No it is still not empirical. The definition of sex is difficult to set in stone, and yours fails to argue for itself on the basis of a result that is just a stretch of the empirical truth. In fact, you saying that it is a consensus in the field of biology when a notable amount of biologists argue against this is very far-fetched.
Again, take someone with Swyer syndrome that don’t have the ability to produce any large gametes. By saying it is “organized around the production of large gametes”, you are extending that empirical fact related to that person, and ascribing them an alternate reality where there can produce large gametes. You’re defining someone around something that they cannot do.
Concretely, this means that sex is way more complicated than just “revolving around the production of gametes”. I am not an expert in biology, and will not be able to tell you exactly what it is without not considering all of the edge-cases of it’s definition. But there are too many contradictions with saying that it’s binary because XYZ.
I am of the opinion that our society’s obsession with figuring out someone’s sex, if it is assigned by birth by a doctor, determined by an onlooker, etc. is in it of itself harmful. Not that there’s anything wrong with knowing about your body, but the way it’s been morphed into these essential classes is harmful for those that defy said class, intentionally or not.
That said, I hope you look at more examples of teleology in biology. In fact, what I explained should be understandable if you have a look at the wikipedia article. If you do not mean “organized around” in a teleological sense, then what do you mean? Also, you failed to address my previous analogies in your response. If it’s because you feel like it’s fallacious, or that it’s simply wrong, then why not respond accordingly? I’m starting to suspect the use of AI…
Edit: I think this is the last piece of effort I’ll put into this, because it gets obvious up to a point. Your argument falls into this category of teleological arguments:
[…] they are appropriate “in reference to structures anatomically and physiologically designed to perform a certain function.”
Taken from the wikipedia page. This is a teleological sentence, but it is used to explain a concept, not actually what is going on. No one actually designed said functions. If you want to know more, read the section on Irreducible teleology in the wikipedia article, which addresses the limitations of getting rid of teleology completely and how to go about it, whilst navigating things empirically.
Something to understand is that power struggle pretends to be the last word on things. Powerstruggle is not a scientist and doesn’t even seem to have relevant degree credentials.
This user is weirdly obsessed with me to the point of eroticism. You’ll want to be careful around them.
I’ll explain again though that “pretending to be the last word” is the opposite of what I’ve done. I’ve cited many reliable sources to demonstrate that I’m merely conveying the consensus in biology. This user has done nothing serious.
Which biologists are arguing against it? I think that’s a more concrete claim.
Your argument is basically “This person was born without something at the end of their leg, but we can’t say they’re missing a foot. Maybe it was a fin! Or a baboon! Or an aircraft carrier! There’s just no way to tell”
A human body tries to build a foot at the end of the leg. Sometimes it fails, but until we observe a stable, inherited body plan that doesn’t grow a foot at the end of a leg it is not teleological to use “tries” in that sense. It’s descriptive
By the way, when I look towards more sources for your claims, I often find christian institutions and TERF adgacent sources. Some even argue for teleology. This, again, contredicts the theory of evolution, which we are still abiding by, correct?
Also, your section on determination vs. definition (in your last message) is cyclical. People determine based on definition. To say the opposite would beg the question: “determined based on what?”, and the answer will be a definition, right or wrong.
I’m not the one saying “it could be a baboon, who knows”. You are lol. I’m saying that there is no such thing as a “could be” in concrete empirical analysis of nature, just a “be”. We can make educated guesses based on the empirical data, but they’re just that: guesses. We can say “they are missing a foot”, but it is a shorthand for “this person has no foot. Usually, people have a foot there. It might allow them to walk more stabily, so let’s try sollutions that mimic the structure of a foot”.
Because how can they be lierally “missing a foot” if they never had one in the first place? The supposition that something is “supposed to be there” is a cognitive shortcut, but nothing is supposed.
It is teleological, because there are two options in interpreting this sentence:
A human body tries to build a foot at the end of the leg.
The empirical one, which, as you should know, is a concrete observation of what is going on. You’d rephrase the sentence as:
This person has no foot at the end of their leg. Typically, humans have feet at the end of their leg.
Using this interpretation, it would be ridiculous to define a human empiricaly around the fact that they are “supposed” to have feet at the end of their leg, since “supposed” is not empirical (neither is organized, which implies a plan and therefore a bias). You can find a trend, but not a “supposed”. You can try to define it empiricaly, by saying “typicaly”, but that implies other possibilities, as it should do. Finaly, you can try by simply ignoring it by saying “humans have feet at the end of their legs”, but you’d just be plain wrong, since there are examples contradicting you. Remember, right now we are using terms in order to explain something more concrete.
