"Seems you -- and far too many others -- are more concerned about sparing people's "feelings" than in defending scientific, epistemological, and logical principles ...."
Your promoted definition of male and female is yours alone, it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials. I've read those links, they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
The "trans" promote articles of absurd faith and repudiate science; you claim to represent science while promoting an absurdity.
That you keep insisting that your view, universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it, is "accepted biological fact" suggests, and not subtly, that there is something wrong with your mind.
Sex is defined from fertilization to death.
I don't care if you bark and clap. You probably need a psychiatrist. Bring your toothbrush.
> it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials ... they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
As I've pointed out several times -- which you're too thick or intellectually dishonest to address -- it's not necessary to say those definitions are "tied to current fertility". It's implicit in the definitions and in the concept of intensional definitions which specify "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership. That is, those conditions are "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite. No gametes, no sex. Q.E.D.
As it's not necessary to say that those who are 20 and older are no longer teenagers.
> universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it ...
And their credentials are what? 🙄
But you might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to note that when you press "Reply" there are two comment dialogue boxes that are visible, a top level one, and one pertaining to the comment that you're referring to ...
No, it is not "immplicit in the definnitions," that is your personal embellishment, and nobody in the field shares it. You have an astonishingly long list of highly credentialed people whom you dismiss as stupid, and it is suppportive of my diagnosis of you that this is not registering with you.
Their credentials are far higher than yours. Many of them have graduate degrees in the biological sciences, while you have an AA in an unrelated field.
And nobody, but nobody, believes in your redefinition.
And, no, that does not mean that you're smarter than all of them.
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION. Which ain't worth diddly-squat.
And which I'm no longer willing to let you peddle here. Take some time out, consider that you might have some "unevidenced assumptions", that you have your head up your arse -- or those of too many so-called experts ...
I found this after reading your comments and discussions with others in the comments sections of various articles in Reality's Last Stand. I have some comments and a question.
First the comments:
Regarding Maya Forstater and her stated belief in the immutability of sex in humans, I posit there may be a simpler explanation for that stated belief than it being based on some magic essence, namely that "immutability" may be short hand for the idea that you can't change men into women or vice versa.
The medical treatments and surgery that trans people may undergo to look like members of the opposite sex, at best give one the external appearance of that sex. Even if you define male / female in terms of possession of relevant reproductive anatomy / structures rather than functioning gonads this seems true to me. Even the most complete medical transition will not e.g. give a transwoman a womb, ovaries or uterus, whilst the surgically constructed neo-vagina isn't a real vagina.
Another comment: we routinely refer to people / classify them as boys or girls, men or women, without knowing the status of their gonads - it seems to me this reflects the fact that human bodies come in 2 broad classes (admittedly with a lot of variation in those classes) - one associated with small gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs), the other associated with large gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs). I realise this is moving into 'family resemblances' territory, but it also seems to me a reality of being human. We can look at someone and, based on their collective physical characteristics, classify them as male or female in a way that correlates well with the role in reproduction they would play if/once they have functioning gonads. This may explain why some people reach for a definition of sex that doesn't require functioning gonads. Note that we often sex animals in a similar manner - e.g. after neutering a male cat we will likely still refer to the cat as 'he' or 'him'.
This leads me to my question: how would you define the categories of boy and girl, given that (pre-pubescent) children are sexless under the strict biological definition of sex you prefer?
James, thanks for the read and the comment. Bit of a complex topic that I think deserves a much wider discussion. If we can't agree on what we mean by "male" and "female" then the prognosis for a resolution of the transgender clusterfuck and related issues seems rather poor at best.
James: "Regarding Maya Forstater and her stated belief in the immutability of sex in humans ..."
Not sure that Forstater herself is explicitly relying much on any "magic essence", though many other feminists are. But for her to say, as she has in effect done, that "producing sperm" or NOT "producing sperm" is what is necessary to qualify as a male just begets the question as to what she does think IS necessary. Maybe a transman qualifies? And if she can't say -- as she clearly couldn't -- then hard not to conclude that she's either scientifically illiterate or she "thinks" it's some "mythic essence".
Sure, I agree with her that we "can't change men into women and vice versa" -- but the issue is WHY that is the case, what definitions justify that conclusion.
James: "The medical treatments and surgery that trans people may undergo to look like members of the opposite sex, at best give one the external appearance of that sex. ..."
Sure. But as you suggested or argued later, "looking like the opposite sex" is just getting into "family resemblance" territory. How close does one have to look like the opposite sex to qualify as one? Rather amused to note that transwoman Riley Dennis argued that 3 out 5 traits was sufficient to qualify "her" as a female, and therefore as both a woman and as a lesbian:
If you don't draw the line somewhere then that's the logical consequence; that's the problem with family resemblances -- if you're not careful about who you let it then the next thing you know you're sharing Christmas dinner with the Manson Family ... 😉
James: "... reflects the fact that human bodies come in 2 broad classes .... I realize this is moving into 'family resemblances' territory ...."
Exactly -- "family resemblances". The question then is why can't Bruce Jenner and Riley Dennis qualify as females and women and, in the latter case, as a lesbian? You either draw a line in the sand or you don't; you can't have your cake and eat it too. Colin's (re)definitions attempt to do that of course, but "succeeds" only by way of some rather ridiculous and quite unscientific "special pleading":
James: "This may explain why some people reach for a definition of sex that doesn't require functioning gonads."
Sure -- there's some "reason" why people would think that way. But there's likewise some "reason" why people thought, some still think, that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that it is at the center of the universe, and that humans haven't evolved from apes. Science is hardly perfect, and hardly a panacea, but there are generally sound reasons and solid facts undergirding many of its theories -- and its definitions. Not sure why we would want to base social policy on bad science ...
James: "... how would you define the categories of boy and girl ..."
Good question. Short answer is that our dictionaries are hardly perfect, largely because of sloppy usages, and are therefore replete with any number of contradictions, both implicit and explicit. For example, a common definition for "boy" is "male child":
But IF the child is prepubescent and IF we start from the premise that to be a male is to have functional testicles then that combination is saying that "boy" is someone who both has and does not have functional testicles; a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
Some dictionaries may, I guess, try to get around that by not explicitly using "male":
I was also successfully provoked from RLS but I'm unsure what your beef with Colin's definition is. Since you're shoulder surfing his audience while also besmirching his definition can you be explicit?
Otherwise feels like a narcissism of small differences thing...
It may LOOK like a small difference, but it has a great many rather problematic consequences. May be somewhat "academic" in some cases, but in others it's crucial.
More particularly, the standard biological definitions assert that having functional gonads, of either of two and only two types, is the essential requirement, is the sine qua non, of being male or female whereas Colin's quite unscientific definition asserts that those gonads don't need to be functional to so qualify.
From the Glossary of an article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
And those of Colin, and his partners in crime Emma Hilton and Heather Heying:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
However, I subsequently ran across a particularly egregious example of the rather risible consequences of Colin's re-definitions in the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphroditism:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
This is a bit of murky inference -- in part because of the supposed "credentials" of those responsible for that edit at Wikipedia -- but because of the nature of the lifecycle of clownfish in particular -- there is only one breeding (fertile, sexed) pair in each "school" -- the Wikipedians responsible for that edit are obliged to differentiate between functional and non-functional males and females.
They have basically turned each sex into a binary: they are asserting that newly-hatched clownfish are non-functional males AND non-functional females, one of whom turns into a functional-male AND a non-functional female which may, in turn, turn into a non-functional male AND a functional female. So, "male" AND "female" right from the moment of hatching. Kinda knocks the whole concept of "sequential hermaphrodites" into a cocked hat; I eagerly await an article in a peer-reviewed biological journal chastising the entire biological community for the errors of its ways ...
I'm sure no pro-from-Dover on all of the niceties of biology, and on the problematic ramifications of different terminological distinctions, but, as I've argued or alluded to in my Heying post, various professional biologists and philosophers of biology have, in fact, expended some effort in trying to draw attention to those problematic consequences. Seems like it might be wise to pay attention to what they're actually saying on the topic.
Ah, thanks, a lesson for me to stop being nosy ;) Quite a bit beyond me on clownfish etc but I can do some background reading.
But taking it back to small differences, I'm no biologist but I'd always assume any definition of sex across animal, plant kingdoms would have all sorts of overlapping possibilities, similar to the different developmental pathways and deadends of sex expression, realisation in humans. This has a degree of arbitrariness in assignment but isn't the larger point that sex is binary, and to reproduce you need one of each kind of gamete. I appreciate your points are probably important too in terms of the field but won't you always find edge cases, as with species, subspecies distinctions. It doesn't undermine a particular species or sex binary in another species just because you find an edge case, no?
🙂 Whole process of categorization is something of a "rabbit hole" that's easy to get lost in -- particularly without first attaching a rope to some solid principles before engaging in any spelunking ... 🙂
I'm sure no expert and all of my essays on the topic, this one in particular, are very much a work-in-progress, some reports from the frontiers. You may want to take a gander at my comments on the vertebrate category here in particular.
But while you're quite right about all sorts of "overlapping possibilities" "across many plant and animal kingdoms", the crux of the matter is that there are literally millions of sexually reproducing species in which some portion of each species produces large gametes and some portion produce small gametes. Biology basically asserts that they CALL the former "females" and CALL the latter "males".
All of those overlapping possibilities are then immaterial: if ANY member of any of those species produces large gametes then it is a female, and if ANY member produces small gametes then it is a male, and if ANY member produces neither then it is sexless:
The sex categories are then intrinsically -- and by definition -- a binary because there are only two types of gametes. Although, as indicated, those categories aren't "exhaustive" -- many members of many species are neither male nor female.
