Lots of good reading there, if some rather depressing fare. Moot as to the roots of the general problem you refer to, although many have argued that most of us aren't really listening to each other, are too narrow-minded, scientifically illiterate, and dogmatic to do so. Something of a systemic problem that may well be the death of us all.
Something of a case in point, if not where the rubber meets the road, is summarized by your "the scientific definition of sex has gone down the toilet". But the problem there is that most people haven't got a flaming clue about that "scientific definition" in the first place and are subscribing to if not peddling what is no more than folk biology. For example, you link to the Spiked Online article that takes a well-deserved shot or two at "Scientific" American. However, Spiked proves their scientific illiteracy and pigheadedness by stating that, "... [Scientific American] asserts that sex is ‘assigned’ at birth when it is not – it is observed and recorded". The ONLY thing that is observed at birth is genitalia which is NOT what it takes to qualify as male or female.
More particularly -- by the standard biological definitions promulgated in reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither -- i.e., newborn babies and the prepubescent -- are sexless. As some corroboration for that view, see this recent article in Wiley Online Library and this passage in particular:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless.
ALL that the words "male" and "female" denote, at least by those standard biological definitions, is quite transitory reproductive abilities. Too many people have turned the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences". And too many get quite "offended" when one tries to point out those facts. Not to give you (too much of) a hard time, but I wonder how willing you are to listen to that argument ...
I'm always willing to listen to any kind of substantial argument and, if I remember correctly, we had talked about this very specific definition of "sex" at some other point. I am no biologist, but I do understand the biological definition you cite from the WOL and I have no objections against it. In fact, I would argue that this definition is simply included in the broader definition I use and Mr. Esses uses in his article (and most common people use), as it says: "Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET."
The "yet" is crucial. Of course a two-day-old baby cannot reproduce YET. However, I can predict with absolute certainty that, due to its genitalia and DNA, it will have the POTENTIAL to produce either one of the gametes: a baby with a penis has the potential to produce sperm, a baby with a vagina has the potential to produce ova; only the latter will potentially be able to give birth.
Given the current sociopolitical climate, I'm afraid that these "petty" details cannot be the focus of the discussion right now. If the issue is male rapists taking showers next to female convicts in prison, the focus has to be on the "folksy" definition of sex because this is about human safety and dignity, especially for women. It doesn't matter whether the naked criminal next to you produces gametes or not - what matters is that he can rape you.
Thanks; you often have quite "meaty" posts that one can really get one's teeth into. 🙂
But I'm no biologist either -- kind of lost in the arcana; a very large body of knowledge. However, the matter of definitions is both somewhat broader and narrower than that -- biologists, those worth their salt, SAY that to have a sex is to have functional gonads, those with neither being sexless. The latter including about a third of us. In which case the definition that Esses uses is in fact the "narrower" definition and is really only applicable to humans, and not very effective at that. In addition, it conflicts very badly with the biological one which causes no end of problems. See my Binarists vs Spectrumists for details:
The whole issue is largely which definition for the sexes we are going to use, and I think we have to ask ourselves why we would be using rather unscientific ones, particularly in the face of that conflict.
I appreciate that you quoted "petty", but I think it is anything but that. Scientific American is basically peddling definitions that make the sexes into social categories, but Esses' definitions are virtually the same thing -- pots and kettles. You are quite correct that a baby with a penis probably has the POTENTIAL to BECOME a male, but the fact of the matter, a rather profound one that too many try to sweep under the carpet, is that "potential" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "actual".
And while I largely agree, in principle at least, with you that "the issue is male rapists taking showers next to female convicts", talking about "male rapists" and "female convicts" is begging the question in more ways than one. The issue is really not male and female but penis-havers and vagina-havers. Squabbling about definitions just tends to muddy the waters and preclude a sane and workable response to that problem.
But then do we really want to talk about "penis-havers and vagina-havers" in law and everyday life? Men and women sounds much better to me. And until five seconds ago, everyone pretty much agreed that men=penis-havers and women=vagina-havers.
But "sounds better" is part of the problem -- very few are willing to consider what it actually MEANS to say that someone is male or female. The words become empty signifiers, no better than badges of tribal membership -- tribalism, as both you and I have suggested, being part and parcel of the whole problem:
Interesting link there to an old aptly titled Quillette article on "Our Tribes and Tribulations".
