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 2nd August 2022, 05:36 PM   #321
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by porch View Post
You are the one who has been pumping your definition of male and female by the strict criteria of gamete production. I am pointing out that your exclusion of vasectomized persons from the male category is inconsistent with your own definition.
Not at all. How do you reach that conclusion?

I've said explicitly - dozens of times - that the definitions stipulate that "reproductive function" - based on being able to deliver gametes of one kind or the other to the "production floor" - is the sine qua non of category membership.

Just creating gametes without being able to actually reproduce isn't sufficient; if an individual is unable to reproduce then - regardless of the reason - they are, ipso facto, sexless.

Look closely at the definition for "male" for example:

Quote:
Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

A vasectomee doesn't HAVE any sperm "with which a female may be fertilized". Ergo, sexless. Q.E.D.
Steersman 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 2nd August 2022, 06:01 PM   #322
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Not at all. How do you reach that conclusion?

I've said explicitly - dozens of times - that the definitions stipulate that "reproductive function" - based on being able to deliver gametes of one kind or the other to the "production floor" - is the sine qua non of category membership.
Where is that sine qua non spelled out as such? An automobile factory is still an automobile factory, even after it's shut down, has the power turned off, and all the machinery is rusting or scavenged. It doesn't suddenly become indistinguishable from a pet food production plant. Even if the pet food plant is shut down, it doesn't become indistinguishable to a shut down car factory. It's still a shut down pet food plant.

There are two distinct, binary sets of machinery. Almost everyone gets one set or the other. For most people, the set they get becomes functional at some point, and stops being functional at some later point. For some people, the set they get is incomplete, or malfunctions, or otherwise never quite becomes fully functional. For none of these people is there any mystery at all which of the two sets of machinery they're getting - functional or not. There's no mystery at all if they're male or female - functional or not. None of your absurd and disingenuous gamesmanship with definitions makes any of this mysterious to anyone.

Rarely some people end up with bits and pieces from each of the two binary sets of machinery. Often, one or the other set is still functional. Often, neither set is functional. I believe once in recorded medical history have both sets been observed to be functional. For people who have bits and pieces of both sets of machinery, there may perhaps be some mystery as to whether they're male or female. That's about it.

It's about which of the two sexual development pathways your genes place you on, not about whether that pathway actually develops to fruition at some point, or remains eternally operational.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.

Last edited by theprestige; 2nd August 2022 at 06:10 PM.
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 2nd August 2022, 06:11 PM   #323
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Not at all. How do you reach that conclusion?

I've said explicitly - dozens of times - that the definitions stipulate that "reproductive function" - based on being able to deliver gametes of one kind or the other to the "production floor" - is the sine qua non of category membership.

Just creating gametes without being able to actually reproduce isn't sufficient; if an individual is unable to reproduce then - regardless of the reason - they are, ipso facto, sexless.

Look closely at the definition for "male" for example:



https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

A vasectomee doesn't HAVE any sperm "with which a female may be fertilized". Ergo, sexless. Q.E.D.
I've seen better "reasoning" from people who were high out of their minds. Do you really think appeal to dictionary is going to work for you here?
__________________
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 2nd August 2022, 06:17 PM   #324
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Where is that sine qua non spelled out as such.
It's implicit in the concept of intensional definitions:

Quote:
An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extens...al_definitions

The sine qua non isn't "spelled out as such" in the definitions for "teenager" or for "bachelor" - as the article goes into some detail on - but it's there because the form of the definitions states "the properties that an object MUST have in order to be counted as a referent of the" terms in question.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
An automobile factory is still an automobile factory, even after it's shut down, has the power turned off, and all the machinery is rusting or scavenged. It doesn't suddenly become indistinguishable from a pet food production plant.

Even if the pet food plant is shut down, it doesn't become indistinguishable to a shut down car factory. It's still a shut down pet food plant.
That "automobile factory" HAD BEEN one - past tense. But I'm certainly not arguing that it's now a "pet food production plant", that a vasectomee is now a woman because he's no longer a man - i.e., adult human male.

