"In queer theory, the aim is to disrupt a categorization system and therefore obstruct your ability to reason about reality."
You seriously think that Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosopher of science, and co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy" -- and the Wiley Online Library, which endorses Griffiths' argument, are subscribing to "queer theory" and "aim to disrupt a categorization system"?
You might want to try taking a close look at what both of them are saying -- which is really no more than what are published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. That is, they are saying that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. See:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET." [my emphasis]
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless. If that's the case then it's simply incoherent, and quite unscientific, to insist that we are all either male or female right from conception to death.
But see these standard biological definitions which emphasize the same point that "GCs are Ontologically Stupid" is apparently trying to make -- for which "she" clearly has some justification even if some of "her" other arguments may not hold much water:
If various feminists, "biologists", and "philosophers" are going to bet the farm on the "gametic definition for the sexes" -- particularly as part of the definition for "woman" as "adult human female" -- then they simply don't have a leg to stand on when people like "GCs are Ontologically Stupid" quite reasonably call them on those definitions, and then point out their problematic consequences.
More particularly, you say "[Queer Theorists] rely on the fact that many people cannot immediately articulate why sex categories rely on gametes but do not require gametes at all times to still exist". But the upshot of those biological definitions is that if the ability to produce gametes is not present -- for examples, the prepubescent, menopausees, and transwomen who cut their nuts off -- then those people simply cannot claim membership in the corresponding sex categories.
By those standard biological definitions, the presence of functional gonads of either of two types constitutes the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. Which means no tickee, no washee; no gonads, no sex category membership card. You might also reflect on the structure and content of those definitions and the justifications for those rather inexorable conclusions:
Wikipedia: "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."
Nope. You might want to try a close reading of that Wiley Online Library article -- the quoted section in particular -- and that PhilPapers article by Griffiths. Of particular note from the latter:
Griffiths: "Philosophers who have discussed biological sex, whether they seek to vindicate the idea (Byrne 2020) or critique it (Dembroff 2020), have not defined it in the way biologists do. The definitions of male and female they do consider are non-starters as general criteria to distinguish male and female organisms. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that work on the sex/gender distinction in philosophy starts with the idea that, “ ’sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features)” (Mikkola 2017, emphasis in original). But no general definition of sexes can rely on these features because, as [evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan] Roughgarden puts it, the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.” (Roughgarden 2013, 23). Biological sex certainly cannot be defined by chromosomes. Many species, such as crocodiles, have no sex chromosomes, because their sex is not determined genetically. Chromosomal definitions also fail for species that change sex during their lifecycle, since their chromosomes, of course, remain unchanged. Chromosomal definitions do not work even when restricted to species with genetic sex determination and no sex-switching.
The primary lesson of this article is that philosophical disputes about ‘biological sexes’ are not about the distinction between male and female organisms as it figures in biology. In a high-profile recent article philosopher Byrne defended the view that ‘human female’ is a biological category, where 'Biological categories are categories proprietary to biology. (2020, 3784). He did not expand on what he means by ‘biology’ but nothing in his article suggests any acquaintance with the literature reviewed here. Criticism of Byrne’s claim assumed that what is at issue is the adequacy of a chromosomal or phenotypic definition of sex in humans."
The biological definitions are "designed" to work with ALL anisogamous species -- no exceptions. In ALL cases, the "necessary and sufficient condition" for sex category membership is the current production of gametes of either of two types. Which is only possible with the presence of FUNCTIONAL gonads -- unless, perchance, you know of another way by which gametes can be produced without them? 🤔🙄
Those ARE the biological definitions and their logical consequences. You either have to justify other ones -- rots of ruck though maybe you can endorse "Scientific" American's efforts in that regard:
Or you have to come up with a definition for "woman" that isn't joined at the hip with those "gametic definitions for the sexes". Maybe "adult human with ovaries of past, present or future functionality"? 🤔 As per the "definitions" of "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright (who should all be sent back to school for some remedial courses in the philosophy of biology):
"Defending Reality: My Expert Testimony on the Biology of Sex
Only by staunchly defending basic biological truths can we hope to put an end to the medical harm being committed in the name of 'gender-affirming care.' "
Your apparent insistence -- along with that of many others -- that one doesn't actually have to have functional gonads to qualify as male or female is part and parcel of the corruption of biology, the repudiation of those "basic biological truths".
You're all in pretty much the same boat as the transloonie nutcases and their useful/useless idiots -- like those at the aforementioned "Scientific" American -- who are rather desperately engaged in trying to corrupt the standard biological definitions for the sexes which are foundational to the whole field. Bravo, bravo ... 👏👏🙄
“A troll is a person who posts or makes inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages online or in real life, with the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur.”
45 years ago we found the most effective way to handle them was to respond with a delicious recipe.
Oliebollen, a Dutch beignet-like treat, often eaten for New Year’s, are made with a simple batter. Here's the briefest recipe:
1. Mix self-rising flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and a pinch of salt.
2. Stir in raisins or apple pieces if desired.
3. Let the batter rest for an hour.
4. Heat oil in a deep fryer.
5. Use an ice cream scoop or two spoons to drop balls of batter into the hot oil.
6. Fry until golden brown.
7. Drain on paper towels and dust with powdered sugar. Serve warm.
🙄 "nonsense"? You also might try getting your head out of your nether regions and actually read the sources cited. Unless you maybe think that the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, and the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction have also disappeared up their own fundaments? 🤔🙄
The problem is generally that most people are scientifically illiterate -- and you seem a prime example.
