You are insisting that if, in the context of describing a category of organisms, one of their organs is described as "producing gametes", that means that the organ must be active in order to qualify a particular individual as a member of that group. Rather, the statement "makes gametes" is on the same order as "cement mixers make cement…
You are insisting that if, in the context of describing a category of organisms, one of their organs is described as "producing gametes", that means that the organ must be active in order to qualify a particular individual as a member of that group. Rather, the statement "makes gametes" is on the same order as "cement mixers make cement", which is not a statement about only those cement mixers that are currently in the process of doing so. Those not making cement do not cease to be cement mixers. Likewise, biologically-speaking, "produces gametes" is only intended to tell you the usual function of sex organs in that type of organism's body. It does not follow that one should exclude juveniles in whom the organ is not yet active, or mature specimens in which the organ is atypically or no longer active. This is not a political statement, but the usual way a biologist describes, and reads descriptions of, organisms.
Don't think you're really addressing my argument and all of the links and quotes I've provided to justify it. All you've put on the table is a bunch of ipse dixits and unevidenced opinion.
Though I'll concede, provisionally, that defining a cement mixer as "a machine that mixes ingredients to make cement" may be a useful analogy. However, a "cement mixer" that is missing the motor that does the mixing can't really be said to qualify as one. It may LOOK like a cement mixer, but it is missing the ability to perform the function that is the essential element, the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as such. If "appearance" is sufficient to qualify entities for membership in such categories then Bruce Jenner should qualify as a woman and as a female ...
There's a fundamental difference between form and function, and very often the latter is an essential and defining element. Feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones -- though I use the term loosely as she's more an ideologue than a philosopher -- had an "interesting" if heavily biased essay on that dichotomy:
She, like many women and most feminists, seems rather desperately engaged in some motivated reasoning, if not egregious gaslighting, to justify mere form as sufficient claim to membership in the category "female". In notable contradistinction to the biological definitions, quoted in reputable biological journals and dictionaries, by which "male" and "female" denote only those with quite transitory abilities to reproduce because they exhibit the functions, because they manifest the processes of producing gametes on something like a regular basis.
I'm just interpreting something a biologist wrote, the way a biologist assumes it will be read, not expecting that you would come along and construe the statement that a male's gonads produce sperm (as opposed to eggs, or jelly beans, or anything else besides sperm) to mean that an organism is only male when actively producing said sperm. I'd definitely call a cement mixer a cement mixer even when its motor was detached.
And no, I'd say that Caitlyn Jenner looks like a male -to-female transgender person.
You can only get so far with some people. A cement mixer with no motor is a cement mixer with no motor. A cement mixer with a broken motor is a cement mixer with a broken motor. Playing games with language is not the same as undermining basic definitions. The whole "present tense indefinite" ruse is just that.
You don't seem much for reading and thinking about any of the links & quotes I've posted so this is probably a waste of time, but you might try reading this essay by Paul Griffiths -- University of Sydney, professor of philosophy, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy -- in Aeon magazine:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless; my editorializing]."
Of particular note: "ABILITY to ... make eggs or make sperm"; those unable to do so -- prepubescent XXers & XYers for examples -- are therefore sexless.
And, as I had pointed out before, "present tense indefinite" means "regularly", your "actively producing" apparently being a misreading or a misunderstanding. A car manufacturing plant doesn't have to have a new car coming off the production line at every instant for us to say it "produces cars" -- once a day or once a month is sufficient to qualify as "regularly":
You can CALL it a "cement mixer" if you like, but, absent a motor, it only LOOKS like one -- it is a "cement mixer" in name only, nominally speaking, for reference purposes only:
There ARE criteria that HAVE to be met before entities can qualify for membership in particular categories. Like the categories "male" and "female" -- and, by definition, the infertile don't qualify, can't be "counted as referents of those terms":
"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."
> "It is crucial to note, however, that the sex of individuals within a species isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment. Pre-pubertal males don’t produce sperm, and some infertile adults of both sexes never produce gametes due to various infertility issues. Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality. In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time."
