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

[lpetrich]

In our species, gonads sometimes produce both sexes of gamete -  True hermaphroditism - thus being wiki]Ovotestis[/wiki] - what land snails have.

No, they don't. Ovotestis do not produce gametes. And humans are not snails.

I'm surprised how often I end up having to point out that humans are not the same as non-mammalian species. To adults. Who are all supposedly well educated. It's very strange.

Of course not. But if one wants to use biology as one's guide, one should not pick only examples that one likes.

Another intersex condition is  Pseudohermaphroditism a mismatch between gonads and genitals.

And which expresses as either MALE psuedohermaphroditism or FEMALE psuedohermaphroditism.

By what sex the gonads are as opposed to what sex the genitals are. This is clearly a mixed-sex condition.

Disorders of sexual development are not different sexes.

That's a matter of definition, and AFS proposed the three extra sexes to get people to think. I myself don't consider them extra sexes but mixed-sex conditions, like a bird that is male on one side and female on the other.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm not trying to give it a meaning

Yes you are, seeing as it doesn't actually have one beyond either "imaginary category" or "self-subscribed category", since it certainly isn't a scientific physical category, but an abortive prescientific attempt at neive categorization.

You are trying to lean on it as more than a quirk of statistics or self subscribed category.

It would need more meaning than either of those things have to establish a basis for legal operation over the actual things that have real meaning, such as chemical behaviors, fine structures of the brain, and the interaction of those two things, combined with the result of mixing "sperms" with "eggs".

Those things have meaning but I already discussed them.

Still, the meaning those things have do not justify depriving someone of bodily autonomy over their physical development, within the bounds of observed human conditions and their prognosis.

 

[Emily Lake]

First, you go out of the tree and dismiss a universal definition of sex (used by many evolutionary biologists, and which was from an evolutionary biologist), because it "doesn't speak to all penises".

Penises are irrelevant, universally, to any discussion you base on "female" whether it is "female human" or "female monkey" or "female trout".

I don't know whether to ask you to stop misconstruing what I've said, or whether to ask that you learn some better reading comprehension.

Sex is based on the PHENOTYPE of the reproductive system of the organism. Males are those whose reproductive phenotype is the one arranged around the production of sperm. Females are those whose reproductive phenotype is arranged around the production of ova.

In HUMANS specifically, the male reproductive phenotype is the one that has evolved to support the production and delivery of sperm. This generally includes testes, scrotum, vas deferens, prostate, and penis. Not all elements of that system are required to be present, nor are any of them required to be functional. Removal of any of those parts does not in any fashion make that person not male.

In HUMANS specifically, the female reproductive phenotype is the one that has evolved to support the production and release of ova. This generally includes ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus, cervix, and vagina. Not all elements of that system are required to be present, nor are any of them required to be functional. Removal of any of those parts does not in any fashion make the person not male.

In OTHER SPECIES the reproductive systems are arranged differently. Not all male species have penises... but all of them have a reproductive anatomy that has evolved around the production and delivery of sperm. Not all female species have uteruses... but all of them have a reproductive anatomy that has evolved around the production and release of ova.

Male spiders don't have pensises, they have pedipalps. But they are still male. Most female fish don't have uteruses, but they're still female.

Sex is based on the reproductive phenotype within each species. Penis is irrelevant when talking about the definition of sex in general. But they are a part of the human reproductive system in males.

 

[Jarhyn]

Sex is based on the PHENOTYPE of the reproductive system of the organism

Specifically, the phenotyoe "produces eggs". That is the necessary and sufficient part.

All the rest? That's all statistical, imaginary, essentialism.

all the other things you think are part of the phenotype? That's you imagining what you think "should" happen. But biology doesn't trade in "should", biology only trades in "is/does".

How is that so hard for you to process?

 

[Emily Lake]

That's a matter of definition, and AFS proposed the three extra sexes to get people to think. I myself don't consider them extra sexes but mixed-sex conditions, like a bird that is male on one side and female on the other.

Wikipedia is not a very good source for this topic. It frequently includes misleading or incomplete information.

Pseudohermaphroditism is a sex-specific. In those with a condition that falls under this colloquial term, they are either male or female, but have some element of ambiguity in their external genitalia or in secondary sex characteristics. Those ambiguities can lead to potential uncertainty at birth, but they can be correctly sexed with a little more analysis. These conditions kan be due to karyotype anomalies, but they can also be due to exposures in utero which interrupt normal development early on (around the 5th to 7th week, IIRC).

