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 15th September 2022, 12:56 PM   #41
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,775
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
That "a spectrum requires a measure"? That one can't use "categorical variables"? More BS.
A spectrumWP by definition is "not limited to a specific set of values but can vary, without gaps, across a continuum."

There has to be

1) (at least one) feature being measured, which is

2) variable across a continuum,

3) without gaps

It may be possible to show that "sex is a spectrum" but I'd like to have a close look at what is being measured and how the plot turns out.
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 01:03 PM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
"Gender" might qualify, except that it can't be measured.
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 01:04 PM   #43
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
A spectrumWP by definition is "not limited to a specific set of values but can vary, without gaps, across a continuum."

There has to be

1) (at least one) feature being measured, which is

2) variable across a continuum,

3) without gaps

It may be possible to show that "sex is a spectrum" but I'd like to have a close look at what is being measured and how the plot turns out.


Quote:
A physical quantity is said to have a discrete spectrum if it takes only distinct values, with gaps between one value and the next.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_spectrum

But where have I said anything to the effect that sex itself is a spectrum?

And Oxford Premium:

Quote:
Used to classify something in terms of its position on a scale between two extreme points:
the left or the right of the political spectrum
All that's required is some way of ordering the entities on the scale and some stipulated end points.

Just because someone publishes something is no guarantee that it is coherent with anything else; some judgement, some analysis is required.
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 15th September 2022, 01:11 PM   #44
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Gender" might qualify, except that it can't be measured.
You may wish to take a look at my Welcome post, particularly the section on "Rationalized Gender" which attempts to put gender on a more scientific footing:

Quote:
A great many sources and credible researchers - Malone & Hyde in particular - endorse the view that gender is more or less synonymous with personalities and personality types. However, even limiting gender to what are called The Big Five personality traits means at least 5 dimensions to gender. But one might reasonably argue that any trait that shows some differences - on average - between males and females - like heights for example - also constitutes another entirely different dimension, another axis in that multi-dimensional gender spectrum.
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substa...nalized-gender

Some merit in the concept of gender as a spectrum, though a multidimensional one seems more applicable. Some possibility of "mapping" that to a single dimension, but the mathematics of that is somewhat murky at best - largely outside of my salary range.
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 15th September 2022, 01:13 PM   #45
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
You may wish to take a look at my Welcome post, particularly the section on "Rationalized Gender" which attempts to put gender on a more scientific footing:
Then again, I may not so wish.

Confusion about what, Steersman? What might the structural scientific definition of sex leave me confused about, in your opinion? Give an example.
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 01:17 PM   #46
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Then again, I may not so wish.
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up", amirite?

But others might not be quite so narrow-minded ...

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Confusion about what, Steersman? What might the structural scientific definition of sex leave me confused about, in your opinion? Give an example.
Not much point in giving examples if you refuse to look at them - a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man. Or to one who will not see ...
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 15th September 2022, 01:22 PM   #47
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up", amirite?

But others might not be quite so narrow-minded ...



Not much point in giving examples if you refuse to look at them - a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man. Or to one who will not see ...
Confusion about what, Steersman?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 01:25 PM   #48
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,775
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But where have I said anything to the effect that sex itself is a spectrum?
Remind me why we're talking about spectra (either continuous or discrete) in a thread about sex?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 01:27 PM   #49
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Given that you do not get to decide which definition we or anyone else uses, how would you like to proceed from here?
Maybe go back to first principles? Maybe have some discussion on what the objectives are, which definitions might be the most useful for reaching them?

Just a thought or two ...

