Why "Unchangeable" Definitions of Sex Based on Genitals Are Wrong, According to Science

[Jokodo]

0.00785% percent incline on a km are enough to make the notion of a flat earth False.

flat planets are not the "rule" for which an "exception" is sought. But nice try, Negative Nancy.

Assuming your conclusions much?

 

[Gun Nut]

0.00785% percent incline on a km are enough to make the notion of a flat earth False.

flat planets are not the "rule" for which an "exception" is sought. But nice try, Negative Nancy.

Assuming your conclusions much?

no, just observing the universe along with everyone else. Flat Earthers accept a spherical everything, except Earth (Mars, moon, sun, etc...) So, a spherical planet is the norm, and a flat planet is that which requires the exception.

 

[bilby]

Assuming your conclusions much?

no, just observing the universe along with everyone else. Flat Earthers accept a spherical everything, except Earth (Mars, moon, sun, etc...) So, a spherical planet is the norm, and a flat planet is that which requires the exception.

Biologists recognize that almost all characteristics of organisms are continua, rather then small numbers of discrete options.

You can divide humans into 'tall' or 'short', but that arbitrary division is not helpful. People are actually a range of different heights.

You can divide humans into 'black' or 'white', but that arbitrary division is not helpful. People actually exhibit a range of different skin tones.

You can divide humans into 'blue eyed' and 'brown eyed', but that arbitrary division is not helpful. People actually exhibit a range of different eye colours.

But sure, you go ahead and claim that dividing people into 'male' and 'female' is definitive, non-arbitrary, and conforms to the 'norm' when describing human characteristics.

You are entitled to your opinion; And observed reality is entitled to demonstrate that it is horseshit. Because nobody is entitled to their own facts no matter how much they want life to be simple.

Reality is under no obligation to be easy for you to deal with.

 

[Politesse]

How many exceptions do you need in order to invalidate a rule? There are about 150,000 Americans who don't fit either of your 'two sexes'.

There are about 325 million people in America. 150,000 of them make up0.04% of the total. I don't know exactly how many exceptions are needed to invalidate a rule, but it's a shit ton more than that for god damned sure.

Depends on the rule. If the rule is "there are or should be no exceptions", then to a scientist it literally only takes one.

 

[Jokodo]

Assuming your conclusions much?

no, just observing the universe along with everyone else. Flat Earthers accept a spherical everything, except Earth (Mars, moon, sun, etc...) So, a spherical planet is the norm, and a flat planet is that which requires the exception.

And you accept that heights, eye colors etc. come in a range, but don't accept that sex can be anything but either one of two and only two options.

Pretty much like them.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you produce relatively small, motile gametes, then you are male. If you produce relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are female. If you produce both relatively small, motile gametes and relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are a hermaphrodite. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then you don't fall into one of these categories and nobody should lose any sleep.

Peez

That would in nearly all cases be female or male, and match the assessment written down in a birth certificate in the usual manner (i.e., by looking at the external genitalia). Errors could probably be reduced even further if nurses or doctors could pick between three categories: 'female', 'male', and 'unknown' or 'unclear' or something like that. It's not a perfect match, but it's a very close one.

ETA: I'm assuming you mean roughly that someone either produces or will produce, barring some illness, accident, or generally (new) malfunction (e.g., children can be male even if they do not produce small and motile gametes). If you don't mean that, please, please clarify.

 

[Jokodo]

If you produce relatively small, motile gametes, then you are male. If you produce relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are female. If you produce both relatively small, motile gametes and relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are a hermaphrodite. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then you don't fall into one of these categories and nobody should lose any sleep.

Peez

That would in nearly all cases be female or male, and match the assessment written down in a birth certificate in the usual manner (i.e., by looking at the external genitalia).

Except when it doesn't...

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If you produce relatively small, motile gametes, then you are male. If you produce relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are female. If you produce both relatively small, motile gametes and relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are a hermaphrodite. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then you don't fall into one of these categories and nobody should lose any sleep.

Peez

That would in nearly all cases be female or male, and match the assessment written down in a birth certificate in the usual manner (i.e., by looking at the external genitalia).

Except when it doesn't...