But you're quite correct about "until five seconds ago". However, that is part of that zeitgeist you referred to, and the only way of turning the tide is to draw a line in the sand, the biological definitions being, apparently, the only tool available for doing so. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in this conversation I'm having with "Hippiesq", the mother of a teenage dysphoric daughter:
Particularly as I've referenced our conversation here, and as I'm in the midst of posting my latest comment in that thread as a Note. Stay tuned for late-breaking developments ... 🙂
👍 De Nada; share the wealth, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
Incredibly complicated issue, though the outlines and high points are or should be readily discernable. Apropos of which and ICYMI, an interview of Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater by Substacker Helen Dale:
All three of them have their blindspots -- notably in their insistence that "sex is immutable" which is no more than quite risibly antiscientific claptrap. But Dale and Joyce in particular have a solid point in arguing that transgenderism is something of a "civilization threatening/ending movement".
A boy does not produce sperm until puberty, still we all know he is male. A woman starts losing her fertility in menopause, still she does not become suddenly sexless. I think the question is more what is the whole purpose of your body by nature to produce/ hold a one of the two gonads. Tinkering around with medical procedures does not change basic nature. None of those “doctors” can create anything just destroy
We all know that he WILL PROBABLY BECOME a male once puberty kicks in. That's the whole point of that Wiley Online Library article: "Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET." [my emphasis.]
And of their emphasis of a transitory "life-history stage" which they apparently picked up from an article by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of "Genetics & Philosophy" -- on "What Are Biological Sexes?":
Of particular note therefrom is Griffiths' several uses of the phrase, "prospective narration":
PG: "Assigning sexes to pre-reproductive life-history stages involves ‘prospective narration’ – classifying the present in terms of its anticipated future. .... So while we can justifiably engage in prospective narration and use terms like ‘male embryo’ these embryos are not male in the same sense as a reproductively competent adult. .... We could justifiably label [a female Blue Groper] an ‘incipient male’, but it is not yet male, in fact it is currently still female, and soon it will be neither male or female for a time. When we assign a sex to an organism not yet reproductively competent we are engaging in prospective narration."
But I quite agree with you about "not changing basic nature", about humans supposedly changing from one sex to another which is simply impossible by those standard biological definitions -- one of the benefits of using them to draw a line in the sand. And about many so-called "doctors" who should lose their licenses if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind for being part of an egregious medical scandal.
Lots of good reading there, if some rather depressing fare. Moot as to the roots of the general problem you refer to, although many have argued that most of us aren't really listening to each other, are too narrow-minded, scientifically illiterate, and dogmatic to do so. Something of a systemic problem that may well be the death of us all.
Something of a case in point, if not where the rubber meets the road, is summarized by your "the scientific definition of sex has gone down the toilet". But the problem there is that most people haven't got a flaming clue about that "scientific definition" in the first place and are subscribing to if not peddling what is no more than folk biology. For example, you link to the Spiked Online article that takes a well-deserved shot or two at "Scientific" American. However, Spiked proves their scientific illiteracy and pigheadedness by stating that, "... [Scientific American] asserts that sex is ‘assigned’ at birth when it is not – it is observed and recorded". The ONLY thing that is observed at birth is genitalia which is NOT what it takes to qualify as male or female.
More particularly -- by the standard biological definitions promulgated in reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither -- i.e., newborn babies and the prepubescent -- are sexless. As some corroboration for that view, see this recent article in Wiley Online Library and this passage in particular:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, yet."
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless.
ALL that the words "male" and "female" denote, at least by those standard biological definitions, is quite transitory reproductive abilities. Too many people have turned the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences". And too many get quite "offended" when one tries to point out those facts. Not to give you (too much of) a hard time, but I wonder how willing you are to listen to that argument ...
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/i-still-dont-understand-the-point/comment/42433491
https://sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/my-first-space-how-did-it-go/comment/39281981
Hi there Steersman, good to read from you again!
I'm always willing to listen to any kind of substantial argument and, if I remember correctly, we had talked about this very specific definition of "sex" at some other point. I am no biologist, but I do understand the biological definition you cite from the WOL and I have no objections against it. In fact, I would argue that this definition is simply included in the broader definition I use and Mr. Esses uses in his article (and most common people use), as it says: "Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET."
The "yet" is crucial. Of course a two-day-old baby cannot reproduce YET. However, I can predict with absolute certainty that, due to its genitalia and DNA, it will have the POTENTIAL to produce either one of the gametes: a baby with a penis has the potential to produce sperm, a baby with a vagina has the potential to produce ova; only the latter will potentially be able to give birth.
Given the current sociopolitical climate, I'm afraid that these "petty" details cannot be the focus of the discussion right now. If the issue is male rapists taking showers next to female convicts in prison, the focus has to be on the "folksy" definition of sex because this is about human safety and dignity, especially for women. It doesn't matter whether the naked criminal next to you produces gametes or not - what matters is that he can rape you.