The human body actually tries to make a foot at the end of the leg -> same teleological argument as I explained in my previous reply.
The “stable, iherited body plan” is still a teleological sentence lmfao. You’re basically disaproving my argument on the basis of it not being teleological.
Since you’re arguing for teleology, I suppose that you have a fickle understanding of evolutionary biology. Tne human body doesn’t “try to do something”. It either doesn’t or it does. Ascribing a certain attempt or will to the body is a shorthand, like i’ve said several times, but it is not accurately depecting the experience.
As a thought exercise, can you describe your definition of sex without using teleological language? But then again, your reply shows a lack of understanding on what teleology is, so if you reply with anothe misunderstanding of the concept, I’ll just move on from this.
You also stated that you’re autistic in your bio. As someone that is also autistic, you might want to reflect if you’re actually arguing for science, or rather for a more rigid worldview that you want to stay the same. This argument of yours seems repetitive and circular, so I’d suggest reflecting on
Did you read this before you linked it? “Here, we argue that dispensing with sexes would be a grave scientific error, depriving biology of one of its most powerful tools for explaining biological diversity. […] Hence, it is essentialism and typological thinking that we should dispense with, not biological sexes.” It agrees with everything I’ve been saying!
The authors of the MEA paper actually recognize that sex is binary when making arguments against it. For example, they mention the damn penis in the female hyena without realizing how they know she’s a female, and somehow think that variation within a sex effaces the sex binary.
Mostly uncited and wrong. The one definition it cites for biological sex comes from a committee of non-biologists tasked with improving data collection. Irrelevant (and also wrong).
You’re confused about what determination means. It’s not cyclical, please read and understand
Within the scientific community, Sun notes, Parker’s gametic definition of biological sex was generally accepted
It’s also frequently incorrect (unsurprising since the article was written by a PR person), “binary definitions of biological sex fail to account for roughly 1.7 percent of the population according to one estimate” is false and relies on work from a deeply unserious person, Anne Fausto-Sterling, who got called out on her bullshit and said she was being “tongue-in-cheek” and “ironic”.
But this is the real claim from that link:
Variations in genes, chromosomes, and internal and external sex organs are often called disorders in sex development in the medical community. I think that’s wrong in many cases. It’s just natural variation
It’s not actually disputing the sex binary. It’s basically a dispute about the term “Disorders of sex development” vs “Differences of sex development”. So it doesn’t disagree with me, though the question of “disorder” vs" difference" loops back to your confusion.
You’re confusing the various meanings of the word “should” (or supposed to, or take your pick of terms). It can be used descriptively or prescriptively. You’re saying that incorrect prescriptive use invalidates descriptive use, and that’s wrong.
Using this interpretation, it would be ridiculous to define a human empiricaly around the fact that they are “supposed” to have feet at the end of their leg,
Humans aren’t defined that way. Someone missing a foot is still human. You have the definition the wrong way around and complaining that it doesn’t make sense, when in fact it doesn’t make sense because you’re thinking wrong.
A completely non-teleological definition is that sex is defined by what structures one has in their body that are required for production of one gamete type that are not required for production of the other gamete type.
I read the text debunking second link. The author writing this is more concerned with the usefullness of the gamete size definition for us than the actual definition of it.
As I’ve mentioned before, the recognition of the gamete size binary—the so-called “flattening”, has in fact been enormously productive in biology, for it’s given us not only an explanatory basis for sexual selection (which itself explains a ton of biological phenomena), but also enables us to make predictions about how parental investment affects behavior (e.g., why female seahorsea rather than males are members of the sex with colorful adornments).
Flattening it has never been useful to this. Knowing people’s sexual characteristics as a whole instead of just figuring out which gametes should be produced is more helpful
Another case of semantics vs actually understanding what the authors are saying. They argue that since they acknowledge that they called the hyena “female” that they recognise the sex binary. They were actually calling the hyena female because the wider scientific community calls them that, not because they believe it is. It’s a
bad faith argument.
The author keeps also talking about ideology and, in tfe end, mentions how the paper got through because of DEI. Like seriously??? That’s not how DEI works 😭
Your claim about ASRM is quite disengenuons i feel. Saying that medical doctors are “non-biologists” disregards their education in biology and anthropology.