But it is somewhat similar to or analogous with the category "teenager". By definition, it means those who are 13 to 19 inclusive. If an individual is in that age range then it is a teenager and if it isn't then it's not:
"by definition idiom
: because of what something or someone is : according to the definition of a word that is being used to describe someone or something
A volunteer by definition is not paid.
A glider is by definition an aircraft with no engine."
By definition, there AREN'T any edge cases -- with gliders, teenagers, vertebrates, males, and females. Which is apparently one of the major benefits of that type of definition -- relatively easy to determine category membership.
I'm just not sure if this focus on the limits of male and female being those who have functioning gonads is doing more good than harm. It's very easy for the gender-ideologues and trans activists to run with "children are inherently sexless" in order to promote transgenderism, "sex as as spectrum" and gender-fluidity among children (and I've seen them do it).
What are we getting in return for insisting on this (what seems like a somewhat irrelevant) technicality?
Your definition of "A boy is a prepubescent penis-haver likely to become a male at the onset of puberty" seems problematic in itself, because what if for whatever reason a boy is born without a penis (if that's possible) or loses it through some freak accident or has it surgically removed before puberty... then he would no longer be a boy?
Thanks for your comment Michiel. And for some very good questions. 🙂
But, first off, I rather doubt potential harm should be seen as much of an overriding concern, particularly when scientific accuracy and usefulness seems more important. You may know of the myth of Prometheus:
"In Greek mythology, Prometheus (/prəˈmiːθiəs/; Ancient Greek: Προμηθεύς, [promɛːtʰéu̯s], possibly meaning 'forethought') is a Titan god of fire. Prometheus is best known for defying the gods by stealing fire from them and giving it to humanity in the form of technology, knowledge, and more generally, civilization."
We have all sorts of tools, most of which can be misused for many less than socially beneficial "reasons". But that's hardly justification for doing away with them, for crippling ourselves, for obliging ourselves to freeze in the dark.
More particularly, I don't see how various "gender-ideologues" can use those biological definitions (functional gonads) to their benefit since those definitions clearly define the sexes as a binary, not as a spectrum. In addition to which, they underline the "fact", or their logical conclusion, that transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs, NOT into females.
Can't see those gender-ideologues being particularly enthused about championing a definition that cuts them off at the knees -- or elsewhere ... You might have some interest in the increasing popularity of the article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction that endorses those biological definitions I've quoted & linked to, and the number of those "gender-ideologues" who are getting unhorsed by it:
Though those championing that article seem somewhat clueless about the logical consequences of those definitions themselves. Someone should show them the error of their ways ... 😉
But "getting in return" is maybe a question that's a bit harder to answer. Though a short answer might be "what benefit in scientific accuracy?" A principle that's kind of foundational to the whole enterprise. A longer answer is afforded by some cogent observations by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder:
"No one has any idea why mathematics works so well to describe nature, but it is arguably an empirical fact that it works. …. The maybe most important lesson physicists have learned over the past centuries is that if a theory has internal inconsistencies, it is wrong. By internal inconsistencies, I mean that the theory’s axioms lead to statements that contradict each other."
But so what if a "prepubescent penis-haver" loses his penis before puberty? Probably qualifies as a tragedy, but that doesn't change the fact that, by those definitions, he no longer qualifies as a boy. Same thing as with a teenager -- once we've had our 20th birthdays we no longer qualify as such. Too many are making the sexes into immutable identities instead of recognizing that the words "male" and "female" are, by the standard biological definitions, just labels that denote the presence of transitory reproductive abilities.
Certainly teenager is age limited (as are baby, infant, middle-aged and elderly, to less well defined degrees) because it is an age category, and that doesn't equate to an argument that sex must also be age-limited. As I understand it, you stick so strictly to the one criterion for defining sex—production of large or small gametes—that you feel infants, children and post-climacteric quondam women are to be considered sexless. Might we not solve that problem by indicating that sex is defined by the gametes you make during your reproductive years? A girl is a woman-to-be, and a crone an honorary woman still? And the same thing for boys (old men are still producing small motile gametes so I assume you have no issue with their title). I'm not a taxonomist, and I don't think that practical people need be reductionist about diagnosing sex. We can live with the idea that the sexes in normal humans are characterised by the gametes they make when of reproductive age, the chromosomes they have, and by their endocrine functions.
But in the bigger picture, what is the point of this hair-splitting? You don't like the idea of sex being immutable, but why is this? You are not suggesting, I know, that what we used to call a sex-change surgery does anything of the sort, and we all know that. I find it curious, by the way, that the folk who now refer to themselves as 'transgender' still want what is called 'sex-re-assignment surgery.' There is enough confusion about sex and gender without adding to it by claiming sex is a transitory category to which we belong only for part of our lives. Unless, Steers old friend, you are subconsciously trying to assist the trans activists in muddying the waters further. I don't think you are, so what is your purpose?
Hello Chris, thanks for stopping by. 🙂 Was meaning to drop you a line through regular email channels, particularly since it's been about a year since we chatted, and hope to do so a bit later.
But some very good questions about "hair-splitting", and "purpose". To which I don't have any easy or simple answers -- at least "yet"; very much a work in progress. 🙂 However, something of an entry point into that question, some exposition on the crux of the matter is provided by this essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosophy of biology, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy:
He kind of goes off into the weeds a bit -- maybe a bit discursive as is maybe typical or called-for in such magazines where one has to cover a lot of ground for a general readership, though I expect you wouldn't have much difficulty "cutting to the chase". But his theme and central points seem clear enough:
"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, 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."
He is quite reasonably concerned about the corruption of biology by ideology -- part and parcel of my article on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism" in case you hadn't taken a gander at it yet ...😉
And in the face of that, it seems the only thing to do is to draw a line in the proverbial sand, and to let the chips fall where they may, by falling back on the strict biological definitions. Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in a thread at the International Skeptics Forum which features something of a debate on that topic between yours truly and, among others, our good buddy Damion:
Really think the issue is something of a Leonidas at Thermopylae, a Horatio at the bridge situation -- "the fate of Western civilization hanging in the balance". 🙂 Still not sure if that's hyperbole or understatement.
But in furtherance of that "purpose" and objective, I had sent Griffiths an email about a month ago, which he had kindly responded to in some detail, asking about the implications and consequences of those biological definitions. He was still "non-committal" on my "sexless" conclusion, but both his email and the preprint article he sent asking for commentary on -- which I thought rather flattering but encouraging -- more or less endorses it. Hoping that I'm not "speaking out of turn" too much, a relevant passage from the abstract of his article:
"Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are defined by different gametic strategies for
reproduction. 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."
Interesting and quite detailed elaborations later in the body of the article on the concept of "phenotypic space" -- although I suggested in response that he might include "sexless" in that space -- but it seems to be a pretty clear statement that sexes are not "essential properties", that they're merely states that organisms "pass into and out of" over the course of their lives. Hence the objection to "immutable" -- it is flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions which have a much wider import and utility than just to humans.
But his article -- which is intended for more technical audiences, including his graduate students -- also addresses, in part at least, your later "gametes ... chromosomes ... and endocrine functions" comment and definition. While I, and I expect he, would be quite ready to grant "honorary" status to menopausees -- mothers in particular granted an honorable discharge from the ranks -- and to describe the prepubescent as "potential males and females", he briefly alludes to the problems with conflating those two types of definitions:
"Medical definitions of sex in terms of chromosomes are not definitions of biological sex, they are at best operational definitions of biological sex in humans. However, philosophers and gender studies scholars like Dembroff and Rosario cited above are not primarily concerned with whether sex chromosomes are an adequate operational definition of biological sex. Their concern is with whether sex chromosomes are an adequate criterion for determining the social or legal status of human beings as men or women. This is, obviously, a very different question from whether sex chromosomes reliably indicate biological sex and is outside the scope of this paper."
In large part why he and I argue, directly or indirectly, that the biological definitions for the sexes are simply the wrong tools for the job that society is trying to press them into doing. Trying to shoehorn the social-justice foot into the glass slipper of biology is simply going to cripple the former and shatter the latter -- so to speak. 🙂
Why I've argued that we should cut to the chase and simply use genitalia or karyotypes for adjudicating claims to various spaces: one set of toilets and change rooms for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- and reasonable facsimiles thereof. And for women's sports, no XY need apply ... 😉🙂
Bit of a complex issue compounded by too many putting feelings before facts, by a lack of clear, unambiguous, and scientifically justified definitions for the terms in play. More or less my "purpose". 🙂
Since chromosomes (and endocrine status for that matter) accord with sex in 99% of the population, I see no harm in including them in the characteristics of the sexes. It seems awfully narrow to say 'gamete status only' because sexual reproduction is all we are interested in. I'd point out that the percentage of adult humans who do not produce any gametes because of embryological, congenital and acquire conditions is likely about the same as the percentage where chromosomal or endocrine disorders screw up sex prediction. I don't see that it serves any practical purpose in our society to say that, for example, a man is no longer male after having a vasectomy, and ditto for a tubal ligation.
If clarity and unambiguity are your goals (laudable in themselves), I'd leave the argument as a curious and unimportant technicality. But I can't help thinking you must have some further end, envisaging a benefit to society as a result of your way of looking at things? This isn't all just pedantry, is it?
Chris: "Since chromosomes ... accord with sex in 99% of the population ..."
