I understand your categorization. It's certainly simple enough. Males produce small gametes (a.k.a. sperm); females produce large ones (a.k.a. ova). Everyone else is "sexless." However, I'm not sure how useful those categories are. For instance, when it comes to bathrooms, would you say that a woman who has had her ovaries removed, or any menopausal woman, should not use the bathroom marked for women? Same question for changing rooms. Even in sports, while less often, this would still be relevant sometimes. Same for shelters for battered "women." What is the benefit of this particular categorization you are making? I'm sure it has some use, particularly when discussing things like birth control. However, I see it as a limited category with little value. There has to be a better way of defining "woman" and "man" than using whether they are actually able to produce ova or sperm. It would still be a biological definition, and I don't feel like coming up with the definition at this moment, but I now have some sympathy for Ketanji Brown Jackson. When this question was put to her, she indicated that she was not a biologist so she couldn't answer the question. Some mocked her, and I thought she was avoiding the question, but now I see that her answer was entirely appropriate. We need a sound definition that is useful, accords with our common sense and experience, and is based on biological reality. Simply using the actual production of sperm or ova is not it. Buy, hey, it was an interesting idea.
"simple enough", indeed. Though that is definitely more of an essential feature than any sort of a bug -- even if a great many find it more like a particularly irritating swarm of the latter .... 🙂
Which is largely why I've been quoting and linking to an Aeon article by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney (no connection to Bing's chatbot ...), philosopher of biology, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- which underlines that:
"On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life."
But he also underlines your question as to how useful those particular categories really are for the social gatekeeping roles that society is trying to press them into doing. Which really boils down into trying to use a screwdriver to pound nails: really not very effective, and tends to ruin the screwdriver for its intended purpose. Simply the wrong tool for the job.
Which is largely why I agree more or less entirely with your "better way of defining 'woman' and 'man' ..." -- and Griffiths generally likewise. But to answer that question, we really must ask ourselves, as I've argued, "what is the purpose we want to achieve by our category definitions?"
IF it's only to give people a "participation trophy", or an accessory to denote some vague and entirely subjective tribal membership THEN the TWAW mantra more or less suffices. Apropos of which, I was rather amused by a more or less useful article in Law and Liberty which also tackled that "age-old question" of "What is a Woman?":
"Dictionary.com has made this official by selecting 'woman' as their Word of the Year. The announcement was accompanied by some hilarious commentary, which made clear that the dictionary people were calling attention to the word partly to emphasize that they don’t know what it means. 'The word belongs to each and every woman—however they define themselves,' said the Dictionary.com statement."
If an erstwhile credible dictionary endorses a definition for the word that is entirely subjective then the word is useless, worse than useless -- except possibly as a bone of contention which it seems to be rather "successful" as.
But if one's objective is, as you suggest, to provide spaces for vagina-havers from which penis-havers are excluded THEN one's reproductive status is largely irrelevant.
And in that latter case, one might suggest, as something of a devil's advocate, defining "man" and "woman" as "adult human penis-haver" and "adult human vagina-haver". More or less "immutable" states -- which should make Maya Forstater and her tribe happy -- and provides an unambiguous and more or less incontrovertible go/no-go gauge to control access to those spaces:
Maybe not particularly flattering, though that it is often rejected on that basis underlines the fact that too many in the "debate" have too much of an "emotional" than a logical or practical frame of mind -- which is largely the crux of the matter.
Moot of course whether genitalia based definitions are "optimal", but "adult human female" for "woman" clearly has some "downsides". While I've often championed Posie Parker's "writing on the walls" -- which it qualifies as in more ways than one -- I've also pointed out, to her and many others, that that definition is something of a poisoned chalice, something in the way of vipers they're clasping rather too dearly to their breasts.
But that is largely why I've been trying to understand, and to promote a greater understanding of the nature of categories. However we define "woman" in particular, I think we need to apply some reason and logic to the task.
Yes, the "participation trophy" version of the word makes sense, and is pretty useless. Havers of vaginas or penises probably covers most situations where it would matter, but perhaps not all. As but one example where this may not hold true, what of a man whose penis was cut off? I don't know, but I think you are right to try and find some objective measure, even if it offends some people. Lastly, the Dictionary.com definition is a complete tautology - essentially "a woman is anyone who is a woman." Really? If they wanted to say that a woman can define herself however she wants in terms of her wants and desires, outward appearance, job, hobbies, personality traits, that would be fine. However, that would not define "woman." It would just tell us women are not (should not be) constrained by societal limits, which is true.
Good point, though many in that state now have neovaginas. If not then "past penis-havers" could be added to list. Maybe relabel toilets with stylised penises and vaginas? Blades and Chalices as per The Da Vinci Code? 🙂
But somewhat "amusing" on how society is tying itself in knots, fiddling while Rome burns in a way, over terminology. ICYMI, archive link of recent Telegraph article about some "scientists" wanting to replace "female" with "egg producer":
Agreed. I think DictionaryDotCom do have a standard definition for "woman" somewhere, but that statement was more an editorial comment to pander to the sensitivities of those who might be "offended" by calling a spade a shovel. Arguably the crux of the problem, a salient characteristic of the Woke.