But if you do manage to extract your head from your own nether regions you might try citing and quoting the sources for the definitions for the sexes you subscribe to. Along with an explanation as to how they're applicable to all of the other millions of anisogamous species on the planet. I wait -- with bated breath ...
Many of those burdened with it LOOK female, are "phenotypically female", but they have XY chromosomes and internal but non-functional testicles. Are they then "males"?
You might also try reading Griffiths' essay which quite reasonably argues that using chromosomes is, biologically, a non-starter since many species don't use X & Y chromosomes in the development of sexes -- birds, for example. And many species change sex over their life spans, yet there are, if I'm not mistaken, no genetic differences between males and females.
You must be new to my content to bring up CAIS! My biggest controversy ever was agreeing with DSD activist Claire Graham that 46XY CAIS is a male DSD, then taking it a step further and recalling that adult male humans are men. Do you think there are female men? Or male women?
Been following your Substack for quite some time -- you often have some cogent observations.
But the biggest problem in the whole transgender clusterfuck is the quite unscientific, if not rather demented "idea" that everyone has to be either male or female. The point of virtually all of the sources I've linked to and quoted from is that many members of many anisogamous species -- including the human one -- are neither male nor female, that they are sexLESS.
And that that "sexless" category encompasses about a third of us at any one time, the prepubescent in particular. Though, to answer your question -- more or less, it also encompasses most of the intersex, transwomen who cut their nuts off, vasectomees, and menopausees.
But all of that is largely the point of the Wiley Online Library article I've quoted from and linked to above. You might try a close reading of it.
Every single one of your references have been bought and paid for by the trans cult. There is very little evidence for your claims that is backed up by real science.
"Conspiracy Theories R Us"? You must be a charter member of QAnon. You seriously "think" that the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, and the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction have been "bought and paid for by the transcult"? 🤔🙄
As for your "claims backed up by science", you don't seem to understand the idea of stipulative definitions, though, to be fair, most people don't:
The point is that reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries STIPULATE that what they MEAN by "male" and "female" are those organisms which produce, on a regular basis, sperm and ova. For example, see the definitions in this very reputable source, linked to above and below:
SpringerLink: "Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we define females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972), and the same definition applies to the female and male functions in hermaphrodites."
Soooo....we should deny the evidence of our eyes and all of science and history. And of our own experiences of the physical world? Good luck with that, Buddy. Or should I say, Bud Light?
LoL. Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. Rather depressing that you, and too many others -- the "ontologically stupid" as Exulansic's tweeter quite accurately put it, are unwilling or unable to deal with them.
LoL. Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. Rather depressing that you, and too many others -- the "ontologically stupid" as Exulansic's tweeter quite accurately put it, are unwilling or unable to deal with them.
Amazon: "In this provocative contribution to the philosophy of science and mind, Paul E. Griffiths criticizes contemporary philosophy and psychology of emotion for failing to take in an evolutionary perspective and address current work in neurobiology and cognitive science."
Hardly a "new topic" -- my first comment was speaking directly to your entire post. You had insisted -- rather dogmatically and without any evidence -- that "[Queer Theorists] rely on the fact that many people cannot immediately articulate why sex categories rely on gametes but do not require gametes at all times to still exist."
But those "sex categories" DO require the presence of gametes. Which is why I was trying to show that what Griffiths was saying -- what all of the other sources I quoted and linked to were saying -- was that membership in the sex categories is contingent on having functional gonads. Those functional gonads qualify as the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership. You might reflect on Wikipedia's article on types of definitions:
Wikipedia: "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."
Organisms can't be "counted as referents of the terms 'male' and 'female' " if they don't possess the "properties" that qualify as membership dues -- i.e., functional gonads.
Consequently, your tweeter, "GCs are Ontologically Stupid", is quite correct in "her" accusation that, at least by those standard biological definitions, a "person without gametes" cannot "still be male or female". And that most GCs -- and many others -- are quite clueless -- "ontologically stupid" -- about categories, about their definitions, and about how their conditions for membership actually work.
You, and many others here and about, may wish to reflect on the meaning of "ontological"; from Google/OxfordLanguages:
"ontological: showing the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain."
And "male" and "female" are, by definition, just the names for categories, and for members of them. They're NOT identities, much less "immutable ones" based on any "mythic essences" which is largely what many of the transloonie nutcases -- and many GCs -- are claiming. But see:
"sex (noun): 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."
And as categories, there are those quite specific requirements -- functional gonads -- to qualify as members of them. The same way that being 13 to 19 is the "necessary and sufficient condition", is the "property" that MUST be present to qualify as a member of the "teenager" category: you have your 13th birthday then you get a membership card; have your 20th birthday, get your membership card revoked.
Absolutely nothing "immutable" about any of those categories.
If I take a tire off of my car, does it stop being a car until I put it back? The reality is that the sex of an individual is relevant at every level of medical analysis, whether gametes are currently present or not. It's still a coke bottle factory even if there are no bottles currently on site.
It is only "nominally" a car; it's a "car" for reference purposes only; it's a "car" in name only. It may LOOK like a car, but it's missing an essential element -- it can no longer perform the function that is its essential and defining trait -- an ability to carry a small number of people:
Google/OxfordLanguages:
"car (noun): a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is ABLE TO CARRY a small number of people."
You can turn that object back into a car by putting on the tire, but until then its just a piece of worthless junk. Would you pay full price for a "car" missing some tires, missing an engine and a transmission? Still a "car", amirite? 🙄
As for "relevant at every level", current reproductive ability -- the basis for the standard biological definitions -- is often less relevant than genitalia and chromosomes -- which are NO part of any of those definitions for the sexes.
