TeeJae: "missed this paragraph in the article .... isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment." Which article? Wright's? The OP? Might help to actually say so right out of the chute. But that's just his opinion, his own rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definition, and little m…
TeeJae: "missed this paragraph in the article .... isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment."
Which article? Wright's? The OP? Might help to actually say so right out of the chute.
But that's just his opinion, his own rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definition, and little more than the letter that he, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying had published in the letters-to-the-editors section of the UK Times. A fairly decent newspaper, but hardly any sort of peer-reviewed biological journal. As their letter has it:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
But those 3 conditions -- each of which is supposedly sufficient to qualify individuals as male or female -- basically turns their definitions for each sex into a spectrum of 3. Rather risible for them to be throwing stones at Nature, Scientific American, and others for doing the same thing.
For elaborations on that theme, you might be interested in my latest:
TeeJae: "Biological sex is not determined by the ability to produce gametes (eggs, sperm)."
Actually, in point of fact, the definitions stipulated in actual peer-reviewed biological journals -- not popular newspapers ... -- do in fact specify that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. That Binarists vs. Spectrumists essay quotes the definitions from the Glossary in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"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."
Diddly-squat there about any past or future functionality. They're all about being able to reproduce right now because of having functional gonads.
TeeJae: "...would be considered sexless."
So what? The sexes aren't "designed" as participation trophies to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. They're "designed" by actual biologists -- those worth their salt ... -- to be able to grapple with the brute fact -- emphasized by that Molecular Human Reproduction article -- that anisogamy -- two differently sized gametes -- is ubiquitous across literally millions of species and hundreds of million years. And that that brute fact has more or less driven virtually all of the sexual dimorphism we see today. Which objective do you think is more important?
We will have to agree to disagree on this. There is VASTLY more peer-reviewed scientific literature which concludes that the biological sex of humans is determined by which gonads babies are born with (of which chromosomes are a crucial factor). Period. So, please do not respond with more of your same 'it's all about gamete production' argument, as it is both nonsensical and irrational, and citing more pseudoscience will not convince me otherwise.
Btw, Nature and Scientific American lost their credibility when they jumped on the covid vax promotion bandwagon.
But kinda think you're misunderstanding my argument and the biology, though if Emma Hilton has anything to say about it -- which she does -- then it's a fairly common failing. For example, see this tweet thread of hers:
"There appears to be a some confusion on your part regarding terms like 'determine', and this is sending you down a rabbithole. In developmental biology, 'determination' describes the process that drives cell or tissue differentiation. ....
The article you have posted is describing the diversity of sex determination mechanisms across various species. That is, they are describing the different ways different species trigger sex development. ...."
Chromosomes generally "determine" our sexes in being the causative factors or "mechanisms" that lead to the development of the gonads that actually produce -- bring into existence -- new gametes. Whereas -- by the standard biological definitions -- actually producing gametes are the "membership dues" to qualify as members of the sex categories. Entirely different kettles of fish which many people trip over.
But much of biological and philosophical communities really aren't covering themselves with much glory over defining the sex categories -- bit of a clown show from square one.
For example see this tweet of Tomas Bogardus who had written a post here recently somehow analogizing sexes to shoes, and which links to a paper by a couple of other "philosophers":
"An emerging consensus among philosophers of biology is that sex is grounded in some manner or another on anisogamy, that is, the ability to produce either large gametes (egg) or small gametes (sperm), though the exact nature of this grounding remains contentious. Here we argue for a new conception of this relation. In our view, one’s sex doesn’t depend on the kind of gamete one is capable of making, but on the kind of gamete one is designed to make ...."
They're basically endorsing the idea of "producing large gametes or small gametes" as the traditional "membership dues" for sex category membership in the first part. But then they jump the shark by trying to argue in favour of replacing that with a determination of "what kind of gamete one is designed to make". Not quite sure how they think to do that for all of the millions of anisogamous species over all their life cycles. "muddying the waters to make them seem deep" as Nietzsche put it:
Yes, but the point is what is the sex of an organism that produces neither sperm nor ova? Like newly hatched clownfish? Like the prepubescent? Like transwomen wheao cut their nuts off? (Hint: sexLESS.)
Try reading and thinking about this article on types of definitions, particularly the bit -- and citations -- on "necessary and sufficient conditions [NSCs]:
The NSC to qualify as a member of the teenager category is to be 13 to 19; the NSC to qualify as a member of the sex categories is to produce gametes -- right now, on a regular basis. Those who don't meet those requirements don't qualify for membership cards: they're "teenager-less"; they're sexLESS.
🙄 If you ever took any high school geometry then you should have some understanding of the concept of axioms. Which is what the stipulative definitions of biology for the sexes ARE.
Not a matter of belief but of a priori definitions and axioms. Do you "believe" parallel lines never meet, or is that an axiom of Euclidean geometry?
You might try getting your head out of your arse and read these generally quite credible posts of Yassine Meskhout, and the conversation I'm having with him on the topic:
TeeJae: "missed this paragraph in the article .... isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment."
Which article? Wright's? The OP? Might help to actually say so right out of the chute.
But that's just his opinion, his own rather idiosyncratic and quite unscientific definition, and little more than the letter that he, Emma Hilton, & Heather Heying had published in the letters-to-the-editors section of the UK Times. A fairly decent newspaper, but hardly any sort of peer-reviewed biological journal. As their letter has it:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
But those 3 conditions -- each of which is supposedly sufficient to qualify individuals as male or female -- basically turns their definitions for each sex into a spectrum of 3. Rather risible for them to be throwing stones at Nature, Scientific American, and others for doing the same thing.