Up until the late 90s I sought to answer the question that Norbert Weiner posed, “What is the human use of human beings in technological society?” When I realized that’s the wrong question. The question should be “What is the human use of technology in human society?” Because we use things not people!
Thanks for dropping in. Though kind of surprised but quite pleased to find someone else who even knows of Wiener's book, more so that has read it in some detail. 🙂
But a fascinating book that I'd first read some 50 years ago -- shocking, I know ... -- though one that has had the flavour of a "road to Damascus" revelation illuminating much of my life. I really should re-read it, though I've often quoted salient passages from it on Twitter -- before being "defenestrated" there (thrice) -- and elsewhere. There's a link to it in my Welcome post, but it's not really evident so seems worth reposting here:
In any case, I quite like your take of "Because we use things not people!", though I'll have to re-read Wiener's book to see how that squares with his own argument. Offhand and based on a quick skim and some dim recollections, it seems that is sort of his point with his qualification: "human use" as opposed to "inhuman use". Apropos of which, I recollect his comments about "battery chickens" and how too much of society has turned into a case of "battery humans".
Somewhat en passant, one might argue -- maybe he argues -- that how we treat our farm animals has some deleterious consequences in how treat each other.
But a fascinating topic with an increasing degree of relevance, and topicality -- recent discussions on some applications of ChatGPT that exhibited some rather psychotic behaviour being a case in point. A passage I ran across in my recent skimming that seems pertinent:
"Whether we entrust our decisions to machines of metal, or to those machines of flesh and blood which are bureaus and vast laboratories and armies and corporations, we shall never receive the right answers to our questions unless we ask the right questions. The Monkey's Paw of skin and bone is quite as deadly as anything cast out of steel and iron. The djinnee which is a unifying figure of speech for a whole corporation is just as fearsome as if it were a glorified conjuring trick. The hour is very late, and the choice of good and evil knocks at our door." [pg. 185/186]
I understand your categorization. It's certainly simple enough. Males produce small gametes (a.k.a. sperm); females produce large ones (a.k.a. ova). Everyone else is "sexless." However, I'm not sure how useful those categories are. For instance, when it comes to bathrooms, would you say that a woman who has had her ovaries removed, or any menopausal woman, should not use the bathroom marked for women? Same question for changing rooms. Even in sports, while less often, this would still be relevant sometimes. Same for shelters for battered "women." What is the benefit of this particular categorization you are making? I'm sure it has some use, particularly when discussing things like birth control. However, I see it as a limited category with little value. There has to be a better way of defining "woman" and "man" than using whether they are actually able to produce ova or sperm. It would still be a biological definition, and I don't feel like coming up with the definition at this moment, but I now have some sympathy for Ketanji Brown Jackson. When this question was put to her, she indicated that she was not a biologist so she couldn't answer the question. Some mocked her, and I thought she was avoiding the question, but now I see that her answer was entirely appropriate. We need a sound definition that is useful, accords with our common sense and experience, and is based on biological reality. Simply using the actual production of sperm or ova is not it. Buy, hey, it was an interesting idea.
"simple enough", indeed. Though that is definitely more of an essential feature than any sort of a bug -- even if a great many find it more like a particularly irritating swarm of the latter .... 🙂
Which is largely why I've been quoting and linking to an Aeon article by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney (no connection to Bing's chatbot ...), philosopher of biology, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy -- which underlines that:
"On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
But he also underlines your question as to how useful those particular categories really are for the social gatekeeping roles that society is trying to press them into doing. Which really boils down into trying to use a screwdriver to pound nails: really not very effective, and tends to ruin the screwdriver for its intended purpose. Simply the wrong tool for the job.
Which is largely why I agree more or less entirely with your "better way of defining 'woman' and 'man' ..." -- and Griffiths generally likewise. But to answer that question, we really must ask ourselves, as I've argued, "what is the purpose we want to achieve by our category definitions?"
IF it's only to give people a "participation trophy", or an accessory to denote some vague and entirely subjective tribal membership THEN the TWAW mantra more or less suffices. Apropos of which, I was rather amused by a more or less useful article in Law and Liberty which also tackled that "age-old question" of "What is a Woman?":
"Dictionary.com has made this official by selecting 'woman' as their Word of the Year. The announcement was accompanied by some hilarious commentary, which made clear that the dictionary people were calling attention to the word partly to emphasize that they don’t know what it means. 'The word belongs to each and every woman—however they define themselves,' said the Dictionary.com statement."
https://lawliberty.org/woman-defined/
If an erstwhile credible dictionary endorses a definition for the word that is entirely subjective then the word is useless, worse than useless -- except possibly as a bone of contention which it seems to be rather "successful" as.
