• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Differences in Sex Development (aka "intersex")

Steersman said:
LoL. I wonder if you bothered to note - in your cherry-picking - who the author was...
Click to expand...
Naw it's just a bizarre coincidence that I replied with a link to a paper from the guy you were citing. :p

Steersman said:
Kinda think "could lead" is something of a hypothetical: IF a male had his nuts cut off THEN he would no longer be one ...
Click to expand...
Jesuitical dissembling.

Rolfe said:
Nobody uses "Parker's definition" as defined by Steersman. Not even Parker, apparently. That's the point.
Click to expand...
At least someone got it.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Naw it's just a bizarre coincidence that I replied with a link to a paper from the guy you were citing. :p
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Still didn't bother to read his Glossary.

d4m10n said:
Jesuitical dissembling.
Click to expand...
LoL. "No true Scotsman" ... :rolleyes:

d4m10n said:
At least someone got it.
Click to expand...
Don't think so. Neither of you have shown any evidence of either Parker or Lehtonen contradicting or repudiating the biological definitions.
 
d4m10n said:
"blockage of his excurrent ducts"
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: So what?

You use his to indicate that something belongs or relates to a man, boy, or male animal.
Click to expand...

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/his

And most boys are prepubescent, not yet males.

You sure do seem rather desperate to hang onto prescientific conceptions & definitions. Almost like Galileo's contemporaries insisting on the geocentric model, like the religious fundamentalists of Darwin's time insisting on a 6000-year old earth or that humans hadn't evolved from apes ...
 
d4m10n said:
And most pronouns refer back to earlier nouns.
Click to expand...
So? You say that like you've just said "God exists! (So there, Darwin & Dawkins!)"

You seem surprisingly reluctant to consider that there are some relevant rules and regulations to how and why we name and define categories.

You may wish to take a gander at this article, and a few relevant quotes:

The social sciences are plagued with severe and unresolved problems of definition. .... Yet without workable definitions, science can make little progress. .... There is little recognition that several different types of definition have been identified in philosophy. .... Consider another type of definition. An intensional definition establishes the meaning of a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used (Cook, Reference Cook and Cook2009). .... By contrast, the term extensional definition is used to refer to the listing of everything that falls under that definition.
Click to expand...

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...case-studies/6372514DD31945C1F489FAC0D0FE49C8

And that intensional-extensional dichotomy, and the "necessary and sufficient conditions" associated with the former goes back a long ways - Aquinas if not earlier.

Philosophers have long utilized (in the theory of definition and in other contexts) the concepts of extension and intension.
Click to expand...

https://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/definitions.htm#part6

Don't think you're helping much by refusing to grapple with the details of that process.
 
Anyway, none of this helps solve my "creature that would rightfully be called a spider if only it hadn't lost one of its legs" conundrum. The bugger has hobbled off to some obscure spot in this living room, still unaware of what it should now be called. I think he/she/it is miffed. I'll just assume it's a male 'thingy' and call him Boris.

One of my tropical fish died the other day, but when I spotted the body I realised I couldn't call it a 'dead fish', as fish are vertebrates that swim around in water, breathe through gills, have scales, etc etc, and this specimen sure wasn't swimming or breathing, that's for sure. What to call it? Doris?
 
GlennB said:
Anyway, none of this helps solve my "creature that would rightfully be called a spider if only it hadn't lost one of its legs" conundrum. The bugger has hobbled off to some obscure spot in this living room, still unaware of what it should now be called. I think he/she/it is miffed. I'll just assume it's a male 'thingy' and call him Boris.
Click to expand...

Think I've already answered that question - do pay attention there Double-Ooh Seven ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13886315&postcount=791

GlennB said:
One of my tropical fish died the other day, but when I spotted the body I realised I couldn't call it a 'dead fish', as fish are vertebrates that swim around in water, breathe through gills, have scales, etc etc, and this specimen sure wasn't swimming or breathing, that's for sure. What to call it? Doris?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Nominally speaking ...

nominal (adjective): existing or being something in name or form only
nominal head of his party
Click to expand...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nominal
 
GlennB said:
Do you realise you're switching definition systems from post to post, to suit the point that you're responding to?
Click to expand...

How so? Show your work.

Think I've been pretty consistent, particularly about the definitions for the sexes and species - and necessary and sufficient conditions. Having 8 legs is NOT one of those conditions for the category "spider".
 

Attachments

  • And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg
    And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 5
Steersman said:
How so? Show your work.

Think I've been pretty consistent, particularly about the definitions for the sexes and species - and necessary and sufficient conditions. Having 8 legs is NOT one of those conditions for the category "spider".
Click to expand...

"An eight-legged predatory arachnid with an unsegmented body consisting of a fused head and thorax and a rounded abdomen. Spiders have fangs which inject poison into their prey, and most kinds spin webs in which to capture insects."

There are other definitions available, but 8 legs is part of them all. It's one of the necessary conditions. My particular arachnid is still a spider, as it's "Of the class that ...". The missing leg is incidental, just as being pre-pubescent doesn't stop a boy being male, as he is "Of the class that ..."
 
Steersman said:
Nope, sorry.
Click to expand...

Let's review.

...secondary aggregation is probably beneficial since release of the sperm apical hook (necessary for aggregation) within the male could lead to blockage of his excurrent ducts, with resultant infertility.
Click to expand...
You argued that "his" could refer to a prepubesecent boy (and it can) but that argument doesn't work here since the pronoun refers back to a specific noun and that noun picks out a mature male who produces sperm.

In the event his excurrent ducts are blocked, Parker still calls this individual "male." Not sure what pronoun you'd use, since we don't have one for sexless mammals.
 
Last edited:
GlennB said:
Anyway, none of this helps solve my "creature that would rightfully be called a spider if only it hadn't lost one of its legs" conundrum. The bugger has hobbled off to some obscure spot in this living room, still unaware of what it should now be called. I think he/she/it is miffed. I'll just assume it's a male 'thingy' and call him Boris.

One of my tropical fish died the other day, but when I spotted the body I realised I couldn't call it a 'dead fish', as fish are vertebrates that swim around in water, breathe through gills, have scales, etc etc, and this specimen sure wasn't swimming or breathing, that's for sure. What to call it? Doris?
Click to expand...

I love this post.
 
Does anyone happen to have good evidence for/against the proposition that Imane Khelif is intersex?
 
d4m10n said:
Does anyone happen to have good evidence for/against the proposition that Imane Khelif is intersex?
Click to expand...

In what way does it matter?

Intersex isn't a different sex, it's a misleading term for a subset of disorders of sexual development. It's a term that isn't generally used by the medical community, in part because it gives the false impression that people with these conditions are somehow neither male or female, or some combination thereof.
 
Emily's Cat said:
In what way does it matter?

Intersex isn't a different sex, it's a misleading term for a subset of disorders of sexual development. It's a term that isn't generally used by the medical community, in part because it gives the false impression that people with these conditions are somehow neither male or female, or some combination thereof.
Click to expand...

What is someone with XXY chromosomes or XY chromosomes but androgen insensitivity?

I think intersex is a good description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom