories, and terminology in favour of putting feelings before those facts. If you're not going to use the "right arguments" then I don't quite see how you have much of a leg to stand on when Scientific American and their transactivist fellow-travelers do likewise.
i understand your feelings. mine are that no one seems to be able to find the right argument to explain the most basic of realities.
these realities were self-evident once. if morons of modernity ain't happy with that, we should not cater to their nonsense.
and the fairly brief time i spent reading social media by the parents of sex-confused kids and by some of these kids made me feel those families had gone well off the rails years previously. their kids merely jumped on the latest available fad.
Used to be "self-evident" that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe, that we humans were the result, not of evolution, but of a special creation by Jehovah -- Himself.
Science moves on -- the only realities in question are that those with functional gonads can reproduce and that those without them can't. How we name the sex categories, how we specify criteria for membership is a matter of choice, not of intrinsic nature.
Haven't much more than skimmed the article by see this recent post by Naomi Wolf; of particular note:
NW: "Words have, in our Western tradition, always been sacred. They are meant to be vessels with which to seek the truth, rather than used as means to abandon it."
But there's no intrinsic meaning to the words we use; Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z -- which is what you and too many others seem to think. However, some meanings are more useful than others. If society is incapable of addressing that fact then it is likely to suffer the same fate that befell those building that tower of Babel ...
i think you are using a not-very-good analogy. it's not about exploring the world and developing theories on the workings of natural laws of physics.
even frogs with limited use of metaphor when they croak can determine how to sort themselves out for reproductive purposes. but perhaps their advantage is likely an absence of malignant boredom in their day to days.
Steersman- I appreciate this look at SA's points and your points. Hope you're well this week. Cheers, -Thalia
Many thanks, Thalia, for the read-through. And for the well-wishes; best to you too 🙂.
Interesting ideas. I guess my response regarding Montana and Oklahoma is that they are circumscribing who gets to be in women’s sports - not necessarily changing scientific definitions like the authors of the Scientific American article attempt to do. I agree that their definition leaves out one very small but nonetheless important group - those with DSD’s that leave doubt as to what their bodies were “designed to do.” (They are not leaving out those who don’t develop normally as the whole point of their definition is to include those with abnormal development.). I have suggested in past discussions with you that those with very ambiguous bodies (where we cannot say what they are designed to do) be allowed to make the choice for themselves as they suffer enough and there simply is no clear answer as to which category they belong. Notably, your definitions don’t help these people when it comes to bathrooms and sports, etc. either so we have to devise some other solution and I think this is the most fair - let them choose. It won’t harm anyone because they aren’t a danger and they don’t really have any unfair advantages. - Something to consider further anyway.
As to your last point about what to do about “affirmative care,” Your definitions give me no guidance. Nor do any definitions really. The question is not what is a male or female as much as it is - do we want to push young vulnerable people to try and appear the opposite of or different than what they are in the name of an ambiguous potentially changeable feeling? Whether male and female are transient states does not help with this question. To me, the answer is clear. Young people need a chance to grow up. Nobody is destined to need to alter their appearance and live as if they were born in a different body type. While fully grown adults with no mental deficits can choose to do so, it is nothing to encourage or celebrate. Adults that so choose should not suffer any discrimination, but young people should not be pushed in that direction, it should not be glamorized and it is not a “right” any more than cosmetic surgeries to alter appearance in any other way is a “right.” We probably should not ban it or ban nose jobs, facelifts or Brazilian butt lifts - but I don’t think society should pay for these things either.
I digressed a bit but the end point is that your definitions have their place, but do not further the discussions I want to have. And definitions that enable us to reasonably divide people 99.98% of the time (for sports, changing rooms, prisons, etc.) are not distortions of biology. My proposed solution for the .02% is to allow these people to make their own choice of category since it is so unclear. I think I’ve exhausted this topic.
I hope that makes sense to you.
Hippiesq: "I guess my response regarding Montana and Oklahoma is that they are circumscribing who gets to be in women’s sports - not necessarily changing scientific definitions like the authors of the Scientific American article attempt to do."