Either way, my point is that there are biologist that have contested it.
Then if you were talking beforhand about the sex determination mechanism, then you’d be off topic. My argument has nothing to do with how the body determines it’s sexual function, but simply the end result, as you say it. The sex determination process is a process that, again, doesn’t have a strict set of rules, other than, at best, the patterns that we observed and used as norms. Sex determination doesn’t “fail” because, on it’s own, it doesn’t have any goals. We only say it has a goal to explain things easily, but concretely, it just does stuff
For the havard link, I want to empasise: you say that it wants to dispute the terms “disorder” and “difference”. But this is exactly what we’re arguing about. Just put in another context.
The paragraph on Fausto-Sterling is also not helpful. You didn’t even reply with what she said, so why can’t I asume she was just being ironic about it? Like what are you even talking about?
You’re confusing the natural extention of the thesis of the author for their thesis: sex is not binary. I want you to not only undrestand their argument as to why it isn’t, but also recognise that a significant amount of biologists are against your claims. Here is the paragraph directly against what you’re saying:
Sun finds Geoff Parker’s gametic explanation of biological sex, published in 1972, to be the most useful—yet it too is incomplete. Parker suggested that sex is defined by the size of the reproductive cells present in each individual. That is, males produce smaller gametes (sperm) while females produce larger gametes (eggs). However, Sun emphasizes that this definition does not account for individuals that produce no gametes at all or those that produce gametes that are not fully viable—that is, intersex individuals.
My point isn’t that humans are defined this way by the general population. But if they were the fact that people without feet at the end of their legs would be proof that humans cannot be defined with that, the same way that sex can’t.
Your non-teleological definition is slightly beter at explaining what you’re getting at, but contains quite the contradiction.
If by “stucture”, you mean everything that is directly invoved in the creation of the gametes, then I can just show someone that doesn’t have ovaries or testes. No organs in their body are creating them, so that person has no sex?
Edit: I forgot that chromosomes aren’t sexual characteristics, stictly speaking. Here’s another example.
If by “stucture”, you mean that including the rest of the sexual characteristics, then someone that has traits of two different structures is both sexes? One could just argue someone with ovotesticular syndrome was organised around producing small gametes, while another could argue that they are organised around the production of large gametes.
edit: i said teleological when i meant the opposite
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096131/: Not biologists, and not really relevant. The main thrust is saying “Don’t binarize phenotypes”, which sure makes sense. If you see a more specific claim in there it can be evaluated, but I don’t think it’s really worth getting into.
The author writing this is more concerned with the usefullness of the gamete size definition
Yes, that’s a biologist talking about why biologists define sex that way. That definition of sex is useful in biology. If it were redefined to something else, biologists would just invent a new term that meant the same thing, because they need it.
Regarding hyenas, what makes a hyena female? How can we talk about “female”, particularly across species? What makes the class of seahorses become pregnant “male”?
My claim isn’t about ASRM. It derives from this committee, which was tasked with a data collection task and did not have any biologists on the committee. You can see the people on the committee at the bottom. It wasn’t meant to be a committee to define sex, so it’s weird that they’re being cited as such.
Your specific claim was “notable amount of biologists argue against this”, but that has not been substantiated. The authors are not notable and there aren’t a notable number of them. The paper has not resulted in any change to the consensus, and has been ridiculed by the rest of the field.
concretely, it just does stuff
Right, and biologists have defined sex around the end results.
Sun finds Geoff Parker’s gametic explanation of biological sex
The PR person that wrote this doesn’t really understand what the person is actually saying. The cited paper from Geoff Parker is “The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon” and considers how the sex binary came to be. Lixing Sun is saying that, even if you don’t produce gametes, you can play a role an evolutionary role.
No organs in their body are creating them, so that person has no sex?
There would still be structures in the body that only appear in one sex and not the other, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramesonephric_duct. That’s what “organized around” captures. It also includes other structures like uterus, that allow an individual to participate in one of the reproductive strategies for the species.
Ovotesticular syndrome isn’t what you probably think it is. It’s not “perfectly healthy gonads capable of producing both sperm and ova”. It’s “maybe one working gonad, with a bit of non-functional tissue of the other type”. An (imperfect) analogy is that transplanting an ovary into a male just makes him a male with a transplanted ovary, not a hermaphrodite or female. He can still only participate in the male reproductive strategy and lacks the rest of the structures necessary for participating in the female reproductive strategy.
