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 Yesterday, 05:53 PM   #601
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by porch View Post
<snip>
If one had different goals, say using words as some kind of misanthropic weapon, and generally being an insufferable twat, that might be good evidence of utility. Of course, that's not what you're going for.
jimmies rustled?

Originally Posted by porch View Post
Do you have any self-citations of conversations where, Idunno, you convinced someone to adopt your definition? Or maybe if they didn't outright adopt your definition, it nonetheless led to a productive discussion? Do you have any examples from anywhere on the web where you cleared up confusion? Any examples where you successfully advanced the cause of protecting women through your usage of words?
Not quite sure how you think the popularity of a position cuts much ice by itself. How do you fancy your chances of going to, say, Saudi Arabia and trying to convince passers-by that Muhammad, piss be upon his name, was a child molester, a mass-murderer and a psychotic?

Unpopular opinions tend to be - surprise, surprise - rather "unpopular". Apropos of which, something on "What You Can't Say" from a fairly impressive dude:

Quote:
If you could travel back in a time machine, one thing would be true no matter where you went: you'd have to watch what you said. Opinions we consider harmless could have gotten you in big trouble. I've already said at least one thing that would have gotten me in big trouble in most of Europe in the seventeenth century, and did get Galileo in big trouble when he said it — that the earth moves. [1]

It seems to be a constant throughout history: In every period, people believed things that were just ridiculous, and believed them so strongly that you would have gotten in terrible trouble for saying otherwise.
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)

But, now that you mention "clearing up some confusion", I've garnered a couple of recent likes for this comment of mine:

Quote:
By the standard biological definitions based on the presence of reproductive functions, on the ability to actually reproduce, "she" is neither male nor female, she is sexless because she's incapable of producing either type of gamete. No gametes, no reproduction, no sex. She probably suffers from "complete androgen insensitivity syndrome [CAIS]", another Wikipedia article you might try reading, but that doesn't grant her membership in either sex category.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HMj...WgO9bcSjvCx68H

"Rome" wasn't built in a day, and won't be torn down in one either.

Originally Posted by porch View Post
And do you have any examples of where you showed compassion to anyone?
Generally a two-way street; tit-for-tat and all that.
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 Yesterday, 06:12 PM   #602
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The biological definition I'm applying to humans (to address a uniquely human problem, mind you) actually applies to all mammals.

You're the one who says we should reject it because it doesn't also apply to clownfish and nematodes.
You're trying to exclude a rather smallish percentage of those 7 million sexually-reproducing species - apparently because it apparently offends the vanity or prior commitments of a smallish segment of one of them.

I'm trying - Lexico, Parker & Lehtonen, Google/OED are trying - to include in two named categories the maximum number of species who happen to share the rather important property of being able to reproduce because, you know, they're able to produce, habitually, one gamete or the other:

Quote:
In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (-nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

Do most mammalian species - including the human one - share that property, that rather important "characteristic" or not?

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Counter-examples that falsify a premise count for a lot, actually. In fact, one might say that in terms of the arguments founded on that premise, the counter-examples count for everything.
A rather "artificial" - as opposed to a natural - example. You might just as well say because you found some books that have the passage "2+2=5" that the entire edifice of mathematics should be declared null and void.

Now IF the premise was "all swans are white" and you found a black swan - a natural example - THEN you might have had a case. But it isn't, you didn't and 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 Yesterday, 06:23 PM   #603
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by porch View Post
Well, I have a hunch that they understand that the same word can be used in different ways in different contexts. Again, I will refer you to Lehtonen and Parker's glossary:
Quote:
The definitions of ‘sex’ and ‘sexes’ vary.
Sooo EFFEN WHAT?

One of the definitions for "male" and "female" is, essentially, "has convex and concave mating surfaces":

Quote:
Reference to implements with sockets and corresponding parts is from 1660s.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/fema...monline_v_5841

You seriously think that that might have some relevance to biology? Maybe Jenner and has ilk now have a solid claim on "female"?

That there are various definitions means diddly-squat. The issue is which ones apply to ALL sexually-reproducing species.

You have one? One that's been published in dictionaries, encyclopedias, and peer-reviewed biological journals that endorse that structure-absent-function schlock?

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 Yesterday, 07:42 PM   #604
porch
Muse
 
porch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 680
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
That there are various definitions means diddly-squat. The issue is which ones apply to ALL sexually-reproducing species.
I happen to think that Griffiths is successful in coming up with a definition that applies to all sexually reproducing species. It just isn't good for much else. Remember, Griffiths does not want anyone to use his biological definition for social policy. For humans, that is. And remember that you do not use your own biological definition when it comes to human affairs - you start going on about karyotypes for id cards and artificially constructed genitals for locker rooms.

What, exactly, is your point here?

Last edited by porch; Yesterday at 07:43 PM.
porch 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 Yesterday, 08:24 PM   #605
Steersman
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by porch View Post
I happen to think that Griffiths is successful in coming up with a definition that applies to all sexually reproducing species.
I rather doubt that he created it out of whole cloth himself. His Aeon article was 2020, but Parker & Lehtonen were 2014 & 1972, while the Wikipedia article on "female" cites two sources in 2005 & 2015.

Originally Posted by porch View Post
It just isn't good for much else.
Apart from getting a handle on some 7 million sexually-reproducing species, that is ...

Originally Posted by porch View Post
Remember, Griffiths does not want anyone to use his biological definition for social policy. For humans, that is. And remember that you do not use your own biological definition when it comes to human affairs - you start going on about karyotypes for id cards and artificially constructed genitals for locker rooms.
If the biological definitions aren't of much use in adjudicating competing claims to access toilets, change-rooms and sports then maybe something else - like karyotypes - might be a better bet?

Getting stuck in squabbling over the definitions for the sexes seems a classic case of the monkey trap:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...liver-burkeman

Originally Posted by porch View Post
What, exactly, is your point here?
Good question. Someone once said that when you go to change something you often find it connected to everything else in the universe.

Part of that "monkey-trap" seems to be, as many have said, "the politicisation of the definition of sex":

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...467-923X.13029

Kind of think that the most effective way of rectifying that, to get off the horns of that dilemma, to cut that Gordian Knot is by falling back on the bedrock biological definitions - and letting the chips fall where they may.

Since you seem to be a Canuck also and ICYMI, you might also be interested in my tale of tangling with Statistics Canada over gender and gender identity:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...ents-corrupted

May also help to clarify exactly "what is my point here".
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 Today, 03:26 AM   #606
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 48,674
Question

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I thought you were retired - every day is a holiday. .

People who are retired also go on holiday you know.

Greetings from a river cruise boat on the Danube, currently moored at Budapest. Do carry on. But I now have only a phone so I'll consider it a spectator sport.
__________________
"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
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 05:10 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.