Certainly a reasonable objective to "circumscribe who gets into women's sports". However, I think you're missing my point that Montana & Oklahoma are in fact peddling quite unscientific definitions for the sexes -- just as Scientific American are doing.
Hippiesq: "I have suggested in past discussions with you that those with very ambiguous bodies (where we cannot say what they are designed to do) be allowed to make the choice for themselves as they suffer enough and there simply is no clear answer as to which category they belong."
Well, your heart is certainly in the right place. 🙂 However, to say "there simply is no clear answer as to which category they belong" is simply not true. And it is predicated on your own, quite unspecified, definition for the sexes. By the standard biological definitions they are simply sexless. Think you need to specify exactly what you mean by "male" and "female", and the criteria that must be met to qualify as such.
And endorsing the "principle" of "make the choice for themselves" just opens the door to transwomen doing likewise -- why should transwomen have any less right to do that than the intersex? You're playing favourites, engaging in special pleading. If you want to adjudicate claims to access toilets and sports then you simply have to say exactly what are the relevant criteria.
For example, if you were making access to some facilities based on whether someone was a teenager or not then it is clear that to do so requires them to be 13 to 19. Not a question of "make the choice for themselves", but of the objective criteria to qualify as members of particular categories.
Hippiesq: "Your definitions give me no guidance. Nor do any definitions really. The question is ... do we want to push young vulnerable people to try and appear the opposite of or different than what they are ..."
As you argued, we probably shouldn't ban cosmetic surgeries of various types, and that "gender affirmation surgeries" probably qualifies likewise. But the issue is, for example, transwomen claiming to be female. If some "adult" male wants to cut his nuts off then I suppose he's entitled to do so. However, I don't think he's entitled to call himself a female and to take part in women's sports. But we don't have a leg to stand on in that position if we've bastardized and corrupted the definitions for the sexes to the point that the criteria for qualifying as such are entirely subjective.
Hippiesq: "And definitions that enable us to reasonably divide people 99.98% of the time (for sports, changing rooms, prisons, etc.) are not distortions of biology."
Depends on the criteria that you use to do that "dividing". If you want to record babies genitalia and chromosomes at birth then sure, we can "reasonably divide people" into penis-havers or vagina-havers, into XYers or XXers some 98% of the time. But when you try to use the words "male" and "female" then you're contributing to the same "distortions of biology" that Scientific American is engaging in. If you're not subscribing to the biological definitions then you're in the same (leaky) boat as they are.
Something of a bit of house-keeping. I know that Substack's commenting format is somewhat ambiguous and easy to slip-up on, but do please try responding to an actual comment and not at the top level. Thanks. Makes the conversation much easier to follow for all of my many subscribers ... 😉🙂
Sorry if I didn't reply to the comment (my bad).
I think you missed my points though. First, I am not suggesting that we divide people based on feelings. I am suggesting that we divide based on objective criteria that applies to 99.98% of all people. I don't think we can divide in a manner that would provide a sufficient answer for the .02% - and your idea of saying some people are sexless does not fix this issue. I think we are left with a conundrum regarding these people - who have no choice in the fact that they are biologically prevented from conforming to the criteria we would use for 99.98% of the population. This has nothing to do with someone who is clearly male demanding to be called female merely because they would enjoy this. A person whose body lacks sufficient male or female characteristics to be properly categorized is hardly being prioritized above a man who wishes he was a woman if such an uncharacterizable (if that's a word) person is given the option of making their own choice.
I am generally okay with using your "male" and "female" definitions - and making many people "sexless" although I'm still not sure it's accurate. Again, while you say the definitions are clear and involve bodies that are "presently" able to produce small or large gametes, what does "presently" mean? If it means cyclically, then I repeat (since you didn't respond earlier), what of the cycle of childhood to periodic large gamete production to menopause? And are you so sure that "male" and "female" require successful gamete production and current production, and not just the design toward that end? Either way, I don't see how this fixes anything relating to sports, etc.