It might help to think about what humans aren’t. There are trioecious species, with males, females, and hermaphrodites coexisting. That just doesn’t exist in humans.
The first article is specifically talking about gender AND sex, and to reconsider our conception of both. It is quite relevant. You are technically turning phenotypes into binary. Again, look at your model and ask “Who is this helping?”. It’s helpful to those that want to impose a strict binary, not those that require nuance. Also, Zachary dubois has a PHD in biological anthropology: https://cas.uoregon.edu/directory/anthropology-faculty/all/zdubois. You’re straight up lying now
Do you know what your binary definition has been usefull for? Imposing a binary on other people, especially children. “Your body is organized around producing small/large gametes, but it is not functional, so we’ll fix you by making you closer to something that works, whether you like the side-effects or not”. It wasn’t usefull for me, wasn’t usefull for intersex people, and will not be usefull for others in the future.
Again for the hyenas, that is not the point of the author. Plus definitions can be expanded, not just overwritten.
The people in that comitee are people that have worked in the medical field, including a medical doctor, a sociologist and a psychiatrist. The ASRM has reason to believe it is accurate as well, and should consider it.
That takedown of Fausto-Sterrling is arleady bogus. It calls LOCAH a non ambiguous sexual condition even though it affects hormones to an abnormal degree. Speaking again on intersex rights, the usefulness of treating LOCAH as intersex would be to let the children decide what treatments and effects on their body they want. When it comes to hormones even, it is assumed that the child wants effects alligned with their ASAB without asking them about it or by presure. Been through that myself. It is therefore useful to consider LOCAH as an intersex condition.
Not only that, yeah her claim about 5 sexes is tongue and cheek. It was meant to disprove a model. You gotta show contradictions in order to disprove it. So yeah, absurd claim are gonna come out. Like “therefore, there are 5 sexes”. It’s a critique of the current model, not her actual beliefs. The text is more about how intersex people are fit into these boxes without considering their opinion on how should they keep it. Anyone framing it as “she believes there are 5 sexes” is caricaturising what she is trying to say, and extremely bad faith for a scientist to do.
The guy responding to her work has also a pretty interesting track record in academia himself. He’s also a TERF. Makes you wonder why he would take such position… Are you gonna argue that there is an academic conspiracy to cancel him or something? Again, this is a tongue in cheek question, and I assume the aswer is “no”. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Colin_Wright#Leaving_academia
Again, with the organs that appear in one sex or the other, your own definition contradicts that. Since again, someone that is “organised around producing large/small gametes” CAN and HAVE HAD organs and traits from the opposite sex (ie MGD and other intersex hormonal conditions). Therefore, all sexual organs are able to appear in one sex and not the other.
I know that ovotesticular syndrome isn’t that. I’m just saying if both gonads don’t work, which sex should this person be? If you base yourself of of other sex characteristics, then your point is mute, per the last paragraph.
As we enter this complex conversation, we recognize that binary categories based on reproductive biologies or gender identities may make sense to include in analyses in order to address certain questions in human biology.
So even according to the paper, sometimes binaries are fine. Also, speaking of Fausto-Sterling, it cites her brainrot uncritically:
Although categories may be useful for addressing major issues of exclusion, feminist scientists have critiqued the concept of binary sex (e.g., Fausto-Sterling, 1993)
And have you read her paper?
For biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male; and depending on how one calls the shots, one can argue that along that spectrum lie at least five sexes-and perhaps even more.
There is zero indication that it’s tongue-in-cheek when reading it, it’s been cited seriously in literature such as your link, and a good faith reading of it leads one to think she believes in 5 sexes. I mean come on, this is just nonsense. She’s a clown.
Zachary Dubois has a PhD from the Department of Anthropology but doesn’t list it specifically as a degree in biological anthropology in his CV. I don’t think it’s worth quibbling over whether he “counts” as a biologist, but I wasn’t lying and at worst was too dismissive. Either way, he’s not the person to look to for fundamental definitions in the field of biology.
Do you know what your binary definition has been usefull for? […]
Again, it’s not my definition. It’s the common definition used in biology, and is very useful for science. That some people can misunderstand it and try “fixing” people using faulty logic is immaterial.
