Gender Roles

[Emily Lake]

Nevertheless, "having antlers" is, in and of itself, a secondary characteristic of the male sex in most deer, and it isn't in reindeer even if typical male antlers and typical female antlers still differ very recognisably.

So what?

Different feather coloration is a secondary sex characteristic in most birds, but not in swans, nor in many geese. Most dogs, including coyotes and wolves have no notable secondary sex characteristics, and only display a sex-correlated difference in size.

The specific sex characteristics (both primary and secondary) of each sex vary by species, as do sex-correlated traits. This isn't any kind of an "aha!", it's just confusing as to why you think this matters.

 

[Emily Lake]

A quick google search will disprove this claim for the prostate https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/90/9/713/1007768. The predecessor structure of uterus and fallopian tubes is also present in the male embryo, although its development is discontinued and the structures reabsorbed during typical male development, though not always: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/90/9/713/1007768. I'm not willing to do the same for everything you throw out, but it's clear your claim as is is on shaky ground.

Yes, the predecessors are there prior to sexual differentiation along a wolffian or a mullerian pathway. But they DO NOT BECOME A PART OF THE OPPOSITE SEX ANATOMY.

Those preliminary fallopian tubes do not develop into any part of the male reproductive system. They are not bipotential structures. They are typically reabsorbed... but when they aren't reabsorbed they are left as residual elements and are associated with persistent mullerian duct syndrome... which is considered a disorder of sexual development. You seem to insist upon something only being a disorder if it causes "distress" although you've failed to explain what you consider to be distress. In the case of persistent mullerian duct syndrome, the deleterious condition is very frequently hernias and/or infertility. There are undoubtedly some people with PMDS out there who don't know that they have it because their testes descended into their scrotal sacs in a normal fashion, and they've had no herniation, and they've never tried to have kids or their condition hasn't expressed with infertility when they were trying to father children.

Did you just say that there are undoubtedly men out there who have fathered children and possess a (residual) uterus?

Very probably, yes. That doesn't make them female, nor does it make them some in-between sex. Nor more so than a person finding out that they have a partially reabsorbed twin makes them into the borg.

 

[Emily Lake]

My point is that, since we both agree that species evolve and intra-specific and interspecific variation are ultimately to be explained by the same mechanisms, it's nonsensical to call atypical sexual development a "disorder" except on a case by case bases where it causes demonstrable harm, as soon as there is one single example of related species where the same feature is a sex characteristic in one but not the other.

I hope we do agree on that?

Not even a little bit. Having a species within the same genus have different secondary sex characteristics is completely irrelevant to whether or not a congenital condition of sexual development in a human is or is not a disorder.

Conditions are classified as disorders based on how they express and whether those expressions are accompanied by deleterious effects. Conditions aren't predicated on the experience of the individual with them.

 

[Jokodo]

Nevertheless, "having antlers" is, in and of itself, a secondary characteristic of the male sex in most deer, and it isn't in reindeer even if typical male antlers and typical female antlers still differ very recognisably.

So what?

Different feather coloration is a secondary sex characteristic in most birds, but not in swans, nor in many geese. Most dogs, including coyotes and wolves have no notable secondary sex characteristics, and only display a sex-correlated difference in size.

The specific sex characteristics (both primary and secondary) of each sex vary by species, as do sex-correlated traits. This isn't any kind of an "aha!", it's just confusing as to why you think this matters.

It doesn't matter except insofar as it presents a problem for treating any atypical development as a disorder, if we except evolution and fully grasp what it implies.

 

[Jokodo]

I specifically jumped in when you tried to correct @lpetrich who had written that gonads have a binary distribution while genitals have a strong bimodal one.

Okay, let's circle back to this.

Cool, let's start with reiterating what @lpetrich actually said:

My revised list of human sexed/gendered features:

• (Primary) Gonads and their gametes -- rigid binary. Are there any intersex gametes?
• (Primary) Genitals -- bimodal
• Secondary anatomical features -- bimodal
• (Secondary) Personality -- much less difference than in common stereotypes, but a little bit. Bimodal?
• (Secondary) Psychological gender identity -- bimodal
• (Tertiary) Gender presentation -- bimodal

We can have a mixture of sexings/genderings of these features.