I also disagree that Montana or Oklahoma are mangling the terms male and female. They are simply stating that we can divide people, for sports purposes, into those with bodies designed to produce large or small gametes, whether currently producing them or not. They are not claiming that sex is on a spectrum, or that one is the sex one wishes one was, or any other mamby-pamby notion. Even if you think there is a category of the sexless, which is anyone who is not presently fertile, and that only presently fertile people are male or female, that would only affect the literal labeling of the words "male" and "female," but not the concepts involved. Your objection would merely be to the use of those words, but you would undoubtedly agree that the means of dividing was fair, reasonable and effective (except for the .02%, but you have not proposed any way to divide them). Or do you have an issue with this means of division as well? If so, how would you divide people - or would you never divide based on anything sex-based?
Your teenager analogy doesn't work completely. It works for 99.98% of the population - and I agree to that extent. All those whose body was designed to produce large gametes are female and those whose bodies are designed to produce small gametes are male, and all people aged 13 to 19.99999 are teenagers. For the .02% for whom we cannot tell which gamete their body was designed to produce, it's unclear if they are male or female, and for those whose exact birthday is unknown (even if it's because we simply failed to keep a record) we cannot say if they are teenagers. Perhaps these people can pick their age - within reason (since we know someone who might be 13 is not 35, but might be 12 or 13 or 11 or 14 - so let them choose. This ability to choose would not apply to someone who simply wishes they were younger (or older).
Hippiesq: "Sorry if I didn't reply to the comment (my bad)."
No problemo, not a big deal -- just keeping the thread easy to follow for the many people hanging on our conversations. 🙂
Hippiesq: "I think you missed my points though."
Entirely possible. Substack is substantially better than Twitter for detailed conversations, but there are still some limitations. Particularly for convoluted and complicated issues like this one.
However, you say that my "sexless doesn't fix the issue" and "doesn't provide sufficient answer". But I think you're missing my point that "sexless" is the answer, that there's nothing anywhere that says everyone has to have a sex. That is just making the sexes into social categories -- which is what "Scientific" American is doing. SA explicitly say -- see their closing paragraphs -- that the categories have to be designed to take due consideration of people's feelings. The biological categories aren't "designed" as participation trophies -- which is what you and SA seem to think is required.
Hippiesq: "I am generally okay with using your 'male' and 'female' definitions - and making many people 'sexless' although I'm still not sure it's accurate."
Hallelujah! Progress! 😉🙂
But that "sexless" is the logical consequence of the definitions. It's what Griffiths and Wiley Online mean when they say that the sexes are "life-history stages":
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Still somewhat moot as to how many people are in that sexless category, but I guestimate at least some 15% of us are prepubescent and they certainly qualify. However, see below ...
Hippiesq: "... what does "presently" mean? If it means cyclically, then I repeat (since you didn't respond earlier), what of the cycle of childhood to periodic large gamete production to menopause?"
Good question, $64,000 one, suitably adjusted for inflation. Although, from my notes, it seems I already answered you on that score with a reference to and quote of a Grammarly article:
Grammarly: "We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it’s sometimes called present indefinite). Depending on the person, the simple present tense is formed by using the root form or by adding s or es to the end."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/
And Google/Oxford has this:
"regularly: with a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual items. 'regularly spaced buildings' ..."
Women, of course, produce one or two ova a month whereas men produce thousands of spermatozoa every day, the former being a much more complicated and resource-demanding process -- each ovum is some 100,000 times the volume of a single spermatozoa . The difference between Ferraris and Volkswagen Beetles. 🙂
But that is the crux and consequence of the "produces gametes" in all of the reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias. And it means that if gametes aren't being produced "regularly" -- with the same time interval between each, more or less -- then the individual doesn't qualify for a sex category membership card.
Hippiesq: "I also disagree that Montana or Oklahoma are mangling the terms male and female."
They are clearly and unambiguously defining "male" and "female" in ways that are diametrically opposed to that "produces (regularly)".
Hippiesq: "All those whose body was designed to produce large gametes are female ..."
