> The biological purpose of sex is for procreation ...
Indeed. That IS what it means to have a sex, to have "reproductive function", to be able to reproduce:
"2 Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
Does this mean that people who can no longer reproduce (old folks) are therefore sexLESS? That would come as a great surprise to many grandmas and grandpas.
The question is HOW we should define the categories "male" and "female". And, as indicated in the above definition, they ARE categories, they're NOT any sort of "immutable identity".
And as categories, there is the question of what are the "membership dues". For the sexes, most reputable biological journals DEFINE those categories such that functional gonads are what are called the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership -- no tickee, no washee.
For example, see the definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of this Journal article -- which is worth reading in its entirety, at least the Abstract and Introduction, though the balance gets into some generally unnecessary technical details:
But you might also take a gander at the Wikipedia article on definitions, particularly the bit about those "necessary and sufficient conditions":
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
For example, the "property" than a person "needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term 'teenager' " is to be 13 to 19. Likewise with the categories "male" and "female".
See my "What is a woman?" for some further details 🙂. There are a few somewhat convoluted principles involved, but they're really not all that difficult to grasp, at least if one starts off with something in the way of an open mind:
I see. You are deconstructing what it means to be a human, whether male or female, and you are attempting to do it by first destroying biological sex with its binary characteristics. Transhumanism, much?
By those standard biological definitions, being male or female is NOT a necessary condition or essential property of "human". One can be NEITHER male NOR female; typical of many species whose members change sex as a result of changing the type of gamete actually produced.
You might actually try reading and thinking about those sources I've quoted and linked to -- instead of starting off with preconceptions that really don't hold any water at all.
You might also try reading an article in philosophy on the difference between essential and accidental properties:
A decent enough introduction to the idea even if the authors go off into the weeds after the first paragraph or two.
But, for example, being bipedal is an "accidental" property of humans -- some humans are, in fact, not "bipedal" yet they are still human. But the "essential" property of humans is, basically, having compatible karyotypes, being able to interbreed with some other members of the category.
And see also a recent post of Colin's and my comment thereat:
I think we're seeing the head hitting the brick wall here. If the evidence against your theories was not so overwhelming as to be beyond reproach, you might have caught more souls than the obsequious members of our scientific and philosophical institutions.
As it is, what has happened is the necessary repudiation of said institutions and their members, minus those few who adhere to true scientific standards. I once studied Soviet propaganda in college. Yours is quite similar.
"propaganda" 🙄 You clearly have most certainly have NOT read enough.
My arguments are based on standard biological definitions by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads, it necessarily following that those with neither of the two standard types are thereby sexless.
What horse crap. No one -- certainly not me -- is trying to "change biological reality".
The "biological reality" is that there are those organisms which produce large gametes and those that produce small gametes, each of which can thereby reproduce. The other half of that reality is that those who produce neither can't.
How we define the sexes is somewhat arbitrary, a matter of social construction -- "female" used to mean "she who suckles" by which Jenner & his ilk might have qualified:
There is no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female"; the definitions for them weren't in the First Dictionary that Moses supposedly brought down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z -- or maybe you think otherwise? Says so right there in Genesis 5:2? 🙄
But now we have created definitions that make the actual producing of gametes the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership.
So what are your definitions for "male" and "female"? Which dictionary and which peer-reviewed biological journals endorse them?
We can't possibly have a conversation -- or create workable social policies -- if we can't even agree on what the relevant words mean. And the scientific definitions seem to have most justification -- you really might want to try reading the definitions in that Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction.
You will insist on changing the biological definition of male and female so as to destroy their meaning. It is terribly obvious, and your word salads cannot and will not change objective truth.
Neither age nor accident can change the reality that humans are sexed in a binary manner--male and female. It is elementary birds and bees stuff. All the high-flown prose and theories and parsing of transhumanist definitions and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo cannot change objective truth.
That you had to bring Moses and the Bible into it betrays much about your motives. It always comes down to a rejection of Deity. You copped to it quite early in the conversation. :-)
My understanding is that most intersex people are tragically sterile.
The removes them from any useful consideration re sex.
The biological purpose of sex is for procreation. If you're a sterile intersex individual, that is a tragedy, not a new sex.
> The biological purpose of sex is for procreation ...
Indeed. That IS what it means to have a sex, to have "reproductive function", to be able to reproduce:
"2 Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions"
https://web.archive.org/web/20190326191905/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/sex
No "reproductive function", no sex. Such individuals -- like the prepubescent and most intersex -- are, in fact, sexLESS.
