I find it interesting that you are not simply banned, but that your entire history of comments are banned. It's similar to when people have degrees revoked because of their present behaviour. Does someone's behaviour discredit what has already been approved in the past? Of course, there are precedents. That one of Stalin by that boat rail on the Belomor Canal comes to mind lol
Thanks for the link -- I'd seen a couple of those photos before, the canal one in particular, but not all of them. Looks to be an interesting article.
But the whole DEI fiasco reminds me of Soviet Russia"s political commissars.
As for Helen, not sure if she was just careless in banning me -- the Substack implementation is apparently rather obscure -- or whether she simply lost her cool -- "Off with his head!!" She was certainly rather "offended" by my defense of the biological definitions for the sexes -- lot of that goin' round these days ... 🙂
Oh, sorry! Forgot one. As to the “By definition, membership in the sex categories is contingent on having FUNCTIONAL gonads --“ comment that above statement about the chromosomes applies here also. Have a good night. Since I’m already at work I’ve decided to look through the other articles that you’ve written. I’m sure it’ll be a good exercise.
Once more into the breach it appears. You’ve had a great time dismissing Helen and everyone on “her commentariat”. You quote papers without knowledge and yet you accuse those of us that disagree with your stance as unlearned, illiterate, or chronically unable to critically think. With that judgment, it’s a wonder that we can even swallow our own spit. But I digress. You state that sex is not immutable. Here’s a couple of citations of my own. The last one you’ll especially like since it’s behind a paywall but has a précis.
I'm not denying that sex is a binary. It is so by definition. I'm saying, on some evidence, that it is, in general, NOT immutable. By definition, membership in the sex categories is contingent on having FUNCTIONAL gonads -- and many members of many species, including the human one, lack those at various stages of their lives. That IS what the standard biological definitions SAY.
But your last item is by Colin Wright and he has a copy on his own Substack:
You might note that I've been banned there too, though at least he didn't delete every last comment I've ever made on his Substack ....
But it's well past my bedtime and I have an early day tomorrow so can't go into many details -- may be some delay in further responses.
However, offhand, that first article by Marinov is a bunch of blathering -- he never does say exactly what it is that makes sex "immutable". You HAVE to say what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as male or female.
And the article by Emma Hilton -- she of the missing Tweet -- and by Wright likewise only imperiously says "Human sex is an observable, immutable" without EVER saying exactly what qualifies ANY organism as male or female. She didn't use to be so tongue-tied though her tweets on clownfish are likewise missing ...
You might try reading, once you've swallowed your spit ... 😉, the article on the principles behind definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
Definitions worth their salt -- and their definers worth theirs -- SAY exactly what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership.
"A sex chromosome is a type of chromosome involved in sex determination. Humans and most other mammals have two sex chromosomes, X and Y, that in combination determine the sex of an individual. Females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y."
That some chromosomes "determine" a sex does NOT mean that they are the DEFINING trait. Even Emma Hilton emphasizes the difference:
Well heck. Ain't she the plagiarist and literary hoaxgal? Taking on the affectations of the elegantly acerbic intellectual doesn't make Helen one. She's just garden-variety bullshit. In my view of course.
Helen? A "plagiarist and literary hoaxgal"? How so? Can't say that I've followed her "religiously", but she often seems to have had some sensible things to say. If maybe somewhat hypocritical as events may have shown.
Though I think Lorenzo's "oeuvre" is often somewhat "forced" at best -- an axe to grind.
But "elegantly acerbic intellectual" at least has a nice ring to it ... 🙂
I find it interesting that you are not simply banned, but that your entire history of comments are banned. It's similar to when people have degrees revoked because of their present behaviour. Does someone's behaviour discredit what has already been approved in the past? Of course, there are precedents. That one of Stalin by that boat rail on the Belomor Canal comes to mind lol
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/the-photo-book-that-captured-how-the-soviet-regime-made-the-truth-disappear
Thanks for the link -- I'd seen a couple of those photos before, the canal one in particular, but not all of them. Looks to be an interesting article.
But the whole DEI fiasco reminds me of Soviet Russia"s political commissars.
As for Helen, not sure if she was just careless in banning me -- the Substack implementation is apparently rather obscure -- or whether she simply lost her cool -- "Off with his head!!" She was certainly rather "offended" by my defense of the biological definitions for the sexes -- lot of that goin' round these days ... 🙂
Quite simply... yep.