You're backtracking from your earlier "okay with using your 'male' and 'female' definitions". The definitions have absolutely diddly-squat to do with any "design", but only with the presence of a regular process of producing gametes. Do try taking a close look at what they actually say, not what you want them to say:
"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."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
Yes, I'm sure there are many who await my responses! :)
At this point, both your position and mine regarding these issues are pretty clear, and any further response would just be repetitive. I think we shake hands at this point, and agree that we have some common ground, but disagree on certain specifics. Nothing wrong with that!
I do want to make one thing clear though (since I just can't help myself). I am not at all proposing that we define male or female or divide people on the basis of their feelings (other than the .02% for whom we have no other means of division, given the distinctive ambiguity of their bodies). Nor am I saying anything about a participation trophy. I wouldn't care about some people being defined as "sexless" (although I'm still not so clear this is true or necessary), but, however we label people ("male" "female" or "sexless"), we still have to divide them up for sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc., and leaving one third of people "sexless" would do nothing to clarify that division.
As the great Elmer Fudd said "That's All Folks!"
Hippiesq: "... but, however we label people ('male' 'female' or 'sexless'), we still have to divide them up for sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc., and leaving one third of people 'sexless' would do nothing to clarify that division."
I agree entirely. Why I've said -- several times in fact ... 😉🙂 -- that the sexes are simply the wrong tool for the jobs that society is trying to press them into doing. As I've also said, repeatedly, that is like using a screwdriver to pound nails -- "sexless" simply underlines that point. And why I've said, many times, we'd be further ahead to explicitly use genitalia and karyotypes instead of "male" and "female".
All of which is something that Paul Griffiths emphasized in an old Aeon article which I've picked up and been running with for some time:
PG: "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]. ....
On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition [e.g., in law], 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."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
But I'll see your Elmer Fudd and raise you a Looney Tunes pair, "Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog
"Goodnight Ralph, goodnight Sam" ... 🙂
Well put and succinct! Sounds like Paul Griffiths and you are on exactly the same page. I'm not at all bothered by the idea, even if, due to lack of knowledge, I can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of the definition. And thanks for the intro to Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog - I was not familiar with them.
Steersman, your comment exchange with SCA was useful. It gets to the real crux of the issue here, which is that we are all debating not just the definitions of "male" and "female," but trying to speak sensibly about the issues of: How do we divide bathrooms, sports, changing rooms, prisons, rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters (or do we not divide these things at all); and is there any benefit to so-called "affirmative care" and what medical, psychological, social or other interventions (or lack of interventions) might be appropriate for people suffering mental or emotional distress over their sexed bodies?
While you have centered on the scientific definitions of "male" and "female," and seem to have found - somewhere, but I think we can agree that the definitions of these two words may be found in various sources, with at least some variations amongst them - a definition that involves a life-stage, an impermanent situation that not all people even experience, to define these terms. That is, your preferred definition involves the existence within a person's body of presently functioning sex organs producing either small or large gametes. By "presently," of course, that is not moment to moment, but within a cycle, at least for females - which arguably could be widened to include a longer cycle that involves a period of preparation for such production called childhood, and a period after which the production is no longer active in females, called menopause, but you don't seem to be open this idea. I won't debate further on this only because I don't see the point, as reflected below.
Your definition may or may not be the holy grail of definitions for these terms. I am not a scientist or a researcher, and I don't care to explore this in any detail, mostly because I don't think it will matter in the end whether this particular definition of "male" and "female" rules.
This definition does nothing to further the conversation about: so-called "affirmative care" (medical interventions designed to make individuals appear as the opposite "sex" - the last word being made contentious by this debate), which is, as you might imagine, my main focus in this discussion This definition also does nothing to further the conversation about bathrooms, changing rooms, rape crisis centers, battered women's centers, prisons, or sports - which I also think is important.
In other words, even if "male" and "female" require a person to have a body containing presently functioning sex organs producing small or large gametes, respectively, what does that say about "affirmative care?" What does it say about division, if any, of bathrooms, changing rooms, rape crisis centers, battered women's centers, prisons, or sports?
To me, we want to discuss "boys" and "girls" and "men" and "women" and what that means. If someone "feels like a woman," or "feels like a man" (or a girl or a boy) what does that even mean? I won't go on and on, because I think you get what I'm saying. The discussion that matters is the one that addresses these issues. While the "bright line" of "male" and "female" may be useful for certain reasons, it really doesn't answer any of the above-noted pressing questions of our time.
