Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Elixir]

I paid attention to the real world for a day, and when I returned, Oleg was erased, all evidence against him was erased, and all possibility of "finding" him to hear his side of the story was erased.

I sure you missed a riveting episode of epic sniveling.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, all I am "cleaving to" is common usage

Common usage is not sufficient to establish concrete meaning.

Common usage does not and cannot on its own render words scientifically precise.

So if ALL you cleave to is common use you must accept that it is as previously discussed, also fuzzy and imprecise.

Common use must be put on hold when discussing actual reality, because common use only has a tentative and weak relationship with reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Universal Biological Definition​

In biology, the two sexes are defined this way:

Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems.
Lehtonen & Parker (2014). Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of two sexes. Molecular Human Reproduction, 20(12).

https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/what-are-sexes

 

[Toni]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

I believe that it’s an option now offered many women. We know about Jolie’s surgery because she’s famous and chose to be open about her choices.

It's an option offered to only a very few women. It is generally only offered to women who have specific genes, and even then not to all of them depending on family history.

It is NOT common, nor is it done on anything that a rational person would consider a "fairly regular basis".

Even when a preemptive double mastectomy is done, it reduces the risk but does not eliminate it - between 5% and 10% of women who meet all of the clinical and genetic criteria go on to develop breast cancer anyway.

I don’t know if we’re talking past each other about how often women are offered prophylactic mastectomies.

 

[Emily Lake]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

I believe that it’s an option now offered many women. We know about Jolie’s surgery because she’s famous and chose to be open about her choices.

It's an option offered to only a very few women. It is generally only offered to women who have specific genes, and even then not to all of them depending on family history.

It is NOT common, nor is it done on anything that a rational person would consider a "fairly regular basis".

Even when a preemptive double mastectomy is done, it reduces the risk but does not eliminate it - between 5% and 10% of women who meet all of the clinical and genetic criteria go on to develop breast cancer anyway.

I don’t know if we’re talking past each other about how often women are offered prophylactic mastectomies.

Possible. It's certainly not done "on a fairly regular basis". It's offered to a very, very slim set of women who have a specific genes... and even then not to all of those, only to those who have both the genes AND a family history of actual cancer.

It's a far cray from Jarhyn's claim that it's regular practice.

 

[Toni]

In families with a history of breast or prostate cancer, I'm fairly certain preemptive removals are done on a fairly regular basis.

No, it is not. It's done very, very rarely. Angelina Jolie's voluntary mastectomy was something she could only get because she's famous. It is NOT something that is done regularly, not at all. And seriously, removal of breasts in someone past childbearing age has the LEAST negative side effects. Removal of the prostate has larger consequences than your fantasy-land imagining has envisioned.

You really should try living in the real world once in a while. It's actually kind of nice here.

Huh? I thought it was common for those who have the deadly gene.

I believe that it’s an option now offered many women. We know about Jolie’s surgery because she’s famous and chose to be open about her choices.

It's an option offered to only a very few women. It is generally only offered to women who have specific genes, and even then not to all of them depending on family history.

It is NOT common, nor is it done on anything that a rational person would consider a "fairly regular basis".

Even when a preemptive double mastectomy is done, it reduces the risk but does not eliminate it - between 5% and 10% of women who meet all of the clinical and genetic criteria go on to develop breast cancer anyway.

I don’t know if we’re talking past each other about how often women are offered prophylactic mastectomies.

Possible. It's certainly not done "on a fairly regular basis". It's offered to a very, very slim set of women who have a specific genes... and even then not to all of those, only to those who have both the genes AND a family history of actual cancer.

It's a far cray from Jarhyn's claim that it's regular practice.

Yes, both family history and genes are necessary.

 

[Jarhyn]

In biology, the two sexes are defined this way:

Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems.
Lehtonen & Parker (2014). Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of two sexes. Molecular Human Reproduction, 20(12).

https://www.theparadoxinstitute.com/read/what-are-sexes

And the point here is that isn't man/woman or useful in any way for policing or determining behavior, nor is it actually binary. Some "adult phenotypes", which are in this case statistical groups and thus imaginary, include the production of both gametes or neither, and so even that is nonbinary.