If we treat genitals as a package, it is certainly true that they have a bimodal distribution: two modes where unfused labia correlate with a smallish clitoris, with a functional uterus, and a typical Skeene's gland in one, respectively where fused labia correlate with a hilariously enlarged clitoris, the absence of a uterus and a typical prostate in the other, and any number of atypical realisations or mismatched total configurations as the remainder of the distribution. That doesn't say that there aren't individual parts of the reproductive system that have a binary distribution, but picking any one of these as the defining trait is highly arbitrary.

Even more to the point... My contention is that the *type of reproductive system* is binary.

That's kind of an irrelevant contention though, when @lpetrich explicitly talks about "sexed/gendered features", not about "sexes", isn't it?

There is one *type of reproductive system* that is the female reproductive system. There is a distinctly different *type of reproductive system* that is a male reproductive system. If you support lpetrich's claim that our reproductive systems are bimodal... then what is the *type of system* in the trough? What is the *type of system* in the lowest 1%? What's the *type of system* in the highest 1% and how does it differ from the nearest mode?

You are very clearly confounding different levels of abstraction and different perspectives. Yes, from a functional-adaptive perspective, as an abstract description of the system of sexual reproduction humans and many other animals employ, you are probably right in every respect*. But that doesn't answer the question "What is sex?", much less the question "How are sexual characteristics distributed in humans?" It answers the question "How did sex come to be, and why does it persist?"

Evolution endowed our species with a system of reproduction whereby individuals two different phenotypes or morphs specialise in producing two different types of gametes, and where of the phenotypes provides a safe and cozy environment for the offspring for the better part of the year. (You really got the short-end there, and with the semi-monogamous mating strategy of our species, you are even deprived the sole benefit most other mammals have, that of getting to pick the hottest antlers and beards. Pulling our weight in raising the offspring once they're out of the womb is the least we can do, and yet few of us manage even that!)

Evolution did not endow every individual of the species with an archetypical realisation of one or the other of these two phenotypes. From the fact that evolution gave us a system of reproduction that employs two sexes working in a complimentory fashion, it does not follow that every human falls clearly into one of those two sexes, and anyone who doesn't has a "disorder". No more in fact than from the fact that the tiger evolved stripes to be less conspicuous, it follows that tigers are invisible and every time they are seen it's a "malfunction". Biology isn't like predicate logic or linear algebra, it's messy and squishy and has various kinds of viscous fluids dripping from various orifices, and more often than not it's infectious.

I once again refer you to Tinbergen's "four questions". You probably know this, but for the benefit of anyone who doesn't: Niko Tinbergen was one of the fathers of modern ethology/behavioral biology, and is famous among others for his concept of four questions we should be asking of any behavioral trait (that was his context, though all of this is basically extendable without modification to other kinds of biological systems). These are the questions of

1. function/adaption
2. evolution/phyologeny
3. causation/mechanism
4. development/ontogeny

Each of these questions has a different answer and requires different type of data from different disciplines to answer. A system can only be fully understood by looking at each of these, and the answer to any one of these questions doesn't preempt the answers to the others. You seem to be trying very hard to push your (admittedly convincing) answers to (1) and a bit of (2) as the full explanation for our reality, thereby effectively defining out of existence all those aspects of this messy biological reality that can only be understood through (3) and (4).

Well, reality doesn't care, it is what it is!

If you are not familiar with this concept, and if there is one thing I linked you are going to read, please make it this. It will help you understand where I'm coming from in these discussions: Tinbergen's four questions explained

*Not all animals though: If we take one further step of abstraction, what is a sex if not a morph that specialises in contributing to the spread of its genes directly via reproducing. We tend to call worker ants and soldier ants "females", but if we take your exposition about "females" being a phenotype that evolved for a specific role in in binary sex system, we should probably treat them as some third and fourth thing that happen to share some anatomical traits with the females of the species (the queens) more so than with the males.

 

[Jokodo]

My point is that, since we both agree that species evolve and intra-specific and interspecific variation are ultimately to be explained by the same mechanisms, it's nonsensical to call atypical sexual development a "disorder" except on a case by case bases where it causes demonstrable harm, as soon as there is one single example of related species where the same feature is a sex characteristic in one but not the other.

I hope we do agree on that?

Not even a little bit. Having a species within the same genus have different secondary sex characteristics is completely irrelevant to whether or not a congenital condition of sexual development in a human is or is not a disorder.

Conditions are classified as disorders based on how they express and whether those expressions are accompanied by deleterious effects. Conditions aren't predicated on the experience of the individual with them.