I truly appreciate that you are trying to stay true to science, and I think your goal is a noble one, but don't let it get in the way of the serious social issues affecting many millions of people, most of whom are vulnerable in one way or another. How do we protect the vulnerable? Will your discussion of transitory life stages help them? If so, please let me know how because that is a discussion I want to have.
Thanks Hippiesq. Good points, good questions -- and nicely paragraphed too ... 😉🙂
But quite agree with your closing one and your stated objective of "furthering the conversation about bathrooms, .... prisons or sports". However, the bottom line there is the question of which criteria, which "properties" we are going to use to adjudicate access to those facilities and opportunities. Seems to me that you EITHER specify EXACTLY what those criteria are to be -- in the case of access to toilets and sports, reproductive status is irrelevant so we should specify they're segregated on the basis of genitalia or chromosomes. For women's sports, no XY need apply, so to speak. OR you try to fashion a definition for the sexes that will do those jobs.
In the latter case, some US States have actually made some more or less credible efforts to do that -- for examples, Montana and Oklahoma. See:
MontanaFreePress: "The bill also describes 'female' as a human who, under 'normal development,' produces 'relatively large, relatively immobile gamete, or egg,' and defines the term 'male' as a human who 'under normal development, produces small, mobile gametes, or sperm.' ..."
https://montanafreepress.org/2023/02/28/montana-bill-creates-strict-definition-for-sex-legally-sidelining-intersex-and-transgender-people/
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to fertilize the ova of a female.' ...."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
However, as admirable as those efforts are, as good as the intentions are that motivate them, the bottom line is still that they conflict rather profoundly with the biological definitions. Maybe not a "deal-breaker" in itself, but they still tend to cause the bastardization and corruption of the biological definitions which are foundational to all of biology. Really not all that far removed from the efforts of "Scientific" American and the many transactivists who are bound and determined to turn "male" and "female" into meaningless and entirely subjective categories. A difference in degree but not kind; pots and kettles, at least as far as the biological "bright line" is concerned.
Apropos of which, thanks for your Like of my comment on Ms. M's Two Plus Two, but you might want to take a close look at that article in The Critic and the Medium post by Kim Hipwell for how that corruption is playing out:
https://thecritic.co.uk/language-truth-and-logic/
https://kim-hipwell.medium.com/female-trouble-8b85a89260cc
https://twoplustwo.substack.com/p/224-vol-11-anti-women-men-children-human/comment/42915908
However, even apart from that conflict, there are still some serious problems with the definitions that Montana and Oklahoma are writing into their law books -- which Hipwell and others have some reason to draw attention to. For examples, what does Montana intend to do about those who don't exhibit "normal development", i.e., all the intersex to begin with? And exactly how is Oklahoma going to determine what an individual was "designed" to do -- what about those with complete androgen insensitivity who look female but have XY chromosomes and internal but non-functional testicles?
The crux of the matter is that the biological definitions are simply the wrong tools for the jobs society is trying to press them into doing. So people have to bastardize the definitions which corrupts biology. Like using a screwdriver to pound nails -- inefficient and likely to damage the tool beyond performing its intended function. Trying to shoehorn the foot of social justice -- even through policies like those in Montana and Oklahoma -- into the glass slipper of biology (so to speak) just cripples the former and shatters the latter: lose, lose.
Seems to me that many if not most people have their minds stuck in the proverbial monkey trap on this issue. Basically, a monkey will reach into a container to grab a banana but can't pull its hand out until it lets go of the banana -- which it refuses to do so it goes kind of mental. I remember seeing a film clip of some poor monkey running around screeching because it couldn't gets its hand out of the trap while still holding onto the banana. Takes some ability, self-awareness, and willingness to step back far enough to understand the reasons for one's predicament:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman
But to address, somewhat briefly, your understandable emphasis on "affirmative care", the answer, or an avenue towards one, is sort of in your own "appear as the opposite sex". IF one can't say what it is that qualifies someone as either sex THEN how can we possibly say whether someone has changed their sex or not by that "care"? If changing one's sex is simply a matter of changing one's genitalia -- as the Kindergarten Cop definitions basically endorse -- then how -- dare you? -- deny the transgendered their "right" to do so?