The biological definitions -- there in black and white in what I quoted -- stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. You and too many others are in pretty much the same boat as the transloonie nutcases in trying to bastardize and corrupt those standard biological definitions.
It may be that some people just feel "bad" realizing they have a pathology. And that treated as they wish it, either obviates reproduction or causes faulty reproduction. Again I suspect it's about the feelings.
Ugh. I'm so not interested in being dragged into the muck and weeds by these people to play their demented parlor games. I have asked "yes or no, can a transwoman get pregnant?" to see faces turn red and heads explode.
What is the menopause? What is a transwoman? If neither example can become pregnant, is that because one is at a stage of life where she no longer menstruates and the other is a man?
Good questions -- I thought no one would ever ask ... 😉🙂
Though it's "menopausee" -- note the double 'e' suffix. Like "employee", or like "murderee" as I think Flip Wilson once joked.
But more seriously, the questions turn on what it takes to qualify as a woman and, more importantly, as a female. Something that many people refuse to consider -- including Exulansic and all of the "Ontologically Stupid GCs" she is apparently defending.
The point is that there are objective criteria that MUST be met to qualify as males and females, that membership in those categories -- what ontology is largely all about -- is not a matter of entirely subjective "self-identification", not a matter of "best 3 out of 5" which is what transloonie nutcase Riley Dennis has claimed:
More particularly, the "gametic definition for the sexes" -- what tweeter "GCs Are Ontologically Stupid" was defending -- is part and parcel of the standard definition for "woman", i.e., "adult human female". But those gametic definitions, which are the standard biological ones, stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.
Which means that transwomen are either still males if they still have their nuts attached or are sexless if they don't. But it also means that menopausees are likewise sexless, are no longer able to qualify as females -- or as women if you want to bet the farm on "adult human female".
I’ve always been female, always will be. As a female who is both adult and human, I am a woman. We have other definitions, for example “infertile”, “prepubescent”, “post menopause”, “neutered”, eunuch, to describe males and females unable to procreate for various reasons. It can in many instances be useful, if not essential, for the health of the individual to know their sex. They wouldn’t be described as, or viewed as “sexless”. “Transwoman” is just a word invented by men to describe men who wish they were women and a clever manipulation of our language. In law, healthcare and in society, when and where it is important, we can stick to gametes, as what is important is the result, which in 99.9% of cases can be seen on ultrasound, before we’re born, as I’m sure you know. A male human is stronger, faster etc. can suffer prostate cancer and potentially impregnate a female. That’s what we need to know and what we’ve known for quite a long time.
Whether you've always been a female, and whether you'll always be one, depends greatly on how one DEFINES that category. There's NO intrinsic meaning at all to the term -- it used to mean "she who suckles":
By which Jenner and his ilk would qualify. And many "women" might not.
Not sure what your definition is for the term, though you might consider putting it on the table for discussion purposes. But I'm not sure why you would apparently think it's more useful than the standard biological ones which have been published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
The problem is generally that the transloonie nutcases and their useful/useless idiots are busily engaged in bastardizing and corrupting the whole concept of male and female as biologically distinct and useful categories. Though, to be fair, one might reasonably argue that Exulansic, along with many others, is "aiding and abetting the enemy" by trying to decouple those categories from any necessity of being able to reproduce -- which IS the central point and principle of those biological definitions.
Which is why it seems that the only way off the horns of that dilemma, that social problem, is to draw a line in the sand with those biological definitions -- and let the chips fall where they may. Regardless of any "collateral damage", particularly to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. You might consider a comment by American philosopher Will Durant on a famous quip by Voltaire:
Durant: 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
If we can't agree on what words mean then we haven't a hope in hell of dealing with any problems that turn on them. All definitions are "socially constructed", but some are clearly better and more useful than others.
Gametes, whether reproduction is possible or not. A male human produces small gametes, or is of the nature to produce small gametes. This leads to observable physical differences and can be easily confirmed where needed, even if the male has undergone cosmetic surgery. To take your offer to its logical conclusion, the only female is a pregnant one and the only male is the one who got her pregnant. Anything else failed and is sexless. Have at it. We English speaking all know what we mean, have known for a very long time and if people want to mess about with it in their own home, or private groups, or societies, go for it. For the sake of law, society, healthcare, sports and everything else, we all know what male and female is and it can be simply defined. The odd person who suffers a developmental disorder can argue the point if they wish, but if they have testes, or potential testes, they are male. Why are we even arguing about it? Its unhelpful. In society and law, it goes way beyond the ability to reproduce. The girl beaten on track by the castrated male runner, isn’t worried about getting pregnant, she wants fair sport. His being of the nature to produce small gametes ie male, is what won him the title. A castrated male calling himself a woman, will still inherit over his older sister. Because he’s male. Trying to change the definition of male to mean fertile male is just daft imo.
Oh no. This person believes in “gender”, and has hypnotized himself into believing a woman whose body has produced millions of eggs by birth is not a woman unless menstruating, and similarly for a man unless ejaculating. He’ll go on about it endlessly, quoting dictionaries which contradict his statements, then claim there’s no contradiction. He cannot follow ordinary logical claims, therefore his speech is meaningless.
The old-fashioned word is “troll” which we used on Usenet 45 years ago for people who engage purely to frustrate the responder for some bizarre pleasure.
The most effective response to a troll is a delicious recipe.
Oliebollen, a Dutch beignet-like treat traditionally eaten around for new year’s, are made with a simple batter.