But if one's objective is, as you suggest, to provide spaces for vagina-havers from which penis-havers are excluded THEN one's reproductive status is largely irrelevant.
And in that latter case, one might suggest, as something of a devil's advocate, defining "man" and "woman" as "adult human penis-haver" and "adult human vagina-haver". More or less "immutable" states -- which should make Maya Forstater and her tribe happy -- and provides an unambiguous and more or less incontrovertible go/no-go gauge to control access to those spaces:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go/no-go_gauge
Maybe not particularly flattering, though that it is often rejected on that basis underlines the fact that too many in the "debate" have too much of an "emotional" than a logical or practical frame of mind -- which is largely the crux of the matter.
Moot of course whether genitalia based definitions are "optimal", but "adult human female" for "woman" clearly has some "downsides". While I've often championed Posie Parker's "writing on the walls" -- which it qualifies as in more ways than one -- I've also pointed out, to her and many others, that that definition is something of a poisoned chalice, something in the way of vipers they're clasping rather too dearly to their breasts.
But that is largely why I've been trying to understand, and to promote a greater understanding of the nature of categories. However we define "woman" in particular, I think we need to apply some reason and logic to the task.
Yes, the "participation trophy" version of the word makes sense, and is pretty useless. Havers of vaginas or penises probably covers most situations where it would matter, but perhaps not all. As but one example where this may not hold true, what of a man whose penis was cut off? I don't know, but I think you are right to try and find some objective measure, even if it offends some people. Lastly, the Dictionary.com definition is a complete tautology - essentially "a woman is anyone who is a woman." Really? If they wanted to say that a woman can define herself however she wants in terms of her wants and desires, outward appearance, job, hobbies, personality traits, that would be fine. However, that would not define "woman." It would just tell us women are not (should not be) constrained by societal limits, which is true.
"penis cut off"
Good point, though many in that state now have neovaginas. If not then "past penis-havers" could be added to list. Maybe relabel toilets with stylised penises and vaginas? Blades and Chalices as per The Da Vinci Code? 🙂
But somewhat "amusing" on how society is tying itself in knots, fiddling while Rome burns in a way, over terminology. ICYMI, archive link of recent Telegraph article about some "scientists" wanting to replace "female" with "egg producer":
https://archive.is/2023.02.14-175504/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/14/words-male-female-should-banned-science-enforce-idea-sex-binary/
The International Skeptic Forum thread where I found it and have been discussing the issue:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361531&page=7
"complete tautology"
Agreed. I think DictionaryDotCom do have a standard definition for "woman" somewhere, but that statement was more an editorial comment to pander to the sensitivities of those who might be "offended" by calling a spade a shovel. Arguably the crux of the problem, a salient characteristic of the Woke.
Up until the late 90s I sought to answer the question that Norbert Weiner posed, “What is the human use of human beings in technological society?” When I realized that’s the wrong question. The question should be “What is the human use of technology in human society?” Because we use things not people!
Thanks for dropping in. Though kind of surprised but quite pleased to find someone else who even knows of Wiener's book, more so that has read it in some detail. 🙂
But a fascinating book that I'd first read some 50 years ago -- shocking, I know ... -- though one that has had the flavour of a "road to Damascus" revelation illuminating much of my life. I really should re-read it, though I've often quoted salient passages from it on Twitter -- before being "defenestrated" there (thrice) -- and elsewhere. There's a link to it in my Welcome post, but it's not really evident so seems worth reposting here:
http://asounder.org/resources/weiner_humanuse.pdf
In any case, I quite like your take of "Because we use things not people!", though I'll have to re-read Wiener's book to see how that squares with his own argument. Offhand and based on a quick skim and some dim recollections, it seems that is sort of his point with his qualification: "human use" as opposed to "inhuman use". Apropos of which, I recollect his comments about "battery chickens" and how too much of society has turned into a case of "battery humans".
Somewhat en passant, one might argue -- maybe he argues -- that how we treat our farm animals has some deleterious consequences in how treat each other.
But a fascinating topic with an increasing degree of relevance, and topicality -- recent discussions on some applications of ChatGPT that exhibited some rather psychotic behaviour being a case in point. A passage I ran across in my recent skimming that seems pertinent:
"Whether we entrust our decisions to machines of metal, or to those machines of flesh and blood which are bureaus and vast laboratories and armies and corporations, we shall never receive the right answers to our questions unless we ask the right questions. The Monkey's Paw of skin and bone is quite as deadly as anything cast out of steel and iron. The djinnee which is a unifying figure of speech for a whole corporation is just as fearsome as if it were a glorified conjuring trick. The hour is very late, and the choice of good and evil knocks at our door." [pg. 185/186]
Indeed.