You're still obliged to say what you mean by "male" and "female" which then puts you back in the position of accepting or rejecting the biological definitions, into that monkey trap. You simply can't have your cake, or banana, and eat it too -- which is, somewhat sadly, a fact of life. But that reminds me of a sci-fi story in which someone used a time travel machine to do just that ... 😉🙂
However, those definitions based "transitory life stages" at least emphasize that people who remove their gonads can no longer reproduce -- an awareness of which seems rather important, and in many ways, and which many people seem to be losing sight of.
Thanks for your comment on my comment!
Yes, discussions such as these do seem to point out issues with the concept of biological sex. I ran into this troublesome state of affairs when I first read one of your posts back when gender identity and transgender, etc. were really starting to become contentious. It is rather tricky (impossible, actually) to try to define "biological" sex strictly and succinctly so that it covers the entire lifespan of the individual. If you base it on gamete size, then it doesn't apply until gametes are produced (for human non-females, this won't be until spermatogenesis commences which does not occur until you get the rise in testosterone levels in puberty). Likewise, as you point out here referring to the other blog post, during early development neither 'male' nor 'female' can be identified by the 'size-o-the-gametes' definition. Worse, it seems to me, is the use of some sort of reproductive capacity-related definition, whereby no one's sex could be defined before puberty, and all manner of complications may arise later in life (e.g. menopause, male impotence, ovarectomy/castration for medical reasons, accidents, etc. I'm not sure there is any easy way out of this problem. However, to my mind, I do think that in humans sex is inherently binary because this seems to be the case in terms of the evolutionary 'program.' At it's core, sex determination in the embryo is determined by a single gene - SRY - located on the Y chromosome. Without a functional SRY gene, development will proceed along a default pathway to what we tend to call 'female'. There are, of course, very many ways things can go awry during this complicated process; but these are correctly considered to be 'errors' or 'abnormalities' that interfere with the basic molecular plan which seems (at least to me) to be quite clearly binary. Also, of course, like any other trait/system in biology there will be some inevitable degree of variation in the exact outcome, but this still, to me, does nothing to invalidate the basic fact that, at its heart, sex determination is fundamentally binary. It's all a matter of physics and chemistry; and, despite it's complexity, we now understand the system (the development of the reproductive system) well enough to know how it is 'meant' to work (Unfortunately, I find it hard to discuss this EVOLVED biological system without resorting to the use of words that seem to imply conscious, intelligent design!). The natural biological variation inherent in the system, plus the many, many ways things can go wrong cause a LOT of problems when one tries to discuss the binary nature of human sex determination or tries to come up with a simple definition for male and female.
Alan: “Thanks for your comment on my comment!”
Thanks for dropping in. 🙂
Alan: “... rather tricky (impossible, actually) to try to define ‘biological’ sex strictly and succinctly so that it covers the entire lifespan of the individual. .... a LOT of problems when one ... tries to come up with a simple definition for male and female.”
Quite agree on the “impossible”, not least because species that change sex means that a “universal” definition can only be a “life-history stage”. Really wonder you think about that Wiley Online Library post which spoke to that point and that I had mentioned earlier:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Though not quite sure how there can be a simpler definition than “to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither are sexless”. The problem there is that most people balk at even the phrase “sexless” as they’ve turned the sexes into “immutable” identities – which is, of course, what the transgendered are trying to do, though with less justification than most of us.
But I wonder if you’ve ever had the occasion to read the definitions for the sexes in the Oxford Dictionary of Biology or in the Glossary in an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, and likewise wonder what you think of them:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
Diddly-squat there in any of those definitions about chromosomes for the very good reason that, of course, many species don’t even use X & Y chromosomes.
Alan: “At it's core, sex determination in the embryo is determined by a single gene ...”