You might try reading that Cambridge Core article, even the first section or two:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...89FAC0D0FE49C8

Likewise the article on categorization:

Quote:
Categorization is grounded in the features that distinguish the category's members from nonmembers. Categorization is important in learning, prediction, inference, decision making, language, and many forms of organisms' interaction with their environments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization

There's some rhyme and reason to the process; it's not a free-for-all. Unless you maybe want to accept the "definitions" of the TRAs by which Laurel Hubbard qualifies as a female and gets to play in women's sports? "How dare you deprive her of that right?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Hubbard
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 15th September 2022, 01:32 PM   #50
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Remind me why we're talking about spectra (either continuous or discrete) in a thread about sex?
Do pay attention there Double-Oh Seven ...

I said pretty much right out of the chute that something of a major problem with the HHWH is that it boils down into a polythetic category, a discrete spectrum:

Quote:
However, assuming that they are stipulative and intensional definitions, one of the biggest, though not the only flaws in it is that, as I've argued, it basically boils down into a polythetic category - which constitutes a spectrum.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...59&postcount=7
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 15th September 2022, 01:34 PM   #51
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,522
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Maybe go back to first principles? Maybe have some discussion on what the objectives are, which definitions might be the most useful for reaching them?

Just a thought or two ...

You might try reading that Cambridge Core article, even the first section or two:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...89FAC0D0FE49C8

Likewise the article on categorization:


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

There's some rhyme and reason to the process; it's not a free-for-all. Unless you maybe want to accept the "definitions" of the TRAs by which Laurel Hubbard qualifies as a female and gets to play in women's sports? "How dare you deprive her of that right?"

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

I don't currently have any objectives that require, or would be facilitated in any way by, altering the definitions of male and female, in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals.

So, how about you? What objectives are you talking about?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2022, 01:40 PM   #52
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Remind me why we're talking about spectra (either continuous or discrete) in a thread about sex?
There seems to be some confusion there.
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 01:46 PM   #53
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
I don't currently have any objectives that require, or would be facilitated in any way by, altering the definitions of male and female, in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals.
The sun never sets on the British Myriad empire?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_em...sun_never_sets

I've explained dozens of times that the HHWH and the folk-biology definitions conflict rather badly with the standard biological definitions of Griffiths, Parker, Lehtonen, & Google/OED:

Quote:
Many people assume that if there are only two sexes, that means everyone must fall into one of them. But the biological definition of sex doesnít imply that at all. As well as simultaneous hermaphrodites, which are both male and female, sequential hermaphrodites are first one sex and then the other. There are also individual organisms that are neither male nor female. ....

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: to make eggs or to make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some canít do either. ....
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence...uman-diversity
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 15th September 2022, 02:11 PM   #54
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,775
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
I said pretty much right out of the chute that something of a major problem with the HHWH is that it boils down into a polythetic category, a discrete spectrum
Two things here.

1) The people who claim sex is a spectrum do not invoke either polythetic categories or discrete spectra. They almost certainly mean "spectrum" in the usual (continuous) sense of the term.

2) If you think the definition from the OP leads to a discrete spectrumWP, what measures are being plotted?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 02:17 PM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Confusion about what, Steersman? Give an example from everyday life.
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 02:38 PM   #56
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
Two things here.

1) The people who claim sex is a spectrum do not invoke either polythetic categories or discrete spectra. They almost certainly mean "spectrum" in the usual (continuous) sense of the term.
So what? You say po-ta-toe, I say po-tat-oe, still a spectrum ...

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
2) If you think the definition from the OP leads to a discrete spectrumWP, what measures are being plotted?
It's there in Hilton's tweet, as bold as brass: past, present, or future functionality. See:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=15

Quote:
But in the case of Sally's [polythetic] family the "necessary and sufficient conditions" are EITHER "A and B and C and not-D", XOR "A and B and not-C and D", XOR "A and not-B and C and D", XOR "not-A and B and C and D".

Either one set is sufficient, but at least one set is necessary for category membership. Which is more or less exactly the case with the HHWH schlock:

Quote:
Either:
structures with future reproductive functionality (functional gonads), or
structures with current reproductive functionality, or
structures with past reproductive functionality.
Past, present, and future are intrinsically mutually exclusive. Rather a stretch to see how a prepubescent "child" can be said to have any present or past reproductive functionality. Same thing with the other possible cases.