Think you've indicated that you have a decent amount of statistics under your belt -- something which too many are lacking in, though it is something of a "counter-intuitive" topic. But from that point of view, and of the standard biological definitions -- those based on functional gonads -- chromosomes, genitalia, and "endocrine status" are what might be called "proxy variables". They correlate to a high degree with the primary variable (gonads) from which we might INFER the existence of the corresponding primary variable, but they are NOT the defining or essential trait of the sex categories:
While I have no problem in, as you put it, recognizing that chromosomes etc. are "characteristics [typical] OF the sexes", that is profoundly different from the criteria that define those categories, that are the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership. Conflating the two is a large part of the problem, or a major contributing factor in that problem, whose final (toxic) flower is transgenderism.
Somewhat apropos of which, both you and your wife -- as a "very clever child psychiatrist" 🙂 -- may have some interest in this article -- by Sahar Sadjadi of McGill University -- titled, "Deep in the Brain: Identity and Authenticity in Pediatric Gender Transition":
Sadjadi: "Moreover, the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations I witnessed was striking... As a physician and anthropologist of medicine, ... I was perplexed by this merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition."
In addition, while I have some sympathy for your inadvertent or intentional attempts to mash those "proxy variables" into the definitions for the sexes, the fact of the matter is that they really aren't any part of credible lexical or biological definitions, and conflict rather badly with them:
Maybe more importantly though, trying to mash those "proxy variables" into the standard definitions is basically turning the definitions for the sexes into polythetic categories. And those are more or less equivalent to the "family resemblances" concept that Michael Shermer tried to use to turn both "woman" and the sexes into spectra. See my comment for elaborations:
But that is virtually the same as what Novella was doing over at the sadly misnamed "Science-Based Medicine"; see my comments for details, this one in particular:
That's the problem with family resemblances -- if you're not careful who you let in, the next thing you know you're sitting down to Christmas dinner with the Manson Family ...😉
The point is that at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, you have to call a spade a fucking shovel by saying exactly what you mean by the terms in question; waffling and self-serving evasiveness, and putting feeling before facts is a large part of the whole problem. There are many different definitions for the sexes on tap, but some are clearly better than others; we HAVE to use reason and logic to choose the ones we're going to accept as trump -- you'll excuse the term ... 😉
Chris: "But I can't help thinking you must have some further end, envisaging a benefit to society as a result of your way of looking at things? This isn't all just pedantry, is it?"
No, certainly don't see it as "just pedantry". Think my article on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism" underlines and elaborates on that argument, and addresses that "further end", in some detail. Lysenkoism -- as the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable" -- is pervasive, pernicious, and pathological. And as I've indicated there, it's not just me that is saying that. See another Canadian Substacker's take -- even if I think the author "stole" my idea without due credit ... 😉
Still a useful addition to the dialogue, though I think he's too quick to absolve feminism itself for its not-insignificant contributions to the transgender clusterfuck, largely because of its own tendency to Lysenkoism (details in my post on the topic).
Somewhat en passant and to close, not sure how new you are to Substack, but you might be interested in these ones, my comments there in particular 🙂:
Functioning gonads are not part of "standard biological definitions," however many times you repeat this. There is no corroboration for this notion in any biological literature.
You suffer from an idée fixe, which is a pathological condition. Get some help.
Noteworthy in reading your tiresomely verbatious writings is a marked tendency to leave the actual argument (which you never satisfactorily address) into ever broader levels of generality; definitions, categories, philosophy. What you cannot manage in specificity you instead seek to "dazzle with bullshit" at hopelessly abstract levels of, well, nothing.
"But from that point of view, and of the standard biological definitions -- those based on functional gonads -- chromosomes, genitalia, and "endocrine status" are what might be called "proxy variables". They correlate to a high degree with the primary variable (gonads) from which we might INFER the existence of the corresponding primary variable, but they are NOT the defining or essential trait of the sex categories:"
Riddle me this—Regardless of gametes, would you be a human male if you did not have XY chromosomes? Could you be male if you did not grow your tissues under the influence of testosterone? And to close the circle, without testosterone you would not produce those gametes that define your maleness, would you? It turns out gametes are just another tell-tale that give away underlying sex. But without all of the mechanisms that lie hidden under the surface it is a sham.
Chris: "Riddle me this—Regardless of gametes, would you be a human male if you did not have XY chromosomes? .... But without all of the mechanisms that lie hidden under the surface it is a sham."
Think you're still conflating the criteria for category membership with all of the ancillary traits and processes that lead to the possession of those criteria in the first place which then qualify as the membership dues. Though many people stumble over that hurdle or balk even before getting to it.
But I'm not the only one to draw attention to that fact, and to the attending problems. For example, see this series of tweets -- in Nitter so you don't need Twitter to view them -- from biologist Emma Hilton:
The word ‘determine’ has a specific meaning in developmental biology, and it’s not the same as lay use.
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)’.
That chromosomes determine sex, in a dev bio sense, does not necessarily mean that sex can be identified by observing chromosomes (although it’s obviously an astonishingly good marker [proxy]).
A lot of non-experts get caught up in mistaking technical language as lay usage."
Maybe not quite as clear and conclusive as I would have liked, but I think she clearly differentiates between the structures (chromosomes) that "drives sex differentiation" and the traits (functional gonads) that allows one to conclusively "identify" the organism's sex.
Another of her earlier tweet threads underlines her (then) view that it is, for females, the "making of large gametes" that "determines", or grants membership in that category, and over a wide range of species:
Though I qualified that statement with "then" since she -- along with her partners in crime, "biologists" Heather Heying and Colin Wright -- later repudiated that definition with a "structure-absent-function" definition that basically turns each sex into a spectrum of three, i.e., having gonads of past, present, or future functionality:
Rather profoundly unscientific if not actually anti-scientific. Really don't think that accusing them of Lysenkoism, as I've done, is without substance. They too are putting feelings before facts.
Not always "fuzzy boundaries". You think "teenager" is "fuzzy"? How about "prime number"?
The fuzziness is often due to detecting the defining trait, not in trait itself. "produces gametes" seems clear, often easily detected - those with no gonads at all are, ipso facto, neither male nor female, are therefore sexless.
Well, I understand your point. However, we may disagree on some of the details of the category issue... i.e., discrete versus continuous variables, and the inherent ambiguities of biological terminology. (That's why scientists use operational definitions in scientific papers.) However, as I've argued, the ambiguous edge cases don't necessarily negate the category. In other words, I recognize two discrete sexes in primates. In any event, I enjoyed your essay... It was both thoughtful and well argued!
Thanks muchly for the compliment - a rather difficult and convoluted topic, not to mention "contentious" and "sensitive". Many people are rather "nonplussed", to say the least, at the prospect of being deprived of their membership cards in the sex categories - part and parcel of making the sexes into identities that I discussed in some detail.
However ... 😉, while I at least did something of a thorough skim of your own kick at that kitty, I kinda get the impression that you're evading the question, or that you're rejecting the biological definitions I've quoted. For instance, in response to your question of "what is a man?", you say:
"I would say it’s an adult human with a functioning SRY gene (carried on the Y chromosome), and functioning androgen receptors (which mediate the effects of masculinizing hormones). "
But there's nothing in the biological definitions about Y chromosomes, much less a SRY gene since those definitions are "designed" to cover ALL sexually-reproducing species, at least those exhibiting anisogamy (most of them, apparently). "Redefining" the category the way you - and many others - are doing seems little short of special pleading.
Might be moot whether the biological definitions are ideal or even optimal - maybe there are properties that are better than functional gonads. But those ARE the definitions on the table - the "problem" is that too many want to sweep them off it and under the carpet. Don't think the transgender clusterfuck, and more than a few related problems, is going to be resolved without taking that bull by the horns.
But, somewhat apropos of which and ICYMI, you might take a gander at the essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - philosophy professor, philosophy of biology, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - and a salient quote or two therefrom:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]. [my editorializing ...]"
"On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."
Evading the question of what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership is, I think, just contributing to that "tragic mistake".
Actually I was defining a human man, not sex, per se. I see no problem problem if you want to have a somewhat different — but basically reasonable — operational definition... but there are always edge cases (e.g., Swyer syndrome). In any event, I understand your point. However, all biological categories do have some ambiguities, as I said. Even the category "vertebrates" that you used.... It seems the Myxini got kicked out recently, just like the Enteropneusta got kicked out of the group Chordata (though it baffles me why).... Biologists can't even agree on the precise definition of "species." ...and I'm still pissed off that Pluto is no longer a planet.
In the end, though, arguing about the 'precise' definition of sex will never solve any problems... there's just two in primates. As I said in my article about abortion, people who know a lot about biology can drive any argument down to the subatomic level.... And, given that my 1st degree was in philosophy, and I have published some history and philosophy of biology, the last place I would go for clarity would be to a philosopher of science.
So, in any event, I agree with you in principle and spirit, and I still think your article is great....
Now if I could just figure out how the "production of gametes" helps me define sexes in the Hydozoans, Polypodiopsida, and Darevskia... (just kidding here)
"I'm still pissed off that Pluto is no longer a planet."
No longer *considered* a planet.
I have a feeling this will someday be reversed and I hope it's in my lifetime. I found its removal from the list unpersuasive; it orbits the sun, albeit 30° out of the ecliptic plane, it does not orbit another planet. It may have originated as a moon of Neptune, but, so what?
But I'm prejudiced. I read about Clyde Tombaugh's 1930 discovery at a young age.
Don't think we can meaningfully talk about a topic if we can't even agree on common points of reference - generally our definitions.
