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

[Peez]

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.

"...the only kind on Earth..."

Yup, clear as day.

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

What are you guys arguing for here? That we can't determine if a horse is male or female until we ask them how they feel about their social dynamic? Surprising to hear from a bunch of atheists that humans are specially created beings that the laws of science do not apply. ironic.

 

[Politesse]

What are you guys arguing for here? That we can't determine if a horse is male or female until we ask them how they feel about their social dynamic? Surprising to hear from a bunch of atheists that humans are specially created beings that the laws of science do not apply. ironic.

Horses do not have a "gender". Gender is socially generated by definition. You can tell if a horse is male or female, but not whether they are a "man" or a "woman". Because no horse is a "man" or a "woman". Biological sex is only part of what gives you a gender identity.

Nor are horses strictly sex-binary; ambiguous sex occurs just as surely in that species as ours. [NSFW warning: contains photos of horse genitalia]

 

[ruby sparks]

Personally I think it's dangerous to assume horses don't have gender identities.

So many of these things are merely on a spectrum. I hear.

 

[Peez]

What are you guys arguing for here? That we can't determine if a horse is male or female until we ask them how they feel about their social dynamic? Surprising to hear from a bunch of atheists that humans are specially created beings that the laws of science do not apply. ironic.

Funny how you are misrepresenting what other people post, almost as if you could not address what people have actually posted.

Whatever.

Peez

 

[Gun Nut]

What are you guys arguing for here? That we can't determine if a horse is male or female until we ask them how they feel about their social dynamic? Surprising to hear from a bunch of atheists that humans are specially created beings that the laws of science do not apply. ironic.

Horses do not have a "gender". Gender is socially generated by definition. You can tell if a horse is male or female, but not whether they are a "man" or a "woman". Because no horse is a "man" or a "woman". Biological sex is only part of what gives you a gender identity.

Nor are horses strictly sex-binary; ambiguous sex occurs just as surely in that species as ours. [NSFW warning: contains photos of horse genitalia]

I didn't use the word "gender"... I actually disagree that "gender" is not how we refer to the reproductive role of a sexually reproducing creature, but whatever... semantics. Maybe try moving the goalposts somewhere else to see if they stand up.

- - - Updated - - -

What are you guys arguing for here? That we can't determine if a horse is male or female until we ask them how they feel about their social dynamic? Surprising to hear from a bunch of atheists that humans are specially created beings that the laws of science do not apply. ironic.

Funny how you are misrepresenting what other people post, almost as if you could not address what people have actually posted.

Whatever.

Peez

Mr. President? nice projection there, dude.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What are you guys arguing for here? That we can't determine if a horse is male or female until we ask them how they feel about their social dynamic? Surprising to hear from a bunch of atheists that humans are specially created beings that the laws of science do not apply. ironic.

Horses do not have a "gender". Gender is socially generated by definition. You can tell if a horse is male or female, but not whether they are a "man" or a "woman". Because no horse is a "man" or a "woman". Biological sex is only part of what gives you a gender identity.

Nor are horses strictly sex-binary; ambiguous sex occurs just as surely in that species as ours. [NSFW warning: contains photos of horse genitalia]

From your first link:

Even as a newborn foal this horse was noticeably different. Gender is immediately recognized in most newborn foals upon glancing under the tail for the presence or absence of a vulva.

It seems that the author uses 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably.

But that aside, I would like to ask what your point is. For example, in a documentary about ducks, it would be reasonable to say that ducks are two-legged animals. And that statement would not be contradicted by a 4-legged duck ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468610/Stumpy-duck-born-legs-love.html ), or by a 3-legged duck (if he lost a leg), or by a 1-legged duck. That's because it's not a statement that means something like, 'for all x, if x is a duck, then x has two legs'. Rather, statements like that about species (or subspecies, or some other category) are usually about what is normal for the species, or else about what it nearly always the case.

Just as the abnormal 4-legged duck is not a problem for the general description of ducks as 2-legged animals, so the abnormal horse in the first link you provided is not a problem for the claim that horses have to sexes: females and males (actually, I would say that that one is probably an abnormal male, so not an exception, but even if it were an exception and were neither male nor female).