And hopefully this helps clear things up for you. From the same author I linked to before (PhD Evolutionary Biology):
Such mixed sex development is exceptionally rare because evolution has ensured developmental mechanisms to make sure this is so. A growing embryo will be wasting resources if it develops organs and tissues that cannot contribute to future reproduction. Novella’s paper on mice (above) is actually about a gene that appears to be involved in cross-sex development suppression. Put simply, our development of reproductive anatomy is absolutely not a pick-‘n’-mix of organs and tissues from male and female parts that might just result in enough of one’s sexed parts to enable an individual to be fertile and reproduce. Instead, it is a tightly regulated cascade of genetic events along a pathway that puts all development effort into male or female development. That is why pretty much everyone ends up as unambiguously male or female even when significant development conditions occur. Male and female development are mutually antagonistic.
Very rarely, and for reasons not well understood, the brakes may come off and tissue development that is normally suppressed starts to grow. It is a bit like a cancer where the normal growth regulating mechanisms fail. And indeed ovotesticular disorder is associated with malignancies of these tissues, so are often surgically removed soon after diagnosis to prevent lethal cancers.
What is not observed is an individual who is fertile both as a male and female. If fertile at all, it will be as one sex. The cross-sex tissue is typically under-developed. No human is a true hermaphrodite (in the biological sense as being able to reproduce as both a male and female). Unfortunately, medicine also uses the term “true hermaphrodite” to describe people with these very rare disorders. Do not be fooled by this equivocation.
So despite this cross-sex development, can we still say what sex a person is? That is a complex question as we are dealing with disorders that are so rare and with so many different causes and outcomes that a blanket statement is not easy. Doctors publish individual case reports where it may be clear a person has undergone predominately one sex development and in which case we may be confident in calling someone male or female. It is a matter of debate if there exist individuals where sex development is so mixed that such a classification is inherently meaningless. But even if some individual were truly sexually ambiguous, they would still not be a third sex.
No it is still not empirical. The definition of sex is difficult to set in stone, and yours fails to argue for itself on the basis of a result that is just a stretch of the empirical truth. In fact, you saying that it is a consensus in the field of biology when a notable amount of biologists argue against this is very far-fetched.
Again, take someone with Swyer syndrome that don’t have the ability to produce any large gametes. By saying it is “organized around the production of large gametes”, you are extending that empirical fact related to that person, and ascribing them an alternate reality where there can produce large gametes. You’re defining someone around something that they cannot do.
Concretely, this means that sex is way more complicated than just “revolving around the production of gametes”. I am not an expert in biology, and will not be able to tell you exactly what it is without not considering all of the edge-cases of it’s definition. But there are too many contradictions with saying that it’s binary because XYZ.
I am of the opinion that our society’s obsession with figuring out someone’s sex, if it is assigned by birth by a doctor, determined by an onlooker, etc. is in it of itself harmful. Not that there’s anything wrong with knowing about your body, but the way it’s been morphed into these essential classes is harmful for those that defy said class, intentionally or not.
That said, I hope you look at more examples of teleology in biology. In fact, what I explained should be understandable if you have a look at the wikipedia article. If you do not mean “organized around” in a teleological sense, then what do you mean? Also, you failed to address my previous analogies in your response. If it’s because you feel like it’s fallacious, or that it’s simply wrong, then why not respond accordingly? I’m starting to suspect the use of AI…
Edit: I think this is the last piece of effort I’ll put into this, because it gets obvious up to a point. Your argument falls into this category of teleological arguments:
Taken from the wikipedia page. This is a teleological sentence, but it is used to explain a concept, not actually what is going on. No one actually designed said functions. If you want to know more, read the section on Irreducible teleology in the wikipedia article, which addresses the limitations of getting rid of teleology completely and how to go about it, whilst navigating things empirically.
Something to understand is that power struggle pretends to be the last word on things. Powerstruggle is not a scientist and doesn’t even seem to have relevant degree credentials.
Push them on it. It gets pretty funny.
This user is weirdly obsessed with me to the point of eroticism. You’ll want to be careful around them.
I’ll explain again though that “pretending to be the last word” is the opposite of what I’ve done. I’ve cited many reliable sources to demonstrate that I’m merely conveying the consensus in biology. This user has done nothing serious.
Weirdly obsessed is funny. Especially given that the moment is comic shows up you have to be there to express your opinion.
Which biologists are arguing against it? I think that’s a more concrete claim.