Frederick: "... but there are always edge cases (e.g., Swyer syndrome). ....."
Disagree. Where are the "edge cases" in "teenager", in "bachelor"? Starting from the biological definitions above, those with Swyer syndrome are sexless, they're neither male nor female because they have "functionless gonads":
Functional gonads are the sine qua non for the biological definitions for the sexes.
Kinda think you're trying to "square the circle" in not wanting to "offend" anyone by excluding them from the sex categories. Putting the cart before the horse. Seem to recollect reading that Darwin delayed publishing his Origin of the Species because it "offended" his wife, a religious fundamentalist.
Frederick: "Biologists can't even agree on the precise definition of 'species.' ...."
You in particular might like this article by Marc Van Regenmortel, a fairly credible Belgian virologist, this passage in particular:
"Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
There's some rhyme and reason to how we define our categories. Not sure that those with no grounding at all in those topics should have much in the way any credibility or voice in such discussions.
But of particular note in Regenmortel's article is his discussion of the difference between polythetic and monothetic categories. Needham in particular argues that "edge cases" are more or less expected in the former, while the latter - the biological definitions for the sexes, for example - more or less exclude them by definition:
But somewhat apropos of both of those articles, I'm somewhat curious about your earlier, "we may disagree on some of the details of the category issue... i.e., discrete versus continuous variables". Particularly since I had been arguing - over in the (somewhat misnamed) International Skeptics Forum - that the "definitions" for the sexes of ostensible biologists Heying, Hilton, and Wright boil down into two discrete spectra of 3 based on past, present, or future functionality:
This is very interesting and, again, it's pithy and thought-provoking. It's more than I can reply to at this moment and I don't want to be disrespectful by giving it short shrift. However, there are two interesting points I'd like to mention.... Regarding why Darwin delayed, I've written a scholarly article on that topic which is really quite fascinating (not the article, necessarily, I mean the topic). But, I'm pretty sure that nothing to do with offending his wife. (I've spent a lot of time reading through Darwin's personal notebooks.) Darwin, too, was a religious person. Here's a link if you're interested:
Words aren't reality.... They are just the sounds we use to represent reality. Again, that's why scientists use operational definitions. So, thanks again.... We can continue a little later.
Sure a bunch of people who seem to not have a clue about reproduction, who want to "decouple" the categories "male" and "female" from that process. Includes a bunch of so-called biologists who should know better.
But reminds me of a generally very good essay over at Weekly Worker by Amanda MacLean titled "Decoupled from Reality":
Good question ... 🙄 You're conflating sex -- i.e., reproductive abilities -- and gender -- i.e., various psychological traits that are more typical of one sex than the other, that are sexually dimorphic.
And I don't think you have a clue about biology or any of the philosophical and logical principles which undergird the field. There are solid reasons why biology DEFINES the sexes the way they do, largely because "produces large gametes" or "produces small gametes" is so ubiquitous across literally millions of species:
But more particularly, those biological definitions (above) STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Even "biologist" PZ Myers more or less agrees in arguing that many "cis women" don't qualify as females:
Though it doesn't sit well with many women that they lose their "female" membership cards at the onset of menopause as a result of those definitions. I've been blocked by some of the "best" -- Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce, and Jane Clare Jones for examples -- for so arguing:
" ... reduces human identity to gamete size. ... "
What pigheaded ignorance and pretentious twaddle. No one is "reducing" anyone's identity to gamete size. By standard biological definitions, "male" and "female" are just labels denoting those with functional gonads -- which often has a great deal of relevance and use, not just in biology but also in society.
You might just as well get your knickers in a twist at defining "teenager" as those 13 to 19 for "reducing human identity to age ranges". 🙄
"Your comparison of biological sex categories to age ranges like 'teenager is a false equivalence. Age is an objective measure of time passed since birth, while sex and gender are complex, multifaceted aspects of identity shaped by biological, psychological, and social factors."
What unmitigated self-serving horse crap. Being charitable. You clearly haven't a flaming clue about analogies -- try reading this if you're capable of it which seems unlikely:
Nor do you have flaming clue that, by definition, the sexes are JUST names for categories and members of them. Read this if you're capable of it which, again, seems unlikely:
"sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
While you're right that the category "teenager" has objective criteria for category membership, the SAME is also true of the sex categories, i.e., having functional gonads of either of two types. No gonads, no sex.
THAT is what that analogy is illustrating. Both "teenager" and "female" have objective criteria for category membership. And there's no way, in Gawd's green earth, that any transwoman -- even if he cuts his nuts off -- is going to qualify as a female. Suck it up buttercups.
👍 Thanks for reposting -- was wondering what had happened to it. Substack has many things going for it, but still rough around the edges. 🙂
But your "metaphysical belief" reminds me of something of a brilliant insight from an essay (2019) in the Journal of Cultural Anthropology by Sahar Sadjadi:
Sadjadi: "Throughout my fieldwork at children’s gender clinics, expert meetings, and conferences in the United States between 2010 and 2012, and during subsequent follow-up research, I was intrigued by the hegemony of the interior origins of authentic self and identity and the rejection of possible external, including social, origins of identity. .... Moreover, the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations I witnessed was striking .... I was perplexed by this merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition. .... As another example, I encountered the word 'soul' in an article published by a team from a pediatric gender clinic at Harvard, who are pioneers of new developments in the field ..."
"magico-spiritual undertone ... merging of science, magic, and religion". 🤯😲 Gawd help us all, so to speak ... 🙂
Bit of a puzzle, a Gordian Knot. Though whole concept of "personal identity" is likewise, and which seems to be what gender-identity boils down into, more or less, although with various "sexually dimorphic" traits or "properties" added to the mix:
SEP: "Outside of philosophy, the term ‘personal identity’ commonly refers to properties to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. My personal identity in this sense consists of those properties I take to 'define me as a person' or 'make me the person I am'. (The precise meaning of these phrases is hard to pin down.) ..."
Thanks; looks interesting; bookmarked. A fascinating field is neuroscience; some reason to think that that "final frontier" of Star Trek is not out beyond Pluto but between our ears. 🙂
But along the same line, you might be interested in Michael Shermer's "Believing Brain":
Amazon: "Synthesizing thirty years of research, psychologist and science historian Michael Shermer upends the traditional thinking about how humans form beliefs about the world. Simply put, beliefs come first and explanations for beliefs follow. The brain, Shermer argues, is a belief engine."
👍🙂 I'd made some 60 pages of notes from his Believing Brain when I read it some 10 years ago. One quote in particular seems particularly relevant these days:
MS: "As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both 'conservative talk radio' and 'progressive talk radio' you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event.” [pg. 263]
ICYMI from the Skeptic magazine, he also has a Substack you might want to check out, particularly his post on Walsh's documentary:
Though, as some useful preliminaries, he goes into some philosophy on what are called "family-resemblance" type of categories. A useful concept of some relevance, particularly to the definition for "woman". But those types of categories basically boil down into spectra -- maybe of some bearing on defining "woman" as a gender, but I think he's trying to argue that they also apply to "male" and "female" as sexes. To which I objected ... 🙂
"Seems you -- and far too many others -- are more concerned about sparing people's "feelings" than in defending scientific, epistemological, and logical principles ...."
You are a very, very, very sick man
Your promoted definition of male and female is yours alone, it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials. I've read those links, they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
The "trans" promote articles of absurd faith and repudiate science; you claim to represent science while promoting an absurdity.
That you keep insisting that your view, universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it, is "accepted biological fact" suggests, and not subtly, that there is something wrong with your mind.
Sex is defined from fertilization to death.
I don't care if you bark and clap. You probably need a psychiatrist. Bring your toothbrush.
> it is not shared by any of the biologists you keep naming along with their credentials ... they do not say that any definition of biological sex is tied to current fertility.
As I've pointed out several times -- which you're too thick or intellectually dishonest to address -- it's not necessary to say those definitions are "tied to current fertility". It's implicit in the definitions and in the concept of intensional definitions which specify "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership. That is, those conditions are "produces gametes" -- present tense indefinite. No gametes, no sex. Q.E.D.
As it's not necessary to say that those who are 20 and older are no longer teenagers.
> universally labeled "absurd" by all who bother to comment on it ...
And their credentials are what? 🙄
But you might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to note that when you press "Reply" there are two comment dialogue boxes that are visible, a top level one, and one pertaining to the comment that you're referring to ...
No, it is not "immplicit in the definnitions," that is your personal embellishment, and nobody in the field shares it. You have an astonishingly long list of highly credentialed people whom you dismiss as stupid, and it is suppportive of my diagnosis of you that this is not registering with you.
Their credentials are far higher than yours. Many of them have graduate degrees in the biological sciences, while you have an AA in an unrelated field.
And nobody, but nobody, believes in your redefinition.
And, no, that does not mean that you're smarter than all of them.
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION. Which ain't worth diddly-squat.
And which I'm no longer willing to let you peddle here. Take some time out, consider that you might have some "unevidenced assumptions", that you have your head up your arse -- or those of too many so-called experts ...
🙄 Butthurt that I won't bark and clap like a trained seal when you peddle untenable definitions? Rather like the TRAs with their TWAW mantra? 🙂
Hi Steersman,
I found this after reading your comments and discussions with others in the comments sections of various articles in Reality's Last Stand. I have some comments and a question.
First the comments:
Regarding Maya Forstater and her stated belief in the immutability of sex in humans, I posit there may be a simpler explanation for that stated belief than it being based on some magic essence, namely that "immutability" may be short hand for the idea that you can't change men into women or vice versa.