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

 

[TomC]

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

This is the kind of argument that makes this discussion, IMHO, not worth bothering with.
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

Nevertheless, "having antlers" is, in and of itself, a secondary characteristic of the male sex in most deer, and it isn't in reindeer even if typical male antlers and typical female antlers still differ very recognisably.

So what?

Different feather coloration is a secondary sex characteristic in most birds, but not in swans, nor in many geese. Most dogs, including coyotes and wolves have no notable secondary sex characteristics, and only display a sex-correlated difference in size.

The specific sex characteristics (both primary and secondary) of each sex vary by species, as do sex-correlated traits. This isn't any kind of an "aha!", it's just confusing as to why you think this matters.

It doesn't matter except insofar as it presents a problem for treating any atypical development as a disorder, if we except evolution and fully grasp what it implies.

Your argument seems to be "clownfish can change sex... therefore... something something something... humans... spectrum"?

The fact that different species have evolved along different pathways is irrelevant to recognizing that congenital conditions that present with deleterious consequences are considered disorders.

 

[Emily Lake]

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

At the same point that you stopped beating your wife.

 

[Jokodo]

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

This is the kind of argument that makes this discussion, IMHO, not worth bothering with.
Tom

This is exactly the kind of question you need to be able to answer if you want to categorically declare atypical combinations of sex traits as "disorders" and pretend that's a scientifically informed position.

Unless you're a creationist.

 

[TomC]

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

This is the kind of argument that makes this discussion, IMHO, not worth bothering with.
Tom

This is exactly the kind of question you need to be able to answer if you want to categorically declare atypical combinations of sex traits as "disorders" and pretend that's a scientifically informed position.

Unless you're a creationist.

No, I don't have to be a creationist to recognize a bad argument.
Tom

 

[Jokodo]

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

At the same point that you stopped beating your wife.

So an antler in a female of a species where only males have antlers isn't a disorder, but a beard in a species were only males have beards is? Can you justify that distinction?

And viz hyenas, fused labia in a female of a species where the females have unfused labia is a disorder if the species will eventually evolve into humans but not if it eventually evolves into hyenas? Methinks your theory suffers from a massive lookahead problem...

 

[Jokodo]

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

This is the kind of argument that makes this discussion, IMHO, not worth bothering with.
Tom

This is exactly the kind of question you need to be able to answer if you want to categorically declare atypical combinations of sex traits as "disorders" and pretend that's a scientifically informed position.

Unless you're a creationist.

No, I don't have to be a creationist to recognize a bad argument.
Tom

You have to understand evolution to see why it's a good argument, though

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, it's a genital fetish. I've expressed no problem with that. I just think that if someone has a genital fetish (or genital aversion), that's their own issue, not the issue of those around them.

It is still a particular non-universal sexual hangup, and so qualifies as a fetish.

There's nothing wrong with having a sexual fetish, but it is a sexual fetish. That's only a problem for those who pathologize fetish.

It seems you don't know the difference between a fetish and a squick.

They're opposites. And for most people the presence of the wrong-sex genitalia is one. Obviously it isn't for a bisexual person, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Using your logic, there are no such things as developmental errors, there are no deformities, there are no disorders. It's impossible for things to just go awry in development, it's all just "new kinds of" bodies.

There are (1) configurations that are subpar at fulfilling the functions the organ is most needed for in the individual's ecosystem, there are (2) configurations that cause the individual suffering, and there (3) are configurations that fall outside of what we (whether instinctively or mediated through culture) consider normal. The three sets correlate, but they are not identical. More importantly though, none of that are facts about the thing itself. They are facts about the thing as part of a larger system. You seem to be conflating those three dimensions and engaging in an is-ought fallacy (where the "ought" is the evolutionary purpose) when you say that since some intersex conditions cause suffering, we are justified in calling all intersex conditions disorders and discarding them for an analysis of the system as a whole.

Exactly. For city wear I need 13EEEE running shoes. Most brands do not offer such and even the brands that do only offer it in some shoes. It's definitely a nuisance and would be much more of an issue if I were in a field with a dress code. How to classify that? (And I don't really think "developmental error" applies as my hands are also large. XL gloves and don't even think of any watch band you slip over your wrist.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If biological sex is the sum of primary and secondary traits, she can no longer claim that people with androgen insensitivity are "just men" who suffer from a rare disease that makes them appear like women

I also don't claim this. A person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome develops a phenotypical female reproductive tract, with infertile gonads. Because they have a female reproductive tract, they are female.