And further, that is not man/woman, as much as you might wish it were.

If you wish to go "pregnancy theoretic", making it entirely about gametes, defining sex this way gives you no leverage on expectations that someone ought be plied with testosterone or estrogen.

It does not address the actual brain or thought process of the person, nor the genitals of the person, nor any other thing. It is a single aspect about an organ, and so it has a very precise purpose that does not do the work you wish it to.

It does not divide "men" and "women". It does not even successfully divide "XX" and "XY" as groups. It fails even dividing on rare instances of individuals who themselves produce both "sperms" and "eggs".

It's not the magic bullet for what you want. It won't justify calling trans-women "men". It won't justify denying trans-girls blockers.

It is not an "is" that produces an "ought" beyond "those who do not wish to become pregnant by casual exposure to sperms ought not be made to share intimate environments with people who can casually expose others to sperm".

It gets testicles, not penises, out of particular prisons. It gets testicles, not penises, out of certain bathrooms. That is as much work as that definition of male/female will do for you.

Of course, I've discussed this before.

If you want to make THAT the hill you die on, that we look specifically at the biology of gametes, that's where the train is heading.

 

[bilby]

In biology one published paper I found, the two sexes are defined this way

FTFY

 

[Emily Lake]

It fails even dividing on rare instances of individuals who themselves produce both "sperms" and "eggs".

There is not a single documented case of a human being producing both sperm and eggs. There is ONE SINGLE case of a person with a disorder of sexual development who male and produced fertile spermatazoa *potentially* having perhaps released an egg... but it is speculation based on a post-mortem exam and not verified.

Again, stop imaging that your fantasies are reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

And the point here is that isn't man/woman or useful in any way for policing or determining behavior, nor is it actually binary. Some "adult phenotypes", which are in this case statistical groups and thus imaginary, include the production of both gametes or neither, and so even that is nonbinary.

And further, that is not man/woman, as much as you might wish it were.

If you wish to go "pregnancy theoretic", making it entirely about gametes, defining sex this way gives you no leverage on expectations that someone ought be plied with testosterone or estrogen.

It does not address the actual brain or thought process of the person, nor the genitals of the person, nor any other thing. It is a single aspect about an organ, and so it has a very precise purpose that does not do the work you wish it to.

It does not divide "men" and "women". It does not even successfully divide "XX" and "XY" as groups. It fails even dividing on rare instances of individuals who themselves produce both "sperms" and "eggs".

It's not the magic bullet for what you want. It won't justify calling trans-women "men". It won't justify denying trans-girls blockers.

It is not an "is" that produces an "ought" beyond "those who do not wish to become pregnant by casual exposure to sperms ought not be made to share intimate environments with people who can casually expose others to sperm".

It gets testicles, not penises, out of particular prisons. It gets testicles, not penises, out of certain bathrooms. That is as much work as that definition of male/female will do for you.

Of course, I've discussed this before.

If you want to make THAT the hill you die on, that we look specifically at the biology of gametes, that's where the train is heading.

You know what I'm getting from your posts? I'm getting that you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be allowed to go into female-only spaces, against the will and consent of the females there... and you want it so badly that you're willing to remove your testicles for it.

Removing your testicles won't make you any less male than you have been your entire life. And it certainly won't give you the privilege of overriding women's boundaries at your whim.

 

[Emily Lake]

In biology one published paper I found, the two sexes are defined this way

FTFY

No, that's actually the definition that biologists use. It is the only definition that is species agnostic and holds true across all anisogamous species. It's the one that's based on actual science.

Also, those weren't my words that you edited - they are the words of Zach Elliot, an evolutionary biologist. And it's the same definition used by many other evolutionary biologists.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm getting that you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be allowed to go into female-only spaces, against the will and consent of the females there

Except I really don't.

I want to eliminate _____-ONLY spaces entirely, except where the _____ is directly pertinent to an ethical rather than emotional or "moral" concern.

Yo just fail to see why your desire to lean on "female" as you define it doesn't create a justification for "female-only" public spaces.

