Thanks for the plug, likewise for the "some alternative views"; most appreciated. 👍🙂
But I agree with much of your post, particularly with the objective or aim of "challenging Gender Identity Theory."
However, as much as I can sympathize with your argument that "the average person has no idea what a gamete is", I think a number of your arguments are based on some problematic if common misconceptions that muddy the waters and contribute to a general misunderstanding of gametes and their relevance to sex category definitions.
For example, you say:
"And I'm meant to believe single nucleotides like this will be less of a defining feature for either male or female biology than gamete size?"
However, I think that misunderstands the difference between "define", on the one hand, and "determine" and "development" on the other. Although that misunderstanding is rather ubiquitous in various Twitter and online discussions which tends to cause unnecessary animosity and confusion. For instance, see this Twitter thread, with particular attention to the tweets by Nataniel Hart and UK biologist Emma Hilton:
"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)"
Relative to your statement, a single nucleotide, being wrong or right, can DETERMINE whether a person turns out to be infertile or not, it can lead to the DEVELOPMENT of fertility or infertility. But those nucleotides have no bearing on what it takes to qualify as members of the sex categories. They're quite different kettles of fish.
Consider an analogy with the category "teenager". The definition DEFINES, or stipulates that to be a teenager one must be between the ages of 13 and 19 inclusive. But what DETERMINES whether a child under 13 DEVELOPS into a teenager is dependent on the passage of time as well as on a great many biological functions and processes - many of which can go horribly wrong. For instance, progeria, many victims of which sadly die of old age before even becoming teenagers:
Similarly with "male" and "female". The definitions that Hart quoted stipulate that to be male and female is to have functional gonads of either of two types. But what DETERMINES whether a fetus DEVELOPS into one or the other - or into neither - depends on a whole cascade of biological processes and mechanisms. Many of which can go off the rails or be circumvented as with "puberty blockers".
However, I think that a somewhat more thorny and consequential problem with some of your arguments is related to your assertion that "human males can be identified by a list of physical features that includes having a penis". While I'm not sure of this, it seems that that is something of a fairly common misperception due to not being aware of the difference between what are called "essential properties" and "accidental properties":
Fairly decent elaboration on the differences there, though you don't need to read more than the first couple of paragraphs. Philosophers have a tendency to go off into the weeds over inconsequential details ... 😉
But relative to the standard biological defintions which Hart quoted above, the essential properties for the sex categories are either of two types of functional gonads. Those properties are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership: if organisms - of any sexually-reproducing species - have them then they're members of the male and female sex categories, and if they don't then they're not. That's the way those categories are DEFINED - and by many quite reputable sources going back over 50 years or more.
As for the accidental properties associated with the sex categories, consider the females of other species, birds and insects in particular, some of which have ZW and ZO karyotypes. It is, by definition, essential to have functional ovaries to qualify as a female, but those females may or may not - accidentally - have XX, ZW, or ZO chromosomes. You may wish to take a gander at my elaboration on that example in a comment over at GC News:
But there are, of course, literally hundreds of such accidental properties - breasts for example. Of course most "adult human females" have them, but then again so do men suffering from gynecomastia. And then there are the transwomen - more or less cuckcos in the nest. Strong correlation between breasts and "adult human females", but hardly a guarantee: breasts constitute something of a proxy variable:
"a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable."
Penises and vaginas are likewise such proxy variables - not at all easy just by looking at a naked individual whether they have actually have functional gonads. So we infer the presence of that "unobservable or immeasurable variable" on the basis of the statistical correlations between the latter ones and the proxy. For instance, based on typical demographics I guestimate that only some 70% of adult "penis-havers" and "vagina-havers" are in fact males and females, i.e., those with the required functional gonads, the rest being infertile and therefore sexless.
You may think that much of the foregoing is splitting hairs and largely irrelevant to the aim you set out. Which I'm certainly somewhat in sympathy with - as is Paul Griffiths who I've quoted in earlier comments here and elsewhere.
However, I also think that much of the entire transgender clusterfuck is due to a myriad of conflicting, inconsistent, incoherent, clueless, politically-motivated, ideologically corrupted, or outright insane "definitions" for the sexes - the "every cell has a sex" of an NCBI article taking the cake in the last category.
But I really don't think we're going to resolve that issue until we reach something of a consensus on what are the most rational and coherent definitions for the sexes. And I think the only game in town is to "stand pat" on the standard biological definitions based on functional gonads as the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership.
Thanks for the reply. I'm going to set aside this issue for now. I've got lots of other things I'd like to write about, and very little time! Thanks again for the discussion
I can sympathize - a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. And I similarly feel like the proverbial one-armed paper-hanger myself. Too many irons in the fire, too little time to tend them all. 🙂
Though I can't say that I'm not a bit disappointed. Particularly after my thorough and well-evidenced rebuttal of at least some of the major planks in your party platform. 😉
I geddit that the bottom line of my "thesis" - basically that some third of us at any one time are sexless - is rather unpalatable at best. Generally seen as something of a heresy, as if the apostles were disputing Jesus. But that IS the logical consequence of the premises, the biological definitions for the sexes which have a great deal of currency, consistency, and credibility.