The medical treatments and surgery that trans people may undergo to look like members of the opposite sex, at best give one the external appearance of that sex. Even if you define male / female in terms of possession of relevant reproductive anatomy / structures rather than functioning gonads this seems true to me. Even the most complete medical transition will not e.g. give a transwoman a womb, ovaries or uterus, whilst the surgically constructed neo-vagina isn't a real vagina.
Another comment: we routinely refer to people / classify them as boys or girls, men or women, without knowing the status of their gonads - it seems to me this reflects the fact that human bodies come in 2 broad classes (admittedly with a lot of variation in those classes) - one associated with small gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs), the other associated with large gamete production (given mature, healthy reproductive organs). I realise this is moving into 'family resemblances' territory, but it also seems to me a reality of being human. We can look at someone and, based on their collective physical characteristics, classify them as male or female in a way that correlates well with the role in reproduction they would play if/once they have functioning gonads. This may explain why some people reach for a definition of sex that doesn't require functioning gonads. Note that we often sex animals in a similar manner - e.g. after neutering a male cat we will likely still refer to the cat as 'he' or 'him'.
This leads me to my question: how would you define the categories of boy and girl, given that (pre-pubescent) children are sexless under the strict biological definition of sex you prefer?
James, thanks for the read and the comment. Bit of a complex topic that I think deserves a much wider discussion. If we can't agree on what we mean by "male" and "female" then the prognosis for a resolution of the transgender clusterfuck and related issues seems rather poor at best.
James: "Regarding Maya Forstater and her stated belief in the immutability of sex in humans ..."
Not sure that Forstater herself is explicitly relying much on any "magic essence", though many other feminists are. But for her to say, as she has in effect done, that "producing sperm" or NOT "producing sperm" is what is necessary to qualify as a male just begets the question as to what she does think IS necessary. Maybe a transman qualifies? And if she can't say -- as she clearly couldn't -- then hard not to conclude that she's either scientifically illiterate or she "thinks" it's some "mythic essence".
Sure, I agree with her that we "can't change men into women and vice versa" -- but the issue is WHY that is the case, what definitions justify that conclusion.
James: "The medical treatments and surgery that trans people may undergo to look like members of the opposite sex, at best give one the external appearance of that sex. ..."
Sure. But as you suggested or argued later, "looking like the opposite sex" is just getting into "family resemblance" territory. How close does one have to look like the opposite sex to qualify as one? Rather amused to note that transwoman Riley Dennis argued that 3 out 5 traits was sufficient to qualify "her" as a female, and therefore as both a woman and as a lesbian:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis#On_biological_sex
If you don't draw the line somewhere then that's the logical consequence; that's the problem with family resemblances -- if you're not careful about who you let it then the next thing you know you're sharing Christmas dinner with the Manson Family ... 😉
James: "... reflects the fact that human bodies come in 2 broad classes .... I realize this is moving into 'family resemblances' territory ...."
Exactly -- "family resemblances". The question then is why can't Bruce Jenner and Riley Dennis qualify as females and women and, in the latter case, as a lesbian? You either draw a line in the sand or you don't; you can't have your cake and eat it too. Colin's (re)definitions attempt to do that of course, but "succeeds" only by way of some rather ridiculous and quite unscientific "special pleading":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
James: "This may explain why some people reach for a definition of sex that doesn't require functioning gonads."
Sure -- there's some "reason" why people would think that way. But there's likewise some "reason" why people thought, some still think, that the Earth is only 6000 years old, that it is at the center of the universe, and that humans haven't evolved from apes. Science is hardly perfect, and hardly a panacea, but there are generally sound reasons and solid facts undergirding many of its theories -- and its definitions. Not sure why we would want to base social policy on bad science ...
James: "... how would you define the categories of boy and girl ..."
Good question. Short answer is that our dictionaries are hardly perfect, largely because of sloppy usages, and are therefore replete with any number of contradictions, both implicit and explicit. For example, a common definition for "boy" is "male child":
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/boy_1
But IF the child is prepubescent and IF we start from the premise that to be a male is to have functional testicles then that combination is saying that "boy" is someone who both has and does not have functional testicles; a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron.
Some dictionaries may, I guess, try to get around that by not explicitly using "male":
"A boy is a child who will grow up to be a man."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/boy
Though that kind of begets the question as to how we know that that kid will probably become a man -- the sorting hat? 🙄
So to answer your question, I might suggest this as better and more accurate:
"A boy is a prepubescent penis-haver likely to become a male at the onset of puberty".
Bit of a tricky process how and why we create various definitions. Decent overview here if you were interested:
https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm#part5.1
But some important principles that we ignore at our peril.
I was also successfully provoked from RLS but I'm unsure what your beef with Colin's definition is. Since you're shoulder surfing his audience while also besmirching his definition can you be explicit?
Otherwise feels like a narcissism of small differences thing...
It may LOOK like a small difference, but it has a great many rather problematic consequences. May be somewhat "academic" in some cases, but in others it's crucial.
More particularly, the standard biological definitions assert that having functional gonads, of either of two and only two types, is the essential requirement, is the sine qua non, of being male or female whereas Colin's quite unscientific definition asserts that those gonads don't need to be functional to so qualify.
From the Glossary of an article in the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
And those of Colin, and his partners in crime Emma Hilton and Heather Heying:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
ICYMI, I go into a bit more detail in my "Defrauded by Heather Heying" post:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
However, I subsequently ran across a particularly egregious example of the rather risible consequences of Colin's re-definitions in the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphroditism:
"Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_hermaphroditism
This is a bit of murky inference -- in part because of the supposed "credentials" of those responsible for that edit at Wikipedia -- but because of the nature of the lifecycle of clownfish in particular -- there is only one breeding (fertile, sexed) pair in each "school" -- the Wikipedians responsible for that edit are obliged to differentiate between functional and non-functional males and females.
They have basically turned each sex into a binary: they are asserting that newly-hatched clownfish are non-functional males AND non-functional females, one of whom turns into a functional-male AND a non-functional female which may, in turn, turn into a non-functional male AND a functional female. So, "male" AND "female" right from the moment of hatching. Kinda knocks the whole concept of "sequential hermaphrodites" into a cocked hat; I eagerly await an article in a peer-reviewed biological journal chastising the entire biological community for the errors of its ways ...
I'm sure no pro-from-Dover on all of the niceties of biology, and on the problematic ramifications of different terminological distinctions, but, as I've argued or alluded to in my Heying post, various professional biologists and philosophers of biology have, in fact, expended some effort in trying to draw attention to those problematic consequences. Seems like it might be wise to pay attention to what they're actually saying on the topic.
Ah, thanks, a lesson for me to stop being nosy ;) Quite a bit beyond me on clownfish etc but I can do some background reading.
But taking it back to small differences, I'm no biologist but I'd always assume any definition of sex across animal, plant kingdoms would have all sorts of overlapping possibilities, similar to the different developmental pathways and deadends of sex expression, realisation in humans. This has a degree of arbitrariness in assignment but isn't the larger point that sex is binary, and to reproduce you need one of each kind of gamete. I appreciate your points are probably important too in terms of the field but won't you always find edge cases, as with species, subspecies distinctions. It doesn't undermine a particular species or sex binary in another species just because you find an edge case, no?
🙂 Whole process of categorization is something of a "rabbit hole" that's easy to get lost in -- particularly without first attaching a rope to some solid principles before engaging in any spelunking ... 🙂
I'm sure no expert and all of my essays on the topic, this one in particular, are very much a work-in-progress, some reports from the frontiers. You may want to take a gander at my comments on the vertebrate category here in particular.
But while you're quite right about all sorts of "overlapping possibilities" "across many plant and animal kingdoms", the crux of the matter is that there are literally millions of sexually reproducing species in which some portion of each species produces large gametes and some portion produce small gametes. Biology basically asserts that they CALL the former "females" and CALL the latter "males".
All of those overlapping possibilities are then immaterial: if ANY member of any of those species produces large gametes then it is a female, and if ANY member produces small gametes then it is a male, and if ANY member produces neither then it is sexless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy
The sex categories are then intrinsically -- and by definition -- a binary because there are only two types of gametes. Although, as indicated, those categories aren't "exhaustive" -- many members of many species are neither male nor female.
But it is somewhat similar to or analogous with the category "teenager". By definition, it means those who are 13 to 19 inclusive. If an individual is in that age range then it is a teenager and if it isn't then it's not:
"by definition idiom
: because of what something or someone is : according to the definition of a word that is being used to describe someone or something
A volunteer by definition is not paid.
A glider is by definition an aircraft with no engine."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20definition
By definition, there AREN'T any edge cases -- with gliders, teenagers, vertebrates, males, and females. Which is apparently one of the major benefits of that type of definition -- relatively easy to determine category membership.
Sounds sensible to me but then I'm back to small difference point, clearly I'm not across your initial point but that may well be on me. Cheers.
I'm just not sure if this focus on the limits of male and female being those who have functioning gonads is doing more good than harm. It's very easy for the gender-ideologues and trans activists to run with "children are inherently sexless" in order to promote transgenderism, "sex as as spectrum" and gender-fluidity among children (and I've seen them do it).
What are we getting in return for insisting on this (what seems like a somewhat irrelevant) technicality?
Your definition of "A boy is a prepubescent penis-haver likely to become a male at the onset of puberty" seems problematic in itself, because what if for whatever reason a boy is born without a penis (if that's possible) or loses it through some freak accident or has it surgically removed before puberty... then he would no longer be a boy?