 

[Politesse]

It seems that the author uses 'sex' and 'gender' interchangeably.

A sure sign that they are not a scientist. But that link had pictures and wasn't under a paywall, so I included it.

But that aside, I would like to ask what your point is. For example, in a documentary about ducks, it would be reasonable to say that ducks are two-legged animals. And that statement would not be contradicted by a 4-legged duck ( https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-468610/Stumpy-duck-born-legs-love.html ), or by a 3-legged duck (if he lost a leg), or by a 1-legged duck. That's because it's not a statement that means something like, 'for all x, if x is a duck, then x has two legs'. Rather, statements like that about species (or subspecies, or some other category) are usually about what is normal for the species, or else about what it nearly always the case.

It would be "reasonable", but by no means an actual scientific definition of a duck. If you're going to cling to nature for support, you should be bound by what nature can actually establish. Don't insist that science is on your side, then retreat to "reason" when science turns out not to be saying what you want it to.

Just as the abnormal 4-legged duck is not a problem for the general description of ducks as 2-legged animals, so the abnormal horse in the first link you provided is not a problem for the claim that horses have to sexes: females and males (actually, I would say that that one is probably an abnormal male, so not an exception, but even if it were an exception and were neither male nor female).

Sure, horses have at least two sexes, and a whole bunch of intermediary cases, like just about every sexually reproducing vertebrate. "Normal vs Abnormal" is a value judgement arbitrarily applied, and is irrelevant in any case to whether dyadic perceptions of sex are accurate. Calling something abnormal does not cause it to suddenly cease to exist.

I challenge in any case whether a genetic abnormality like an extra leg is in the same class of things as a property of sexual diversity that seems to exist within the karyotypic diversity of most animals, but even if it is, then in both cases a scientist would be an idiot to say that "All ducks have either two or one legs" given that there is evidence for exceptions to that would-be rule. And if ducks had third legs at birth at the same rate of 1 in 2000-4000 or so that typify intersex individuals, an ornithologist would certainly prefer to say that "most ducks are bipedal" then mention the very common exception case.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It would be "reasonable", but by no means an actual scientific definition of a duck. If you're going to cling to nature for support, you should be bound by what nature can actually establish. Don't insist that science is on your side, then retreat to "reason" when science turns out not to be saying what you want it to.

First, it would be reasonable because in that context, the claim is not a universal one, but a true and warranted claim. Of course, it's not the definition of a duck - scientific or otherwise. Rather, it's information about ducks, which is not the same as giving a definition of the word.

Second, I do not "retreat" to "reason", because I never made a claim that science is on my side - just facts - and because that would not be a retreat.

Sure, horses have at least two sexes, and a whole bunch of intermediary cases, like just about every sexually reproducing vertebrate. "Normal vs Abnormal" is a value judgement arbitrarily applied, and is irrelevant in any case to whether dyadic perceptions of sex are accurate. Calling something abnormal does not cause it to suddenly cease to exist.

Actually, "normal vs. abnormal" is an assessment properly made, not arbitrarily applied. Surely, 4-legged ducks are abnormal. And the same goes to the horse in question. Obviously, causing something 'abnormal' does not cause it to suddenly cease to exist. But calling an assessment that something is abnormal a "value judgement arbitrarily applied" does not cause it to cease to be true, either. The same goes for saying that something malfunctioned, that there was something wrong with the development, etc.

I challenge in any case whether a genetic abnormality like an extra leg is in the same class of things as a property of sexual diversity that seems to exist within the karyotypic diversity of most animals, but even if it is, then in both cases a scientist would be an idiot to say that "All ducks have either two or one legs" given that there is evidence for exceptions to that would-be rule.

I'd say that a person attacking the view that holds that "All ducks have either two or one legs" as the position of all of those who claim that ducks are two-legged animals would be misrepresenting the position of nearly all if not all of the people who say that ducks are two-legged animals.

