IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th August 2022, 02:09 PM   #681
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'd likely be interested in discussing such attempts at redefinition (assuming you have one in mind) in the thread about trans issues.
Haven't got a clue what you're getting at ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Yes, but the criteria for eligibility to undertake surrogate motherhood are different than the criteria to compete in women's sport, and each of those are different than the criteria to visit MichfestWP.
So ******* what?

You're missing the point or refusing to engage with it. Use the criteria, ditch the definitions - at least those incompatible with the biological ones.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
People with de la Chapelle syndromeWP probably shouldn't be in women's sport; karyotype isn't enough information here.
WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy? Methinks you too need to learn how to read past the first sentence in a paragraph ...

Quote:
In 90 percent of these individuals, the syndrome is caused by the Y chromosome's SRY gene, which triggers male reproductive development, being atypically included in the crossing over of genetic information that takes place between the pseudoautosomal regions of the X and Y chromosomes during meiosis in the father.
Cause of the balance seems genetically murky.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Already asked and answered.
LoL. "Because the Bible tells me so" ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
None of the credible lexicographers, encyclopedists, or biologists have adopted your habit of calling newborns with 46, XY karyotype "pre-males," though. Either they misunderstand what "male" means in English, or you do.
So ******* WHAT?

https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/a...n_doyle_134512

But lots of people champion principles but then balk and turn turtle when they find themselves hoist by their own petards. You & PZ for examples ...

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove rule 10 breaches. As has been explained to you previously, do not disguise or misspell swear words in the public sections. Type them out in full and allow the autocensor to work.

Last edited by Agatha; 19th August 2022 at 01:06 PM.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2022, 02:45 PM   #682
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Haven't got a clue what you're getting at
This isn't the thread where you can reasonably expect people to reply on trans issues, because they know what happens to off topic posts.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
WTF do you think I referenced the SRY gene thingy?
Why bother mentioning karyotype if you know it's not the relevant criterion?

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
"Because the Bible tells me so"
You asked for my criteria in "discussions about sexual reproduction," I've already told you that upthread.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
So ******* WHAT?
So I've concluded that you've misunderstood what they were trying to say. Had they really meant what you think they do, we'd see evidence of that meaning in their usage (e.g. when they talk about pre-pubertal males).
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by Agatha; 19th August 2022 at 01:07 PM. Reason: rule 10 in quote
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2022, 08:03 PM   #683
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edit for rule 0 and rule 12.
I don't care what you think about me, and you're not even addressing my argument.

Once again, my argument is this: You don't have examples of other people refusing to call infants "male" or post-menopausal women "female" and so it appears you are using those words in a manner entirely unique to yourself.

Words are for communication with other people though.

If you cannot find examples of lexicographers or scientists using these words as you do, you might should stop and ask why.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by zooterkin; 20th August 2022 at 12:35 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2022, 05:33 AM   #684
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But I've clearly been championing any number of individuals and sources - Griffiths, Parker & Lehtonen, Lexico, Google/OED, Wikipedia, the Journals of Theoretical Biology & of Molecular Human Reproduction, etc., etc. - who I'm clearly thinking are anything but "ignoramuses".
Which of those sources refer to 46, XY newborns (without DSDs) as sexless pre-males?

Sent from my Grotti Brioso using Tapatalk
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 19th August 2022 at 05:34 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2022, 06:49 AM   #685
Lithrael
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,389
I don’t understand why all y’all are getting so frustrated with Steersman for wanting to work with a novel definition when his whole entire line of argument is that a novel definition (one that is connected to very definite, well delineated, straight up logical attributes) would be helpful in these trying times.

If we don’t have one then we continue with the current situation where we sing half of ‘modern major general’ every time we want everyone in the room to know exactly what kind of person we are talking about (without getting vulgar or missing out edge cases).

Getting such a thing adopted into the general lexicon might indeed be a non starter, but that doesn’t make the idea itself impossible to hash out.

Last edited by Lithrael; 19th August 2022 at 06:53 AM.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2022, 08:10 AM   #686
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I don’t understand why all y’all are getting so frustrated with Steersman for wanting to work with a novel definition...
Because he doesn't recognize his definition as novel or stipulative, he sincerely believes that Lexico was wrong in their example usage sentences that incorporate phrases such as "female embryo" or "infant male."