Hard to imagine a more ridiculous, logically incoherent, and totally useless definition than the HHWH. "teenager (noun): person with past, present, or future age of 13 to 19 inclusive" ...

Helen Joyce, for all her many flaws and desperate "prior commitments" of her own, had a nice summary of the issue:

Quote:
The intention here is to be ďinclusive.Ē But inclusive definitions miss the point. The way you define something is to state criteria that enable you to distinguish between things that qualify and things that donít.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200714...-not-be-named/
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 15th September 2022, 03:04 PM   #57
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,522
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
The sun never sets on the British Myriad empire?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_em...sun_never_sets

What's that supposed to mean? This doesn't appear to be any kind of argument. Are you just making noise because you can't answer the question?


Quote:
I've explained dozens of times...

"Johnny, I've explained dozens of times, 'the whole substance of bread [has been changed] into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine [has been changed] into the substance of the Blood of Christ' ..."

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

Quote:
...that the HHWH and the folk-biology definitions conflict rather badly with the standard biological definitions of Griffiths, Parker, Lehtonen, & Google/OED:

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

Even supposing that's true despite a large amount of clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary, what problems does that conflict cause, that a different definition of male and female in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals would solve?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2022, 03:08 PM   #58
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Steersman, I'm only interested in practical applications, not philosophical speculation. What confusion arises from a structural definition of sex?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 03:41 PM   #59
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 28,593
Steersman, does it bother you that nobody is using your 'system'? In everyday life, medicine, general science ... You're alone here. Isn't that a worry?
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 15th September 2022, 04:00 PM   #60
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
What's that supposed to mean? This doesn't appear to be any kind of argument. Are you just making noise because you can't answer the question?
Meant to suggest that you seem to have a rather "parochial" attitude - if something isn't within your sight then it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Quote:
"Johnny, I've explained dozens of times, 'the whole substance of bread [has been changed] into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine [has been changed] into the substance of the Blood of Christ' ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
Drawing a comparison between your "I've explained dozens of times..." and those peddling religious dogma. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true - particularly where you've offered diddly-squat in the way of evidence.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Even supposing that's true despite a large amount of clear and convincing evidence presented to the contrary ...
LoL; whotta thigh-slapper. Only in your own mind ...

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
... what problems does that conflict cause, that a different definition of male and female in a manner that excludes presently-non-gamete-producing individuals would solve?
For one thing, the HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female.

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

Maybe not a big problem in itself, but it conflicts rather badly with the claim that there are no human hermaphrodites:

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

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window and will have to be anathematized and expunged from the lexicon. All of the journals and biologists writing about the phenomenon will have to get visits from the Ministry of Truth and the Minister-in-Charge, Emma Hilton Dolores Umbridge, explaining the errors of their ways:

Quote:
Sequential hermaphroditism (called dichogamy in botany) is a type of hermaphroditism that occurs in many fish, gastropods, and plants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequen...ermaphroditism

Besides which, there will have to be separate definitions for high school biology classes and those for "social justice" ones ... rank insanity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
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 15th September 2022, 04:02 PM   #61
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Practical applications, Steersman. What confusion am I letting myself in for, by using the structural definition?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 04:06 PM   #62
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Steersman, does it bother you that nobody is using your 'system'? In everyday life, medicine, general science ... You're alone here. Isn't that a worry?
Does it bother you that several billion people believe that Jehovah or Allah is the Grand High Poohbah of the Universe?

That a large percentage of the population use systems of "thinking" that are so much antiscientific moonshine means diddly-squat. Except depressing evidence that most of us are scientifically illiterate. And you want to champion them?