As to your challenge, here you talk about a "genetic abnormality", so you seem to agree it's abnormal. But why do you think it's genetic? Maybe it is, or maybe some other kind of developmental anomaly (e.g., absorbed twin). I don't see any good evidence either way in this case. But I haven't looked into the details, so maybe there is good evidence that it's genetic. Why would its being genetic be important?

That aside, given that sex is found in most animals and it's a very complex thing, it's unsurprising that developmental abnormalities involving sex are also found in many or even most animals. But why would it not be in the same category? Is it because of the numbers of abnormal cases?

And if ducks had third legs at birth at the same rate of 1 in 2000-4000 or so that typify intersex individuals, an ornithologist would certainly prefer to say that "most ducks are bipedal" then mention the very common exception case.

That looks very uncommon to me. How do you measure "very common"?

Humans have color vision, even if 1 in 30000 are born with achromatopsia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achromatopsia ). Sure, that's about 10 times less. But then again, if it's about numbers why is the specific 1 in 2000-4000 particularly important, and not, say, 300 or 30000?
On the other hand, color blindness among humans is far more common than intersexuality. In fact, either protanopia or deuteranopia is, on its own, far more common than intersexuality. Incidentally, in both cases, it's far more common among humans because of how common it is among human males, and males make up roughly 50% of the human population. It is rare in females, who roughly make up another 50%, but 1 half of the rate among males is still over ten times as high as 1 in 2000 (for either protanopia or deuteranopia alone).

Regarding the ornithologist, it would depend on what the ornithologist is trying to get at. I'm inclined to think he would prefer to say that ducks are bipedal in most or nearly all contexts, and that he would say that 4-legged ducks are abnormal cases if asked - unless perhaps some ideology (some variant of leftism, probably) has taken hold of the social circle of ornithologists, which may well be the case going by pronouncement by scientific bodies, many Western scientists, etc., on a number of issues (e.g., sex, race, etc.).

 

[blastula]

Just as the abnormal 4-legged duck is not a problem for the general description of ducks as 2-legged animals, so the abnormal horse in the first link you provided is not a problem for the claim that horses have to sexes: females and males (actually, I would say that that one is probably an abnormal male, so not an exception, but even if it were an exception and were neither male nor female).

But those generalities don't make any 4-legged duck a 2-legged duck. And "abnormal" connotes undesirability, it's not a neutral term.

 

[ruby sparks]

After the revolution, there will be no value judgements.

 

[Peez]

Just as the abnormal 4-legged duck is not a problem for the general description of ducks as 2-legged animals, so the abnormal horse in the first link you provided is not a problem for the claim that horses have to sexes: females and males (actually, I would say that that one is probably an abnormal male, so not an exception, but even if it were an exception and were neither male nor female).

But those generalities don't make any 4-legged duck a 2-legged duck. And "abnormal" connotes undesirability, it's not a neutral term.

It does to some, but it is not necessarily judgemental. According to Oxford Living Dictionaries:

1. Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

1.1 (of a person) free from physical or mental disorders.

2. technical (of a line, ray, or other linear feature) intersecting a given line or surface at right angles.

3. Medicine: (of a salt solution) containing the same salt concentration as the blood.

4. Geology: Denoting a fault or faulting in which a relative downward movement occurred in the strata situated on the upper side of the fault plane.

They omit the statistical use of the term, but note that none are inherently judgemental. The judgemental aspect is when someone judges you to be lesser based on the fact that you are not "usual, typical, or expected", or if you have "physical or mental disorders", which brings up the definition of "disorder":

1. A state of confusion.

1.1 The breakdown of peaceful and law-abiding public behaviour.

1.2 Medicine: An illness that disrupts normal physical or mental functions.

I love circular definitions.

Peez

 

[ruby sparks]

Abnormal (adjective): The new normal.

 

[blastula]

It does to some, but it is not necessarily judgemental. According to Oxford Living Dictionaries:

1. Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

1.1 (of a person) free from physical or mental disorders.

2. technical (of a line, ray, or other linear feature) intersecting a given line or surface at right angles.

3. Medicine: (of a salt solution) containing the same salt concentration as the blood.

4. Geology: Denoting a fault or faulting in which a relative downward movement occurred in the strata situated on the upper side of the fault plane.

That's what it has for "normal." This is what it has for abnormal.

ADJECTIVE
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.

"Atypical" would be a more neutral term.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Just as the abnormal 4-legged duck is not a problem for the general description of ducks as 2-legged animals, so the abnormal horse in the first link you provided is not a problem for the claim that horses have to sexes: females and males (actually, I would say that that one is probably an abnormal male, so not an exception, but even if it were an exception and were neither male nor female).

But those generalities don't make any 4-legged duck a 2-legged duck. And "abnormal" connotes undesirability, it's not a neutral term.

Of course, a 4-legged duck is not a 2-legged duck. But then again, no one is saying that it is.

As for whether 'abnormal' connotes undesirability, what is undesirability? (i.e., who has to not desire it?).
But regardless, a 200 IQ is abnormal. Moreover, if you look at movies, etc., there are people who get all sorts of superpowers. That's abnormal, but while they are not real, the point is that the term 'abnormal' does not have a negative connotation in general, though it might have it in specific contexts.

Still, I would say that in these cases, something malfunctioned and legs (or, in the case of the horse, the sexual organs) did not develop properly. And in the case of humans, it seems to me also something malfunctioned if someone is neither male nor female. More specifically, if an adult human never produces any gametes or any viable gametes, the reproductive system has not developed properly, or at least something is not functioning properly, malfunctioned at some point, or something along those lines, and as a result, the person is infertile. Do you think otherwise? Now perhaps the person in question does not care at all about fertility and is not interested in reproduction, but that does not mean that nothing has malfunctioned.

- - - Updated - - -

After the revolution, there will be no value judgements.

Unless it's an AI revolution that takes out humans and a number of other primates at least, there will be.

 

[Peez]

That's what it has for "normal." This is what it has for abnormal.

ADJECTIVE
Deviating from what is normal or usual, typically in a way that is undesirable or worrying.

"Atypical" would be a more neutral term.

The asymmetry in the definitions of "normal" and "abnormal" is interesting, but this does not contradict my point:

...it is not necessarily judgemental.

(bold added)

It is fair to describe something 'unusual, atypical, or unexpected' as "abnormal". The fact that many people see being unusual, atypical, or unexpected a bad thing notwithstanding.

The Abnormal Rainfall of 1889

Abnormally good or abnormally bad conditions do not last forever.

Abnormal profit

Peez

 

[Jokodo]

Of course, a 4-legged duck is not a 2-legged duck. But then again, no one is saying that it is.

In the case of sex, the analogous thing is exactly what people are saying.

Your point seems to be that generic statements about a species or category can be true without being true of all of its members.

To say that "ducks have two legs" or that "humans are a sexually reproducing species with two sexes, male and female, determined by a chromosomal (XY) sex determination system" are accurate, if slightly vague, statements.

So is the statement that 71% of the Earth is covered in water with an average depth of 4000 meters, while 29% are dry land with an average elevation of 840 meters above sea level, regardless of the existence of seasonal lakes and rivers and tidal zones along, not to mention shallow seas.

But the OP's article is about proposed legislation stipulating explicitly that individuals have to be legally defined to be either male or female. So that's very much like declaring that whatever that duck's extra appendages may be, legs they are not, because, by definition, ducks have two legs; or that every square meter of the Earth's surface that isn't safe for property development can be used as a year-round shipping lane, and vice versa.

Not only is this a denial of reality, it's also bound to lead to a lot of predictable and unnecessary shipwrecks and drownings.

 

[Jokodo]

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.

Most mammals don't do "norms". Norms are a social convention.

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

What positive effects are you talking about?

 

[ruby sparks]

Very few ducks are likely to drown because of their gender, no matter how many legs they have, and trying to legalise duck leg numbers is a waste of time and resources that could usefully be directed elsewhere.

 

[Jokodo]

Very few ducks are likely to drown because of their gender, no matter how many legs they have, and trying to legalise duck leg numbers is a waste of time and resources that could usefully be directed elsewhere.

Legalising reality is generally a waste of time - reality doesn't care about laws. There can be, however, very real downsides for people that (are forced to) organise their lives in accordance to laws that ignore reality.