Nice to see you use “determine”, although my focus – as indicated above – is generally less on definitions for sex in humans than those that apply to all anisogamous species. But particularly appreciate the reference to "determination" as many people seem to miss the difference between that “determine” and “define”. While I’ve often given biologist Emma Hilton a shot or two, particularly for her rather unscientific definitions published in the UK Times letter section, she still had a “nice” tweet that more or less underlined that difference:
EH: “In humans, chromosomes (well, genetic info) determine sex, that is, they are the mechanism that drives sex differentiation.
It’s not the same sense as saying ‘I determined the ball was red (by looking at it)’.”
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154
While her “the ball was red” is something of an imperfect analogy to definitions, I think it still emphasizes the difference between, on the one hand, chromosomes as the mechanisms that lead to the presence of functional gonads, and, on the other hand, the presence of those functional gonads themselves as the criteria specified in those definitions that must be met to qualify individuals as members of the sex categories “male” and “female”.
Adam: “...without resorting to the use of words that seem to imply conscious, intelligent design! ...”
Indeed. Reminds me of a quip by J.B.S. Haldane:
“Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public.”
So I guess you’re in good company. 🙂
BTW, something of a housekeeping point. I know that Substack’s commenting framework is a bit confusing – it’s often not clear how to make a top-level comment versus making ones in response to previous comments by others. But do please try “following suit” – makes it easier for others to follow the conversation. Thanks. 🙂
One recent definitional pet peeve of my own concerns the labeling of Scientific American as a scientific journal. From my point of view as an academic researcher this raises the hackles on the back of my neck. To my mind, a scientific journal is one in which the results of /peer-reviewed/ scientific research are reported. Thus, venues such as the various online PLOS journals are close to but are not considered true scientific journals. rather, they are a repository for pre-prints that may some day be peer-reviewed and then be published in a scientific journal. Scientific American, on the other hand, is basically popular articles written about science, but it is not a true 'scientific journal' because what is published has not been peer-reviewed (on top of also not presenting actual scientific research). This is a dangerous conflation that I've seen in the news recently, and now here also; one that incorrectly lends legitimacy to whatever claims are made in the articles published in SA.
Good points. I was somewhat amused to note that Scientific American at least put some sort of a disclaimer at the bottom of that article:
SA: "This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American."
But as a biology professor, I wonder what you think about a recent article in the Wiley Online Library that, following philosopher of science Paul Griffiths, argues that the prepubescent -- and others, about a third of us -- are sexless:
As some corroboration for that view, see this recent article in Wiley Online Library and this passage in particular:
WOL: "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."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Basically, from zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless.
Griffiths' PhilPapers article which emphasizes that "life-history stage" idea:
PG: "Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes - one or more times during their lives. Importantly, sexes are life-history stages rather than applying to organisms over their entire lifespan. This fact has been obscured by concentrating on humans, and ignoring species which regularly change sex, as well as those with non-genetic or facultatively genetic sex determination systems."
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Finally, you may know of "biologist" and blogger PZ Myers -- at the sadly misnamed Freethought Blogs -- who at least underlined the consequences of those biological definitions:
PZMyers: " 'female' is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female."
https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
Not a particularly popular opinion, but some reason to argue that it is the only way off the horns of a rather serious social dilemma.
I am appalled at Scientific American when I see this. What a tragedy for science education and biology in particular that this famous magazine has gone off the rails. Terrible.
Amen to that, though "appalled" is something of an understatement. You might "like" another SA article linked in that one:
"What the Science on Gender-Affirming Care for Transgender Kids Really Shows
Laws that ban gender-affirming treatment ignore the wealth of research demonstrating its benefits for trans people’s health"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-the-science-on-gender-affirming-care-for-transgender-kids-really-shows/
ICYMI, a recent post at The Free Press which seems to have a very different take on that "gender-affirming care" (AKA turning dysphoric children into sexless eunuchs):
"‘Gender-Affirming Care Is Dangerous. I Know Because I Helped Pioneer It."
https://www.thefp.com/p/gender-affirming-care-dangerous-finland-doctor
what if we stopped all the marsh-wading and said this:
how does our species reproduce? does it matter if the party with the vagina (to start the mechanical process) looks like a lumberjack and the party with the penis looks like dr. frank n. furter? if all their necessary parts work as functionally designed, no. the rest is irrelevant to the definition.
there will always be pre-fertile and post-fertile stages. and defects of each basic model. they are irrelevant too.