1. Mix self-rising flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and a pinch of salt.
2. Stir in raisins or apple pieces if desired.
3. Let the batter rest for an hour.
4. Heat oil in a deep fryer.
5. Use an ice cream scoop or two spoons to drop balls of batter into the hot oil.
6. Fry until golden brown.
7. Drain on paper towels and dust with powdered sugar. Serve warm.
It’s so deeply annoying that all these word games exist. It’s exhausting. Some people simply love making life more complicated for everyone. Get a job, practice a craft, get some good old discipline, practice a sport, go out to nature. Just live.
Certainly can be rather "exhausting". Why it generally helps to define our terms at the outset -- tends to minimize a lot of going in circles. Philosopher Will Durant on a famous quip by Voltaire:
Durant: 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
But you might also take a gander at a sample from the Kindle version of a forthcoming book by "philosopher" Alex Byrne titled, "Trouble with Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions":
Byrne: "“Philosophy, which promises insight into the nature of reality, the meaning of life, and all that, is sometimes accused of false advertising – even by philosophers themselves. .... The impression that philosophical questions are ‘just semantics’ is almost always mistaken, but philosophers certainly do care a lot about words.
One reason for taking words to be important is that we use them to make distinctions. The words ‘dog’, ‘perro’, ‘cat’, and ‘gato’ allow speakers of English and Spanish to distinguish be‐tween dogs and cats, to say that dogs bark and cats don’t, for instance. A concerning feature of debates around sex and gen‐der is the attempt to prevent distinctions from being made, by prohibiting or redefining certain words.”
If we can't agree on what words mean -- "male" and "female" in particular -- then we sure don't have a hope in hell of resolving any social problems which turn on them.
Spurious straw man rubbish like this os meant to shut people up and close down debate. My answer is there are two genders male and female and there is no other gender. There is however, cult insanity which tries to queer the argument, the active word being insanity. Even if you are sterile, have dsds you are still male or female there is no third gebder or sex choice, and to say there is is because you want to actively harm healthy bodies. Have a great Xmas Exulansic and a productive and successful New year. The fight goes on.
A great many people quite reasonably see sex and gender as two entirely different kettles of fish. The late great US Justice Anton Scalia for example:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
"Gender: Once used interchangeably with ‘sex’ to mean male or female. Now denotes a person’s social or cultural status as masculine, feminine or something else."
"Sex: The system by which humans are classified as male or female in utero or at birth,
based on reproductive functions and bodily characteristics such as chromosomes and
The definition of female sex is the one who could create large gametes.
The definition of male sex is one who could create small gametes.
In humans the categories of male and female are observed to be mutually exclusive in a single organism.
A male at conception producing precursor small gametes by 9 weeks could never be a woman by logical exclusion.
The only successful way to develop sexually is along a path which results in reproduction, since humans use sex to reproduce (lungs to breathe, hearts to pump blood...). There is not a “correct” path, there is a successful path. Others are unsuccessful, or “imperfect”.
Yes! Thank you, Exulansic! ❤️👍 Best luck with your health as well. Ain't none of us perfect, but (disability or not) some of us come close... 😊🙃
Off to learn more about Eagle syndrome...
I wish I had enough energy for the mental flips it takes to intentionally be as daft as the TQs.
Totally agree x
"In queer theory, the aim is to disrupt a categorization system and therefore obstruct your ability to reason about reality."
You seriously think that Paul Griffiths -- university of Sydney, philosopher of science, and co-author of "Genetics and Philosophy" -- and the Wiley Online Library, which endorses Griffiths' argument, are subscribing to "queer theory" and "aim to disrupt a categorization system"?
You might want to try taking a close look at what both of them are saying -- which is really no more than what are published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. That is, they are saying that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. See:
Griffiths' "What are biological sexes?":
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
And Wiley Online Library [WOL]: "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bies.202200173
Of particular note from the latter is this:
WOL: "Another reason for the wide-spread misconception about the biological sex is the notion that it is a condition, while in reality it may be a life-history stage. For instance, a mammalian embryo with heterozygous sex chromosomes (XY-setup) is not reproductively competent, as it does not produce gametes of any size. Thus, strictly speaking it does not have any biological sex, YET." [my emphasis]
From zygote, to embryo, to fetus, to the onset of puberty, none of us are or were "reproductively competent" -- we are not or were not yet male or female; we are or were sexless. If that's the case then it's simply incoherent, and quite unscientific, to insist that we are all either male or female right from conception to death.
But see these standard biological definitions which emphasize the same point that "GCs are Ontologically Stupid" is apparently trying to make -- for which "she" clearly has some justification even if some of "her" other arguments may not hold much water:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
If various feminists, "biologists", and "philosophers" are going to bet the farm on the "gametic definition for the sexes" -- particularly as part of the definition for "woman" as "adult human female" -- then they simply don't have a leg to stand on when people like "GCs are Ontologically Stupid" quite reasonably call them on those definitions, and then point out their problematic consequences.
More particularly, you say "[Queer Theorists] rely on the fact that many people cannot immediately articulate why sex categories rely on gametes but do not require gametes at all times to still exist". But the upshot of those biological definitions is that if the ability to produce gametes is not present -- for examples, the prepubescent, menopausees, and transwomen who cut their nuts off -- then those people simply cannot claim membership in the corresponding sex categories.
By those standard biological definitions, the presence of functional gonads of either of two types constitutes the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. Which means no tickee, no washee; no gonads, no sex category membership card. You might also reflect on the structure and content of those definitions and the justifications for those rather inexorable conclusions:
Wikipedia: "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#Intensional_definition
that's not correct. gonads don't have to be 'functional' in any way. you have a sex based on chromosomes. that's it.