Far too many people are desperately committed to the idea that everyone, that every member of every sexually-reproducing species has to be member of one sex or the other. Which is flatly contradicted by standard biological definitions:

Quote:
From a biological point of view, there is nothing mysterious about the fact that organisms have to grow into a biological sex, that it takes them a while to get there, and that some individuals develop in unusual or idiosyncratic ways. This is a problem only if a definition of sex must sort every individual organism into one sex or another. Biology doesn’t need to do that.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity

A desperation that causes no end of problems:

Quote:
For men associate through conversation, but words are applied according to the capacity of ordinary people. Therefore shoddy and inept application of words lays siege to the intellect in wondrous ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Organum
Steersman 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 2nd August 2022, 06:21 PM   #325
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 680
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
My medical experts are tougher than your medical experts ...

Often a difficult task to tell who has the higher ground. But, in getting down to brass tacks, biologists Parker (FRS) and Lehtonen seem to be more or less trump - you'll excuse the term - when it comes to the biological definitions for the sexes, arguably the bottom line when it comes to the question of gender identity.

But, more specifically, see the Glossary in an article (Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes) at the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction by biologists Parker and Lehtonen, definitions that are pretty much standard in many dictionaries (Lexico, Google/OED) and encyclopedias (Wikipedia):
Quote:
"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."


Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Not at all. How do you reach that conclusion?

I've said explicitly - dozens of times - that the definitions stipulate that "reproductive function" - based on being able to deliver gametes of one kind or the other to the "production floor" - is the sine qua non of category membership.

Just creating gametes without being able to actually reproduce isn't sufficient; if an individual is unable to reproduce then - regardless of the reason - they are, ipso facto, sexless.

Look closely at the definition for "male" for example:



https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

A vasectomee doesn't HAVE any sperm "with which a female may be fertilized". Ergo, sexless. Q.E.D.

Go, go, Gadget goalposts! Anyhow, no one is going to adopt your pet definition of sex, and I don't see a reason why anyone should.

BTW, they laughed at Bozo the Clownfish, too. That's another Sagan line.
porch 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 2nd August 2022, 06:23 PM   #326
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I've seen better "reasoning" from people who were high out of their minds. Do you really think appeal to dictionary is going to work for you here?
How else do you think we're going to communicate if we can't agree on what words mean? How else do you think we're going to achieve that consensus without a common understanding of the principles which undergird those definitions?

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/779...ine-your-terms

You're making the same sort of "argument" that many on Novella's blog are trying to peddle:

http://disq.us/p/2q5pemk
Steersman 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 2nd August 2022, 06:26 PM   #327
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by porch View Post
Go, go, Gadget goalposts! Anyhow, no one is going to adopt your pet definition of sex, and I don't see a reason why anyone should.

BTW, they laughed at Bozo the Clownfish, too. That's another Sagan line.


Hardly my "pet definition" though is it?

You and far too many others seem rather desperate to avoid them and their sources and consequences. Wonder why that might be ...
Steersman 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 2nd August 2022, 06:50 PM   #328
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post

<snip>

It's about which of the two sexual development pathways your genes place you on, not about whether that pathway actually develops to fruition at some point, or remains eternally operational.
You and Zach Elliot and Emma Hilton and Company, peddlers of "patchwork definitions of the social sciences":

Quote:
On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Emma Hilton and Company] 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

Pray tell, where are the dictionaries, encyclopedias, journals and biologists with FRS beside their names endorsing that rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definition? Hilton and Company and their letter in the UK Times? Hardly a "peer-reviewed biology journal". What a laugh.
Steersman 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 2nd August 2022, 07:21 PM   #329
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Hardly my "pet definition" though is it?
Yes, clearly.

Everyone else understands that "postmenopausal" and "female" are defined such that the former can sensibly modify the latter. Literally no one other than you has argued against this.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd August 2022 at 07:22 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 2nd August 2022, 07:34 PM   #330
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post

Quote:
Steersman: Hardly my "pet definition" though is it?
Yes, clearly.
Not quite sure how you can insist on that when it is published by any number of reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias. "Motivated reasoning"?