ETA: I'm also skeptical of the idea that a stipulative definition which hinges on active gamete production will indeed "be helpful in these trying times." Which social or political or metaphysical issues would be solved by lumping a huge number of hitherto sexed people into the category of sexless?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 19th August 2022 at 08:58 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2022, 10:16 AM   #687
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,442
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I don’t understand why all y’all are getting so frustrated with Steersman for wanting to work with a novel definition when his whole entire line of argument is that a novel definition (one that is connected to very definite, well delineated, straight up logical attributes) would be helpful in these trying times.

If we don’t have one then we continue with the current situation where we sing half of ‘modern major general’ every time we want everyone in the room to know exactly what kind of person we are talking about (without getting vulgar or missing out edge cases).

Getting such a thing adopted into the general lexicon might indeed be a non starter, but that doesn’t make the idea itself impossible to hash out.
Steersman has been repeatedly invited to explain how his definition solves the problem he purports to be solving. He has so far declined to do so. Meanwhile, his proposed solution actually appears to make the ostensible problem worse not better. If you believe you can explain how his proposed solution actually solves anything, please do so. If you think you can get Steersman to explain it, where others have tried and failed, please remonstrate with him.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2022, 03:03 PM   #688
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
So ******* WHAT?
So the best interpretation of the Webster's 1828 definition is not that it specified necessary conditions which must apply at all times.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by zooterkin; 20th August 2022 at 12:22 AM. Reason: Rule 10 in quoted post
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2022, 03:11 PM   #689
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,442
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post


You might have had a point IF I was saying that everyone I've met is an ignoramus. But I've clearly been championing any number of individuals and sources - Griffiths, Parker & Lehtonen, Lexico, Google/OED, Wikipedia, the Journals of Theoretical Biology & of Molecular Human Reproduction, etc., etc. - who I'm clearly thinking are anything but "ignoramuses".

So you don't - just some butthurt by the look of it.
Griffiths is a philosopher, but in his defense he says his definition is impractical.

The various lexicons you've appealed to don't actually agree with you. Nor do the scientific journals.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 08:37 AM   #690
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You might try answering the questions I put to "d4m10" (sic) that "he" seems to lack the intellectual honesty to do
C'mon now my preferred pronouns are right there in the avatar pic.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 20th August 2022 at 08:45 AM.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 08:55 AM   #691
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
Originally Posted by porch View Post
I'm just gonna drop this quote here and give appropriate thanks for your furthering of scientific literacy.

This was the one about a man ceasing to be male when he puts on a condom and reverting to male when he takes it off. (I think that information might surprise the female half of the transaction.)

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how a man (not vasectomised) who is sitting quietly watching TV is male, whereas a vasectomised man sitting quietly watching TV is not. Both are producing sperm. Neither is delivering them. Both are equally capable of delivering them in the future.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 01:03 PM   #692
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
Originally Posted by Lithrael
I haven’t scoured the whole thread; did you have a term of preference for intersex humans who are neither male nor female? Or do you say the whole sentence each time you refer to them?

Just to add a dissenting opinion. There is no such thing as an "intersex human [being] who is neither male nor female".

Most anomalies of development of the genital organs are sex specific. Klinefelter's men are male, Turner's women are female and so on. These people will not thank you for opining that they're not "real" men or women. Chimeras and mosaics get a bit more complicated, but to take an example from cattle, freemartins are female even though they have male cells in their bloodstream - if they weren't female they wouldn't have been affected by the freemartin disorder. (Their twin brothers don't have any apparent disorder at all and are fully fertile, despite having female cells circulating in their bloodstream.)

Even where a developmental anomaly has caused tissues of both sexes to develop, one sex is clearly predominant and the tissue of the opposite sex is an anomaly that is often best removed.

There's a reason why birth certificates and passports and so on have only two options for "sex" (or they did until the non-binary nutters got going), and that is that there are only two, and we don't have people who can't be classified as one or the other. Mistakes have happened in the past but these are becoming increasingly rare and usually confined to deprived societies with poor neonatal healthcare. The fact that people occasionally get their sums wrong doesn't invalidate counting.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 01:12 PM   #693
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
Originally Posted by Lplus View Post
No, not my bag at at all, but I was also referring to those males who refuse to "take responsibility for gender non conforming males" (aka trans women) who I assume have no wish to be taken care of by males at all, at least in terms of "mens' spaces". You do seem to suggest a certain animosity to them as well.

Does that include me? No idea, never personally been faced with the question.