Nope. You might want to try a close reading of that Wiley Online Library article -- the quoted section in particular -- and that PhilPapers article by Griffiths. Of particular note from the latter:
Griffiths: "Philosophers who have discussed biological sex, whether they seek to vindicate the idea (Byrne 2020) or critique it (Dembroff 2020), have not defined it in the way biologists do. The definitions of male and female they do consider are non-starters as general criteria to distinguish male and female organisms. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that work on the sex/gender distinction in philosophy starts with the idea that, “ ’sex’ denotes human females and males depending on biological features (chromosomes, sex organs, hormones and other physical features)” (Mikkola 2017, emphasis in original). But no general definition of sexes can rely on these features because, as [evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan] Roughgarden puts it, the criteria for classifying an organism as male or female have to work with worms to whales, with red seaweed to redwood trees.” (Roughgarden 2013, 23). Biological sex certainly cannot be defined by chromosomes. Many species, such as crocodiles, have no sex chromosomes, because their sex is not determined genetically. Chromosomal definitions also fail for species that change sex during their lifecycle, since their chromosomes, of course, remain unchanged. Chromosomal definitions do not work even when restricted to species with genetic sex determination and no sex-switching.
The primary lesson of this article is that philosophical disputes about ‘biological sexes’ are not about the distinction between male and female organisms as it figures in biology. In a high-profile recent article philosopher Byrne defended the view that ‘human female’ is a biological category, where 'Biological categories are categories proprietary to biology. (2020, 3784). He did not expand on what he means by ‘biology’ but nothing in his article suggests any acquaintance with the literature reviewed here. Criticism of Byrne’s claim assumed that what is at issue is the adequacy of a chromosomal or phenotypic definition of sex in humans."
The biological definitions are "designed" to work with ALL anisogamous species -- no exceptions. In ALL cases, the "necessary and sufficient condition" for sex category membership is the current production of gametes of either of two types. Which is only possible with the presence of FUNCTIONAL gonads -- unless, perchance, you know of another way by which gametes can be produced without them? 🤔🙄
Those ARE the biological definitions and their logical consequences. You either have to justify other ones -- rots of ruck though maybe you can endorse "Scientific" American's efforts in that regard:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/scientific-americans-lysenkoism
Or you have to come up with a definition for "woman" that isn't joined at the hip with those "gametic definitions for the sexes". Maybe "adult human with ovaries of past, present or future functionality"? 🤔 As per the "definitions" of "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright (who should all be sent back to school for some remedial courses in the philosophy of biology):
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
cui bono?
"To whose benefit?" ? How so?
But see:
"Defending Reality: My Expert Testimony on the Biology of Sex
Only by staunchly defending basic biological truths can we hope to put an end to the medical harm being committed in the name of 'gender-affirming care.' "
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/defending-reality-my-expert-testimony
Many others in the same vein.
Your apparent insistence -- along with that of many others -- that one doesn't actually have to have functional gonads to qualify as male or female is part and parcel of the corruption of biology, the repudiation of those "basic biological truths".
You're all in pretty much the same boat as the transloonie nutcases and their useful/useless idiots -- like those at the aforementioned "Scientific" American -- who are rather desperately engaged in trying to corrupt the standard biological definitions for the sexes which are foundational to the whole field. Bravo, bravo ... 👏👏🙄
Is it smelly in there, or just dark?
🙄
You’ve engaged with a classic Internet Troll.
“A troll is a person who posts or makes inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages online or in real life, with the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses, or manipulating others' perception, thus acting as a bully or a provocateur.”
45 years ago we found the most effective way to handle them was to respond with a delicious recipe.
Oliebollen, a Dutch beignet-like treat, often eaten for New Year’s, are made with a simple batter. Here's the briefest recipe:
1. Mix self-rising flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and a pinch of salt.
2. Stir in raisins or apple pieces if desired.
3. Let the batter rest for an hour.
4. Heat oil in a deep fryer.
5. Use an ice cream scoop or two spoons to drop balls of batter into the hot oil.
6. Fry until golden brown.
7. Drain on paper towels and dust with powdered sugar. Serve warm.
Hoo-eee. Just because your head is somewhere the sun don't shine don't expect anybody else to ascribe to your nonsense.
🙄 "nonsense"? You also might try getting your head out of your nether regions and actually read the sources cited. Unless you maybe think that the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, and the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction have also disappeared up their own fundaments? 🤔🙄
The problem is generally that most people are scientifically illiterate -- and you seem a prime example.
But if you do manage to extract your head from your own nether regions you might try citing and quoting the sources for the definitions for the sexes you subscribe to. Along with an explanation as to how they're applicable to all of the other millions of anisogamous species on the planet. I wait -- with bated breath ...
The 23rd chromosomal pair being XX, female. The 23rd chromosomal pair being XY, male. Pretty simple.
Only to the simple-minded and scientifically illiterate. And to the "ontologically stupid" as Exulansic's tweeter more or less reasonably puts it.
You may wish to try rectifying that by reading this article on the complete androgen insensitivity syndrome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
Many of those burdened with it LOOK female, are "phenotypically female", but they have XY chromosomes and internal but non-functional testicles. Are they then "males"?
You might also try reading Griffiths' essay which quite reasonably argues that using chromosomes is, biologically, a non-starter since many species don't use X & Y chromosomes in the development of sexes -- birds, for example. And many species change sex over their life spans, yet there are, if I'm not mistaken, no genetic differences between males and females.