Thanks for your comment Michiel. And for some very good questions. 🙂
But, first off, I rather doubt potential harm should be seen as much of an overriding concern, particularly when scientific accuracy and usefulness seems more important. You may know of the myth of Prometheus:
"In Greek mythology, Prometheus (/prəˈmiːθiəs/; Ancient Greek: Προμηθεύς, [promɛːtʰéu̯s], possibly meaning 'forethought') is a Titan god of fire. Prometheus is best known for defying the gods by stealing fire from them and giving it to humanity in the form of technology, knowledge, and more generally, civilization."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus
We have all sorts of tools, most of which can be misused for many less than socially beneficial "reasons". But that's hardly justification for doing away with them, for crippling ourselves, for obliging ourselves to freeze in the dark.
More particularly, I don't see how various "gender-ideologues" can use those biological definitions (functional gonads) to their benefit since those definitions clearly define the sexes as a binary, not as a spectrum. In addition to which, they underline the "fact", or their logical conclusion, that transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs, NOT into females.
Can't see those gender-ideologues being particularly enthused about championing a definition that cuts them off at the knees -- or elsewhere ... You might have some interest in the increasing popularity of the article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction that endorses those biological definitions I've quoted & linked to, and the number of those "gender-ideologues" who are getting unhorsed by it:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990?login=false
https://oxfordjournals.altmetric.com/details/2802153/twitter
Though those championing that article seem somewhat clueless about the logical consequences of those definitions themselves. Someone should show them the error of their ways ... 😉
But "getting in return" is maybe a question that's a bit harder to answer. Though a short answer might be "what benefit in scientific accuracy?" A principle that's kind of foundational to the whole enterprise. A longer answer is afforded by some cogent observations by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder:
"No one has any idea why mathematics works so well to describe nature, but it is arguably an empirical fact that it works. …. The maybe most important lesson physicists have learned over the past centuries is that if a theory has internal inconsistencies, it is wrong. By internal inconsistencies, I mean that the theory’s axioms lead to statements that contradict each other."
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/12/why-laws-of-nature-are-not-inevitable.html
The "folk-biology" definitions of "biologists" Heying, Hilton, and Wright lead to any number of quite serious contradictions:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
But so what if a "prepubescent penis-haver" loses his penis before puberty? Probably qualifies as a tragedy, but that doesn't change the fact that, by those definitions, he no longer qualifies as a boy. Same thing as with a teenager -- once we've had our 20th birthdays we no longer qualify as such. Too many are making the sexes into immutable identities instead of recognizing that the words "male" and "female" are, by the standard biological definitions, just labels that denote the presence of transitory reproductive abilities.
🙄 Clearly part of the plot for world domination - says so right there in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion 🙄
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitic_trope#World_domination
Certainly teenager is age limited (as are baby, infant, middle-aged and elderly, to less well defined degrees) because it is an age category, and that doesn't equate to an argument that sex must also be age-limited. As I understand it, you stick so strictly to the one criterion for defining sex—production of large or small gametes—that you feel infants, children and post-climacteric quondam women are to be considered sexless. Might we not solve that problem by indicating that sex is defined by the gametes you make during your reproductive years? A girl is a woman-to-be, and a crone an honorary woman still? And the same thing for boys (old men are still producing small motile gametes so I assume you have no issue with their title). I'm not a taxonomist, and I don't think that practical people need be reductionist about diagnosing sex. We can live with the idea that the sexes in normal humans are characterised by the gametes they make when of reproductive age, the chromosomes they have, and by their endocrine functions.
But in the bigger picture, what is the point of this hair-splitting? You don't like the idea of sex being immutable, but why is this? You are not suggesting, I know, that what we used to call a sex-change surgery does anything of the sort, and we all know that. I find it curious, by the way, that the folk who now refer to themselves as 'transgender' still want what is called 'sex-re-assignment surgery.' There is enough confusion about sex and gender without adding to it by claiming sex is a transitory category to which we belong only for part of our lives. Unless, Steers old friend, you are subconsciously trying to assist the trans activists in muddying the waters further. I don't think you are, so what is your purpose?
Hello Chris, thanks for stopping by. 🙂 Was meaning to drop you a line through regular email channels, particularly since it's been about a year since we chatted, and hope to do so a bit later.
But some very good questions about "hair-splitting", and "purpose". To which I don't have any easy or simple answers -- at least "yet"; very much a work in progress. 🙂 However, something of an entry point into that question, some exposition on the crux of the matter is provided by this essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosophy of biology, co-author of Genetics & Philosophy:
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
He kind of goes off into the weeds a bit -- maybe a bit discursive as is maybe typical or called-for in such magazines where one has to cover a lot of ground for a general readership, though I expect you wouldn't have much difficulty "cutting to the chase". But his theme and central points seem clear enough:
"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, 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."
He is quite reasonably concerned about the corruption of biology by ideology -- part and parcel of my article on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism" in case you hadn't taken a gander at it yet ...😉
And in the face of that, it seems the only thing to do is to draw a line in the proverbial sand, and to let the chips fall where they may, by falling back on the strict biological definitions. Somewhat apropos of which, you might have some interest in a thread at the International Skeptics Forum which features something of a debate on that topic between yours truly and, among others, our good buddy Damion:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361531&page=7
Really think the issue is something of a Leonidas at Thermopylae, a Horatio at the bridge situation -- "the fate of Western civilization hanging in the balance". 🙂 Still not sure if that's hyperbole or understatement.
But in furtherance of that "purpose" and objective, I had sent Griffiths an email about a month ago, which he had kindly responded to in some detail, asking about the implications and consequences of those biological definitions. He was still "non-committal" on my "sexless" conclusion, but both his email and the preprint article he sent asking for commentary on -- which I thought rather flattering but encouraging -- more or less endorses it. Hoping that I'm not "speaking out of turn" too much, a relevant passage from the abstract of his article:
"Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are defined by different gametic strategies for
reproduction. 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."
Interesting and quite detailed elaborations later in the body of the article on the concept of "phenotypic space" -- although I suggested in response that he might include "sexless" in that space -- but it seems to be a pretty clear statement that sexes are not "essential properties", that they're merely states that organisms "pass into and out of" over the course of their lives. Hence the objection to "immutable" -- it is flatly contradicted by the standard biological definitions which have a much wider import and utility than just to humans.
But his article -- which is intended for more technical audiences, including his graduate students -- also addresses, in part at least, your later "gametes ... chromosomes ... and endocrine functions" comment and definition. While I, and I expect he, would be quite ready to grant "honorary" status to menopausees -- mothers in particular granted an honorable discharge from the ranks -- and to describe the prepubescent as "potential males and females", he briefly alludes to the problems with conflating those two types of definitions:
"Medical definitions of sex in terms of chromosomes are not definitions of biological sex, they are at best operational definitions of biological sex in humans. However, philosophers and gender studies scholars like Dembroff and Rosario cited above are not primarily concerned with whether sex chromosomes are an adequate operational definition of biological sex. Their concern is with whether sex chromosomes are an adequate criterion for determining the social or legal status of human beings as men or women. This is, obviously, a very different question from whether sex chromosomes reliably indicate biological sex and is outside the scope of this paper."
In large part why he and I argue, directly or indirectly, that the biological definitions for the sexes are simply the wrong tools for the job that society is trying to press them into doing. Trying to shoehorn the social-justice foot into the glass slipper of biology is simply going to cripple the former and shatter the latter -- so to speak. 🙂
Why I've argued that we should cut to the chase and simply use genitalia or karyotypes for adjudicating claims to various spaces: one set of toilets and change rooms for the vagina-havers, and one set for the penis-havers -- and reasonable facsimiles thereof. And for women's sports, no XY need apply ... 😉🙂
Bit of a complex issue compounded by too many putting feelings before facts, by a lack of clear, unambiguous, and scientifically justified definitions for the terms in play. More or less my "purpose". 🙂
Since chromosomes (and endocrine status for that matter) accord with sex in 99% of the population, I see no harm in including them in the characteristics of the sexes. It seems awfully narrow to say 'gamete status only' because sexual reproduction is all we are interested in. I'd point out that the percentage of adult humans who do not produce any gametes because of embryological, congenital and acquire conditions is likely about the same as the percentage where chromosomal or endocrine disorders screw up sex prediction. I don't see that it serves any practical purpose in our society to say that, for example, a man is no longer male after having a vasectomy, and ditto for a tubal ligation.
If clarity and unambiguity are your goals (laudable in themselves), I'd leave the argument as a curious and unimportant technicality. But I can't help thinking you must have some further end, envisaging a benefit to society as a result of your way of looking at things? This isn't all just pedantry, is it?
Chris: "Since chromosomes ... accord with sex in 99% of the population ..."
Think you've indicated that you have a decent amount of statistics under your belt -- something which too many are lacking in, though it is something of a "counter-intuitive" topic. But from that point of view, and of the standard biological definitions -- those based on functional gonads -- chromosomes, genitalia, and "endocrine status" are what might be called "proxy variables". They correlate to a high degree with the primary variable (gonads) from which we might INFER the existence of the corresponding primary variable, but they are NOT the defining or essential trait of the sex categories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
While I have no problem in, as you put it, recognizing that chromosomes etc. are "characteristics [typical] OF the sexes", that is profoundly different from the criteria that define those categories, that are the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership. Conflating the two is a large part of the problem, or a major contributing factor in that problem, whose final (toxic) flower is transgenderism.