I'm still waiting for your evidence of journals and credible sources endorsing that structure-absent-function definition of yours, Zach Elliot, Andy Lewis, and Emma Hilton and Company.

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Everyone else understands that "postmenopausal" and "female" are defined such that the former can sensibly modify the latter. Literally no one other than you has argued against this.
But it's a contradiction in terms though, isn't it?

Quote:
In human populations, there are plenty of individuals whose sex is hard to determine. Biologists aren’t blind to this. The definition of biological sex is designed to classify the human reproductive system and all the others in a way that helps us to understand and explain the diversity of life. It’s not designed to exhaustively classify every human being, or every living thing. Trying to do so quickly leads to questions that have no biological meaning.
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity
Steersman 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 2nd August 2022, 08:33 PM   #331
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But it's a contradiction in terms though, isn't it?
You are literally the only person I've ever come across who thinks the phrases "prepubesecent male" and "postmenopausal female" are self-contradictory. For the sake of clear communication, you should realize that you're the only one working with definitions which causes this particular problem. For the sake of re-railing this particular convo, maybe you need a thread just for these defintions.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 2nd August 2022 at 08:35 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 2nd August 2022, 09:40 PM   #332
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
You are literally the only person I've ever come across who thinks the phrases "prepubescent male" and "postmenopausal female" are self-contradictory. For the sake of clear communication, you should realize that you're the only one working with definitions which causes this particular problem. For the sake of re-railing this particular convo, maybe you need a thread just for these definitions.
I guess many people have never thought about it. Probably because they haven't had to deal with the consequences until now, until "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology" became manifestly obvious:

https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/f...pi-110-WEB.pdf

But now that every man and his dog is trying to redefine the sexes to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy, it seems more urgent to fall back on bedrock principles.

Quote:
Abstract

On 17 March 2021, just four days before the England and Wales census date, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) conceded in a judicial review case. The case concerned the meaning of the sex question in the census, and the guidance to accompany this question. How did the ONS end up in court defending its guidance on a question which most people would deem self-explanatory? This article explains the legislative and political context around gender recognition, and the consequences for data collection. Drawing on my own experiences, I explore the politicisation of the definition of sex, and argue that the ONS gave undue weight to lobby groups with a particular viewpoint on sex and gender identity.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...467-923X.13029
Steersman 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 3rd August 2022, 06:53 AM   #333
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I guess many people have never thought about it.
Biologists are generally comfortable using phrases like "prepubescent male" or "male infant" despite the fact that these males aren't producing sperm yet, so I have to infer that they are not conceptualizing sex as strictly as you seem to believe (i.e. producing gametes at the present time).

This usage was common long before we saw anyone "trying to redefine the sexes to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy," so that explanation doesn't connect up to my argument here, which I'll be making in the intersex thread going forward so as to allow this thread to be about self-identification.
__________________
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 3rd August 2022, 07:03 AM   #334
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Yeah, I'm getting these threads mixed up too, which isn't good. We need to separate the discussions.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 3rd August 2022, 07:23 AM   #335
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 16,117
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
But as you can clearly see this whole thread is really just a forum for people to argue that trans people don't exist.
Is there consensus on the definition of "trans people"? Must there be a physical transition to be considered a trans person?

I assume not, because I'm dubious that posters deny the existence of people who have physically transitioned.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche 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 3rd August 2022, 08:58 AM   #336
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA (in the Troll Ignoring Section)
Posts: 19,526
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Is there consensus on the definition of "trans people"? Must there be a physical transition to be considered a trans person?