Besides which, Griffiths, Parker (FRS), Lehtonen, Wikipedia, Del Giudice, and Google/OED clearly endorse the biological definitions. Think I'm in rather good company - hardly "alone".
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 15th September 2022, 04:09 PM   #63
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Wikipedia isn't good company, Steersman.

What confusion?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 04:11 PM   #64
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Wikipedia isn't good company, Steersman.
Philistine ...

https://www.livescience.com/32950-ho...wikipedia.html
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 15th September 2022, 04:15 PM   #65
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
What confusion, Steersman?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 04:42 PM   #66
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,522
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Meant to suggest that you seem to have a rather "parochial" attitude - if something isn't within your sight then it doesn't exist.

But I said quite the reverse of that. To summarize, I said I have no problem with the existing definitions as typically applied, so if you or others had a problem with it you'd have to explain what it is. Which, I note, you haven't done.

Quote:
Drawing a comparison between your "I've explained dozens of times..." and those peddling religious dogma. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's true - particularly where you've offered diddly-squat in the way of evidence.

And I was drawing the same comparison for your claim of having explained something dozens of times, which also doesn't mean it's true.


Quote:
LoL; whotta thigh-slapper. Only in your own mind ...

Perhaps it's escaped your notice, but between the two of us the state of my mind is the only one that matters here. You claim to want to get me to do something; that is, change the usage of words I use. You have no authority to compel me or anyone to do it, so your only option is to try to persuade me. If I am not persuaded, and others in the same role here and elsewhere are not persuaded, then you have failed in your claimed goal. In that case the status quo, which I'm content with and everyone else seems to be content with, prevails. Your only hope in that case is to learn through this discourse to make a better case.

On my part, my only goal is to amuse myself by engaging with you. The moment it stops being sufficiently amusing, I'll stop, having lost nothing and gained some brief amusement. At this point there appears to be no chance that you will ever convince anyone, here or anywhere, now or ever, so I don't even have to worry about the minor inconvenience of having to learn a new definition.


Quote:
For one thing, the HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female.

Why is that (which would apply only to a vanishingly small number of humans) any more of a problem than redefining a very significant fraction of humans as neither male nor female?

Quote:
For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window and will have to be anathematized and expunged from the lexicon. All of the journals and biologists writing about the phenomenon will have to get visits from the Ministry of Truth and the Minister-in-Charge, Emma Hilton Dolores Umbridge, explaining the errors of their ways:

This is your fantasy of how language works. You're the one purporting to explain to everyone else the error of their ways, so how does that comparison reflect on you?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th September 2022, 06:02 PM   #67
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,775
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
It's there in Hilton's tweet, as bold as brass: past, present, or future functionality.
An individual either has "past, present, or future functionality" as a producer of gametes or else they don't have it. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the large immobile gametes are female. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the small motile gametes are male. I'm not seeing a (continuous) spectrum here, are you?

ETA: Will you please answer theprestige re: potential confusion? I'm not replying to you again until you do so, since that would make me complicit in helping you dodge the question.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 15th September 2022 at 06:05 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 15th September 2022, 06:08 PM   #68
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Unlike a teenager, who is temporarily a teen, a structural male always has the genetic structure of a male.

Does nobody understand how analogies always fail to change minds?
__________________
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 15th September 2022, 06:47 PM   #69
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
An individual either has "past, present, or future functionality" as a producer of gametes or else they don't have it. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the large immobile gametes are female. People who have produced, presently produce, or will someday produce the small motile gametes are male. I'm not seeing a (continuous) spectrum here, are you?
Fer Christ's sake.

I am NOT saying the HHWH is a continuous spectrum. I AM saying that it's a discrete spectrum, a polythetic category with THREE - count 'em, THREE - discrete and mutually exclusive conditions for category membership: future XOR present XOR past.

The SAME way that Sally's polythetic family has four discrete and mutually exclusive conditions for membership in her family. Try looking at, and thinking about the illustrations and explanations provided:



http://www.internationalskeptics.com...59&postcount=7

Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
ETA: Will you please answer theprestige re: potential confusion? I'm not replying to you again until you do so, since that would make me complicit in helping you dodge the question.
Heaven forefend ...