Actually that's quite a pertinent question. I suspect these males are largely a figment of the trans imagination. Multiple transwomen with a reasonable grasp of reality have reported using the Gents' without any problems at all. (The very feminine-presenting Blaire White has reported doing so, and getting no more than some very strange looks.) However, whenever we suggest that male people should simply use the Gents' we are subjected to a barrage of invective that we can't possibly condemn these poor fragile trans flowers to going in the Gents' because they would inevitably be assaulted and beaten up.

So in a sense my post was directed at these hypothetical men who would surely beat up a transwoman and are the reason "she" has to impose "her" male presence in the Ladies'. Maybe normal decent men could make it clear that this isn't something that's going to happen - as indeed it seems to be a very rare occurrence if it happens at all.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 01:45 PM   #694
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
So it all depends on the time required before the man might be in a position to deliver viable sperm. This gets more complicated by the minute. It also seems to depend on the fertility status of his wife, which is a new one. Once a woman passes the menopause, is her husband then by your definition sexless?

Remind me again what problem your novel definition is supposed to solve and how it will solve it?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 01:52 PM   #695
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,442
If I understand correctly, he stops being male every time his wife's period starts. Or she stops being female. Or both. Probably both.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 01:57 PM   #696
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
So it all depends on the time required before the man might be in a position to deliver viable sperm. This gets more complicated by the minute. It also seems to depend on the fertility status of his wife, which is a new one. Once a woman passes the menopause, is her husband then by your definition sexless?

Remind me again what problem your novel definition is supposed to solve and how it will solve it?
Don't think you're paying much attention either. Or are being particularly intellectually honest. My opening salvo was directed at, as I had emphasized, your untenable "Both are equally capable" - which is clearly not the case.

The rest of my comment - the bulk of it which you seem surprisingly unwilling to address - was directed at the puzzling if rather ridiculous "cognitive distortions" that apparently undergird the "definitions" promoted by "folk biology".

The problem is that no one has clue these days about what qualifies people - and members of other sexually reproducing species - as "male" or "female" because pretty much every man and their dogs has different and conflicting definitions for the sexes. Seems the only way off the horns of that dilemma is to fallback on the biological definitions - which you, and most others here, seem rather unwilling to address. Not particularly commendable, credible, or constituting much in the way of any evidence of intellectual honesty ...
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 01:59 PM   #697
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If I understand correctly, he stops being male every time his wife's period starts. Or she stops being female. Or both. Probably both.
You don't ...
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:00 PM   #698
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,442
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
LoL. Honorable mention in the "How Many Angels?" debate ...

Though you might try reading and thinking about what followed after the "Super Bowl" comment, a point at which you seem to have stopped doing that ...
I did read it all the way through. In fact, I read it twice, just to make sure I had it right. You present us with three men:

The first is ready to have sex immediately when offered, and therefore is male.

The second is not ready to have sex because he has to reverse a vasectomy first, and therefore is not male.

The third is not ready to have sex because he'd rather watch the Superbowl instead, and is therefore __________________.

Following the logic of the first two men, the proper thing to fill in the blank for the third man is "not male".

What about if the man is traveling overseas for business? His wife face-times him and says she's ovulating and wishes he was home to give her the business. But he's still going to be on the other side of the world for another two weeks. Is he not male for those two weeks?

Does he become male again if he goes out looking for one of those happy ending massage parlors that are so common overseas? Does he stop being male if he mistakenly ends up in a vanilla massage parlor that works out the knots in his lower back but doesn't, you know? Or did he never actually become male in the first place, since it wasn't one of those other parlors after all?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:02 PM   #699
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,442
What about low sperm count? If the guy's only producing a handful of tired little swimmers is he only like 1.2% male?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:03 PM   #700
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,442
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
: rolleyes : You don't ...
It was rhetorical. Of course I understand correctly.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:07 PM   #701
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What about low sperm count? If the guy's only producing a handful of tired little swimmers is he only like 1.2% male?
Red herrings and angels on pinheads ....

Guy with his nuts cut off - by the standard biological definitions, still a male or not?
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:08 PM   #702
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It was rhetorical. Of course I understand correctly.
Not it wasn't and you don't.

You're evading the question of what are the biological definitions for the sexes and their logical consequences.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:08 PM   #703
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
What about a man who would pass any fertility test with flying colours, but who is faithful to an infertile wife?

Is he not male while he remains faithful, but if he strays in the direction of a fertile woman then he becomes male? Is that how it works?

But what if that "fertile" woman is on the pill, thus not ovulating? Is he still not-male? (Is she not-female?) What if she has a uterine coil implanted, so although she can ovulate and the ovum can be fertilised, it can't implant and grow into a foetus? Surely he's male then, as he can fertilise an ovum produced by that woman?