I assume not, because I'm dubious that posters deny the existence of people who have physically transitioned.
Not clear on this point. If they physically transition, do they become transsexuals? I am assured that sex =/= gender, so transitioning would no longer be a gender issue?
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal 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 3rd August 2022, 01:09 PM   #337
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,193
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Is there consensus on the definition of "trans people"?
Sure there is, from the DSM-5:
Quote:
Transgender refers to the broad spectrum of individuals who transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal gender.
Pretty sure they mean natal sex (newborns haven't absorbed the idea of gender yet) but you get the idea.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 3rd August 2022 at 01:11 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 4th August 2022, 12:47 PM   #338
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Look closely at the definition for "male" for example:

https://www.lexico.com/definition/male
Quote:
Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
A vasectomee doesn't HAVE any sperm "with which a female may be fertilized". Ergo, sexless. Q.E.D.
"Of the sex" is the element you keep missing. "Of the sex" references a category to which the remainder of the definition generally applies. This definition does rely on some axiomatic information - specifically that there are two sexes. One of those sexes generally produces sperm, the other generally produces ova. The key element here is that the two are discrete categories. It's entirely possible for a female person to be infertile through any number of reasons... but it remains true that at no point did they ever produce, or even have the most remote possibility of producing, sperm. There is no scenario in which a female is capable of producing sperm. There is no scenario in which a male is capable of producing ova. A male may not successfully produce sperm, but it is sophomorically easy to understand that they are categorically unable to produce ova, ever.

Let try an analogy (always risky). Let's assume for the sake of argument that "Orange Tree" is defined as "A tree of the species that bears round, orange colored citrus fruit".

If you buy an orange tree, but it never bears fruit... does that make it somehow not an orange tree? Does it make it a "nothing tree"?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 12:50 PM   #339
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I believe once in recorded medical history have both sets been observed to be functional.
I believe this is not true, I don't believe it has ever been observed in humans.

I think the once you're thinking of is a case where the person had one differentiated ovary and one differentiated testis, but the testis was non-functional, and the person had a uterus as well.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 12:52 PM   #340
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,243
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I believe this is not true, I don't believe it has ever been observed in humans.

I think the once you're thinking of is a case where the person had one differentiated ovary and one differentiated testis, but the testis was non-functional, and the person had a uterus as well.
Could be. I thought I remembered there was one documented case of spermatogenesis in a hermaphrodite.
__________________
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 4th August 2022, 12:53 PM   #341
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
It's implicit in the concept of intensional definitions:
Ah, I see where you've gone wrong.

The dictionary definition you've provided does not meet the criteria of an intentional definition. Both the dictionary definition, and the one you keep trying to push are sufficient conditions, but not necessary conditions.

The necessary condition lies in having a reproductive anatomy that has evolved to produce one gamete or the other. Which, by the way, is fully captured in the phrase "Of the sex".
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 12:56 PM   #342
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You and Zach Elliot and Emma Hilton and Company, peddlers of "patchwork definitions of the social sciences":
Why do you keep framing biology as being "social sciences"?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 12:56 PM   #343
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Not quite sure how you can insist on that when it is published by any number of reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias.
Because you are making an errant inference from those definitions. That's why. It's a comprehension error on your part.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 01:00 PM   #344
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But now that every man and his dog is trying to redefine the sexes to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy
"Women's vanity"? Are you kidding? You think it's vanity that females object to their sex class being redefined as a feeling?

And you think it's up to men to force females and transwomen to use their preferred definition?
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 01:06 PM   #345
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
Is there consensus on the definition of "trans people"? Must there be a physical transition to be considered a trans person?

I assume not, because I'm dubious that posters deny the existence of people who have physically transitioned.
Nobbody denies their existence, regardless of whether they've transitioned. They are people, they do actually exist. Maybe there are a couple that are actually twitter bots, but generally speaking, there's pretty solid evidence that transgender people are actually existent.

The question is really more about whether or not their perception of themselves qualifies them as belonging to the opposite sex, and having access to sex-specific spaces and services. Degree of transition matters when it comes to that question, although there's still not an overall consensus.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 01:16 PM   #346
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: The Wettest Desert on Earth
Posts: 18,265
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Could be. I thought I remembered there was one documented case of spermatogenesis in a hermaphrodite.
There very well may be. It depends on whether the 'hermaphrodite' is male or female

You'd be looking for a case of a single individual having both spermatogenesis AND oogenesis.

Most people who fall into the category of "true hermaphrodite" have ovotesticular disorder, caused by a problem with the SRY gene. A large chunk of the remainder have mosaicism, with a small scattering of chimerism. About 80% are karyotypically female, having XX chromosomes, with an SRY malfunction.