And what's someone who doesn't develop a reproductive tract at all?

 

[Bomb#20]

... All I've done is to acknowledge that humans - just like every other sexually reproductive species on the planet - has evolved such that sexual maturity is the final stage of our development. ...

Isn't technically the final stage of our development death?

Final? Hardly. After that there's rebirth, next life, next death, more trips around the Wheel of Dharma, and finally Nirvana. Sure, they probably aren't real, but then they don't actually need to be real to count as development every bit as much as death does.

 

[Bomb#20]

I knew males had larger ones (though technically, there's an overlap between "similar" and "substantially larger", and I didn't say "identical" or "near-identical"), I didn't know about the different shedding times. Thanks!

Nevertheless, "having antlers" is, in and of itself, a secondary characteristic of the male sex in most deer, and it isn't in reindeer even if typical male antlers and typical female antlers still differ very recognisably.

So that means one and the same set of unshed antlers on one and the same reindeer doe in one and the same winter are both a secondary characteristic of the female sex when we think of her as "having unshed winter antlers" and simultaneously not a secondary characteristic of the female sex when we think of her as "having antlers". You appear to be redefining "secondary characteristic" to be an aspect of our mental categorization scheme rather than an aspect of cervine biology. That seems like a recipe for making the concept useless.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, I misread.

That said... what do you think your point about that is? That reindeer aren't red deer? Or are you somehow under the impression that all species have the exact same secondary characteristics? Or that those secondary characteristics are the same for different species within the same genus?

What is it that you're trying to convey by noting that antlers are a secondary sex trait in red deer, but are not a secondary sex trait in a completely different species?

My point is that, since we both agree that species evolve and intra-specific and interspecific variation are ultimately to be explained by the same mechanisms, it's nonsensical to call atypical sexual development a "disorder" except on a case by case bases where it causes demonstrable harm, as soon as there is one single example of related species where the same feature is a sex characteristic in one but not the other.

I hope we do agree on that premise?

Huh?!? Epic non sequitur. You might as well claim it's nonsensical to call a reindeer a "reindeer" except on a case by case basis where somebody put reins on him, as soon as there is one single example of related species where it's a red deer and not a reindeer.

Every two animals are part of a ring species; it's just that most of those rings are oriented in time rather than in space. When we label a moose and a goose "different species" rather than "opposite ends of one ring species" we aren't denying evolution by gradual change from a common Paleozoic ancestor; we're simply taking note of the circumstance that the innumerable intermediate forms in the ring connecting the moose and the goose are dead. Likewise, when we call a feature a "disorder" in one species and "atypical" in another species we aren't denying "disorder" and "atypical" are parts of a continuous gradation and there were ancestral animals in which whether the condition was a disorder or only atypical was ambiguous; we're simply taking note of the circumstance that the innumerable transitional animals in which it's not clear whether the condition was a disorder are dead.

Given all that, you can probably guess how this is going to go...

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

Ok, then I hope you can answer this: At what point in the evolution of humans did a monkey give birth to a man, and where did he find a woman to mate with?

 

[Jokodo]

Nevertheless, "having antlers" is, in and of itself, a secondary characteristic of the male sex in most deer, and it isn't in reindeer even if typical male antlers and typical female antlers still differ very recognisably.

So what?

Different feather coloration is a secondary sex characteristic in most birds, but not in swans, nor in many geese. Most dogs, including coyotes and wolves have no notable secondary sex characteristics, and only display a sex-correlated difference in size.

The specific sex characteristics (both primary and secondary) of each sex vary by species, as do sex-correlated traits. This isn't any kind of an "aha!", it's just confusing as to why you think this matters.

It doesn't matter except insofar as it presents a problem for treating any atypical development as a disorder, if we except evolution and fully grasp what it implies.

Your argument seems to be "clownfish can change sex... therefore... something something something... humans... spectrum"?

The fact that different species have evolved along different pathways is irrelevant to recognizing that congenital conditions that present with deleterious consequences are considered disorders.

Yes, I misread.

That said... what do you think your point about that is? That reindeer aren't red deer? Or are you somehow under the impression that all species have the exact same secondary characteristics? Or that those secondary characteristics are the same for different species within the same genus?

What is it that you're trying to convey by noting that antlers are a secondary sex trait in red deer, but are not a secondary sex trait in a completely different species?