Oh, sorry! Forgot one. As to the “By definition, membership in the sex categories is contingent on having FUNCTIONAL gonads --“ comment that above statement about the chromosomes applies here also. Have a good night. Since I’m already at work I’ve decided to look through the other articles that you’ve written. I’m sure it’ll be a good exercise.
Once more into the breach it appears. You’ve had a great time dismissing Helen and everyone on “her commentariat”. You quote papers without knowledge and yet you accuse those of us that disagree with your stance as unlearned, illiterate, or chronically unable to critically think. With that judgment, it’s a wonder that we can even swallow our own spit. But I digress. You state that sex is not immutable. Here’s a couple of citations of my own. The last one you’ll especially like since it’s behind a paywall but has a précis.
Is sex binary and immutable?
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate
https://can-sg.org/frequently-asked-questions/can-humans-change-sex/?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11845-020-02464-4?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate
https://uclawreview.org/2021/11/12/gender-the-issue-of-immutability/?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate
https://manhattan.institute/article/a-biologist-explains-why-sex-is-binary?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate.
Feel free to ban me in retribution if it helps.
I'm not denying that sex is a binary. It is so by definition. I'm saying, on some evidence, that it is, in general, NOT immutable. By definition, membership in the sex categories is contingent on having FUNCTIONAL gonads -- and many members of many species, including the human one, lack those at various stages of their lives. That IS what the standard biological definitions SAY.
But your last item is by Colin Wright and he has a copy on his own Substack:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/a-biologist-explains-why-sex-is-binary/comment/15523228
You might note that I've been banned there too, though at least he didn't delete every last comment I've ever made on his Substack ....
But it's well past my bedtime and I have an early day tomorrow so can't go into many details -- may be some delay in further responses.
However, offhand, that first article by Marinov is a bunch of blathering -- he never does say exactly what it is that makes sex "immutable". You HAVE to say what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as male or female.
And the article by Emma Hilton -- she of the missing Tweet -- and by Wright likewise only imperiously says "Human sex is an observable, immutable" without EVER saying exactly what qualifies ANY organism as male or female. She didn't use to be so tongue-tied though her tweets on clownfish are likewise missing ...
You might try reading, once you've swallowed your spit ... 😉, the article on the principles behind definitions:
Wikipedia: "An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
Definitions worth their salt -- and their definers worth theirs -- SAY exactly what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership.
You HAVE to say what are the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as male or female.
That last bit of wilipediaism is just too condescending to be anything other than funny.
So here’s one for the condescending. You DO know what the x and Y chromosomes are, don’t you?
And lastly, ( sorry, it’s takes a minute to find the articles and vet them to see if the apply),
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/sex-determination-humans?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate
Thems the facts, man, just the facts. Apparently still unable to deal with them ...
But where the fuck DO ANY of the biological definitions say ANYTHING about chromosomes? I'll wait ... 🙄
Here’s one:
https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Sex-Chromosome?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate
So fucking what?
"A sex chromosome is a type of chromosome involved in sex determination. Humans and most other mammals have two sex chromosomes, X and Y, that in combination determine the sex of an individual. Females have two X chromosomes in their cells, while males have one X and one Y."
That some chromosomes "determine" a sex does NOT mean that they are the DEFINING trait. Even Emma Hilton emphasizes the difference:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154
Many species don't have "sex determining chromosomes" but they STILL have sexes because some members PRODUCE gametes.
You're just throwing "stuff" at the wall because you refuse to look at what the biological definitions actually say.
Here’s the second;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2296yc/revision/4?ssp=1&darkschemeovr=1&setlang=en&cc=US&safesearch=moderate
Oh, wait! One more! And it’s from...you guessed it, Wikipedia!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome?cc=US&darkschemeovr=1&safesearch=moderate&setlang=en&ssp=1
Well heck. Ain't she the plagiarist and literary hoaxgal? Taking on the affectations of the elegantly acerbic intellectual doesn't make Helen one. She's just garden-variety bullshit. In my view of course.
Helen? A "plagiarist and literary hoaxgal"? How so? Can't say that I've followed her "religiously", but she often seems to have had some sensible things to say. If maybe somewhat hypocritical as events may have shown.
Though I think Lorenzo's "oeuvre" is often somewhat "forced" at best -- an axe to grind.
But "elegantly acerbic intellectual" at least has a nice ring to it ... 🙂
People may mock Wikipedia but it has so often been my friend.
I often defend it -- for good reason:
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
Something of a "love-hate" relationship ... 😉🙂
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
But I hear you -- will do some digging.