But then, maybe he had his unfaithful fling with a fertile woman, but at a point in her cycle when she can't conceive? Not-male again?

Inquiring minds want to know.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:11 PM   #704
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Red herrings and angels on pinheads ....

Guy with his nuts cut off - by the standard biological definitions, still a male or not?

By the standard biological definitions of everyone on the planet but you, he's male.

Signed Rolfe, BVMS, BSc, PhD, FIBiol*, MRCVS.

*Fellow of the Institute of Biology
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:12 PM   #705
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,442
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Red herrings and angels on pinheads ....

Guy with his nuts cut off - by the standard biological definitions, still a male or not?
Of course he is.
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Not it wasn't and you don't.

You're evading the question of what are the biological definitions for the sexes and their logical consequences.
For someone who is obsessed with needing the most logical definition, you sure are having a hard time following the logic of your proposed definition.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:12 PM   #706
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
<snip>

Inquiring minds want to know.
No, you most certainly don't. You desperately want to hang onto quite unscientific definitions for the sexes, and lack the intellectual honesty to address the standard, and well-supported biological ones and their logical consequences.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:15 PM   #707
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
I know what the standard biological definitions of the sexes are. I worked in the biological sciences all my career and have a damn sight more biological education and expertise than you'll ever have. Buttercup.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:41 PM   #708
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
Hey, that was a really good book!
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 02:44 PM   #709
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
What unmitigated horse crap.

I'm still waiting for links to and quotes of dictionaries and encyclopedias and reputable journals endorsing that structure-absent-function schlock of Hilton & Company. And for a refutation of what I've posted on that score ...

You have any of that or not?

A lifetime of dealing with castrated males and spayed females and male puppies and female kittens (and the problem of correctly "sexing" kittens at a certain age), and not a single book or paper or reference contradicting any of that. On the contrary, the entire body of literature underpins that usage.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 03:00 PM   #710
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,511
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I know what ye thinks. I've considered your argument very carefully. I've seen how far it goes. I've seen how it handles rebuttals. All the worthwhile debate has concluded. This thread has now entered a phase I like to call "the long dark teatime of the soul" (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

But if we use Steersman's interpretation, a post-menopausal woman would have grounds for divorce if her husband were male.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 03:18 PM   #711
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I'm still waiting for links to and quotes of dictionaries and encyclopedias and reputable journals endorsing that structure-absent-function schlock of Hilton & Company.
I'm still waiting for links to dictionaries and encyclopedias and reputable journals which don't implicitly endorse structure-absent-function by referring to infant males and postmenopausal females.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 03:29 PM   #712
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
All these long years of training and practice, starting in 1971 with basic biology and covering reproduction and fertility in the final years of college. All the classes on how to tell the sex of everything from a two-week-old kitten to a day-old chick. All the years and years of clinical practice dealing with castrated males and spayed females and male kittens and female puppies. All the post-mortem examinations on aborted foetuses, where I was required to record the sex of the foetus as male or female.

And never once, not a single time, did a lecturer or a professor say, you must bear in mind that is sloppy usage, these are really pre-male or pre-female, or maybe they'll never be either if you neuter them early enough (or in the case of the foetuses, already dead), but rather than speak of them as being sexless we just say male or female for convenience. Never once did anyone suggest that we find some other words to distinguish between spayed females and castrated males, because using "male" and "female" wasn't strictly correct.

Even in my PhD thesis, although I got lambasted for using the word "parameter" incorrectly by a somewhat pedantic (though correct) examiner, nobody took issue with my repeated description of many of the horses as "castrated males". Biology and the biological sciences abound with pedantic people. If someone thinks a word is being used in a sloppy manner they say so. You want to hear the arguments about the use of "organic" in relation to woo-woo farming (as opposed to the branch of chemistry dealing with carbon compounds). But on this central issue, not a peep.

So come on, Steersman. Show us the reputable biologists who are pointing out that normal usage is incorrect and that these individuals are neither male nor female but sexless. And then tell me how pet animal practice is going to cope when it is still necessary to know the sex of the patient even if he/she is neutered, and even if he/she was neutered before puberty.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th August 2022 at 03:49 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 03:50 PM   #713
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
<snip>

So come on, Steersman. Show us the reputable biologists who are pointing out that normal usage is incorrect and that these individuals are neither male nor female but sexless.
https://twitter.com/pzmyers/status/1466458067491598342



Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
And then tell me how pet animal practice is going to cope when it is still necessary to know the sex of the patient even if he/she is neutered, and even if he/she was neutered before puberty.
"pre-male"? "pre-female"? Haven't the foggiest idea, though don't see those terms as particularly burdensome "accommodations".