True Hermaphroditism is much rarer. About a quarter of them are mosaic conditions... and genuinely, if a person has a mosaic XX/XY karyotype AND that has expressed in the development of their reproductive tract, then they get to be whatever they feel like.

Where the proposal you cited gets off into ideological territory is that a fairly large number of people with ovotesticular disorder are 46 XX with a typical female phenotype. Most of those only find out about their disorder because it reduces their fertility - the most common effect is that one gonad will be undifferentiated ovotesticular tissue (the tissue a fetus has BEFORE undergoing sex development in utero) and the other gonad is a normal ovary. Those people are 100% female. They're not a third sex, or an in between. They're not even an unusual looking female. They're all the way female, they just have one gonad that didn't differentiate.

Individuals with ovotesticular disorder who have even one functional testis are very rare. And those are almost always phenotypically closer to a male reproductive tract than to a female - enough so that they aren't visually determined to be anything other than male.

The funny thing is that pseudohermaphroditic conditions are sex-specific conditions, but are more likely to express with some element of genital ambiguity, making the distinction between male and female observed at birth more difficult for doctors. True hermaphroditism is a gonadal condition, but usually shows a normal (and accurate) phenotype with no notable genital ambiguity.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes you are, seeing as it doesn't actually have one beyond either "imaginary category" or "self-subscribed category", since it certainly isn't a scientific physical category, but an abortive prescientific attempt at neive categorization.

You keep saying this as if it's factual, when it really is not. You saying a thing - even multiple times - doesn't make it true.
The distinction between male and female within any given sexually reproductive species is not "imaginary". And it is definitely NOT "self-subscribed".

You are trying to lean on it as more than a quirk of statistics or self subscribed category.

Seriously, the distinction between male and female within sexually reproductive species has fewer statistical quirks than quantum mechanics.

Your assumptions and preferences are not facts.

It would need more meaning than either of those things have to establish a basis for legal operation over the actual things that have real meaning, such as chemical behaviors, fine structures of the brain, and the interaction of those two things, combined with the result of mixing "sperms" with "eggs".

Every one of those things is a RESULT OF sex. And some of them - fine structures of the brain, for example - are far, far, far less sexually dimorphic than others. The brain is the LESS dimorphic than any of the somatic systems. Compared to the reproductive system, the brain has virtually NO sexual dimorphism.

Those things have meaning but I already discussed them.

Still, the meaning those things have do not justify depriving someone of bodily autonomy over their physical development, within the bounds of observed human conditions and their prognosis.

What is this even supposed to mean? Seriously, why can't you communicate without jargon and obfuscating fancified language?

 

[Jarhyn]

You keep saying this as if it's factual, when it really is not

It is, and your assertions that it isn't don't amount to arguments, seeing as I am not the only one leveling this argument.

Also, seeing as I'm not the only one leveling this argument, you must either address it with more than mere incredulity and what amounts to a claim "it just isn't imaginary!!!!1111"

I produced a logical argument indicating it is.

If you cannot answer that with a logical argument, go pound sand, and come back later with a logical argument.

Keeping in mind that this one repeated lesson is about 25% of a decent logical reasoning class, I don't think you can.

The distinction between male and female within any given sexually reproductive species is not "imaginary". And it is definitely NOT "self-subscribed".

The distinction between MAN and WOMAN is both of those things.

The definition of FEMALE does not exclude MALE, because phenotypical comorbidities are statistical imaginaries.

I am not the only one to level these arguments. You have an obligation to respond to them in mind, and to cease making arguments which reduce to the general form "it just is ok, trust me guys!"

Seriously, the distinction between male and female within sexually reproductive species has fewer statistical quirks than quantum mechanics.

Hahahahaha


Oh, you're serious.

This means that not only do you misunderstand "sex", you also misunderstand quantum mechanics.

Every one of those things is a RESULT OF sex

No, some of those things are a result of a short term exposure to DHT, some of those things are a result of exposure, and some of them are the result of other chemicals.

None of those are generally the result specifically of the production of egg creating tissues.

The dimorphism of a fine structure of the brain is FAR more biologically meaningful than the gross structure of the genital.

That's what you can't seem to get, though. This is why I brought up those two different computers, one with what looks like radically different hardware that is the same computer, fundamentally, and one with identical everything but ONE fine structure difference where it is actually a completely different machine in every way simply due to the modification of a few molecules.

Your attempt to handwave away the importance of those fine structure difference tells me you don't know shit about what you are talking about and should sit discussions like this one out.

Leave it to the big girls like Toni to think about.