It creates a justification for "male-free" public spaces, at best, wherein male is defined as "someone who actively produces and secretes sperm outside of their bodies", at any rate, and it is a very weak justification.

All your definition speaks to is pregnancy and the risk of it, and as I type, not even that, as not all people who produce such gametes have uteruses. Some have what the OP would classify as penises.

You can't even use THAT to demand to keep our the penis.

 

[bilby]

Also, those weren't my words that you edited - they are the words of Zach Elliot, an evolutionary biologist.

Then Zach Elliot was wrong too.

Argument from authority isn't edifying, even when it's not being used by creationists.

As a biologist, I can assure you that that's not the definition that biologists use. It's a definition that some biologists have used in some context.

That remains true whether you contradict it, or Zach Elliot does, or anybody else does.

There's no pope of biology who hands down unarguable and infallible definitions of stuff; There's a lot of biologists who mostly agree on most of a common language to describe the stuff they care about.

 

[bilby]

I'm a bit surprised to see this form of argument from a non-creationist; It's a beloved way to debate for them that is so riddled with logical and cognitive failures that I honestly don't recall ever seeing it from a non-creationist before.

<Bald assertion of a controversial position as though it were an unassailable fact>
<Correction of bald assertion>
<Ha! Gotcha! You just contradicted Albert Einstein!!>

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm getting that you REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY want to be allowed to go into female-only spaces, against the will and consent of the females there

Except I really don't.

I want to eliminate _____-ONLY spaces entirely, except where the _____ is directly pertinent to an ethical rather than emotional or "moral" concern.

Yo just fail to see why your desire to lean on "female" as you define it doesn't create a justification for "female-only" public spaces.

It creates a justification for "male-free" public spaces, at best, wherein male is defined as "someone who actively produces and secretes sperm outside of their bodies", at any rate, and it is a very weak justification.

All your definition speaks to is pregnancy and the risk of it, and as I type, not even that, as not all people who produce such gametes have uteruses. Some have what the OP would classify as penises.

You can't even use THAT to demand to keep our the penis.

Will you please stop trying to tell me what I actually mean?

You're wrong, and you're bad at it. It's condescending and very infuriating. So stop.

 

[Emily Lake]

Also, those weren't my words that you edited - they are the words of Zach Elliot, an evolutionary biologist.

Then Zach Elliot was wrong too.

Argument from authority isn't edifying, even when it's not being used by creationists.

As a biologist, I can assure you that that's not the definition that biologists use. It's a definition that some biologists have used in some context.

That remains true whether you contradict it, or Zach Elliot does, or anybody else does.

There's no pope of biology who hands down unarguable and infallible definitions of stuff; There's a lot of biologists who mostly agree on most of a common language to describe the stuff they care about.

Okay Mr. Biologist. How do you define male and female?

How do you tell what sex a cow is? Or an alligator? Or a flamingo? What definition of sex do you use that is universally applicable across all anisogamous species?

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm a bit surprised to see this form of argument from a non-creationist; It's a beloved way to debate for them that is so riddled with logical and cognitive failures that I honestly don't recall ever seeing it from a non-creationist before.

<Bald assertion of a controversial position as though it were an unassailable fact>
<Correction of bald assertion>
<Ha! Gotcha! You just contradicted Albert Einstein!!>

Let's try that again...

<Clear assertion of well established clear scientific premise>
<Fantasist rambling of imaginary blather>
...
???

 

[bilby]

Also, those weren't my words that you edited - they are the words of Zach Elliot, an evolutionary biologist.

Then Zach Elliot was wrong too.

Argument from authority isn't edifying, even when it's not being used by creationists.

As a biologist, I can assure you that that's not the definition that biologists use. It's a definition that some biologists have used in some context.

That remains true whether you contradict it, or Zach Elliot does, or anybody else does.

There's no pope of biology who hands down unarguable and infallible definitions of stuff; There's a lot of biologists who mostly agree on most of a common language to describe the stuff they care about.

Okay Mr. Biologist. How do you define male and female?

How do you tell what sex a cow is? Or an alligator? Or a flamingo? What definition of sex do you use that is universally applicable across all anisogamous species?