You must be new to my content to bring up CAIS! My biggest controversy ever was agreeing with DSD activist Claire Graham that 46XY CAIS is a male DSD, then taking it a step further and recalling that adult male humans are men. Do you think there are female men? Or male women?
Been following your Substack for quite some time -- you often have some cogent observations.
But the biggest problem in the whole transgender clusterfuck is the quite unscientific, if not rather demented "idea" that everyone has to be either male or female. The point of virtually all of the sources I've linked to and quoted from is that many members of many anisogamous species -- including the human one -- are neither male nor female, that they are sexLESS.
And that that "sexless" category encompasses about a third of us at any one time, the prepubescent in particular. Though, to answer your question -- more or less, it also encompasses most of the intersex, transwomen who cut their nuts off, vasectomees, and menopausees.
But all of that is largely the point of the Wiley Online Library article I've quoted from and linked to above. You might try a close reading of it.
Geez...
Every single one of your references have been bought and paid for by the trans cult. There is very little evidence for your claims that is backed up by real science.
"Conspiracy Theories R Us"? You must be a charter member of QAnon. You seriously "think" that the Oxford Dictionary of Biology, and the Oxford Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction have been "bought and paid for by the transcult"? 🤔🙄
As for your "claims backed up by science", you don't seem to understand the idea of stipulative definitions, though, to be fair, most people don't:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
The point is that reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries STIPULATE that what they MEAN by "male" and "female" are those organisms which produce, on a regular basis, sperm and ova. For example, see the definitions in this very reputable source, linked to above and below:
SpringerLink: "Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we define females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972), and the same definition applies to the female and male functions in hermaphrodites."
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
Those definitions have been around for at least 50 years -- they're foundational to all of biology.
Talk talk talk, when do we eat? In case that reference is before your time, it's from a Rice-A-Roni commercial. It's also my take on your nonsense.
Soooo....we should deny the evidence of our eyes and all of science and history. And of our own experiences of the physical world? Good luck with that, Buddy. Or should I say, Bud Light?
"Soooo .... Galileo, should we deny the evidence of our eyes and all of science and history that says that the Earth is immovably fixed in space?" 🙄
Science moves on -- despite the best efforts of various scientific illiterates to prevent that.
But a B minus for the "Bud Light" shot. Though I'm hardly insisting that people can change sex.
Wow. Only a B minus?
Twat
LoL. Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. Rather depressing that you, and too many others -- the "ontologically stupid" as Exulansic's tweeter quite accurately put it, are unwilling or unable to deal with them.
To obfuscate, to put a veil on. Science is truly at his most satanic when weilded by people like you.
LoL. Just the facts ma'am, just the facts. Rather depressing that you, and too many others -- the "ontologically stupid" as Exulansic's tweeter quite accurately put it, are unwilling or unable to deal with them.
I have no idea who Paul Griffiths is. Is he behind this twitter account?
Fairly well-regarded philosopher of biology, no indication at all that he even has a twitter account:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Griffiths
https://www.sydney.edu.au/arts/about/our-people/academic-staff/paul.griffiths.html
https://www.amazon.ca/What-Emotions-Really-Are-Psychological/dp/0226308715
Amazon: "In this provocative contribution to the philosophy of science and mind, Paul E. Griffiths criticizes contemporary philosophy and psychology of emotion for failing to take in an evolutionary perspective and address current work in neurobiology and cognitive science."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Aeon: "Yes, there are just two biological sexes. No, this doesn’t mean every living thing is either one or the other."
Hardly chopped liver. You might try being not so quick to dismiss what he's said.
No matter how many times you accuse me of dismissing him, you were the one who brought up a new topic.
Hardly a "new topic" -- my first comment was speaking directly to your entire post. You had insisted -- rather dogmatically and without any evidence -- that "[Queer Theorists] rely on the fact that many people cannot immediately articulate why sex categories rely on gametes but do not require gametes at all times to still exist."
But those "sex categories" DO require the presence of gametes. Which is why I was trying to show that what Griffiths was saying -- what all of the other sources I quoted and linked to were saying -- was that membership in the sex categories is contingent on having functional gonads. Those functional gonads qualify as the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for sex category membership. You might reflect on Wikipedia's article on types of definitions:
Wikipedia: "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
Organisms can't be "counted as referents of the terms 'male' and 'female' " if they don't possess the "properties" that qualify as membership dues -- i.e., functional gonads.
Consequently, your tweeter, "GCs are Ontologically Stupid", is quite correct in "her" accusation that, at least by those standard biological definitions, a "person without gametes" cannot "still be male or female". And that most GCs -- and many others -- are quite clueless -- "ontologically stupid" -- about categories, about their definitions, and about how their conditions for membership actually work.
You, and many others here and about, may wish to reflect on the meaning of "ontological"; from Google/OxfordLanguages:
"ontological: showing the relations between the concepts and categories in a subject area or domain."
And "male" and "female" are, by definition, just the names for categories, and for members of them. They're NOT identities, much less "immutable ones" based on any "mythic essences" which is largely what many of the transloonie nutcases -- and many GCs -- are claiming. But see:
"sex (noun): 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
And as categories, there are those quite specific requirements -- functional gonads -- to qualify as members of them. The same way that being 13 to 19 is the "necessary and sufficient condition", is the "property" that MUST be present to qualify as a member of the "teenager" category: you have your 13th birthday then you get a membership card; have your 20th birthday, get your membership card revoked.
Absolutely nothing "immutable" about any of those categories.