Yes, I said in nearly all cases. Furthermore, errors can be further reduced by adding another option like 'unknown', as I pointed out.
ETA: By the way, this is generally the way in which people go about classifying other animals (nearly all people regularly bother to classify) into males and females (e.g., cats, dogs, horses, cattle, etc.). It is also nearly always a match.

 

[Peez]

If you produce relatively small, motile gametes, then you are male. If you produce relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are female. If you produce both relatively small, motile gametes and relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are a hermaphrodite. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then you don't fall into one of these categories and nobody should lose any sleep.

Peez

That would in nearly all cases be female or male, and match the assessment written down in a birth certificate in the usual manner (i.e., by looking at the external genitalia). Errors could probably be reduced even further if nurses or doctors could pick between three categories: 'female', 'male', and 'unknown' or 'unclear' or something like that. It's not a perfect match, but it's a very close one.

Yes, but I think that the biggest problem is not the fact that a particular sex category is noted on some form. It certainly is relevant for certain considerations (a number of health issues tend to be associated with sex, to put it mildly), but the great social importance attached to these categories seems to me to be anachronistic.

ETA: I'm assuming you mean roughly that someone either produces or will produce, barring some illness, accident, or generally (new) malfunction (e.g., children can be male even if they do not produce small and motile gametes). If you don't mean that, please, please clarify.

It comes down to semantics rather than substance. In the strictest sense, it is fair to define someone as "male" only if they produce small motile gametes, but obviously that is not the way the term is widely used. Even ignoring issues around male vs female, there are 'shades of gray' here.

Peez

- - - Updated - - -

If you produce relatively small, motile gametes, then you are male. If you produce relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are female. If you produce both relatively small, motile gametes and relatively large, non-motile gametes, then you are a hermaphrodite. If you don't fall into one of these categories, then you don't fall into one of these categories and nobody should lose any sleep.

Peez

That would in nearly all cases be female or male, and match the assessment written down in a birth certificate in the usual manner (i.e., by looking at the external genitalia).

Except when it doesn't...

Except when it isn't in nearly all cases? What does that mean?

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

Assuming your conclusions much?

no, just observing the universe along with everyone else. Flat Earthers accept a spherical everything, except Earth (Mars, moon, sun, etc...) So, a spherical planet is the norm, and a flat planet is that which requires the exception.

Biologists recognize that almost all characteristics of organisms are continua, rather then small numbers of discrete options.

You can divide humans into 'tall' or 'short', but that arbitrary division is not helpful. People are actually a range of different heights.

You can divide humans into 'black' or 'white', but that arbitrary division is not helpful. People actually exhibit a range of different skin tones.

You can divide humans into 'blue eyed' and 'brown eyed', but that arbitrary division is not helpful. People actually exhibit a range of different eye colours.

But sure, you go ahead and claim that dividing people into 'male' and 'female' is definitive, non-arbitrary, and conforms to the 'norm' when describing human characteristics.

You are entitled to your opinion; And observed reality is entitled to demonstrate that it is horseshit. Because nobody is entitled to their own facts no matter how much they want life to be simple.

Reality is under no obligation to be easy for you to deal with.

wasn't it you who, like 5 seconds ago, just busted out a statistic demonstrating the irrelevance of the itty bitty handful of "trans" folks that don't fit neatly into either of the two categories of gender? like 0.04% of people in America or something like that?

There is a norm for mammals... two sexes... you are one, the other, or are handicapped / deformed.

comparing the very foundation of binary sexual reproduction, the only kind on Earth, to something as varied as height or fur color is badly dishonest... and by "badly" I mean, "impossible to get away with".

- - - Updated - - -

How many exceptions do you need in order to invalidate a rule? There are about 150,000 Americans who don't fit either of your 'two sexes'.

There are about 325 million people in America. 150,000 of them make up0.04% of the total. I don't know exactly how many exceptions are needed to invalidate a rule, but it's a shit ton more than that for god damned sure.

Depends on the rule. If the rule is "there are or should be no exceptions", then to a scientist it literally only takes one.

the "rule" is to minimize negative effects and maximize positive effects. agree?

 

[Gun Nut]

Assuming your conclusions much?

no, just observing the universe along with everyone else. Flat Earthers accept a spherical everything, except Earth (Mars, moon, sun, etc...) So, a spherical planet is the norm, and a flat planet is that which requires the exception.