What makes you think that I use any definition of anything that's universally applicable?

Shit, there's not even a universally applicable definition of "species".

Biology is messy. Defining characteristics and putting things into to pigeonholes thus created is often a helpful way to reduce the messiness and get insights into some generalities that are broadly useful in understanding stuff.

But it's not a reflection of any underlying reality, and so there are important and significant limits on how helpful this approach can be.

You appear to be mistaking the map for the territory. Categories can be useful, but the closer you get to their boundaries, the less useful, and more potentially misleading, they become.

Responding to my argument that categorisations are an inherently flawed way to describe reality with "OK, if you're so smart, you tell me what categories to use and how to fit reality into them" is a strong indication that you're not even discussing the same level of abstraction that I am.

I, like you, have no difficulty whatsoever in fitting the vast majority of individuals of all anisogamous species into one of two categories.

Where we differ is that you appear to think that if it works for 99.9% of individuals for 99.9% of purposes, it's therefore absurd and stupid to even consider the possibility that it might be impossible to categorise some individuals into these two boxes for some purposes.

Arguing from the general to the specific is a logical fallacy. Men are typically taller than women, but that doesn't mean you can't find any women who are not taller than any man. Humans are typically male or female, but that doesn't mean you can't find any humans who are neither, or both, for any given definition of these categories.

Categories help us to understand reality, but they don't change reality. Definitions tell us which box an individual belongs in, but there are many different definitions of sex and gender, and while there's a lot of overlap, the idea that all of them will generate the same distribution of individuals into categories; or that there's one "correct" definition that overrides all others, is simply not reflected by reality at all.

Even if you feel incredibly strongly that there should and must be.

 

[lpetrich]

 Isogamy - lookalike sexes -- nearly all unicellular eukaryotes and some multicellular ones: many fungi and some algae.

 Anisogamy - two kinds of gametes, with one kind larger than the other.

Anisogamy is the form of sexual reproduction that involves the union or fusion of two gametes which differ in size and/or form.[12] The smaller gamete is considered to be male (a sperm cell), whereas the larger gamete is regarded as female (typically an egg cell, if non-motile).

Both the large kind and the small kind may be motile, only the small kind may be motile, or neither kind may be motile.

 Oogamy - the large gametes are non-motile: ova (sg. ovum) or egg cells. The article says that the small gametes, the sperm cells, must be motile, but that seems to me to be splitting hairs.

Oogamy: Inventing the Sexes - ScienceDirect

The many groups in which oogamy has evolved independently include animals, fungi, red algae, brown algae and several different kinds of green algae, including the ancestors of the land plants and the algal group that will be discussed below.

What do isogamous organisms teach us about sex and the two sexes? - PMC

While anisogamy is almost universal in complex multicellular eukaryotes (with some notable exceptions in multicellular algae, e.g. [6]), the opposite is true when we move into the world of unicellular organisms. Here, many of the asymmetries that are prevalent in multicellular organisms disappear, including the asymmetry in gametes. Most eukaryote lineages are microbial unicells [7,8], and here isogamy is the norm, meaning that all gametes (i.e. cells that fuse to form a zygote) are of similar size.

 

[Jarhyn]

Will you please stop trying to tell me what I actually mean?

I'm just repeating it. You said your definition of female is exactly "makes big gametes" (paraphrased).

You made that very clear. Big bold text "UNIVERSAL BIOLOGICAL DEFINITION".

If we cant trust you on what you meant, the why say anything at all?

Your definition doesn't do the work you want of it.

It doesn't speak at all to the penis.

It can eject people with testicles from a space, since people with testicles can actually specifically interact in a more negative way by various means. After all, someone without a penis could still jizz on their hand and assault someone with it!

It's the immediate biological availability of the semen, the sperms, that creates any special interaction with "big gametes", and frankly, it doesn't present much of an issue to people that make such gametes and lack a uterus.

That's what Big gametes bring to the discussion and all they bring there: not much.

It is a completely separate dialogue from the biology of hormone production, and only a tiny aspect of the discussion of what aspects of "is" in the dynamics of pregnancy and sex which can create an "ought"