Does this mean that people who can no longer reproduce (old folks) are therefore sexLESS? That would come as a great surprise to many grandmas and grandpas.
aging out is absolutely natural, it's not a defect.
Intersex is a tragic accident of nature.
Yes, thank you. It's plain to most of humanity, but we are living in interesting times.
Surprising, but quite true ... 😉🙂
The question is HOW we should define the categories "male" and "female". And, as indicated in the above definition, they ARE categories, they're NOT any sort of "immutable identity".
And as categories, there is the question of what are the "membership dues". For the sexes, most reputable biological journals DEFINE those categories such that functional gonads are what are called the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership -- no tickee, no washee.
For example, see the definitions for the sexes in the Glossary of this Journal article -- which is worth reading in its entirety, at least the Abstract and Introduction, though the balance gets into some generally unnecessary technical details:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
But you might also take a gander at the Wikipedia article on definitions, particularly the bit about those "necessary and sufficient conditions":
"An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
For example, the "property" than a person "needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term 'teenager' " is to be 13 to 19. Likewise with the categories "male" and "female".
See my "What is a woman?" for some further details 🙂. There are a few somewhat convoluted principles involved, but they're really not all that difficult to grasp, at least if one starts off with something in the way of an open mind:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
I see. You are deconstructing what it means to be a human, whether male or female, and you are attempting to do it by first destroying biological sex with its binary characteristics. Transhumanism, much?
Nope, not at all.
By those standard biological definitions, being male or female is NOT a necessary condition or essential property of "human". One can be NEITHER male NOR female; typical of many species whose members change sex as a result of changing the type of gamete actually produced.
You might actually try reading and thinking about those sources I've quoted and linked to -- instead of starting off with preconceptions that really don't hold any water at all.
You might also try reading an article in philosophy on the difference between essential and accidental properties:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
A decent enough introduction to the idea even if the authors go off into the weeds after the first paragraph or two.
But, for example, being bipedal is an "accidental" property of humans -- some humans are, in fact, not "bipedal" yet they are still human. But the "essential" property of humans is, basically, having compatible karyotypes, being able to interbreed with some other members of the category.
And see also a recent post of Colin's and my comment thereat:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/gametes-are-not-an-arbitrary-definition/comment/15803447
I've read quite enough, thank you.
I think we're seeing the head hitting the brick wall here. If the evidence against your theories was not so overwhelming as to be beyond reproach, you might have caught more souls than the obsequious members of our scientific and philosophical institutions.
As it is, what has happened is the necessary repudiation of said institutions and their members, minus those few who adhere to true scientific standards. I once studied Soviet propaganda in college. Yours is quite similar.
"propaganda" 🙄 You clearly have most certainly have NOT read enough.
My arguments are based on standard biological definitions by which to have a sex is to have functional gonads, it necessarily following that those with neither of the two standard types are thereby sexless.
That you suggest "standard biological definitions" aver one must have functional gonads, is to change biological reality.
No go.
What horse crap. No one -- certainly not me -- is trying to "change biological reality".
The "biological reality" is that there are those organisms which produce large gametes and those that produce small gametes, each of which can thereby reproduce. The other half of that reality is that those who produce neither can't.
How we define the sexes is somewhat arbitrary, a matter of social construction -- "female" used to mean "she who suckles" by which Jenner & his ilk might have qualified:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
There is no intrinsic meaning to "male" and "female"; the definitions for them weren't in the First Dictionary that Moses supposedly brought down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z -- or maybe you think otherwise? Says so right there in Genesis 5:2? 🙄
But now we have created definitions that make the actual producing of gametes the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership.
So what are your definitions for "male" and "female"? Which dictionary and which peer-reviewed biological journals endorse them?
We can't possibly have a conversation -- or create workable social policies -- if we can't even agree on what the relevant words mean. And the scientific definitions seem to have most justification -- you really might want to try reading the definitions in that Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction.
You will insist on changing the biological definition of male and female so as to destroy their meaning. It is terribly obvious, and your word salads cannot and will not change objective truth.
Neither age nor accident can change the reality that humans are sexed in a binary manner--male and female. It is elementary birds and bees stuff. All the high-flown prose and theories and parsing of transhumanist definitions and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo cannot change objective truth.
That you had to bring Moses and the Bible into it betrays much about your motives. It always comes down to a rejection of Deity. You copped to it quite early in the conversation. :-)