And you accept that heights, eye colors etc. come in a range, but don't accept that sex can be anything but either one of two and only two options.

Yes, as long as what you mean by "sex" is "gender". You are either Male, Female, or "broken" when it comes to gender. With "sex", do what feels good that doesn't harm others... but please be polite and don't do it in front of me. 15 minutes on pornhub will confirm that "sex" is even more varied than height and eye color.

So, confusing gender with sex may be part of your "gender confusion" (see what I did there?)

 

[Gun Nut]

Except when it doesn't...

Yes, I said in nearly all cases. Furthermore, errors can be further reduced by adding another option like 'unknown', as I pointed out.
ETA: By the way, this is generally the way in which people go about classifying other animals (nearly all people regularly bother to classify) into males and females (e.g., cats, dogs, horses, cattle, etc.). It is also nearly always a match.

but what about the 0.04%* of the people that don't match... Why are we talking about them?

* according to bilby - not my stat.

 

[Jokodo]

And you accept that heights, eye colors etc. come in a range, but don't accept that sex can be anything but either one of two and only two options.

Yes, as long as what you mean by "sex" is "gender". You are either Male, Female, or "broken" when it comes to gender. With "sex", do what feels good that doesn't harm others... but please be polite and don't do it in front of me. 15 minutes on pornhub will confirm that "sex" is even more varied than height and eye color.

So, confusing gender with sex may be part of your "gender confusion" (see what I did there?)

Please do is all a favor and look up "sex" in any dictionary of your choosing before we continue this discussion. "Gender" too.

 

[Peez]

Gun Nut:
There is a norm for mammals... two sexes... you are one, the other, or are handicapped / deformed.

comparing the very foundation of binary sexual reproduction, the only kind on Earth...

You are not being very clear here, but I feel compelled to point out that there are many organisms that reproduce sexually without having individuals of two sexes.

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

And you accept that heights, eye colors etc. come in a range, but don't accept that sex can be anything but either one of two and only two options.

Yes, as long as what you mean by "sex" is "gender". You are either Male, Female, or "broken" when it comes to gender. With "sex", do what feels good that doesn't harm others... but please be polite and don't do it in front of me. 15 minutes on pornhub will confirm that "sex" is even more varied than height and eye color.

So, confusing gender with sex may be part of your "gender confusion" (see what I did there?)

Please do is all a favor and look up "sex" in any dictionary of your choosing before we continue this discussion. "Gender" too.

I'm not falling for that. YOU go Google "sex" at work. and while you are at it... there is a great website for ordering some very cool pens... check it out... its called "Pen Island"... one word.

- - - Updated - - -

Gun Nut:
There is a norm for mammals... two sexes... you are one, the other, or are handicapped / deformed.

comparing the very foundation of binary sexual reproduction, the only kind on Earth...

You are not being very clear here, but I feel compelled to point out that there are many organisms that reproduce sexually without having individuals of two sexes.

Peez

"Mammals".. as in "with mammary glands". Clear as day.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Yes, but I think that the biggest problem is not the fact that a particular sex category is noted on some form. It certainly is relevant for certain considerations (a number of health issues tend to be associated with sex, to put it mildly), but the great social importance attached to these categories seems to me to be anachronistic.

Hmm...maybe. I'm not sure I'm getting what you mean by "great social importance". But if that's what many, perhaps most people care about, in which sense do you think it is anachronistic?

In the strictest sense, it is fair to define someone as "male" only if they produce small motile gametes, but obviously that is not the way the term is widely used. Even ignoring issues around male vs female, there are 'shades of gray' here.

But with that definition, it seems to me that menopause would make people no longer female, and before puberty, people would not be either female nor male. Is there any context (i.e., in science) in which the words are used in that manner?

 

[J842P]

Yes, but I think that the biggest problem is not the fact that a particular sex category is noted on some form. It certainly is relevant for certain considerations (a number of health issues tend to be associated with sex, to put it mildly), but the great social importance attached to these categories seems to me to be anachronistic.

Hmm...maybe. I'm not sure I'm getting what you mean by "great social importance". But if that's what many, perhaps most people care about, in which sense do you think it is anachronistic?