**You can keep playing mind games to pretend like human communication doesn't involve a lot of context and standard assumptions**
Not sure what your point or argument is. Or what "context and standard assumptions" you think I'm ignoring or that you think Colin's definitions are based on.
But my argument is that just because Colin has published, on his own Substack, some definitions for the sexes does not in any way make them gospel truth. Which he apparently thinks is the case. And particularly as they haven't ever been published anywhere else, at least that I'm aware of or that he's indicated, apart from the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly any sort of a peer-reviewed biological journal:
Which is in notable contradistinction to other definitions which have, in fact, been published in such journals, in particular Oxford Academic's Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]. Definitions which are profoundly different from and quite antithetical to those of Colin and Company:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
Of note there is that the MHR definitions basically stipulate that the gonads have to be present and functional to qualify individuals as male and female. But Colin's definitions stipulate that the gonads do NOT have to be present and functional. A world of difference -- the difference between white and black -- with far reaching consequences: by the MHR definitions a transwoman who cuts his nuts off is sexless whereas by Colin's that same person is still a male. Which set of definitions do you think should qualify as trump?
Big part of the problem with the transgender clusterfuck is that the "debate" over various definitions -- "sex" and "gender" in particular -- has turned much of biology into something of a clown show. Which tends to preclude resolving that clusterfuck -- if biology can't agree on definitions for the sexes then how can we agree on policies that should be contingent on them?
You might have some interest in my post on that "debate":
But while Colin's definitions do have some value, at least in reflecting "folk-biology" even if that isn't much of a recommendation, a major problem with them, or with his position, is that he apparently thinks they qualify as gospel truth and is apparently unwilling to even consider that the MHR definitions might be substantially better.
However, maybe there's a change in the wind given that a recent guest post here by Catherine Hawkins usefully acknowledged an important point, one which repudiates that claim to gospel truth: "Definitions are human inventions and can certainly change to incorporate new understanding."
You are insisting that if, in the context of describing a category of organisms, one of their organs is described as "producing gametes", that means that the organ must be active in order to qualify a particular individual as a member of that group. Rather, the statement "makes gametes" is on the same order as "cement mixers make cement", which is not a statement about only those cement mixers that are currently in the process of doing so. Those not making cement do not cease to be cement mixers. Likewise, biologically-speaking, "produces gametes" is only intended to tell you the usual function of sex organs in that type of organism's body. It does not follow that one should exclude juveniles in whom the organ is not yet active, or mature specimens in which the organ is atypically or no longer active. This is not a political statement, but the usual way a biologist describes, and reads descriptions of, organisms.
Don't think you're really addressing my argument and all of the links and quotes I've provided to justify it. All you've put on the table is a bunch of ipse dixits and unevidenced opinion.
Though I'll concede, provisionally, that defining a cement mixer as "a machine that mixes ingredients to make cement" may be a useful analogy. However, a "cement mixer" that is missing the motor that does the mixing can't really be said to qualify as one. It may LOOK like a cement mixer, but it is missing the ability to perform the function that is the essential element, the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as such. If "appearance" is sufficient to qualify entities for membership in such categories then Bruce Jenner should qualify as a woman and as a female ...
There's a fundamental difference between form and function, and very often the latter is an essential and defining element. Feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones -- though I use the term loosely as she's more an ideologue than a philosopher -- had an "interesting" if heavily biased essay on that dichotomy:
https://janeclarejones.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/7-july-infertile-women-are-women.pdf
She, like many women and most feminists, seems rather desperately engaged in some motivated reasoning, if not egregious gaslighting, to justify mere form as sufficient claim to membership in the category "female". In notable contradistinction to the biological definitions, quoted in reputable biological journals and dictionaries, by which "male" and "female" denote only those with quite transitory abilities to reproduce because they exhibit the functions, because they manifest the processes of producing gametes on something like a regular basis.
What I said isn't "opinion".