What is this even supposed to mean? Seriously, why can't you communicate without jargon and obfuscating fancified language?

You wish to talk about an extremely technical topic as if you are any kind of authority on it and yet you reject technical terms.

You, not as a woman, not as a female, but as specifically "Emily Lake" are not educated nor equipped to discuss biology and what is biologically meaningful as regards "sex", if you cannot step off of your essentialist binary and look at the shades of grey of the real world.

 

[blastula]

Couple of articles from the Economist.

The evidence to support medicalised gender transitions in adolescents is worryingly weak

The effectiveness and side-effects of the most common treatments are not well understood

www.economist.com

What America has got wrong about gender medicine

Too many doctors have suspended their professional judgment

www.economist.com

America gender medicine is getting it wrong. There will be a reckoning coming over their reckless practices when it becomes more known. This will lead to even greater distrust of the institution of medicine and also of liberal politics, and rightfully so. The left is willfully hiding from this knowledge for now. The maximalist position supporting gender care that the left has is a longterm loser medically, morally and politically.

 

[Bomb#20]

I'm not trying to give it a meaning

Yes you are, seeing as it doesn't actually have one beyond either "imaginary category" or "self-subscribed category",

Non-sequitur. What the bejesus inference rule do you imagine takes you from your premise about what it has to the conclusion that I'm trying to give it something more? The meaning it already has that you disparage as "an imaginary category" is the meaning I'm applying. You might as well infer that I'm trying to give my car Ferrari-hood because you used a derogatory term for Toyotas.

(Incidentally, "self-subscribed" forms no part of the existing meaning.)

since it certainly isn't a scientific physical category, but an abortive prescientific attempt at neive categorization.

There's nothing prescientific about it. Categories are systematic decisions about which attributes of unlike entitites to ignore; natural languages are systems of shared categorization; and language learners learn to share their speech communities' decisions of what attributes to ignore using a scientific process of observation, hypothesis formation, and hypothesis testing. Linguistic categories are every bit as scientific as physical categories.

(And any child who hypothesizes that "self-subscribed" is one of the criteria for "man" and "woman" will not find the hypothesis enhances predictive power.)

You are trying to lean on it as more than a quirk of statistics or self subscribed category.

What have you got against quirks of statistics? Most categories are quirks of statistics. Even in categories wired into the very laws of nature we only find out about them because of the quirks of Bose-Einstein statistics and Fermi statistics.

It would need more meaning than either of those things have to establish a basis for legal operation over the actual things that have real meaning,

What is it you think "legal operation" means, "obedience to Jarhyn the philosopher-king"? All of law is based on the shared categorizations of natural language communities. Why on earth would you expect a legal decision to take more notice of a category you define as having "real meaning" than of a so-called "imaginary category" that makes sense to a juror?

such as chemical behaviors, fine structures of the brain, and the interaction of those two things, combined with the result of mixing "sperms" with "eggs".

Those things have meaning but I already discussed them.

Still, the meaning those things have do not justify depriving someone of bodily autonomy over their physical development, within the bounds of observed human conditions and their prognosis.

But the interaction of chemical behaviors and fine structures of the brain combined with the result of mixing "sperms" with "eggs" justifies depriving someone of bodily autonomy over his physical enforcement of democratic decisions, does it? You appear to be yet again jumping from an "is" to an "ought".

 

[Jarhyn]

The meaning it already has that you disparage as "an imaginary category" is the meaning I'm applying

And as an imaginary category, it is not prescriptive of anything.

Telling people what the imaginary "normal" is for some mode does not establish either whether any person is, or that they should be that imaginary thing.

That's the big rub here. You think you have leverage on whether people "should" based purely on a figment of your imagination(the statistical category). This is the problem with essentialism in a nutshell.

 

[Jarhyn]

But the interaction of chemical behaviors and fine structures of the brain combined with the result of mixing "sperms" with "eggs" justifies depriving someone of bodily autonomy over his physical enforcement of democratic decisions, does it? You appear to be yet again jumping from an "is" to an "ought".

Talk about word salads...

Do you you even know what you are trying to ask here?

I can only assume you mean you wish to use the "democratic" decision to enforce tyranny over the minority.

If you do not have a material basis for making a claim, making a "democratic" decision to enforce it is still not reasonable.

The "ought" here is "people ought make decisions based on reality and not figments of their imagination, especially when the decision impacts the real goals of others."

 

[Emily Lake]

The meaning it already has that you disparage as "an imaginary category" is the meaning I'm applying

And as an imaginary category, it is not prescriptive of anything.