Think I've already answered the question - several times, directly or indirectly, here or in previous threads. Don't think he's listening - kind of hard to do that with one's head in the sand - or paying attention.

More particularly:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=32
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=60

If he's incapable of reading between the lines, or unwilling to address what I've already said to the question then I don't see that I have any further obligations on that score.
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 15th September 2022, 11:44 PM   #70
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
But I said quite the reverse of that. To summarize, I said I have no problem with the existing definitions as typically applied ....
LoL - "typically applied". What I mean by a parochial mind-set - an inability or unwillingness to look outside of your narrow focus.

Though I'm glad you at least concede something in the way of a problem - some possible "confusion" - as far as human hermaphrodites are concerned ...

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
... so if you or others had a problem with it you'd have to explain what it is. Which, I note, you haven't done.
Of course I've done so - in chapter and verse, 3 cases only one of which you've conceded might be "problematic", the other two of which you've dismissed outright or ignored.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
And I was drawing the same comparison for your claim of having explained something dozens of times, which also doesn't mean it's true.
Sure. But I've quoted chapter and verse to support my arguments; you've put diddly-squat on the table to "justify" yours.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Perhaps it's escaped your notice, but between the two of us the state of my mind is the only one that matters here.
Except the issue or the scope isn't just "the two of us".

Not terribly concerned about "persuading you". All I have to do, or want to do is show - for all and sundry who happen to traipse through these environs - that you haven't got a leg to stand on, that you've put nothing on the table to justify your position while I get to read into the record all sorts of evidence to justify mine.

Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Quote:
...HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female. ...
Why is that (which would apply only to a vanishingly small number of humans) any more of a problem than redefining a very significant fraction of humans as neither male nor female?
Sure, as far as the number of people directly affected. But I expect that's only the tip of the iceberg - rather doubt all of the biologists who work in that area, and the authors of the Wikipedia article on the topic will be much impressed by Hilton and Company insisting they have to change their essays, articles, or working definitions for the sexes.


Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
Quote:
For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window ...
This is your fantasy of how language works. You're the one purporting to explain to everyone else the error of their ways, so how does that comparison reflect on you?
What horse crap. Sure would like to see Hilton stick-handle around a question of how their "hypothesis" might work with sequential hermaphrodites. Don't see how their "hypothesis" doesn't nullify the whole concept which is predicated on the idea that to change one's sex is to change the function exhibited or manifested - i.e., from producing (present tense indefinite) one type of gamete to producing the other.

But hardly a "fantasy of how language works". Apart from previous links to Wikipedia articles on stipulative, and extensional & intensional definitions, I had linked, in my last comment, to another article on the venerable principle of explosion to emphasize the problems of contradictions in one's premises - and definitions:

Quote:
In classical logic, intuitionistic logic and similar logical systems, the principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from falsehood, anything [follows]'; or ex contradictione [sequitur] quodlibet, 'from contradiction, anything [follows]'), or the principle of Pseudo-Scotus, is the law according to which any statement can be proven from a contradiction.[1] That is, once a contradiction has been asserted, any proposition (including their negations) can be inferred from it; this is known as deductive explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
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 16th September 2022, 03:35 AM   #71
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
What confusion, Steersman?
__________________
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 16th September 2022, 04:13 AM   #72
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,380
No human being produces both sperm and ova. And don't come out with that dodgy paper where they claim a man with a vestigial ovary might once have ovulated, they talk a lot of crap in it.
__________________
"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 16th September 2022, 06:03 AM   #73
Myriad
The Clarity Is Devastating
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 19,522
Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
Of course I've done so - in chapter and verse, 3 cases only one of which you've conceded might be "problematic", the other two of which you've dismissed outright or ignored.