Your argument is basically “This person was born without something at the end of their leg, but we can’t say they’re missing a foot. Maybe it was a fin! Or a baboon! Or an aircraft carrier! There’s just no way to tell”
A human body tries to build a foot at the end of the leg. Sometimes it fails, but until we observe a stable, inherited body plan that doesn’t grow a foot at the end of a leg it is not teleological to use “tries” in that sense. It’s descriptive
Few examples of biologists arguing against it:
https://www.asrm.org/advocacy-and-policy/fact-sheets-and-one-pagers/just-the-facts-biological-sex/
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.01.26.525769v1
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40199245/
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/ideology-versus-biology
By the way, when I look towards more sources for your claims, I often find christian institutions and TERF adgacent sources. Some even argue for teleology. This, again, contredicts the theory of evolution, which we are still abiding by, correct?
Also, your section on determination vs. definition (in your last message) is cyclical. People determine based on definition. To say the opposite would beg the question: “determined based on what?”, and the answer will be a definition, right or wrong.
I’m not the one saying “it could be a baboon, who knows”. You are lol. I’m saying that there is no such thing as a “could be” in concrete empirical analysis of nature, just a “be”. We can make educated guesses based on the empirical data, but they’re just that: guesses. We can say “they are missing a foot”, but it is a shorthand for “this person has no foot. Usually, people have a foot there. It might allow them to walk more stabily, so let’s try sollutions that mimic the structure of a foot”.
Because how can they be lierally “missing a foot” if they never had one in the first place? The supposition that something is “supposed to be there” is a cognitive shortcut, but nothing is supposed.
It is teleological, because there are two options in interpreting this sentence:
Using this interpretation, it would be ridiculous to define a human empiricaly around the fact that they are “supposed” to have feet at the end of their leg, since “supposed” is not empirical (neither is organized, which implies a plan and therefore a bias). You can find a trend, but not a “supposed”. You can try to define it empiricaly, by saying “typicaly”, but that implies other possibilities, as it should do. Finaly, you can try by simply ignoring it by saying “humans have feet at the end of their legs”, but you’d just be plain wrong, since there are examples contradicting you. Remember, right now we are using terms in order to explain something more concrete.
The “stable, iherited body plan” is still a teleological sentence lmfao. You’re basically disaproving my argument on the basis of it not being teleological.
Since you’re arguing for teleology, I suppose that you have a fickle understanding of evolutionary biology. Tne human body doesn’t “try to do something”. It either doesn’t or it does. Ascribing a certain attempt or will to the body is a shorthand, like i’ve said several times, but it is not accurately depecting the experience.
As a thought exercise, can you describe your definition of sex without using teleological language? But then again, your reply shows a lack of understanding on what teleology is, so if you reply with anothe misunderstanding of the concept, I’ll just move on from this.
You also stated that you’re autistic in your bio. As someone that is also autistic, you might want to reflect if you’re actually arguing for science, or rather for a more rigid worldview that you want to stay the same. This argument of yours seems repetitive and circular, so I’d suggest reflecting on
One of those papers gets to the heart of your confusion and is interesting to consider, but first:
You’re confused about what determination means. It’s not cyclical, please read and understand
Your other link isn’t saying what you think it’s saying (https://www.radcliffe.harvard.edu/news-and-ideas/ideology-versus-biology). I’ll start off by noting that it agrees with me:
It’s also frequently incorrect (unsurprising since the article was written by a PR person), “binary definitions of biological sex fail to account for roughly 1.7 percent of the population according to one estimate” is false and relies on work from a deeply unserious person, Anne Fausto-Sterling, who got called out on her bullshit and said she was being “tongue-in-cheek” and “ironic”.
But this is the real claim from that link:
It’s not actually disputing the sex binary. It’s basically a dispute about the term “Disorders of sex development” vs “Differences of sex development”. So it doesn’t disagree with me, though the question of “disorder” vs" difference" loops back to your confusion.
You’re confusing the various meanings of the word “should” (or supposed to, or take your pick of terms). It can be used descriptively or prescriptively. You’re saying that incorrect prescriptive use invalidates descriptive use, and that’s wrong.
Humans aren’t defined that way. Someone missing a foot is still human. You have the definition the wrong way around and complaining that it doesn’t make sense, when in fact it doesn’t make sense because you’re thinking wrong.
A completely non-teleological definition is that sex is defined by what structures one has in their body that are required for production of one gamete type that are not required for production of the other gamete type.