Somewhat apropos of which, both you and your wife -- as a "very clever child psychiatrist" 🙂 -- may have some interest in this article -- by Sahar Sadjadi of McGill University -- titled, "Deep in the Brain: Identity and Authenticity in Pediatric Gender Transition":
Sadjadi: "Moreover, the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations I witnessed was striking... As a physician and anthropologist of medicine, ... I was perplexed by this merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition."
https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728/430
In addition, while I have some sympathy for your inadvertent or intentional attempts to mash those "proxy variables" into the definitions for the sexes, the fact of the matter is that they really aren't any part of credible lexical or biological definitions, and conflict rather badly with them:
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Maybe more importantly though, trying to mash those "proxy variables" into the standard definitions is basically turning the definitions for the sexes into polythetic categories. And those are more or less equivalent to the "family resemblances" concept that Michael Shermer tried to use to turn both "woman" and the sexes into spectra. See my comment for elaborations:
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman-anyway/comment/7630788
But that is virtually the same as what Novella was doing over at the sadly misnamed "Science-Based Medicine"; see my comments for details, this one in particular:
http://disq.us/p/2q8lu0y
That's the problem with family resemblances -- if you're not careful who you let in, the next thing you know you're sitting down to Christmas dinner with the Manson Family ...😉
The point is that at some point you have to draw a line in the sand, you have to call a spade a fucking shovel by saying exactly what you mean by the terms in question; waffling and self-serving evasiveness, and putting feeling before facts is a large part of the whole problem. There are many different definitions for the sexes on tap, but some are clearly better than others; we HAVE to use reason and logic to choose the ones we're going to accept as trump -- you'll excuse the term ... 😉
Chris: "But I can't help thinking you must have some further end, envisaging a benefit to society as a result of your way of looking at things? This isn't all just pedantry, is it?"
No, certainly don't see it as "just pedantry". Think my article on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism" underlines and elaborates on that argument, and addresses that "further end", in some detail. Lysenkoism -- as the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable" -- is pervasive, pernicious, and pathological. And as I've indicated there, it's not just me that is saying that. See another Canadian Substacker's take -- even if I think the author "stole" my idea without due credit ... 😉
https://artymorty.substack.com/p/lysenkoism-all-over-again
Still a useful addition to the dialogue, though I think he's too quick to absolve feminism itself for its not-insignificant contributions to the transgender clusterfuck, largely because of its own tendency to Lysenkoism (details in my post on the topic).
Somewhat en passant and to close, not sure how new you are to Substack, but you might be interested in these ones, my comments there in particular 🙂:
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-209/comment/9971129
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/monday-october-24-2022/comment/9971422
Functioning gonads are not part of "standard biological definitions," however many times you repeat this. There is no corroboration for this notion in any biological literature.
You suffer from an idée fixe, which is a pathological condition. Get some help.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id%C3%A9e_fixe_(psychology)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_personality_disorder
Noteworthy in reading your tiresomely verbatious writings is a marked tendency to leave the actual argument (which you never satisfactorily address) into ever broader levels of generality; definitions, categories, philosophy. What you cannot manage in specificity you instead seek to "dazzle with bullshit" at hopelessly abstract levels of, well, nothing.
Final thought for you. When you write:
"But from that point of view, and of the standard biological definitions -- those based on functional gonads -- chromosomes, genitalia, and "endocrine status" are what might be called "proxy variables". They correlate to a high degree with the primary variable (gonads) from which we might INFER the existence of the corresponding primary variable, but they are NOT the defining or essential trait of the sex categories:"
Riddle me this—Regardless of gametes, would you be a human male if you did not have XY chromosomes? Could you be male if you did not grow your tissues under the influence of testosterone? And to close the circle, without testosterone you would not produce those gametes that define your maleness, would you? It turns out gametes are just another tell-tale that give away underlying sex. But without all of the mechanisms that lie hidden under the surface it is a sham.
Chris: "Riddle me this—Regardless of gametes, would you be a human male if you did not have XY chromosomes? .... But without all of the mechanisms that lie hidden under the surface it is a sham."
Think you're still conflating the criteria for category membership with all of the ancillary traits and processes that lead to the possession of those criteria in the first place which then qualify as the membership dues. Though many people stumble over that hurdle or balk even before getting to it.
But I'm not the only one to draw attention to that fact, and to the attending problems. For example, see this series of tweets -- in Nitter so you don't need Twitter to view them -- from biologist Emma Hilton:
https://nitter.it/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154#m
"Emma Hilton:
An interjection.
The word ‘determine’ has a specific meaning in developmental biology, and it’s not the same as lay use.
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)’.
That chromosomes determine sex, in a dev bio sense, does not necessarily mean that sex can be identified by observing chromosomes (although it’s obviously an astonishingly good marker [proxy]).
A lot of non-experts get caught up in mistaking technical language as lay usage."
Maybe not quite as clear and conclusive as I would have liked, but I think she clearly differentiates between the structures (chromosomes) that "drives sex differentiation" and the traits (functional gonads) that allows one to conclusively "identify" the organism's sex.
Another of her earlier tweet threads underlines her (then) view that it is, for females, the "making of large gametes" that "determines", or grants membership in that category, and over a wide range of species:
https://nitter.it/FondOfBeetles/status/1133120326844506112#m
Though I qualified that statement with "then" since she -- along with her partners in crime, "biologists" Heather Heying and Colin Wright -- later repudiated that definition with a "structure-absent-function" definition that basically turns each sex into a spectrum of three, i.e., having gonads of past, present, or future functionality:
https://nitter.it/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554#m
Rather profoundly unscientific if not actually anti-scientific. Really don't think that accusing them of Lysenkoism, as I've done, is without substance. They too are putting feelings before facts.
Yes, indeed, words are ambiguous by definition and categories always have fuzzy boundaries...
that's biology....
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/whats-a-woman-whats-a-man-whats-an
Not always "fuzzy boundaries". You think "teenager" is "fuzzy"? How about "prime number"?
The fuzziness is often due to detecting the defining trait, not in trait itself. "produces gametes" seems clear, often easily detected - those with no gonads at all are, ipso facto, neither male nor female, are therefore sexless.
Well, I understand your point. However, we may disagree on some of the details of the category issue... i.e., discrete versus continuous variables, and the inherent ambiguities of biological terminology. (That's why scientists use operational definitions in scientific papers.) However, as I've argued, the ambiguous edge cases don't necessarily negate the category. In other words, I recognize two discrete sexes in primates. In any event, I enjoyed your essay... It was both thoughtful and well argued!
Thanks muchly for the compliment - a rather difficult and convoluted topic, not to mention "contentious" and "sensitive". Many people are rather "nonplussed", to say the least, at the prospect of being deprived of their membership cards in the sex categories - part and parcel of making the sexes into identities that I discussed in some detail.
However ... 😉, while I at least did something of a thorough skim of your own kick at that kitty, I kinda get the impression that you're evading the question, or that you're rejecting the biological definitions I've quoted. For instance, in response to your question of "what is a man?", you say:
"I would say it’s an adult human with a functioning SRY gene (carried on the Y chromosome), and functioning androgen receptors (which mediate the effects of masculinizing hormones). "
But there's nothing in the biological definitions about Y chromosomes, much less a SRY gene since those definitions are "designed" to cover ALL sexually-reproducing species, at least those exhibiting anisogamy (most of them, apparently). "Redefining" the category the way you - and many others - are doing seems little short of special pleading.
Might be moot whether the biological definitions are ideal or even optimal - maybe there are properties that are better than functional gonads. But those ARE the definitions on the table - the "problem" is that too many want to sweep them off it and under the carpet. Don't think the transgender clusterfuck, and more than a few related problems, is going to be resolved without taking that bull by the horns.
But, somewhat apropos of which and ICYMI, you might take a gander at the essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - philosophy professor, philosophy of biology, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - and a salient quote or two therefrom:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]. [my editorializing ...]"
"On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Evading the question of what are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership is, I think, just contributing to that "tragic mistake".
Actually I was defining a human man, not sex, per se. I see no problem problem if you want to have a somewhat different — but basically reasonable — operational definition... but there are always edge cases (e.g., Swyer syndrome). In any event, I understand your point. However, all biological categories do have some ambiguities, as I said. Even the category "vertebrates" that you used.... It seems the Myxini got kicked out recently, just like the Enteropneusta got kicked out of the group Chordata (though it baffles me why).... Biologists can't even agree on the precise definition of "species." ...and I'm still pissed off that Pluto is no longer a planet.
In the end, though, arguing about the 'precise' definition of sex will never solve any problems... there's just two in primates. As I said in my article about abortion, people who know a lot about biology can drive any argument down to the subatomic level.... And, given that my 1st degree was in philosophy, and I have published some history and philosophy of biology, the last place I would go for clarity would be to a philosopher of science.
So, in any event, I agree with you in principle and spirit, and I still think your article is great....
Now if I could just figure out how the "production of gametes" helps me define sexes in the Hydozoans, Polypodiopsida, and Darevskia... (just kidding here)
"I'm still pissed off that Pluto is no longer a planet."
No longer *considered* a planet.
I have a feeling this will someday be reversed and I hope it's in my lifetime. I found its removal from the list unpersuasive; it orbits the sun, albeit 30° out of the ecliptic plane, it does not orbit another planet. It may have originated as a moon of Neptune, but, so what?
But I'm prejudiced. I read about Clyde Tombaugh's 1930 discovery at a young age.
Frederick: "Actually I was defining a human man, not sex, per se. ..."