Sure. But I've quoted chapter and verse to support my arguments; you've put diddly-squat on the table to "justify" yours.

You have mentioned some usages that you've opined could cause "confusion." You have not stated the nature of that confusion, nor any adverse consequences of that confusion, nor how your own preferred definition would correct that confusion or ameliorate those consequences. Despite being repeatedly asked.

Quote:
Except the issue or the scope isn't just "the two of us".

Not terribly concerned about "persuading you". All I have to do, or want to do is show - for all and sundry who happen to traipse through these environs - that you haven't got a leg to stand on, that you've put nothing on the table to justify your position while I get to read into the record all sorts of evidence to justify mine.

You've showed your show, but haven't persuaded anyone. So then what?

Quote:
Sure, as far as the number of people directly affected. But I expect that's only the tip of the iceberg - rather doubt all of the biologists who work in that area, and the authors of the Wikipedia article on the topic will be much impressed by Hilton and Company insisting they have to change their essays, articles, or working definitions for the sexes.

Do you have evidence Hilton and Company are insisting anyone change essays, articles, or working definitions? Emails they've sent to biologists, letters to the editor they've published, online manifestos, Wikipedia edits, photos of them picketing biology labs? Do they post on forums arguing against expert consensus about the strict biological definitions of "male" and "female"? Do you know anyone who does that?
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th September 2022, 06:52 AM   #74
Rolfe
Adult human female
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 49,380
As far as I can see, nobody at all would have to change the definition of "male" and "female" they currently use to bring them in line with the definition Emma Hilton favours.

I have also read her on the subject of sequential hermaphrodites, and she is perfectly clear. They change sex. They are male when they produce sperm and they are female when they produce ova. I don't think any of what she says is at all controversial. She is simply clarifying long-standing usage, which didn't need clarification in the past because we weren't being assailed by the "sex is a spectrum" morons.
__________________
"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 16th September 2022, 08:00 AM   #75
d4m10n
Philosopher
 
d4m10n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Mounts Farm
Posts: 9,775
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If I use the structural definition in everyday life, what things might leave me confused? What things might confuse others? Give an example. Confusion about what?
I'd like to hear an answer to this as well, Steersman, one that doesn't require "reading between the lines." I'm happy to admit that the OP definition (or the past/present/future version) might well cause confusion, but can you think of a specific situation in which that confusion would prove problematic? Like, maybe, the queue at a sperm bank?

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
But, more importantly, I kinda think you're barking up the wrong tree. That old definitions and uses may conflict with newer stipulative definitions pretty much means diddly-squat.
I'm > 99% confident you will never find anyone at OED claiming that they are promulgating stipulative definitions.

Originally Posted by Steersman View Post
So what if there's a conflict?
So it may well be that your interpretation of "female" is what's causing the conflict.
__________________
Just reread theprestige's signature; still cannot recall anything about it.

Last edited by d4m10n; 16th September 2022 at 08:09 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 16th September 2022, 08:05 AM   #76
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
No human being produces both sperm and ova. And don't come out with that dodgy paper where they claim a man with a vestigial ovary might once have ovulated, they talk a lot of crap in it.
Pray tell, where did I ever say that some humans produce both? Don't think you're paying attention. Or are very honest in your responses.

The point is that by Hilton's "thesis", those humans with ovotestis are BOTH male AND female. All that's required by her "definition" is "developed anatomies" that may, or may not, in the fullness of time - gawd willing and the creek don't rise - produce sperm or ova.

That is, by their definitions, they are both male AND female, ergo, hermaphrodites. Which means that the Wikipedia article on the topic will have to be changed, and their authors, and those responsible for the citations, will have to be sent to the gulag, or at least the re-education camps:

Quote:
In recent years the term hermaphrodite applied to humans has fallen out of favor since there have been no identified cases of a human reproducing as both male and female,[10] with some biologists saying hermaphroditism does not occur in humans.[11][12]....There are no hermaphroditic species among mammals[18][19] or birds.[20][21]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite

It doesn't matter how many cases there are - it only takes one to upset the applecart. And sow confusion ...