Thanks for the Restack there SCA. 👍🙂
However, I think you’re missing the point, that the standard biological definitions stipulate that to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads, that those with neither are thereby sexless.
In many cases, the difference may be somewhat “academic”, but in many others they are of profound import. Trying to say — in effect, and for example — that a transwoman who cuts his nuts off is either still a male or, in the view of transactivists, that he’s become a female is to engage in the same Lysenkoism that “Scientific” American is peddling.
The scientific definitions are clear and unambiguous — the general problem is that too many can’t face those facts and their consequences:
PZM: " 'female' is not applicable -- it refers to individuals that produce ova. By the technical definition, many cis women are not female."
https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
As I've argued, you CAN come up with definitions for the sexes that grant most of us membership in the sex categories from birth to death, but they are NOT the biological definitions. Not quite sure how one can justify using definitions for social gatekeeping that have little to no scientific justification or credibility; you might just as well go with those that Scientific American is peddling by which transwomen, at least those with their nuts removed, can qualify as females.
well, this is why i wrote what i did. scientific writing in this our weird era is clearly less than useful.
i know how you feel, but to paraphrase the emperor in amadeus--too many words.
but this might have been stopped from turning into a spreading pool of smelly water if someone with brains had quickly refuted the fairytale in "heather has two mommies." because heather wouldn't be here without a daddy too.
like i keep saying in a lot of contexts--nobody uses the right arguments. not even, i think, you--despite my extreme fondness for you in the general sort of way.
Gosh, gee willikers ... 😳 Likewise, I'm sure ... 🙂
But the general problem is that we often don't really know what the consequences will be of various policies, laws, and definitions until after they're on the books -- see Wikipedia's article on "perverse incentives" for some "amusing" examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
A case in point probably being your comment about "heather has two mommies". However, one might reasonably say the same thing about "woman" as "adult human female" -- not sure how much happier you would be, as I had argued, with "adult human with ovaries of past, present, or future functionality" ...
You're quite correct that "scientific writing in this our weird era is clearly less than useful", but that doesn't mean or justify bastardizing scientific principles, theories, and terminology in favour of putting feelings before those facts. If you're not going to use the "right arguments" then I don't quite see how you have much of a leg to stand on when Scientific American and their transactivist fellow-travelers do likewise.
i understand your feelings. mine are that no one seems to be able to find the right argument to explain the most basic of realities.
these realities were self-evident once. if morons of modernity ain't happy with that, we should not cater to their nonsense.
and the fairly brief time i spent reading social media by the parents of sex-confused kids and by some of these kids made me feel those families had gone well off the rails years previously. their kids merely jumped on the latest available fad.
Used to be "self-evident" that the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe, that we humans were the result, not of evolution, but of a special creation by Jehovah -- Himself.
Science moves on -- the only realities in question are that those with functional gonads can reproduce and that those without them can't. How we name the sex categories, how we specify criteria for membership is a matter of choice, not of intrinsic nature.
Haven't much more than skimmed the article by see this recent post by Naomi Wolf; of particular note:
NW: "Words have, in our Western tradition, always been sacred. They are meant to be vessels with which to seek the truth, rather than used as means to abandon it."
https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/neo-marxism-and-the-end-of-language
But there's no intrinsic meaning to the words we use; Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt. Sinai on tablets A through Z -- which is what you and too many others seem to think. However, some meanings are more useful than others. If society is incapable of addressing that fact then it is likely to suffer the same fate that befell those building that tower of Babel ...
i think you are using a not-very-good analogy. it's not about exploring the world and developing theories on the workings of natural laws of physics.
even frogs with limited use of metaphor when they croak can determine how to sort themselves out for reproductive purposes. but perhaps their advantage is likely an absence of malignant boredom in their day to days.