Periodically wonder at the effects of Copernicus and Darwin on the "astronomers" and "biologists" of their times - as they presumably managed, I'm sure the veterinarians of this time should be able to do likewise.

But now tell me how biology is "going to cope" with the fact that there are at least two quite distinct sets of definitions for the sexes on the table ...

Quote:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Sex_and_Gender

That's a large part of the reason for the whole transgender ***********.
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 04:00 PM   #714
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
You may well wink. I want proper biological textbooks and journal papers, not some rando on Twitter whose star you have hitched your ship to.

To clarify. I want citations of established biology professors and the like pointing out that the standard usage of the words "male" and "female" is sloppy and incorrect. Not zealots who are trying to impose their new definition on a basically uncomprehending and uninterested body of science.

To clarify still further. You have been telling us time and time again that your ideas are at present the "established biological definitions". You can't, when challenged to support this, switch to telling us that established usage can somehow (must somehow) change to fit your ideas. If your thesis that the current long-established usage of "male" and "female" is (not will be in your ideal future, but is now) sloppy and incorrect, you should be able to point to a range of pedantic biology professors and the like pointing this out.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th August 2022 at 04:33 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 04:07 PM   #715
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,511
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Periodically wonder at the effects of Copernicus and Darwin on the "astronomers" and "biologists" of their times - as they presumably managed, I'm sure the veterinarians of this time should be able to do likewise.

Comparing yourself to Copernicus and Darwin... actually, you get a free pass on those. But...

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You seem to "think" that, analogously, Galileo and Darwin should have been restricted to Academia where they could contemplate their "theories" in isolation while society continued to promote the "ideas" that the earth was the center of the universe, that it was 6000 years old, that humanity was the result of special creation by Jehovah Himself.

Yoink! Rack up a quick 40 points!
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 04:32 PM   #716
Elaedith
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,044
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Ironically, that quote comes from after the time after Myers got gender religion, abandoned skepticism, and started swaggering around as a narcissistic messiah of the marginalized, excommunicating heretics and denouncing blasphemy. It's quite obvious from the context of the quote that this is a variant of sex denialism, intended to declare sex useless for classification, and is ideologically motivated.

Quote:


https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Sex_and_Gender

That's a large part of the reason for the whole transgender ***********.
I've read the paper, and you are completely misrepresenting what Del Giudice is saying. The idea that 'the patchwork definition of sex in the social sciences' is referring to 'Hilton, Wright, Heying etc' that you keep trumpeting is entirely your own concoction. It is very obvious from the previous paragraph that he is referring to the attempts by postmodern gender theorists to deconstruct sex by treating it as a cluster of characteristics, none of which is definitive:
'In the social sciences, many scholars define sex as a collection of traits—X/Y chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals—that cluster together in most people but may also occur in rare atypical combinations (e.g., Blakemore et al., 2009; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Helgeson, 2016; Joel, 2012). This definition is the basis for the widely repeated claim that up to 2% of live births are intersex (Blackless et al., 2000; see e.g., Hyde et al., 2019). In fact, the 2% figure is a gross overestimate. "

What is being referred to here is the attempts to pretend that there is no one characteristic that distinguishes males and females, and to exaggerate the prevalence of 'intersex' conditions to pretend that they are on some sort of continuum from male to female.

In contrast, the developmental pathways definition is a functional definition based on gamete production. It is stating that there are two sexes because there are two types of gamete. Individuals not currently producing gametes can still be reliably identified in almost every case as belonging to one of these reproductive classes, because we are not sequential hermaphrodites.

The two pathways definition is in fact a defense of the biologically-based, functional definition of sex against gender ideologues who would reject gamete production as a useful means of classification because individuals only produce gametes for part of the life span. 'That means post-menopausal women aren't female!' is exactly what a gender identity promoter would say (as P.Z. Myers did).
__________________
"The moment you declare a set of ideas to be immune from criticism, satire, derision, or contempt, freedom of thought becomes impossible." - Salman Rushdie.
Elaedith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 04:35 PM   #717
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,288
Good for you, following the links. I might have known they would be more cherry-picked than even I assumed.