For the first link i am sorry, i confused my pubmed links in my copy tray: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096131/
I read the text debunking second link. The author writing this is more concerned with the usefullness of the gamete size definition for us than the actual definition of it.
Flattening it has never been useful to this. Knowing people’s sexual characteristics as a whole instead of just figuring out which gametes should be produced is more helpful
Another case of semantics vs actually understanding what the authors are saying. They argue that since they acknowledge that they called the hyena “female” that they recognise the sex binary. They were actually calling the hyena female because the wider scientific community calls them that, not because they believe it is. It’s a bad faith argument.
The author keeps also talking about ideology and, in tfe end, mentions how the paper got through because of DEI. Like seriously??? That’s not how DEI works 😭
Your claim about ASRM is quite disengenuons i feel. Saying that medical doctors are “non-biologists” disregards their education in biology and anthropology.
Either way, my point is that there are biologist that have contested it.
Then if you were talking beforhand about the sex determination mechanism, then you’d be off topic. My argument has nothing to do with how the body determines it’s sexual function, but simply the end result, as you say it. The sex determination process is a process that, again, doesn’t have a strict set of rules, other than, at best, the patterns that we observed and used as norms. Sex determination doesn’t “fail” because, on it’s own, it doesn’t have any goals. We only say it has a goal to explain things easily, but concretely, it just does stuff
For the havard link, I want to empasise: you say that it wants to dispute the terms “disorder” and “difference”. But this is exactly what we’re arguing about. Just put in another context.
The paragraph on Fausto-Sterling is also not helpful. You didn’t even reply with what she said, so why can’t I asume she was just being ironic about it? Like what are you even talking about?
You’re confusing the natural extention of the thesis of the author for their thesis: sex is not binary. I want you to not only undrestand their argument as to why it isn’t, but also recognise that a significant amount of biologists are against your claims. Here is the paragraph directly against what you’re saying:
My point isn’t that humans are defined this way by the general population. But if they were the fact that people without feet at the end of their legs would be proof that humans cannot be defined with that, the same way that sex can’t.
Your non-teleological definition is slightly beter at explaining what you’re getting at, but contains quite the contradiction.
If by “stucture”, you mean everything that is directly invoved in the creation of the gametes, then I can just show someone that doesn’t have ovaries or testes. No organs in their body are creating them, so that person has no sex?
Edit: I forgot that chromosomes aren’t sexual characteristics, stictly speaking. Here’s another example.
If by “stucture”, you mean that including the rest of the sexual characteristics, then someone that has traits of two different structures is both sexes? One could just argue someone with ovotesticular syndrome was organised around producing small gametes, while another could argue that they are organised around the production of large gametes.
edit: i said teleological when i meant the opposite
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34096131/: Not biologists, and not really relevant. The main thrust is saying “Don’t binarize phenotypes”, which sure makes sense. If you see a more specific claim in there it can be evaluated, but I don’t think it’s really worth getting into.
Yes, that’s a biologist talking about why biologists define sex that way. That definition of sex is useful in biology. If it were redefined to something else, biologists would just invent a new term that meant the same thing, because they need it.
Regarding hyenas, what makes a hyena female? How can we talk about “female”, particularly across species? What makes the class of seahorses become pregnant “male”?
My claim isn’t about ASRM. It derives from this committee, which was tasked with a data collection task and did not have any biologists on the committee. You can see the people on the committee at the bottom. It wasn’t meant to be a committee to define sex, so it’s weird that they’re being cited as such.
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/26424/Highlights_Measuring_SGISO.pdf
Your specific claim was “notable amount of biologists argue against this”, but that has not been substantiated. The authors are not notable and there aren’t a notable number of them. The paper has not resulted in any change to the consensus, and has been ridiculed by the rest of the field.
Right, and biologists have defined sex around the end results.
My comment about Anne Fausto-Sterling was terse, but here’s more context, Intersex Is Not as Common as Red Hair and Responding to a ‘Fabulous Takedown’ of My Work. She is a deeply unserious person that wrote nonsense about 5 “sexes” and later responded like this when called out:
The PR person that wrote this doesn’t really understand what the person is actually saying. The cited paper from Geoff Parker is “The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male-female phenomenon” and considers how the sex binary came to be. Lixing Sun is saying that, even if you don’t produce gametes, you can play a role an evolutionary role.
There would still be structures in the body that only appear in one sex and not the other, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramesonephric_duct. That’s what “organized around” captures. It also includes other structures like uterus, that allow an individual to participate in one of the reproductive strategies for the species.