Thanks; you often have quite "meaty" posts that one can really get one's teeth into. 🙂
But I'm no biologist either -- kind of lost in the arcana; a very large body of knowledge. However, the matter of definitions is both somewhat broader and narrower than that -- biologists, those worth their salt, SAY that to have a sex is to have functional gonads, those with neither being sexless. The latter including about a third of us. In which case the definition that Esses uses is in fact the "narrower" definition and is really only applicable to humans, and not very effective at that. In addition, it conflicts very badly with the biological one which causes no end of problems. See my Binarists vs Spectrumists for details:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
The whole issue is largely which definition for the sexes we are going to use, and I think we have to ask ourselves why we would be using rather unscientific ones, particularly in the face of that conflict.
I appreciate that you quoted "petty", but I think it is anything but that. Scientific American is basically peddling definitions that make the sexes into social categories, but Esses' definitions are virtually the same thing -- pots and kettles. You are quite correct that a baby with a penis probably has the POTENTIAL to BECOME a male, but the fact of the matter, a rather profound one that too many try to sweep under the carpet, is that "potential" is an entirely different kettle of fish from "actual".
And while I largely agree, in principle at least, with you that "the issue is male rapists taking showers next to female convicts", talking about "male rapists" and "female convicts" is begging the question in more ways than one. The issue is really not male and female but penis-havers and vagina-havers. Squabbling about definitions just tends to muddy the waters and preclude a sane and workable response to that problem.
But then do we really want to talk about "penis-havers and vagina-havers" in law and everyday life? Men and women sounds much better to me. And until five seconds ago, everyone pretty much agreed that men=penis-havers and women=vagina-havers.
Good question, and thanks for your response.
But "sounds better" is part of the problem -- very few are willing to consider what it actually MEANS to say that someone is male or female. The words become empty signifiers, no better than badges of tribal membership -- tribalism, as both you and I have suggested, being part and parcel of the whole problem:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/horns-of-a-dilemma-tyrannies-of-the-subjective-and-objective-narratives-dd84461fb764
Interesting link there to an old aptly titled Quillette article on "Our Tribes and Tribulations".
But you're quite correct about "until five seconds ago". However, that is part of that zeitgeist you referred to, and the only way of turning the tide is to draw a line in the sand, the biological definitions being, apparently, the only tool available for doing so. Apropos of which, you might have some interest in this conversation I'm having with "Hippiesq", the mother of a teenage dysphoric daughter:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/accidental-and-essential-properties/comment/42773578
Particularly as I've referenced our conversation here, and as I'm in the midst of posting my latest comment in that thread as a Note. Stay tuned for late-breaking developments ... 🙂
Hot off the press, though as a post and not a Note 🙂:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/scientific-americans-lysenkoism
You should have received a notification as I included your Substack name, though not sure if that feature works the way it is advertised.
I did receive a notification. Thank you for including my post!
👍 De Nada; share the wealth, praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. 🙂
Incredibly complicated issue, though the outlines and high points are or should be readily discernable. Apropos of which and ICYMI, an interview of Helen Joyce and Maya Forstater by Substacker Helen Dale:
https://lawliberty.org/podcast/when-does-sex-matter/
All three of them have their blindspots -- notably in their insistence that "sex is immutable" which is no more than quite risibly antiscientific claptrap. But Dale and Joyce in particular have a solid point in arguing that transgenderism is something of a "civilization threatening/ending movement".
A boy does not produce sperm until puberty, still we all know he is male. A woman starts losing her fertility in menopause, still she does not become suddenly sexless. I think the question is more what is the whole purpose of your body by nature to produce/ hold a one of the two gonads. Tinkering around with medical procedures does not change basic nature. None of those “doctors” can create anything just destroy
LR: "still we all know he is male"
We all know that he WILL PROBABLY BECOME a male once puberty kicks in. That's the whole point of that Wiley Online Library article: "Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET." [my emphasis.]
And of their emphasis of a transitory "life-history stage" which they apparently picked up from an article by Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosopher of science, co-author of "Genetics & Philosophy" -- on "What Are Biological Sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
Of particular note therefrom is Griffiths' several uses of the phrase, "prospective narration":
PG: "Assigning sexes to pre-reproductive life-history stages involves ‘prospective narration’ – classifying the present in terms of its anticipated future. .... So while we can justifiably engage in prospective narration and use terms like ‘male embryo’ these embryos are not male in the same sense as a reproductively competent adult. .... We could justifiably label [a female Blue Groper] an ‘incipient male’, but it is not yet male, in fact it is currently still female, and soon it will be neither male or female for a time. When we assign a sex to an organism not yet reproductively competent we are engaging in prospective narration."
But I quite agree with you about "not changing basic nature", about humans supposedly changing from one sex to another which is simply impossible by those standard biological definitions -- one of the benefits of using them to draw a line in the sand. And about many so-called "doctors" who should lose their licenses if not be strung up by their nuts and left to twist in the wind for being part of an egregious medical scandal.