Telling people what the imaginary "normal" is for some mode does not establish either whether any person is, or that they should be that imaginary thing.

That's the big rub here. You think you have leverage on whether people "should" based purely on a figment of your imagination(the statistical category). This is the problem with essentialism in a nutshell.

You know, you're pretty much the only person taking such an incredibly "should" based position in this discussion. At least most of the participants in this thread are starting from a premise of "is" before extrapolating to an "ought". You aren't even starting with "is", you're starting with an "ought" that is divorced from reality, then projecting that "ought" into ever more extreme subsequent "oughts".

You're starting with what you - and you alone - have decided "ought" to be the definition of sex. As well as what you - and you alone - have decided "ought" to be what women are worried about.

 

[Emily Lake]

The "ought" here is "people ought make decisions based on reality and not figments of their imagination, especially when the decision impacts the real goals of others."

Yes - you ought to make decisions based on reality rather than figments of your imagination.

 

[Jarhyn]

The meaning it already has that you disparage as "an imaginary category" is the meaning I'm applying

And as an imaginary category, it is not prescriptive of anything.

Telling people what the imaginary "normal" is for some mode does not establish either whether any person is, or that they should be that imaginary thing.

That's the big rub here. You think you have leverage on whether people "should" based purely on a figment of your imagination(the statistical category). This is the problem with essentialism in a nutshell.

You know, you're pretty much the only person taking such an incredibly "should" based position in this discussion. At least most of the participants in this thread are starting from a premise of "is" before extrapolating to an "ought". You aren't even starting with "is", you're starting with an "ought" that is divorced from reality, then projecting that "ought" into ever more extreme subsequent "oughts".

You're starting with what you - and you alone - have decided "ought" to be the definition of sex. As well as what you - and you alone - have decided "ought" to be what women are worried about.

No, I did not decide what "ought" be the definition of sex. I started with your definition: if egg, is female.

Of course, actual philosophy about "ought" starts with "ought", because "is" won't get you there without a goal.

And if your goal is to "prevent rapes", and if your discussion of what "prevents rapes" is preventing people socialized as boys and people affected by testosterone, because you think those cause rapes, or even as I suggest, preventing access to those with sperms, that does not speak in either way to keeping this girl out of the "ladies" room:

High court: Trans girl can run girls track in West Virginia

The Supreme Court is allowing a 12-year-old transgender girl in West Virginia to continue competing on her middle school’s girls sports teams while a lawsuit over a state ban continues. The justices refused to disturb an appeals court order that made it possible for the girl, Becky...

apnews.com

 

[IIDB Staff]

Friendly Reminder: Please remember to avoid confrontational language and focus on the argument, not the person. By maintaining a respectful tone, we can foster productive discussions in a welcoming environment. Failure to adhere to IIDB's Terms of Use may result in penalties.

 

[Bomb#20]

The meaning it already has that you disparage as "an imaginary category" is the meaning I'm applying

And as an imaginary category, it is not prescriptive of anything.

Quote me saying a category is prescriptive of something. Where do you see me prescribing? All I've been doing is pointing out errors in your arguments.

Speaking of which, by drawing your conclusion from "as an imaginary category", you're implying that imaginariness has something to do with it -- i.e., you're implying some of your allegedly non-imaginary so-called "real" or "natural" categories are prescriptive of anything. Why would they be? The most clearly non-imaginary category anyone's brought up -- "electron" -- is evidently not prescriptive of anything. How do you get from "Category C is not imaginary" to "Person P ought to do X"? Show your work.

Telling people what the imaginary "normal" is for some mode does not establish either whether any person is, or that they should be that imaginary thing.

And I said it does or they should, did I? Quote me.

That's the big rub here. You think you have leverage on whether people "should" based purely on a figment of your imagination(the statistical category). This is the problem with essentialism in a nutshell.

You have a strange penchant for telling the rest of us what we think. Where am I supposed to have said what people should do based on a statistical category?

But the interaction of chemical behaviors and fine structures of the brain combined with the result of mixing "sperms" with "eggs" justifies depriving someone of bodily autonomy over his physical enforcement of democratic decisions, does it? You appear to be yet again jumping from an "is" to an "ought".

Talk about word salads...

"They're your clothes" - Pulp Fiction

Do you you even know what you are trying to ask here?