People with this condition frequently have two ovotestes - pre-differentiated gonads containing both ovarian and testicular tissue. Nearly all of the remainder have one differentiated gonad and one ovotesis, with the majority having an ovary.

To my recollection, there's been one documented case of a person having a differentiated ovary and a differentiated testis, with the ovary functional and the testis non-functional. That person was a mosaic, and IIRC, they underwent some hormone therapy to grow their uterus and subsequently got pregnant and had a child.
__________________
The distance between the linguistic dehumanization of a people and their actual suppression and extermination is not great; it is but a small step. - Haig Bosmajian
Emily's Cat 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 4th August 2022, 01:29 PM   #347
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Biologists are generally comfortable using phrases like "prepubescent male" or "male infant" despite the fact that these males aren't producing sperm yet, so I have to infer that they are not conceptualizing sex as strictly as you seem to believe (i.e. producing gametes at the present time).
Whether they're "comfortable with" those phrases is generally worth diddly-squat. Some 90% of so-called biologists in one survey are "comfortable" with describing fish as having genders ...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...15.2012.687265

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
This usage was common long before we saw anyone "trying to redefine the sexes to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy," so that explanation doesn't connect up to my argument here, which I'll be making in the intersex thread going forward so as to allow this thread to be about self-identification.
"common usage" is again not a guarantee of anything. Most often only of sloppy language or "thinking."

It used to be common to use "sex" and "gender" synonymously. Moot whether it was a good idea to "repurpose" the latter to refer, basically, to personalities, personality types, and traits that correlate with "produces gametes (habitually)". But it's something of a consensus that it has been - and for which there is some justification.
Steersman 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 4th August 2022, 01:51 PM   #348
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Ah, I see where you've gone wrong.

The dictionary definition you've provided does not meet the criteria of an intentional definition. Both the dictionary definition, and the one you keep trying to push are sufficient conditions, but not necessary conditions.

The necessary condition lies in having a reproductive anatomy that has evolved to produce one gamete or the other. Which, by the way, is fully captured in the phrase "Of the sex".
Don't think so. Try taking a close look at the article on extensional and intensional definitions without your preconceptions getting in the way:

Quote:
An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

For example, an intensional definition of the word "bachelor" is "unmarried man". This definition is valid because being an unmarried man is both a necessary condition and a sufficient condition for being a bachelor: it is necessary because one cannot be a bachelor without being an unmarried man, and it is sufficient because any unmarried man is a bachelor.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extens...al_definitions

Now look at the definition for bachelor:

Quote:
bachelor (noun): A man who is not and has never been married.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/bachelor

And finally, the definition for "male", though "female" is virtually identical:

Quote:
male (adjective): Of or denoting the sex that produces [habitually, or a regular basis] gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
https://www.lexico.com/definition/male

BOTH definitions are of the SAME form and structure and content. They BOTH specify the "necessary and sufficient conditions" - i.e., "man who is not and never been married", and "produces [habitually] sperm" - that referents of the terms MUST meet to qualify as members of those categories.

If would take some fancy footwork to argue that a transwoman who's had his nuts cut off is going to be doing much if any producing of sperm on anything like an habitual basis. Ergo, not a male. Nor is he a female; he's sexLESS. Q.E.D.

You may well try to push other definitions for "male" and "female" - maybe "has convex and concave mating surfaces" by which Jenner & his ilk might qualify as the latter?

But those Lexico definitions for "male" and "female" ARE what the actual biological definitions for the sexes are. And those are their logical consequences.
Steersman 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 4th August 2022, 02:57 PM   #349
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I believe this is not true, I don't believe it has ever been observed in humans.

I think the once you're thinking of is a case where the person had one differentiated ovary and one differentiated testis, but the testis was non-functional, and the person had a uterus as well.

Someone linked me to a paper they said described a man who had fathered children (so we can figure out what equipment he must have had) but was found to have an "ovary" that was said to demonstrate signs that it had ovulated at some point.

