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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


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.
Tags biology , gametes , lexicography , pedantry

Reply
Old 21st September 2022, 01:22 PM   #161
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
I could never 'pay the membership dues' by suckling young (as I'm male), but I'm still in the 'mammal club'. 'Of the class that ...' is the point you've misinterpreted from the outset.
Still haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting. And you clearly don't either, or you're incapable of saying what you mean.

If you're not going to say or even make an effort to address my answers then I'll put you on my ignore list. A waste of time otherwise.
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 21st September 2022, 01:23 PM   #162
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Male children, you say?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st September 2022 at 01:29 PM.
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 21st September 2022, 01:24 PM   #163
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,427
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
: rolleyes : Haven't the foggiest idea what you're getting at; doubt you do either ...
What he's getting at seems pretty clear to me.

Quote:
Though you might ask yourself whether you can be a member of a political party if you can't pay the membership dues ...
Around here, political parties don't have membership dues. Being a member is trivial: You just say you're a member.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 21st September 2022, 01:25 PM   #164
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But that is not saying that each sex is a spectrum; that is Hilton's argument, not mine.
Where did Hilton invoke a spectrum?
__________________
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 21st September 2022, 01:26 PM   #165
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Male children, you say?
(pre-functional) male children, at least by Hilton's lexicon ...

Don't think you're playing with a full deck there mate.
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 21st September 2022, 01:27 PM   #166
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
(pre-functional) male children, at least by Hilton's lexicon...
I don't think your lexical source signed off on your parenthetical there, mate.
__________________
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 21st September 2022, 01:28 PM   #167
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Where did Hilton invoke a spectrum?
Christ in a sidecar.

It's not a case of her "invoking" that. I'm SAYING that that is what her definition boils down into. She is specifying 3 mutually exclusive criteria for category membership. Ergo, a polythetic category, ergo a spectrum.
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 21st September 2022, 01:29 PM   #168
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I don't think your lexical source signed off on your parenthetical there, mate.
So what? "descriptive", remember?
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 21st September 2022, 02:03 PM   #169
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
So what? "descriptive", remember?
You appear to trust that native English speakers would agree to the parenthetical addition, but you don't get to invoke any lexicographers in support of that premise.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
She is specifying 3 mutually exclusive criteria for category membership.
I disagree.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st September 2022 at 02:05 PM.
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 21st September 2022, 02:49 PM   #170
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You appear to trust that native English speakers would agree to the parenthetical addition, but you don't get to invoke any lexicographers in support of that premise.
Clearly, they haven't caught up with Hilton's "new improved!" Trinity (AKA, spectrumist definition) ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I disagree.
I await, with bated breath, your detailed and well-evidenced rebuttal ...

You seem to "think" that ipse dixits qualify as arguments. Skeptics? What a joke ...
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 21st September 2022, 03:42 PM   #171
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But that is not saying that each sex is a spectrum; that is Hilton's argument, not mine.
*disagreeing noises*

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
She is specifying 3 mutually exclusive criteria for category membership.
*more disagreeing noises*

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I await, with bated breath, your detailed and well-evidenced rebuttal...
Okay, let's count the criteria for membership in the class male:

1) Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing small...gametes

That's it. Just the one. Shall we do female next?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st September 2022 at 03:56 PM.
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 21st September 2022, 04:13 PM   #172
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?
__________________
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 21st September 2022, 04:17 PM   #173
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 28,577
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?
No, it's a pair of tits. He's just been having a laugh all along ... this much has become clear.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB is online now   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 21st September 2022, 04:18 PM   #174
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
No, it's a pair of tits.
People exist in the motorboat zone.
__________________
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 21st September 2022, 04:36 PM   #175
Elaedith
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,043
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?
Ratio of male to female sex essences?
__________________
"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 online now   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 21st September 2022, 05:48 PM   #176
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,427
Originally Posted by Elaedith View Post
Ratio of male to female sex essences?
Ah, the thirst:milkshake factor.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 21st September 2022, 06:25 PM   #177
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Meant to address this earlier, but it isn't exactly a core issue. Anyhow, my problem with this graph is that (even in context) I cannot tell what the x-axis is supposed to represent. Total number of characteristically female traits?
Sexes - plural, a multitude of them. Novella's "ideas" are rather half-baked at best - being charitable, but one can sort of see the method in his madness:

Quote:
First we need to consider all the traits relevant to sex that vary along this bimodal distribution. The language and concepts for these traits have been evolving too, but here is a current generally accepted scheme for organizing these traits:
  1. Genetic sex
  2. Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
  3. Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
  4. Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
  5. Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the...iological-sex/

The most I can get out of that dog's breakfast is that each of those 5 "factors" constitutes a dial, each of which has a number of positions, and each combination of which constitutes a separate sex on that discrete spectrum.

Haven't the foggiest idea how to integrate gender identity into the mix since it seems entirely subjective, but expanding four of them we might have 6 different "dials", each with a range of options - sex categories as a smorgasbord:
  1. Chromosomes: {XX, XY, XXY, XO};
  2. Gonads: {ovaries, testicles, none};
  3. Genitalia: {penis, vagina, none};
  4. Attraction: {to$penis, to$vagina, to$neither};
  5. Gender: {male$gender, female$gender, transgender, gender neutral, non-binary, agender, pangender, genderqueer, two-spirit, third gender, none};
  6. Secondary: {breasts, no$breasts}
So any combination of those, in Novella's fevered imagination, constitutes a separate "sex". So: {XX, testicles, vagina, to$penis, breasts, two-spirit} represents one sex, and all of the other combinations are different "sexes". Which might be ordered somehow and put on a linear scale and graph, the x-axis representing a spectrum of all of those different combinations.

Madder than hatters and profoundly unscientific if not anti-scientific, but it seems that that is what Novella, Shermer, and the rest of the spectrumist nutcases have in "mind".

But that is sort of why I try to emphasize that there's some rhyme and reason to how we define the sexes, that it's not a free-for-all, that there are some fundamental principles of logic, philosophy, and biology in play. And why I think Hilton and company are basically aiding and abetting those nutcases by refusing to consider and utilize those principles.
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 21st September 2022, 06:36 PM   #178
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,427
Steersman, I'm genuinely curious: Have you ever convinced anyone to adopt your interpretation of these things? If so, which of your arguments or pieces of evidence did they find most convincing?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 21st September 2022, 06:54 PM   #179
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Steersman, I'm genuinely curious: Have you ever convinced anyone to adopt your interpretation of these things? If so, which of your arguments or pieces of evidence did they find most convincing?
I'm not cutting my arguments from whole cloth, you know? They're based on solid facts, and sound philosophical, logical, taxonomic, and linguistic principles from any number of credible sources. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants - so to speak - even if some of them can't see quite as far as I do, largely for that very reason.

Even Griffiths doesn't seem quite ready, yet, to go with "sexless", but he's at least danced around that conclusion in his Aeon article:

Quote:
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 ...]
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

And his preprint article further underlines that, in his quite reasonable and eminently sensible view, having a sex is a transitory state of affairs:

Quote:
Biological sexes (male, female, hermaphrodite) are regions of phenotypic space that individual organisms pass in and out of one or more times during their lives (Figure 1).
The sexes "male" and "female" are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities. They are not any sort of "immutable" identity - which too many insist on trying to turn them into. Not just the transloonie nutcases, but pretty much everyone else. That's the crux of the problem, that's the justification for emphasizing the standard biological definitions of Parker and Lehtonen, of Google/OD, and of Wikipedia (in their more sensible moments).
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 21st September 2022, 07:04 PM   #180
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
It's not just "anatomies", but three different types of structures, each of which qualifies as a sufficient condition for membership in a polythetic category.
Nope; you are misinterpreting what Hilton wrote. There is only one sufficient condition for maleness, that is, the development of anatomical structures adapted to the production of small gametes. That's two fewer than three "types of structures."