I'm just interpreting something a biologist wrote, the way a biologist assumes it will be read, not expecting that you would come along and construe the statement that a male's gonads produce sperm (as opposed to eggs, or jelly beans, or anything else besides sperm) to mean that an organism is only male when actively producing said sperm. I'd definitely call a cement mixer a cement mixer even when its motor was detached.
And no, I'd say that Caitlyn Jenner looks like a male -to-female transgender person.
You can only get so far with some people. A cement mixer with no motor is a cement mixer with no motor. A cement mixer with a broken motor is a cement mixer with a broken motor. Playing games with language is not the same as undermining basic definitions. The whole "present tense indefinite" ruse is just that.
"the way a biologist assumes it will be read ..."
You're a mind reader? 🙄
You don't seem much for reading and thinking about any of the links & quotes I've posted so this is probably a waste of time, but you might try reading this essay by Paul Griffiths -- University of Sydney, professor of philosophy, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy -- in Aeon magazine:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless; my editorializing]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Of particular note: "ABILITY to ... make eggs or make sperm"; those unable to do so -- prepubescent XXers & XYers for examples -- are therefore sexless.
And, as I had pointed out before, "present tense indefinite" means "regularly", your "actively producing" apparently being a misreading or a misunderstanding. A car manufacturing plant doesn't have to have a new car coming off the production line at every instant for us to say it "produces cars" -- once a day or once a month is sufficient to qualify as "regularly":
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regularly
You can CALL it a "cement mixer" if you like, but, absent a motor, it only LOOKS like one -- it is a "cement mixer" in name only, nominally speaking, for reference purposes only:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nominal
There ARE criteria that HAVE to be met before entities can qualify for membership in particular categories. Like the categories "male" and "female" -- and, by definition, the infertile don't qualify, can't be "counted as referents of those terms":
"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
From the article itself
> "It is crucial to note, however, that the sex of individuals within a species isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment. Pre-pubertal males don’t produce sperm, and some infertile adults of both sexes never produce gametes due to various infertility issues. Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality. In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time."
**You can keep playing mind games to pretend like human communication doesn't involve a lot of context and standard assumptions**
Not sure what your point or argument is. Or what "context and standard assumptions" you think I'm ignoring or that you think Colin's definitions are based on.
But my argument is that just because Colin has published, on his own Substack, some definitions for the sexes does not in any way make them gospel truth. Which he apparently thinks is the case. And particularly as they haven't ever been published anywhere else, at least that I'm aware of or that he's indicated, apart from the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly any sort of a peer-reviewed biological journal:
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
Which is in notable contradistinction to other definitions which have, in fact, been published in such journals, in particular Oxford Academic's Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR]. Definitions which are profoundly different from and quite antithetical to those of Colin and Company:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Of note there is that the MHR definitions basically stipulate that the gonads have to be present and functional to qualify individuals as male and female. But Colin's definitions stipulate that the gonads do NOT have to be present and functional. A world of difference -- the difference between white and black -- with far reaching consequences: by the MHR definitions a transwoman who cuts his nuts off is sexless whereas by Colin's that same person is still a male. Which set of definitions do you think should qualify as trump?
Big part of the problem with the transgender clusterfuck is that the "debate" over various definitions -- "sex" and "gender" in particular -- has turned much of biology into something of a clown show. Which tends to preclude resolving that clusterfuck -- if biology can't agree on definitions for the sexes then how can we agree on policies that should be contingent on them?
You might have some interest in my post on that "debate":
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
But while Colin's definitions do have some value, at least in reflecting "folk-biology" even if that isn't much of a recommendation, a major problem with them, or with his position, is that he apparently thinks they qualify as gospel truth and is apparently unwilling to even consider that the MHR definitions might be substantially better.
However, maybe there's a change in the wind given that a recent guest post here by Catherine Hawkins usefully acknowledged an important point, one which repudiates that claim to gospel truth: "Definitions are human inventions and can certainly change to incorporate new understanding."
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/denying-the-human-sex-binary-turns/comment/15648819