All I could see was a very brief abstract because it was paywalled. The person who linked to it then went on to say that the article said the man could have become pregnant. At that point I gave up, because nobody has the equipment to father a child and the equipment both to be fertilised by a man and to gestate a child. So I don't know what it really said. I don't think it was a reputable journal, as far as I could tell.

I've never come across any case of so-called "true hermaphroditism" (which is a misnomer) where it wasn't pretty obvious which sex the person was, and the tissue that had differentiated in the opposite direction was non-functional.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 4th August 2022, 02:58 PM   #350
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,677
But look, we're doing it again. Can't we pick one thread for this discussion and stick with it? The DSD thread would make much better sense. I can see the mods doing a massive post-move if this goes on, and that will mess everything up into a complete dog's breakfast.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 4th August 2022, 08:31 PM   #351
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
But look, we're doing it again. Can't we pick one thread for this discussion and stick with it? The DSD thread would make much better sense. I can see the mods doing a massive post-move if this goes on, and that will mess everything up into a complete dog's breakfast.
Maybe it would be a good idea to create a thread to discuss the different definitions for the sexes on tap? Tie in with Novella's misguided efforts on that score?

Because it seems to have some relevance to both the "identifies" and the "intersex" threads. And probably to a few others. As a number of people - other than myself - have suggested or called for a dialog on that point, such a discussion here might help to move that conversational ball downfield; see Substacker Lisa Selin Davis for example:

https://lisaselindavis.substack.com/p/both-sides-now

And, not to overly tout my own kick at that kitty, I think this passage from my own Substack may provide something of a useful starting point:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/welcome

Quote:
Sex: Binary, Spectrum or “Socially Constructed”?

More particularly and to begin with, there are the various “theories” about sex itself, about whether it’s a spectrum, or a binary; about whether the binary is to be based on structure-absent-function or function-only; about whether it is - gawd help us all - merely a “social construction”. For instance, both Nature and Scientific American - supposedly credible and authoritative journals - seriously beclowned themselves by endorsing the position that “The idea of two sexes is simplistic”. Which was particularly amusing, in a gallows-humor sort of way, in light of the fact that the author, biologist Claire Ainsworth, subsequently repudiated that suggestion and headline.
Steersman 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 4th August 2022, 09:13 PM   #352
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 206
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steersman
But now that every man and his dog is trying to redefine the sexes to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy
"Women's vanity"? Are you kidding? You think it's vanity that females object to their sex class being redefined as a feeling?

And you think it's up to men to force females and transwomen to use their preferred definition?
Sheesh. There WAS an "or" in there. There are many different definitions on tap, many different ones being peddled by different tribes to grind different axes.

I'm certainly not endorsing or supporting in any way the efforts of the transactivists to "redefine 'woman' as a feeling". I've been kicked off Twitter - something of a mixed blessing - as a result of running afoul of the Tranish Inquisition for criticizing them on that score. And I've been defenestrated from Wikipedia by the Gender Star Chamber there, largely for my "heresy" of objecting to their article on transwoman and Olympian Laurel Hubbard which claimed that "she" had "transitioned to female":

https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikip...m-410901a22da2

So, no particular friend of transgenderism or transactivists.

But that doesn't mean that I think feminists in general, and gender-critical feminists in particular are above reproach and haven't contributed substantially to the problem. Far too many of them dogmatically insist that "sex is immutable!!11!!" while not having a clue that the standard biological definitions knock that claim into a cocked-hat. And who get rather "peeved" when one tries to even broach a discussion on that point.

Seems to me that many women have turned membership in the "woman" and "female" categories into an identity, a badge of tribal membership. Kind of ironic then that many of the transgendered are trying to do pretty much the same thing, although with far less justification.

Feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones had a rather cogent and insightful summary of that situation:
Quote:
Because I’m going to say that what’s being concealed is the reality of sex, and the conflation of sex and gender enabled by pretending this horrendous cluster*** is a bun-fight over some mythic essence of womanhood which confers some kind of privilege we’re all so jealously guarding.
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/1...alison-phipps/

A "bun-fight" over who gets to claim the golden apple - "for the fairest". Not quite sure how that isn't prima facie evidence of vanity and envy.
Steersman 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
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 02:21 PM.
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.