If a kid has balls at six years old and still has them ten years later, those aren't different "types" of structures at all. They are the same structures, differently matured, and either way they are adapted to producing small gametes. At no time was this kid in possession of the only other type of reproductive structures, the type which produces large gametes.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
That's why the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites had to emphasize the difference between functional males and non-functional males.
Take it to the clownfish thread.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 21st September 2022 at 07:13 PM.
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 21st September 2022, 07:11 PM   #181
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,427
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I'm not cutting my arguments from whole cloth, you know? They're based on solid facts, and sound philosophical, logical, taxonomic, and linguistic principles from any number of credible sources. I'm standing on the shoulders of giants - so to speak - even if some of them can't see quite as far as I do, largely for that very reason.

Even Griffiths doesn't seem quite ready, yet, to go with "sexless", but he's at least danced around that conclusion in his Aeon article:



https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

And his preprint article further underlines that, in his quite reasonable and eminently sensible view, having a sex is a transitory state of affairs:



The sexes "male" and "female" are just labels for transitory reproductive abilities. They are not any sort of "immutable" identity - which too many insist on trying to turn them into. Not just the transloonie nutcases, but pretty much everyone else. That's the crux of the problem, that's the justification for emphasizing the standard biological definitions of Parker and Lehtonen, of Google/OD, and of Wikipedia (in their more sensible moments).
Fascinating stuff. I'll return to it in a future post. For now, though, I'm still hoping you'll answer the question I asked, instead of quoting it and then ignoring it.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 21st September 2022, 07:17 PM   #182
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Fascinating stuff. I'll return to it in a future post. For now, though, I'm still hoping you'll answer the question I asked, instead of quoting it and then ignoring it.
I answered it; you're just not paying attention, probably because you're fixated on some article of faith: "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female! Because the Bible tells me so!"
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 21st September 2022, 07:44 PM   #183
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I paid very close attention to your post. You replied to my question, but never answered it.

Have you actually changed anyone's mind? Ever? On this topic?

If so, what was the convincing argument or evidence you deployed?
Unbloody believable. Griffiths is basically already convinced if not there ahead of me. Del Giudice, Parker, and Lehtonen likewise. And probably because of the "arguments and evidence" I've described.

But I did convince one transwoman of that:



Try just whispering "sexless" - even when no one else is around ...
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 21st September 2022, 07:48 PM   #184
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,427
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Unbloody believable. Griffiths is basically already convinced if not there ahead of me. Del Giudice, Parker, and Lehtonen likewise. And probably because of the "arguments and evidence" I've described.

But I did convince one transwoman of that:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...bcba452861.jpg

Try just whispering "sexless" - even when no one else is around ...
There's no way I'm giving you credit for people who clearly arrived at their own conclusions without your help.

I'll grant you the transwoman, though. That can be your high water mark.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 22nd September 2022, 12:40 AM   #185
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
*disagreeing noises*

*more disagreeing noises*


Quote:
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Okay, let's count the criteria for membership in the class male:

1) Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing small...gametes

That's it. Just the one. Shall we do female next?
Rather large "elephant" that you're trying to sweep under the carpet there, i.e., reproductive structures with "past, present, or future functionality":



It's not just "anatomies", but three different types of structures, each of which qualifies as a sufficient condition for membership in a polythetic category. One of the structures might eventually produce gametes - the prepubescent - and one structure is capable of producing gametes right now - functional males and functional females - and one structure might have been able to produce gametes some time in the distant past.

Why if you were to take a close look at the article on gametogenesis then you would see that those three structures are rather profoundly and fundamentally different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gametogenesis

You simply cannot tie a ribbon around all three and claim they're identical because they most certainly aren't.

That's why theprestige had recourse to "functional" in one of his comments. And that's why the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites had to emphasize the difference between functional males and non-functional males. The latter of which Hilton is splitting into pre-functional males and post-functional males. A "trinity", a "spectrum".

Something you seem unwilling to deal with.
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 22nd September 2022, 12:47 AM   #186
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
There's no way I'm giving you credit for people who clearly arrived at their own conclusions without your help.
LoL And that conclusion would be what? That "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female! Because the Bible tells me so!" ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response

"We will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information sought."




Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'll grant you the transwoman, though. That can be your high water mark.
Maybe just the beginning ..