My point is that, since we both agree that species evolve and intra-specific and interspecific variation are ultimately to be explained by the same mechanisms, it's nonsensical to call atypical sexual development a "disorder" except on a case by case bases where it causes demonstrable harm, as soon as there is one single example of related species where the same feature is a sex characteristic in one but not the other.

I hope we do agree on that premise?

Huh?!? Epic non sequitur. You might as well claim it's nonsensical to call a reindeer a "reindeer" except on a case by case basis where somebody put reins on him, as soon as there is one single example of related species where it's a red deer and not a reindeer.

Every two animals are part of a ring species; it's just that most of those rings are oriented in time rather than in space. When we label a moose and a goose "different species" rather than "opposite ends of one ring species" we aren't denying evolution by gradual change from a common Paleozoic ancestor; we're simply taking note of the circumstance that the innumerable intermediate forms in the ring connecting the moose and the goose are dead. Likewise, when we call a feature a "disorder" in one species and "atypical" in another species we aren't denying "disorder" and "atypical" are parts of a continuous gradation and there were ancestral animals in which whether the condition was a disorder or only atypical was ambiguous; we're simply taking note of the circumstance that the innumerable transitional animals in which it's not clear whether the condition was a disorder are dead.

Given all that, you can probably guess how this is going to go...

Ok, then I hope you an answer this: At what point in the evolution of reindeer did females having antlers stop being a disorder?

Ok, then I hope you can answer this: At what point in the evolution of humans did a monkey give birth to a man, and where did he find a woman to mate with?

Obviously, humans are just monkeys. Just as female reindeer's antlers are just a feature when we look at the individual, they only become a sex based trait when we look at the population at large and find that male antlers tend to be larger, grow and are shed earlier in the year, and are more universal in males than in females, where the frequency varies by subpopulatiobln but seems to remain well below 100% everywhere. And the same is true for the very occasional red deer female with antlers. Sure, you're invited to call them a "disorder" as a convenient shorthand to express that they are exceedingly rare and/or probably maladaptive and/or any number of other attributes you consider relevant for something being a "disorder". I'm perfectly fine with that. Where I object is using that assigned label as an cop-out to ignore them in what claims to be an in-depth description of the distribution of features in the species, as if individuals with features we choose to label "disorders" are somehow intrinsically from a different planet than individuals with features we chose not to call such - which is exactly what @TomC and @Emily Lake have been doing rather explicitly.

Sure, in a half-page executive summary, many rare features will have to go unmentioned (whether or not they are im any meaningful sense "disorders"), but we're clearly beyond that point in the discussion.

I knew males had larger ones (though technically, there's an overlap between "similar" and "substantially larger", and I didn't say "identical" or "near-identical"), I didn't know about the different shedding times. Thanks!

Nevertheless, "having antlers" is, in and of itself, a secondary characteristic of the male sex in most deer, and it isn't in reindeer even if typical male antlers and typical female antlers still differ very recognisably.

So that means one and the same set of unshed antlers on one and the same reindeer doe in one and the same winter are both a secondary characteristic of the female sex when we think of her as "having unshed winter antlers" and simultaneously not a secondary characteristic of the female sex when we think of her as "having antlers". You appear to be redefining "secondary characteristic" to be an aspect of our mental categorization scheme rather than an aspect of cervine biology.

it's always been that, hasn't it? Somewhere on the road from features that have a statistically significantly higher mean in one sex, but such eg 30% of females are above the male mean and 40% of males below the female mean (maybe digit ratio?), or from a feature that is rare in both sexes but slightly more common in one (green eyes?), to a feature that is shared by 99% of the members of one sex and only 1% of the members of the other (fused labia?), there's an ill- defined threshold above which we feel justified in calling it a sexual characteristic. Is colour blindness a secondary sex trait, die example? I'm unaware of any good argument to categorically say it isn't. The threshold isn't determined by numbers alone but at least as importantly by squishy feely factors like how prominent it is in our perception of masculine or feminine appearance, or whether we attribute some adaptive significance to the skew in its distribution (rightly or wrongly - whether something has an adaptive significance is always an empirical question, and more often than not, we don't know the answer).

That's a feature of my analysis, not a bug, as it is a better reflection of reality than treating "sex characteristics" and "shared features with a sex-skewed distribution" as discrete categories.

That seems like a recipe for making the concept useless.

It is useful as a shorthand. It is counterproductive when the distinction is used to make claims about the nature of the distribution of sexed features in the population - using it such is circular reasoning.