En passant, you might try quoting the comment you're referring to, though that's maybe difficult on smartphones ...
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 16th September 2022, 08:09 AM   #77
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wales
Posts: 28,593
Originally Posted by d4m10n View Post
I'd like to hear an answer to this as well, Steersman, one that doesn't require "reading between the lines."
Careful what you wish for - you're likely to get 5 lengthy paragraphs and several links to websites plus extracts from them.
__________________
"Even a broken clock is right twice a day. 9/11 truth is a clock with no hands." - Beachnut
GlennB 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 16th September 2022, 08:10 AM   #78
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
As far as I can see, nobody at all would have to change the definition of "male" and "female" they currently use to bring them in line with the definition Emma Hilton favours.

I have also read her on the subject of sequential hermaphrodites, and she is perfectly clear. They change sex. They are male when they produce sperm and they are female when they produce ova. I don't think any of what she says is at all controversial. She is simply clarifying long-standing usage, which didn't need clarification in the past because we weren't being assailed by the "sex is a spectrum" morons.
And even with sequential hermaphrodites (seqherms?), the structural definition works just fine. Since obviously any organism performing the function has the structure to do so.

The structural definition has the rare advantage of being more expansive and more inclusive, without losing any clarity or consistency of thought.
__________________
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 16th September 2022, 08:10 AM   #79
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 61,542
Confusion about what, Steersman?
__________________
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 16th September 2022, 08:36 AM   #80
Steersman
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What confusion, Steersman?


Think I've already answered that question - several times, directly or indirectly, here or other threads. Don't think you're paying attention or are particularly honest in your responses - or the lack of them. See here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2&postcount=32
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...3&postcount=60

But since there's new information on the table relative to my response to your earlier comment (#32) - and of course to keep Damion happy ... - it may be worth a bit of elaboration. More particularly, you had said:

Quote:
"This woman must have been impregnated by a functional male."
But I see the Wikipedia article on sequential hermaphrodites uses the same terminology:

Quote:
Both protogynous and protandrous hermaphroditism allow the organism to switch between functional male and functional female. .... A flower is protogynous if its function is first female, then male, and protandrous if its function is male then female.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequen...ermaphroditism

So I guess if we wanted to follow suit, and at least genuflect to the HHWH, then we should say, more precisely, that a protogynous organism switches from functional female and non-functional male to non-functional female and functional male? That prepubescent humans are non-functional males and non-functional females? That menopausees are non-functional females, that transwomen who cut their nuts off are non-functional males? Terms that we might shorten to non-males and non-females? ....

What tangled webs we weave .... All to avoid saying "sexless" ...

But I might also emphasize again that I had said in that comment, "See the 'confusion'?" Which you didn't respond to. Hence the "not particularly honest" - being charitable - and civil.

But for the sake of completeness, you might note this section from the second comment of mine which also speaks to your "question":

Quote:
For one thing, the HHWH means that some humans - those with ovotestes - are both male AND female.

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

Maybe not a big problem in itself, but it conflicts rather badly with the claim that there are no human hermaphrodites:

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

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

For another, the whole concept of sequential hermaphrodites goes out the window and will have to be anathematized and expunged from the lexicon. All of the journals and biologists writing about the phenomenon will have to get visits from the Ministry of Truth and the Minister-in-Charge, Emma Hilton Dolores Umbridge, explaining the errors of their ways:

Quote:
Sequential hermaphroditism (called dichogamy in botany) is a type of hermaphroditism that occurs in many fish, gastropods, and plants.
Besides which, there will have to be separate definitions for high school biology classes and those for "social justice" ones ... rank insanity.
Let me know when you're ready to take an honest run at responding to my answers to your question ...
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
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 05:03 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.