Last edited by Steersman; 22nd September 2022 at 01:11 AM. Reason: punctuation
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 22nd September 2022, 01:07 AM   #187
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Nope; you are misinterpreting what Hilton wrote. There is only one sufficient condition for maleness, that is, the development of anatomical structures adapted to the production of small gametes. That's two fewer than three "types of structures."
Nope; only in your entirely unevidenced opinion.

If you're going to lump Hilton's own "past, present, and future functionalities" into her "anatomical structures" then you might just as well claim that there's only one colour because red, green, & blue are all members of the category "colours".

There are 3 distinct and mutually exclusive conditions for membership in Hilton's polythetic categories which makes them into spectra.

But why else would Wikipedia differentiate between functional and non-functional females? A binary. Why else would theprestige do likewise?

Methinks you're grabbing at straws there mate.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If a kid has balls at six years old and still has them ten years later, those aren't different "types" of structures at all. They are the same structures, differently matured, and either way they are adapted to producing small gametes. At no time was this kid in possession of the only other type of reproductive structures, the type which produces large gametes.
A person as a child of 10, as an adult 35, and as a senior citizen of 70 are all "the same structures, just differently matured"?

The testicles of the 6 year old can't actually produce sperm, while those of the sixteen year old probably can. Completely different biochemical structures inside them that differentiate being able to actually produce sperm or not. Of course they're different structures which is why they have different functionalities in the first place; you think the new functionality is just a matter of some magic? Peter Pan sprinkling some pixie dust at the onset of puberty?

Why else do you think Hilton says, "regardless of past, present, or future functionality"?
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 22nd September 2022, 04:37 AM   #188
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
There are 3 distinct and mutually exclusive conditions for membership in Hilton's polythetic categories which makes them into spectra.
I'm still seeing just the one condition for individual membership in the class "male."

1) Anatomy adapted to producing small gametes

2) ??????

3) ??????

Presumably you have some idea what goes in the place of those question marks, but you haven't shared it with us yet.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
A person as a child of 10, as an adult 35, and as a senior citizen of 70 are all "the same structures, just differently matured"?
They have all the same structures, barring tragic accidents or surgery. That's why we use the same labels for all of their organs the entire time.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Why else do you think Hilton says, "regardless of past, present, or future functionality"?
At a guess, it's to clarify whether the gametic structures need to be up and running or not. For example, a postmenopausal female retains the structures associated with producing large gametes.

Quote:
"Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"
#FakeQuotes
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 22nd September 2022 at 06:19 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 22nd September 2022, 07:20 AM   #189
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,427
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
LoL And that conclusion would be what? That "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female! Because the Bible tells me so!" ?
No, that conclusion would be the conclusion you claimed to have helped them reach, when you listed Griffiths et al. as people whose minds you'd changed on this matter.

It's pretty clear that Griffiths et al reached whatever conclusion they reached without consulting you. So I'm not counting them as people whose minds you've changed.



Quote:
Maybe just the beginning ..
If that potato-quality screenshot, of some internet rando saying something that looks like it might agree with you, is the best story you have to tell about changing someone's mind, it's not even really a beginning.

Do you want to try again? Have you ever actually changed someone's mind, on this matter? If so, which of your arguments did they find most convincing?
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   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 22nd September 2022, 11:57 AM   #190
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'm still seeing just the one condition for individual membership in the class "male."
Probably because you don't want to see anything else. Think there is a word or two or a dozen for that state of affairs, none of which are particularly flattering or commendatory.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
They have all the same structures, barring tragic accidents or surgery. That's why we use the same labels for all of their organs the entire time.
Nope. You clearly didn't read - probably didn't want to read - that article on gametogenesis. If you had done so then you would have seen your argument to be so much arrant nonsense.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
#FakeQuotes
LoL. #AccurateSummationOfConventionalWisdom, at least in some benighted necks of the woods.

You're apparently still unwilling, or unable, to say whether you agree or not with the assertion, something of a mantra - implicit or not, that ""Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"

"We will neither confirm nor deny the existence of the information sought."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_response
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 22nd September 2022, 12:02 PM   #191
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Probably because you don't want to see anything else.
To the contrary, I was expecting you would try to fill in the blanks that I'd provisionally filled with question marks.