If I take a tire off of my car, does it stop being a car until I put it back? The reality is that the sex of an individual is relevant at every level of medical analysis, whether gametes are currently present or not. It's still a coke bottle factory even if there are no bottles currently on site.
It is only "nominally" a car; it's a "car" for reference purposes only; it's a "car" in name only. It may LOOK like a car, but it's missing an essential element -- it can no longer perform the function that is its essential and defining trait -- an ability to carry a small number of people:
Google/OxfordLanguages:
"car (noun): a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is ABLE TO CARRY a small number of people."
You can turn that object back into a car by putting on the tire, but until then its just a piece of worthless junk. Would you pay full price for a "car" missing some tires, missing an engine and a transmission? Still a "car", amirite? 🙄
As for "relevant at every level", current reproductive ability -- the basis for the standard biological definitions -- is often less relevant than genitalia and chromosomes -- which are NO part of any of those definitions for the sexes.
The biological definitions -- there in black and white in what I quoted -- stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. You and too many others are in pretty much the same boat as the transloonie nutcases in trying to bastardize and corrupt those standard biological definitions.
Pots and kettles.
Well; you took the bait. Now the gender/sex troll has you on a roll.
It may be that some people just feel "bad" realizing they have a pathology. And that treated as they wish it, either obviates reproduction or causes faulty reproduction. Again I suspect it's about the feelings.
Ugh. I'm so not interested in being dragged into the muck and weeds by these people to play their demented parlor games. I have asked "yes or no, can a transwoman get pregnant?" to see faces turn red and heads explode.
Can a menopausee get pregnant? See:
https://exulansic.substack.com/p/queering-development-and-the-quest/comment/45647484
What is the menopause? What is a transwoman? If neither example can become pregnant, is that because one is at a stage of life where she no longer menstruates and the other is a man?
Good questions -- I thought no one would ever ask ... 😉🙂
Though it's "menopausee" -- note the double 'e' suffix. Like "employee", or like "murderee" as I think Flip Wilson once joked.
But more seriously, the questions turn on what it takes to qualify as a woman and, more importantly, as a female. Something that many people refuse to consider -- including Exulansic and all of the "Ontologically Stupid GCs" she is apparently defending.
The point is that there are objective criteria that MUST be met to qualify as males and females, that membership in those categories -- what ontology is largely all about -- is not a matter of entirely subjective "self-identification", not a matter of "best 3 out of 5" which is what transloonie nutcase Riley Dennis has claimed:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis
More particularly, the "gametic definition for the sexes" -- what tweeter "GCs Are Ontologically Stupid" was defending -- is part and parcel of the standard definition for "woman", i.e., "adult human female". But those gametic definitions, which are the standard biological ones, stipulate that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless.
Which means that transwomen are either still males if they still have their nuts attached or are sexless if they don't. But it also means that menopausees are likewise sexless, are no longer able to qualify as females -- or as women if you want to bet the farm on "adult human female".
Truth or consequences ...
I’ve always been female, always will be. As a female who is both adult and human, I am a woman. We have other definitions, for example “infertile”, “prepubescent”, “post menopause”, “neutered”, eunuch, to describe males and females unable to procreate for various reasons. It can in many instances be useful, if not essential, for the health of the individual to know their sex. They wouldn’t be described as, or viewed as “sexless”. “Transwoman” is just a word invented by men to describe men who wish they were women and a clever manipulation of our language. In law, healthcare and in society, when and where it is important, we can stick to gametes, as what is important is the result, which in 99.9% of cases can be seen on ultrasound, before we’re born, as I’m sure you know. A male human is stronger, faster etc. can suffer prostate cancer and potentially impregnate a female. That’s what we need to know and what we’ve known for quite a long time.
Whether you've always been a female, and whether you'll always be one, depends greatly on how one DEFINES that category. There's NO intrinsic meaning at all to the term -- it used to mean "she who suckles":
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
By which Jenner and his ilk would qualify. And many "women" might not.
Not sure what your definition is for the term, though you might consider putting it on the table for discussion purposes. But I'm not sure why you would apparently think it's more useful than the standard biological ones which have been published in reputable biological journals, encyclopedias, and dictionaries:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
The problem is generally that the transloonie nutcases and their useful/useless idiots are busily engaged in bastardizing and corrupting the whole concept of male and female as biologically distinct and useful categories. Though, to be fair, one might reasonably argue that Exulansic, along with many others, is "aiding and abetting the enemy" by trying to decouple those categories from any necessity of being able to reproduce -- which IS the central point and principle of those biological definitions.
Which is why it seems that the only way off the horns of that dilemma, that social problem, is to draw a line in the sand with those biological definitions -- and let the chips fall where they may. Regardless of any "collateral damage", particularly to women's vanity or to transwomen's envy. You might consider a comment by American philosopher Will Durant on a famous quip by Voltaire:
Durant: 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
If we can't agree on what words mean then we haven't a hope in hell of dealing with any problems that turn on them. All definitions are "socially constructed", but some are clearly better and more useful than others.
Gametes, whether reproduction is possible or not. A male human produces small gametes, or is of the nature to produce small gametes. This leads to observable physical differences and can be easily confirmed where needed, even if the male has undergone cosmetic surgery. To take your offer to its logical conclusion, the only female is a pregnant one and the only male is the one who got her pregnant. Anything else failed and is sexless. Have at it. We English speaking all know what we mean, have known for a very long time and if people want to mess about with it in their own home, or private groups, or societies, go for it. For the sake of law, society, healthcare, sports and everything else, we all know what male and female is and it can be simply defined. The odd person who suffers a developmental disorder can argue the point if they wish, but if they have testes, or potential testes, they are male. Why are we even arguing about it? Its unhelpful. In society and law, it goes way beyond the ability to reproduce. The girl beaten on track by the castrated male runner, isn’t worried about getting pregnant, she wants fair sport. His being of the nature to produce small gametes ie male, is what won him the title. A castrated male calling himself a woman, will still inherit over his older sister. Because he’s male. Trying to change the definition of male to mean fertile male is just daft imo.