You're the one who claimed the interaction of chemical behaviors and fine structures of the brain combined with the result of mixing "sperms" with "eggs" had "more meaning", and you're the one who claimed that's what it takes to establish a basis for legal operation over actual things. But you deny that they justify depriving someone of bodily autonomy over their physical development. So you appear to be claiming there is a basis for legal operation, but it is limited -- i.e., that people have rights that operation of the law must respect. Which is to say, you are implying that it is justifiable to have legislators who pass laws, and to have cops and prosecutors and judges who enforce them, but if a given law violates rights then it is wrong for a legislator to pass it and wrong for cops et al. to enforce it. And I agree with that principle as far as it goes.

But you are further claiming that a child's bodily autonomy over his or her physical development is a right. I.e., if the representatives of the people enact a law defining treating gender dysphoria with puberty blockers as malpractice, and a physician does so anyway with the child's consent, so the child's parents sue her for hurting their child, you are de facto arguing that the judge ought not to enter a judgment against her and the sheriff ought not to seize her assets. But the judge and the sheriff want to. That's what they signed up for when they took their jobs. They want to earn their pay by upholding the law. If the judge and the sheriff have bodily autonomy, they will use their bodily autonomy to bang a gavel and pronounce a verdict and drive to the bank and serve a court order confiscating the malpractice judgment. And you appear to be claiming your supposedly non-imaginary categories justify depriving the judge and the sheriff of that bodily autonomy, "within the bounds of observed human conditions and their prognosis", whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

So what I am trying to ask here is for you to show your work. How do you get from "Such-and-such category is non-imaginary" to "The judge's and sheriff's bodily autonomy ought to be restricted"? If the public's categories don't justify interfering with the child's autonomy, why do your categories justify interfering with the judge's and sheriff's autonomy?

I can only assume you mean you wish to use the "democratic" decision to enforce tyranny over the minority.

No, assuming that about me is not something you "can only" do; it's a choice you made. Where the heck do you think you saw me express any wish of the sort? I am critiquing your argument, not advocating policy.

The "ought" here is "people ought make decisions based on reality and not figments of their imagination, especially when the decision impacts the real goals of others."

The candidate you proposed, "level of expression of gene", is every bit as much a figment of imagination as common-usage sex categories.

Of course, actual philosophy about "ought" starts with "ought", because "is" won't get you there without a goal.

A goal?!? You appear to be mixing up hypothetical imperatives with categorical imperatives.

 

[Jarhyn]

A goal?!? You appear to be mixing up hypothetical imperatives with categorical imperatives.

Yes, goals.

Goals are what get you from is to ought:

Goals are things people want or seek.

Toms goal is to get to the drive in.

Tim can only get there by car.

Therefore to achieve his goal, Tom ought use his car to go to the drive-in.

Goals bridge the gap, nothing else.

 

[Bomb#20]

A goal?!? You appear to be mixing up hypothetical imperatives with categorical imperatives.

Yes, goals.
Goals are what get you from is to ought:
Goals are things people want or seek.
Toms goal is to get to the drive in.
Tim can only get there by car.
Therefore to achieve his goal, Tom ought use his car to go to the drive-in.
Goals bridge the gap, nothing else.

Yep, you're mixing up "hypothetical imperatives" with "categorical imperatives". "To achieve his goal, Tom ought use his car to go to the drive-in." is a hypothetical imperative, i.e., it's a statement of means-ends rationality, not a statement of ethics. Means-ends rationality uses a different meaning of "ought" from the meaning it has in ethical claims. "Tom ought to refrain from raping Alice." is what a statement of ethics looks like. It's categorical. It contains no "If Tom wants to get to the drive-in..."-style hypothesis about Tom's preferences.

 

[Jarhyn]

it's a statement of means-ends rationality, not a statement of ethics

You make a stunning and foolish declaration that means/ends logic fails to ever become a statement of ethics in any framework wherein there is a methodology for reducing the set of all goals to the set of ethical goals.

This is common among people who do not want to acknowledge that not all goals are acceptable, or to acknowledge there is a systematic way for determining which goals are appropriate or not, and for those who do not wish to acknowledge that all goals not so forbidden are universally acceptable.

Of course, I completely ignored that whole conversation because it is not pertinent here.

What is pertinent is that "is" informs "ought" through strategic requirements based on goals.

If you want to discuss whether the goal itself is appropriate, you have to actually take your time to work out the paradox of tolerance, and the principles that forbid unilateral actions which create goal conflicts, and the concept of consent to response through action.

 

[Emily Lake]

A goal?!? You appear to be mixing up hypothetical imperatives with categorical imperatives.

Yes, goals.

Goals are what get you from is to ought:

Alrighty then.

Jarhyn's goal is to let male people use female intimate spaces, without regard to the rights or boundaries of those females.