One more time, okay?

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post

1) Anatomy adapted to producing small gametes

2) ??????

3) ??????
You've said Hilton has three criteria for the class "male" now here's your chance to list them out.

Originally Posted by FakeQuoteBot
"Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"
I'd be interested in seeing if the three authors from the OP have ever written something approaching this claim.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 22nd September 2022 at 12:05 PM.
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 22nd September 2022, 12:03 PM   #192
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post

It's pretty clear that Griffiths et al reached whatever conclusion they reached without consulting you. So I'm not counting them as people whose minds you've changed.?
So what? My point is, again, that I'm hardly the only one basically rejecting, on solid evidence, the apparent conventional "wisdom" in this neck of the woods that, "Every member of every anisogamic species is either male or female!"

Think I have some pretty solid heavy hitters on my team. Yours? A letter published in some newspaper - hardly any sort of credible peer-reviewed biological journal - by a couple of philosophically illiterate "biologists"?
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 22nd September 2022, 12:07 PM   #193
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You've said Hilton has three criteria for the class "male" now here's your chance to list them out.
I've done so - several times:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=117

You're clearly not paying attention. Being charitable.
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 22nd September 2022, 12:20 PM   #194
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I've done so - several times
Do you mean these three?

Quote:
1) past functionality (structures that maybe used to produce gametes)

2) present functionality (structures which produce, regularly, habitually, gametes),

3) future functionality (structures, which may, in the sweet bye-and-bye, produce gametes)
If so, you've badly misunderstood the OP.
__________________
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 22nd September 2022, 12:22 PM   #195
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Do you mean these three?
Yup.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
If so, you've badly misunderstood the OP.
Nope.
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 22nd September 2022, 01:08 PM   #196
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
"regardless"
__________________
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 22nd September 2022, 01:15 PM   #197
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
"regardless"
So?

Do people who have non-functional gonads qualify as having a sex or not?

Yes or no?

Think you can answer a simple question or two there sport?

For bonus points, try answering the question, "Are all members of all anisogamic species either male or 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 22nd September 2022, 01:24 PM   #198
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
So?
So we aren't supposed to regard those three things at all, much less interpret them as the OP's central criteria.

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster;
He jogs every day regardless of the weather.
This doesn't mean that the weather is the key criterion determining whether he jogs.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Do people who have non-functional gonads qualify as having a sex or not?
I know what Hilton would say, but I'm going to let you figure this one out.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 22nd September 2022 at 03:23 PM.
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 22nd September 2022, 05:12 PM   #199
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
So we aren't supposed to regard those three things at all, much less interpret them as the OP's central criteria.

This doesn't mean that the weather is the key criterion determining whether he jogs.

I know what Hilton would say, but I'm going to let you figure this one out.
Close, but no cigar. Methinks you're not really comparing apples and apples; more like apples and oranges if not apples and aardvarks.

The weather and going jogging aren't joined at the hips; "anatomies for producing gametes" and "past, present, OR future functionality" IS:



Unless you, perchance, know of a temporal state other than past, present, and future that those "anatomies for producing gametes" might be said to exist in?

Methinks it's clearly a case of Hilton specifying and defining a polythetic category. It's regardless of whether the functionality is present, or future, or past, but one of those is clearly necessary say that some member of some anisogamic species has, has had, or will have "anatomies for producing gametes". It's not regardless of all three of those conditions, only one or two of them.

That's the same way it is with Sally's (polythetic) family - 4 sets of sufficient conditions, only one of which is necessary for category membership.

Last edited by Steersman; 22nd September 2022 at 05:14 PM. Reason: brackets
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 22nd September 2022, 05:48 PM   #200
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,672
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Methinks it's clearly a case of Hilton specifying and defining a polythetic category.
Methinks you're regarding the part she told you to disregard. Try to interpret what she wrote without that part included.

Quote:
Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes...are referred to as "males" and "females," respectively.
Sounds present tense to me.

Anyone else care to weigh in?
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 22nd September 2022 at 06:02 PM.
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 » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

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 08:04 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.