In the strictest sense, it is fair to define someone as "male" only if they produce small motile gametes, but obviously that is not the way the term is widely used. Even ignoring issues around male vs female, there are 'shades of gray' here.

But with that definition, it seems to me that menopause would make people no longer female, and before puberty, people would not be either female nor male. Is there any context (i.e., in science) in which the words are used in that manner?

Biologically, sex is defined by the nature of the gametes. That's why we can identify a "male" and "female" sex in birds and animals alike.
It doesn't matter if the organism is currently producing gametes or not, most organisms only produce gametes in constrained parts of their life-cycle, they are male or female nevertheless.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

J842P, I'm not entirely sure I'm getting the point(s) you're trying to make. I explain my views below, but I'm not sure there is some disagreement or not.

Biologically, sex is defined by the nature of the gametes.

You mean biologists define "sex" in that manner?
If you do, I would suggest they probably do that because they have identified that property as common to the paradigmatic cases of females and males - tracked by the ordinary terms (in English or synonyms in other language) that predate the discovery of gametes -, and relevant to the concept. It's kind of like defining 'water' to mean 'H2O' in some contexts, even if the ordinary term 'water' does not mean that. The same goes for 'sex' (or synonyms in other languages).

That's why we can identify a "male" and "female" sex in birds and animals alike.

In a few cases, yes. But most cases, that was not necessary, even though it might help.
Humans were able to identify male and female horses, cats, dogs, chicken, cattle, pigeons, etc., long before the existence of gametes was discovered.

It doesn't matter if the organism is currently producing gametes or not, most organisms only produce gametes in constrained parts of their life-cycle, they are male or female nevertheless.

Right. I was saying that the "strictest sense" definition that Peez mentioned would seem to have the consequences I mentioned. I'm not sure anyone uses it, even in science.
There are organisms that change sex, though, so having produced large gametes in the past is not sufficient to remain female (for example).

 

[J842P]

J842P, I'm not entirely sure I'm getting the point(s) you're trying to make. I explain my views below, but I'm not sure there is some disagreement or not.

You mean biologists define "sex" in that manner?
If you do, I would suggest they probably do that because they have identified that property as common to the paradigmatic cases of females and males - tracked by the ordinary terms (in English or synonyms in other language) that predate the discovery of gametes -, and relevant to the concept. It's kind of like defining 'water' to mean 'H2O' in some contexts, even if the ordinary term 'water' does not mean that. The same goes for 'sex' (or synonyms in other languages).


In a few cases, yes. But most cases, that was not necessary, even though it might help.
Humans were able to identify male and female horses, cats, dogs, chicken, cattle, pigeons, etc., long before the existence of gametes was discovered.

It doesn't matter if the organism is currently producing gametes or not, most organisms only produce gametes in constrained parts of their life-cycle, they are male or female nevertheless.

Right. I was saying that the "strictest sense" definition that Peez mentioned would seem to have the consequences I mentioned. I'm not sure anyone uses it, even in science.
There are organisms that change sex, though, so having produced large gametes in the past is not sufficient to remain female (for example).

I'm not disagreeing, just trying to add context.
Biologists use this definition because it is the most generalizable, it can apply to any organism that reproduces sexualy. Yes, that may be obvious in barn animals, but the diversity of Eukaryota is quite vast, and sex is quite common. It also is a meaningful definition from a theoretical point of view. See the Wikipedia article on sex: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex

 

[repoman]

So, I think that this may be an issue because of the politics involved. There is semantics in addition to the politics and the science.

So if the goal of fair and equitable treatment of straight, gay, cis and trans people is labelled as "B" then "A" is the system of labelling things such as sex and gender according to this or the opposing agenda.

But if the system of labelling "A", the constituent aspects of sex and gender, is thought up by the vanguard of left leaning academics it will be a hard sell to the commonsense workaday populace. And when they insult the populace for being hesitant or confused, expect a backlash.

I think that no matter what labels are put on sex and gender the basic human kindness should be extended to these people.

Transgender women are transwomen, not women for example in my opinion. They should have almost a total equality to women except in sports where they have an advantage that can't be waved away by ideology driven gender studies professors.