You're right, I stand corrected, mea culpa, shoot me at dawn ... 😉
Though I still think you're evading the question. Do you, for example, accept or not these definitions for male & female?
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
How about those in the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction?
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Don't think we can meaningfully talk about a topic if we can't even agree on common points of reference - generally our definitions.
Frederick: "... but there are always edge cases (e.g., Swyer syndrome). ....."
Disagree. Where are the "edge cases" in "teenager", in "bachelor"? Starting from the biological definitions above, those with Swyer syndrome are sexless, they're neither male nor female because they have "functionless gonads":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis
Functional gonads are the sine qua non for the biological definitions for the sexes.
Kinda think you're trying to "square the circle" in not wanting to "offend" anyone by excluding them from the sex categories. Putting the cart before the horse. Seem to recollect reading that Darwin delayed publishing his Origin of the Species because it "offended" his wife, a religious fundamentalist.
Frederick: "Biologists can't even agree on the precise definition of 'species.' ...."
You in particular might like this article by Marc Van Regenmortel, a fairly credible Belgian virologist, this passage in particular:
"Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309889266_Classes_taxa_and_categories_in_hierarchical_virus_classification_a_review_of_current_debates_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species
There's some rhyme and reason to how we define our categories. Not sure that those with no grounding at all in those topics should have much in the way any credibility or voice in such discussions.
But of particular note in Regenmortel's article is his discussion of the difference between polythetic and monothetic categories. Needham in particular argues that "edge cases" are more or less expected in the former, while the latter - the biological definitions for the sexes, for example - more or less exclude them by definition:
https://ia902701.us.archive.org/2/items/PolytheticClassificationConvergenceAndConsequences/65935-Rodney-Needham-Polythetic-Classification-Convergence-and-Consequences.pdf
But somewhat apropos of both of those articles, I'm somewhat curious about your earlier, "we may disagree on some of the details of the category issue... i.e., discrete versus continuous variables". Particularly since I had been arguing - over in the (somewhat misnamed) International Skeptics Forum - that the "definitions" for the sexes of ostensible biologists Heying, Hilton, and Wright boil down into two discrete spectra of 3 based on past, present, or future functionality:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13907236&postcount=134
Maybe you were lurking about over there? 🙂
This is very interesting and, again, it's pithy and thought-provoking. It's more than I can reply to at this moment and I don't want to be disrespectful by giving it short shrift. However, there are two interesting points I'd like to mention.... Regarding why Darwin delayed, I've written a scholarly article on that topic which is really quite fascinating (not the article, necessarily, I mean the topic). But, I'm pretty sure that nothing to do with offending his wife. (I've spent a lot of time reading through Darwin's personal notebooks.) Darwin, too, was a religious person. Here's a link if you're interested:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00141472
Regarding the "teenager" category, most people think it starts at 13. The CDC says differently:
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/childdevelopment/positiveparenting/adolescence.html
Words aren't reality.... They are just the sounds we use to represent reality. Again, that's why scientists use operational definitions. So, thanks again.... We can continue a little later.
My best, Frederick
See what happens when you stop keeping mating pairs of hamsters in elementary school classrooms?
Sure a bunch of people who seem to not have a clue about reproduction, who want to "decouple" the categories "male" and "female" from that process. Includes a bunch of so-called biologists who should know better.
But reminds me of a generally very good essay over at Weekly Worker by Amanda MacLean titled "Decoupled from Reality":
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1247/decoupled-from-reality/
"What is a real man?"
Good question ... 🙄 You're conflating sex -- i.e., reproductive abilities -- and gender -- i.e., various psychological traits that are more typical of one sex than the other, that are sexually dimorphic.
And I don't think you have a clue about biology or any of the philosophical and logical principles which undergird the field. There are solid reasons why biology DEFINES the sexes the way they do, largely because "produces large gametes" or "produces small gametes" is so ubiquitous across literally millions of species:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
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)
But more particularly, those biological definitions (above) STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. Even "biologist" PZ Myers more or less agrees in arguing that many "cis women" don't qualify as females:
https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342
Though it doesn't sit well with many women that they lose their "female" membership cards at the onset of menopause as a result of those definitions. I've been blocked by some of the "best" -- Kathleen Stock, Helen Joyce, and Jane Clare Jones for examples -- for so arguing:
https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:640/format:webp/1*ugstS8q8udfV2LkMCGhNUA.jpeg
Delicate sensibilities ... 🙄
" ... reduces human identity to gamete size. ... "
What pigheaded ignorance and pretentious twaddle. No one is "reducing" anyone's identity to gamete size. By standard biological definitions, "male" and "female" are just labels denoting those with functional gonads -- which often has a great deal of relevance and use, not just in biology but also in society.
You might just as well get your knickers in a twist at defining "teenager" as those 13 to 19 for "reducing human identity to age ranges". 🙄
"Your comparison of biological sex categories to age ranges like 'teenager is a false equivalence. Age is an objective measure of time passed since birth, while sex and gender are complex, multifaceted aspects of identity shaped by biological, psychological, and social factors."
What unmitigated self-serving horse crap. Being charitable. You clearly haven't a flaming clue about analogies -- try reading this if you're capable of it which seems unlikely:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
Nor do you have flaming clue that, by definition, the sexes are JUST names for categories and members of them. Read this if you're capable of it which, again, seems unlikely:
"sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
While you're right that the category "teenager" has objective criteria for category membership, the SAME is also true of the sex categories, i.e., having functional gonads of either of two types. No gonads, no sex.
THAT is what that analogy is illustrating. Both "teenager" and "female" have objective criteria for category membership. And there's no way, in Gawd's green earth, that any transwoman -- even if he cuts his nuts off -- is going to qualify as a female. Suck it up buttercups.
👍 Thanks for reposting -- was wondering what had happened to it. Substack has many things going for it, but still rough around the edges. 🙂
But your "metaphysical belief" reminds me of something of a brilliant insight from an essay (2019) in the Journal of Cultural Anthropology by Sahar Sadjadi:
Sadjadi: "Throughout my fieldwork at children’s gender clinics, expert meetings, and conferences in the United States between 2010 and 2012, and during subsequent follow-up research, I was intrigued by the hegemony of the interior origins of authentic self and identity and the rejection of possible external, including social, origins of identity. .... Moreover, the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations I witnessed was striking .... I was perplexed by this merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition. .... As another example, I encountered the word 'soul' in an article published by a team from a pediatric gender clinic at Harvard, who are pioneers of new developments in the field ..."
https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728/430
https://www.mcgill.ca/ssom/staff/sahar-sadjadi
"magico-spiritual undertone ... merging of science, magic, and religion". 🤯😲 Gawd help us all, so to speak ... 🙂
Bit of a puzzle, a Gordian Knot. Though whole concept of "personal identity" is likewise, and which seems to be what gender-identity boils down into, more or less, although with various "sexually dimorphic" traits or "properties" added to the mix:
SEP: "Outside of philosophy, the term ‘personal identity’ commonly refers to properties to which we feel a special sense of attachment or ownership. My personal identity in this sense consists of those properties I take to 'define me as a person' or 'make me the person I am'. (The precise meaning of these phrases is hard to pin down.) ..."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-personal/
Though can't say I've more than skimmed that article -- a lot to chew through.
JAH: "This is a fascinating book ...."
Thanks; looks interesting; bookmarked. A fascinating field is neuroscience; some reason to think that that "final frontier" of Star Trek is not out beyond Pluto but between our ears. 🙂
But along the same line, you might be interested in Michael Shermer's "Believing Brain":
Amazon: "Synthesizing thirty years of research, psychologist and science historian Michael Shermer upends the traditional thinking about how humans form beliefs about the world. Simply put, beliefs come first and explanations for beliefs follow. The brain, Shermer argues, is a belief engine."
https://www.amazon.ca/Believing-Brain-Conspiracies-How-Construct-Reinforce/dp/1250008808/
You might also like something a bit more technical if somewhat speculative, although still something of a popularization of the science:
Amazon: "Calvin's single, simple purpose for The Cerebral Code is to propose a substantial hypothesis for how the human cerebral cortex might work."
https://www.amazon.ca/Cerebral-Code-Thinking-Thought-Mosaics/dp/0262531542
See also:
http://www.williamcalvin.com/everything.htm
http://williamcalvin.com/bk9/
JAH: "Lots of atheists have abandoned religion, but replaced it with other 'spiritual' beliefs. ..."
Indeed. Maybe they need to find Jesus again ... 😉🙂
👍🙂 I'd made some 60 pages of notes from his Believing Brain when I read it some 10 years ago. One quote in particular seems particularly relevant these days:
MS: "As we saw in the previous chapter, politics is filled with self-justifying rationalizations. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative shaded glasses. When you listen to both 'conservative talk radio' and 'progressive talk radio' you will hear current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. So incongruent are the interpretations of even the simplest goings-on in the daily news that you wonder if they can possibly be talking about the same event.” [pg. 263]
ICYMI from the Skeptic magazine, he also has a Substack you might want to check out, particularly his post on Walsh's documentary:
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman-anyway
Though, as some useful preliminaries, he goes into some philosophy on what are called "family-resemblance" type of categories. A useful concept of some relevance, particularly to the definition for "woman". But those types of categories basically boil down into spectra -- maybe of some bearing on defining "woman" as a gender, but I think he's trying to argue that they also apply to "male" and "female" as sexes. To which I objected ... 🙂
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman-anyway/comment/7630788
But well past my bedtime -- 2:00 AM here on the wet west coast of Canada. Cheers.