ETA: "Almost" every case? I'm still waiting for someone to point out an actual person who genuinely cannot be reasonably shown to be either predominantly male or predominantly female*. And then to tell me what he or she thinks about being held up as an example of a person who has no sex. I do not believe such a person actually exists.

* And, to the surprise of absolutely nobody, the split generated by the developmental pathway approach produces the same categories as the "functional SRY gene with all its associated hormone receptors, hormones, enzymes etc" approach. We can argue about CAIS, as I said before, but this concerns which box you put this anomaly in, not whether you leave these women out of the boxes. Personally, I favour the definition that puts them in the female box, just with another type of karyotype anomaly that has medical implications.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 20th August 2022 at 04:43 PM.
Rolfe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 05:30 PM   #718
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Ironically, that quote comes from after the time after Myers got gender religion, abandoned skepticism, and started swaggering around as a narcissistic messiah of the marginalized, excommunicating heretics and denouncing blasphemy. It's quite obvious from the context of the quote that this is a variant of sex denialism, intended to declare sex useless for classification, and is ideologically motivated.
That tweet was from December 2021, hardly 8 months ago. Methinks Myers has been peddling gender woo for much longer than that - why I thought that tweet was evidence of a "Road to Damascus" conversion - he turned turtle pretty quickly once his own ox was getting gored.

But seem to recollect he bounced Benson out of there a decade ago for objecting to the "trans women are women" mantra.


Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
I've read the paper, and you are completely misrepresenting what Del Giudice is saying. The idea that 'the patchwork definition of sex in the social sciences' is referring to 'Hilton, Wright, Heying etc' that you keep trumpeting is entirely your own concoction.
Don't think so - where is he endorsing any "functional pathway" schlock?

Though I'll concede some of my quotes of that passage have included reference to Hilton & Company, but it should have been obvious they were my "editorial comments".

Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
It is very obvious from the previous paragraph that he is referring to the attempts by postmodern gender theorists to deconstruct sex by treating it as a cluster of characteristics, none of which is definitive:
Quote:
'In the social sciences, many scholars define sex as a collection of traits—X/Y chromosomes, gonads, hormones, and genitals—that cluster together in most people but may also occur in rare atypical combinations (e.g., Blakemore et al., 2009; Fausto-Sterling, 2012; Helgeson, 2016; Joel, 2012). This definition is the basis for the widely repeated claim that up to 2% of live births are intersex (Blackless et al., 2000; see e.g., Hyde et al., 2019). In fact, the 2% figure is a gross overestimate. "
Quite possible as his article is about "ideological bias" from all points of the compass.


Quote:
In contrast, the developmental pathways definition is a functional definition based on gamete production. It is stating that there are two sexes because there are two types of gamete. Individuals not currently producing gametes can still be reliably identified in almost every case as belonging to one of these reproductive classes, because we are not sequential hermaphrodites.
STILL waiting for y'all to post ANY credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and biological journals that endorse that schlock ...

Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
The two pathways definition is in fact a defense of the biologically-based, functional definition of sex against gender ideologues who would reject gamete production as a useful means of classification because individuals only produce gametes for part of the life span. 'That means post-menopausal women aren't female!' is exactly what a gender identity promoter would say (as P.Z. Myers did).
That I agree with you that "gender ideologues" need to be cut off at the knees doesn't mean that quite unscientific structure-absent-function definitions are the way to do that.

As for Myers and as his response to me, linked to above, he quickly abandoned that position once he realized that his wife and granddaughter were similarly unhorsed - or unsexed as the case may be.

Though I haven't the foggiest idea why you would think any "gender-identity promoter" is going argue that "post-menopausal women aren't female".
Steersman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 05:51 PM   #719
Lithrael
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,389
Okay, wait, I must have missed a lot from earlier in the thread. I’m on board with having a specific term for ‘currently producing/able to produce/full of viable gametes’ that would exclude postmenopausal women, babies, etc. But now, I’m confused about the utility of that term for discussing trans issues. Your basic Rolfes absolutely do not want a term that lets a castrated guy out of the ‘male sex’ category.
Lithrael is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2022, 07:20 PM   #720
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,693
Originally Posted by Lithrael View Post
I’m on board with having a specific term for ‘currently producing/able to produce/full of viable gametes’ that would exclude postmenopausal women, babies, etc. But now, I’m confused about the utility of that term for discussing trans issues.
This thread isn't about trans issues, by design.

But I am also confused about the utility of two new terms for active gamete producers.


Sent from my Imponte Deluxo using Tapatalk
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.
d4m10n is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.