Oh no. This person believes in “gender”, and has hypnotized himself into believing a woman whose body has produced millions of eggs by birth is not a woman unless menstruating, and similarly for a man unless ejaculating. He’ll go on about it endlessly, quoting dictionaries which contradict his statements, then claim there’s no contradiction. He cannot follow ordinary logical claims, therefore his speech is meaningless.
The old-fashioned word is “troll” which we used on Usenet 45 years ago for people who engage purely to frustrate the responder for some bizarre pleasure.
The most effective response to a troll is a delicious recipe.
Oliebollen, a Dutch beignet-like treat traditionally eaten around for new year’s, are made with a simple batter.
1. Mix self-rising flour, sugar, eggs, milk, and a pinch of salt.
2. Stir in raisins or apple pieces if desired.
3. Let the batter rest for an hour.
4. Heat oil in a deep fryer.
5. Use an ice cream scoop or two spoons to drop balls of batter into the hot oil.
6. Fry until golden brown.
7. Drain on paper towels and dust with powdered sugar. Serve warm.
It’s so deeply annoying that all these word games exist. It’s exhausting. Some people simply love making life more complicated for everyone. Get a job, practice a craft, get some good old discipline, practice a sport, go out to nature. Just live.
Certainly can be rather "exhausting". Why it generally helps to define our terms at the outset -- tends to minimize a lot of going in circles. Philosopher Will Durant on a famous quip by Voltaire:
Durant: 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task."
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
But you might also take a gander at a sample from the Kindle version of a forthcoming book by "philosopher" Alex Byrne titled, "Trouble with Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions":
Byrne: "“Philosophy, which promises insight into the nature of reality, the meaning of life, and all that, is sometimes accused of false advertising – even by philosophers themselves. .... The impression that philosophical questions are ‘just semantics’ is almost always mistaken, but philosophers certainly do care a lot about words.
One reason for taking words to be important is that we use them to make distinctions. The words ‘dog’, ‘perro’, ‘cat’, and ‘gato’ allow speakers of English and Spanish to distinguish be‐tween dogs and cats, to say that dogs bark and cats don’t, for instance. A concerning feature of debates around sex and gen‐der is the attempt to prevent distinctions from being made, by prohibiting or redefining certain words.”
https://www.amazon.ca/Trouble-Gender-Sex-Facts-Fictions-ebook/dp/B0CKKJXJ1R/?asin=B0CKKJXJ1R&revisionId=d23d4d6f&format=1&depth=1
If we can't agree on what words mean -- "male" and "female" in particular -- then we sure don't have a hope in hell of resolving any social problems which turn on them.
yes, my thinking exactly. And besides that, men who take estrogen have a history of problems. Just sayin'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stQpwGcrZPg
Allow me to quote Tolstoy : "Too much thinking will drive you crazy." I'd like to see these folks have to make a living in the real world.
Too little isn't much help either. Allow me to quote Bertrand Russell:
Russell: "Most people would sooner die than think; in fact they do so."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2018/09/23/think/
Spurious straw man rubbish like this os meant to shut people up and close down debate. My answer is there are two genders male and female and there is no other gender. There is however, cult insanity which tries to queer the argument, the active word being insanity. Even if you are sterile, have dsds you are still male or female there is no third gebder or sex choice, and to say there is is because you want to actively harm healthy bodies. Have a great Xmas Exulansic and a productive and successful New year. The fight goes on.
A great many people quite reasonably see sex and gender as two entirely different kettles of fish. The late great US Justice Anton Scalia for example:
Scalia: “The word 'gender' has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics (as opposed to physical characteristics) distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.”
https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep511/usrep511127/usrep511127.pdf
And you might check out Genspect's Glossary:
"Gender: Once used interchangeably with ‘sex’ to mean male or female. Now denotes a person’s social or cultural status as masculine, feminine or something else."
"Sex: The system by which humans are classified as male or female in utero or at birth,
based on reproductive functions and bodily characteristics such as chromosomes and
hormones."
https://genspect.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/The-Gender-Framework-Draft-One.pdf
Even if their definitions for the sexes are hardly better than folk-biology, and not at all applicable to a great many other species.
You might also try reading this essay by one "Regan Arntz-Gray":
"What is a Woman?
Gender is a spectrum AND it's related to sex."
https://reganarntzgray.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
Billions of genders (masculine & feminine), and two sexes (male & female).
The gyrations of a 12-year-old brain.
The definition of female sex is the one who could create large gametes.
The definition of male sex is one who could create small gametes.
In humans the categories of male and female are observed to be mutually exclusive in a single organism.
A male at conception producing precursor small gametes by 9 weeks could never be a woman by logical exclusion.
The only successful way to develop sexually is along a path which results in reproduction, since humans use sex to reproduce (lungs to breathe, hearts to pump blood...). There is not a “correct” path, there is a successful path. Others are unsuccessful, or “imperfect”.
I like your expert videos as you do so well. You are so articulate and brave, ma'am.
Hey Steersman! I don't know what you're on, but I'll take $10 worth!