Ovotesticular syndrome isn’t what you probably think it is. It’s not “perfectly healthy gonads capable of producing both sperm and ova”. It’s “maybe one working gonad, with a bit of non-functional tissue of the other type”. An (imperfect) analogy is that transplanting an ovary into a male just makes him a male with a transplanted ovary, not a hermaphrodite or female. He can still only participate in the male reproductive strategy and lacks the rest of the structures necessary for participating in the female reproductive strategy.
It might help to think about what humans aren’t. There are trioecious species, with males, females, and hermaphrodites coexisting. That just doesn’t exist in humans.
The first article is specifically talking about gender AND sex, and to reconsider our conception of both. It is quite relevant. You are technically turning phenotypes into binary. Again, look at your model and ask “Who is this helping?”. It’s helpful to those that want to impose a strict binary, not those that require nuance. Also, Zachary dubois has a PHD in biological anthropology: https://cas.uoregon.edu/directory/anthropology-faculty/all/zdubois. You’re straight up lying now
Do you know what your binary definition has been usefull for? Imposing a binary on other people, especially children. “Your body is organized around producing small/large gametes, but it is not functional, so we’ll fix you by making you closer to something that works, whether you like the side-effects or not”. It wasn’t usefull for me, wasn’t usefull for intersex people, and will not be usefull for others in the future.
Again for the hyenas, that is not the point of the author. Plus definitions can be expanded, not just overwritten.
The people in that comitee are people that have worked in the medical field, including a medical doctor, a sociologist and a psychiatrist. The ASRM has reason to believe it is accurate as well, and should consider it.
That takedown of Fausto-Sterrling is arleady bogus. It calls LOCAH a non ambiguous sexual condition even though it affects hormones to an abnormal degree. Speaking again on intersex rights, the usefulness of treating LOCAH as intersex would be to let the children decide what treatments and effects on their body they want. When it comes to hormones even, it is assumed that the child wants effects alligned with their ASAB without asking them about it or by presure. Been through that myself. It is therefore useful to consider LOCAH as an intersex condition.
Not only that, yeah her claim about 5 sexes is tongue and cheek. It was meant to disprove a model. You gotta show contradictions in order to disprove it. So yeah, absurd claim are gonna come out. Like “therefore, there are 5 sexes”. It’s a critique of the current model, not her actual beliefs. The text is more about how intersex people are fit into these boxes without considering their opinion on how should they keep it. Anyone framing it as “she believes there are 5 sexes” is caricaturising what she is trying to say, and extremely bad faith for a scientist to do.
The guy responding to her work has also a pretty interesting track record in academia himself. He’s also a TERF. Makes you wonder why he would take such position… Are you gonna argue that there is an academic conspiracy to cancel him or something? Again, this is a tongue in cheek question, and I assume the aswer is “no”. https://en.everybodywiki.com/Colin_Wright#Leaving_academia
Again, with the organs that appear in one sex or the other, your own definition contradicts that. Since again, someone that is “organised around producing large/small gametes” CAN and HAVE HAD organs and traits from the opposite sex (ie MGD and other intersex hormonal conditions). Therefore, all sexual organs are able to appear in one sex and not the other.
I know that ovotesticular syndrome isn’t that. I’m just saying if both gonads don’t work, which sex should this person be? If you base yourself of of other sex characteristics, then your point is mute, per the last paragraph.
From the paper:
So even according to the paper, sometimes binaries are fine. Also, speaking of Fausto-Sterling, it cites her brainrot uncritically:
And have you read her paper?
There is zero indication that it’s tongue-in-cheek when reading it, it’s been cited seriously in literature such as your link, and a good faith reading of it leads one to think she believes in 5 sexes. I mean come on, this is just nonsense. She’s a clown.
Zachary Dubois has a PhD from the Department of Anthropology but doesn’t list it specifically as a degree in biological anthropology in his CV. I don’t think it’s worth quibbling over whether he “counts” as a biologist, but I wasn’t lying and at worst was too dismissive. Either way, he’s not the person to look to for fundamental definitions in the field of biology.
Again, it’s not my definition. It’s the common definition used in biology, and is very useful for science. That some people can misunderstand it and try “fixing” people using faulty logic is immaterial.
And hopefully this helps clear things up for you. From the same author I linked to before (PhD Evolutionary Biology):