For elaborations on that theme, you might be interested in my latest:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
TeeJae: "Biological sex is not determined by the ability to produce gametes (eggs, sperm)."
Actually, in point of fact, the definitions stipulated in actual peer-reviewed biological journals -- not popular newspapers ... -- do in fact specify that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. That Binarists vs. Spectrumists essay quotes the definitions from the Glossary in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
"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."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
Diddly-squat there about any past or future functionality. They're all about being able to reproduce right now because of having functional gonads.
TeeJae: "...would be considered sexless."
So what? The sexes aren't "designed" as participation trophies to pander to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. They're "designed" by actual biologists -- those worth their salt ... -- to be able to grapple with the brute fact -- emphasized by that Molecular Human Reproduction article -- that anisogamy -- two differently sized gametes -- is ubiquitous across literally millions of species and hundreds of million years. And that that brute fact has more or less driven virtually all of the sexual dimorphism we see today. Which objective do you think is more important?
We will have to agree to disagree on this. There is VASTLY more peer-reviewed scientific literature which concludes that the biological sex of humans is determined by which gonads babies are born with (of which chromosomes are a crucial factor). Period. So, please do not respond with more of your same 'it's all about gamete production' argument, as it is both nonsensical and irrational, and citing more pseudoscience will not convince me otherwise.
Btw, Nature and Scientific American lost their credibility when they jumped on the covid vax promotion bandwagon.
And your evidence for that "conclusion" is where?
But kinda think you're misunderstanding my argument and the biology, though if Emma Hilton has anything to say about it -- which she does -- then it's a fairly common failing. For example, see this tweet thread of hers:
"There appears to be a some confusion on your part regarding terms like 'determine', and this is sending you down a rabbithole. In developmental biology, 'determination' describes the process that drives cell or tissue differentiation. ....
The article you have posted is describing the diversity of sex determination mechanisms across various species. That is, they are describing the different ways different species trigger sex development. ...."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1444251438566232065
Chromosomes generally "determine" our sexes in being the causative factors or "mechanisms" that lead to the development of the gonads that actually produce -- bring into existence -- new gametes. Whereas -- by the standard biological definitions -- actually producing gametes are the "membership dues" to qualify as members of the sex categories. Entirely different kettles of fish which many people trip over.
But much of biological and philosophical communities really aren't covering themselves with much glory over defining the sex categories -- bit of a clown show from square one.
For example see this tweet of Tomas Bogardus who had written a post here recently somehow analogizing sexes to shoes, and which links to a paper by a couple of other "philosophers":
https://twitter.com/TomasBogardus/status/1636115683099697152
https://www.dropbox.com/s/yojau8ut45xw591/Garson%2C%20Rifkin%20-%20Sex%20by%20Design.pdf?dl=0
"An emerging consensus among philosophers of biology is that sex is grounded in some manner or another on anisogamy, that is, the ability to produce either large gametes (egg) or small gametes (sperm), though the exact nature of this grounding remains contentious. Here we argue for a new conception of this relation. In our view, one’s sex doesn’t depend on the kind of gamete one is capable of making, but on the kind of gamete one is designed to make ...."
They're basically endorsing the idea of "producing large gametes or small gametes" as the traditional "membership dues" for sex category membership in the first part. But then they jump the shark by trying to argue in favour of replacing that with a determination of "what kind of gamete one is designed to make". Not quite sure how they think to do that for all of the millions of anisogamous species over all their life cycles. "muddying the waters to make them seem deep" as Nietzsche put it:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/119332-they-muddy-the-water-to-make-it-seem-deep
Btw, I'm not terribly impressed by Nature and Scientific American either ...
In our species the male is the one that produces sperm / small gamete, the female produces ovum / ''eggs'' gemete
Yes, but the point is what is the sex of an organism that produces neither sperm nor ova? Like newly hatched clownfish? Like the prepubescent? Like transwomen wheao cut their nuts off? (Hint: sexLESS.)
Try reading and thinking about this article on types of definitions, particularly the bit -- and citations -- on "necessary and sufficient conditions [NSCs]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
The NSC to qualify as a member of the teenager category is to be 13 to 19; the NSC to qualify as a member of the sex categories is to produce gametes -- right now, on a regular basis. Those who don't meet those requirements don't qualify for membership cards: they're "teenager-less"; they're sexLESS.
So what do you think that is what defines sex in these conditions?
What the hell do you think "sexLESS" means?
Organisms that can't produce either sperm or ova are neither male nor female, they're sex-less:
"-less
5 of 5
adjective suffix
1: destitute of : not having"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/less
Indeed, i already knew that.
🙄 So why did you ask the question?
To be sexless you would need to have your reproductive system removed.
🙄 If you ever took any high school geometry then you should have some understanding of the concept of axioms. Which is what the stipulative definitions of biology for the sexes ARE.
Not a matter of belief but of a priori definitions and axioms. Do you "believe" parallel lines never meet, or is that an axiom of Euclidean geometry?
You might try getting your head out of your arse and read these generally quite credible posts of Yassine Meskhout, and the conversation I'm having with him on the topic:
https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/these-are-signs-that-you-have-nothing/comment/15032220
https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/what-boston-can-teach-us-about-what
🙄 "pitiable".
In your entirely unevidenced OPINION. Which ain't worth diddly-squat.