I also quite understand and more or less fully support your efforts to cut the legs off of the ideologues, grifters and charlatans peddling "gender identity theory". It's absolutely gobsmacking how so many people talk of gender as if it was any sort of coherent concept. At bottom, it's little better than phrenology, than the model of personalities undergirding the Myers-Briggs type system which many have called "pseudoscience" and hardly better than a "Chinese fortune cookie".
But really don't think that objective has much chance of success unless it's based on solid scientific and philosophical principles. Which includes a coherent and rational definition of the sexes - which seems to be largely precluded these days by a rather desperate adherence to the article of faith, peddled by far too many so-called "philosophers" and "biologists", that, as "philosopher" Kathleen Stock put it, "biological sex in humans is immutable". !!11!! Rah, rah ... 🙄
Somewhat apropos of which, and if or when you find a moment 🙂, you might be interested in taking a gander at this essay by Marc Van Regenmortel - "Belgian virologist known for his work on virus classification", PhD, "president of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses", "editor-in-chief of the Archives of Virology for twenty years"; clearly not chopped liver:
"Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
Indeed; that's the nub of the matter: the interface if not conflict between "science", on the one hand, and philosophy, logic, and epistemology on the other.
Thanks for the plug, likewise for the "some alternative views"; most appreciated. 👍🙂
But I agree with much of your post, particularly with the objective or aim of "challenging Gender Identity Theory."
However, as much as I can sympathize with your argument that "the average person has no idea what a gamete is", I think a number of your arguments are based on some problematic if common misconceptions that muddy the waters and contribute to a general misunderstanding of gametes and their relevance to sex category definitions.
For example, you say:
"And I'm meant to believe single nucleotides like this will be less of a defining feature for either male or female biology than gamete size?"
However, I think that misunderstands the difference between "define", on the one hand, and "determine" and "development" on the other. Although that misunderstanding is rather ubiquitous in various Twitter and online discussions which tends to cause unnecessary animosity and confusion. For instance, see this Twitter thread, with particular attention to the tweets by Nataniel Hart and UK biologist Emma Hilton:
"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)"
https://twitter.com/NathanielHart72/status/1260810769303851015
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
"An interjection.
The word ‘determine’ has a specific meaning in developmental biology, and it’s not the same as lay use. ....
In humans, chromosomes (well, genetic info) DETERMINE sex, that is, they are the MECHANISM that drives sex differentiation. ...."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1260851227904049154
Relative to your statement, a single nucleotide, being wrong or right, can DETERMINE whether a person turns out to be infertile or not, it can lead to the DEVELOPMENT of fertility or infertility. But those nucleotides have no bearing on what it takes to qualify as members of the sex categories. They're quite different kettles of fish.
Consider an analogy with the category "teenager". The definition DEFINES, or stipulates that to be a teenager one must be between the ages of 13 and 19 inclusive. But what DETERMINES whether a child under 13 DEVELOPS into a teenager is dependent on the passage of time as well as on a great many biological functions and processes - many of which can go horribly wrong. For instance, progeria, many victims of which sadly die of old age before even becoming teenagers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progeria
Similarly with "male" and "female". The definitions that Hart quoted stipulate that to be male and female is to have functional gonads of either of two types. But what DETERMINES whether a fetus DEVELOPS into one or the other - or into neither - depends on a whole cascade of biological processes and mechanisms. Many of which can go off the rails or be circumvented as with "puberty blockers".
However, I think that a somewhat more thorny and consequential problem with some of your arguments is related to your assertion that "human males can be identified by a list of physical features that includes having a penis". While I'm not sure of this, it seems that that is something of a fairly common misperception due to not being aware of the difference between what are called "essential properties" and "accidental properties":
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
Fairly decent elaboration on the differences there, though you don't need to read more than the first couple of paragraphs. Philosophers have a tendency to go off into the weeds over inconsequential details ... 😉
But relative to the standard biological defintions which Hart quoted above, the essential properties for the sex categories are either of two types of functional gonads. Those properties are the "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership: if organisms - of any sexually-reproducing species - have them then they're members of the male and female sex categories, and if they don't then they're not. That's the way those categories are DEFINED - and by many quite reputable sources going back over 50 years or more.
As for the accidental properties associated with the sex categories, consider the females of other species, birds and insects in particular, some of which have ZW and ZO karyotypes. It is, by definition, essential to have functional ovaries to qualify as a female, but those females may or may not - accidentally - have XX, ZW, or ZO chromosomes. You may wish to take a gander at my elaboration on that example in a comment over at GC News:
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/sat-april-16-and-sun-april-17-2022/comment/6121900?s=r
But there are, of course, literally hundreds of such accidental properties - breasts for example. Of course most "adult human females" have them, but then again so do men suffering from gynecomastia. And then there are the transwomen - more or less cuckcos in the nest. Strong correlation between breasts and "adult human females", but hardly a guarantee: breasts constitute something of a proxy variable:
"a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
Penises and vaginas are likewise such proxy variables - not at all easy just by looking at a naked individual whether they have actually have functional gonads. So we infer the presence of that "unobservable or immeasurable variable" on the basis of the statistical correlations between the latter ones and the proxy. For instance, based on typical demographics I guestimate that only some 70% of adult "penis-havers" and "vagina-havers" are in fact males and females, i.e., those with the required functional gonads, the rest being infertile and therefore sexless.
You may think that much of the foregoing is splitting hairs and largely irrelevant to the aim you set out. Which I'm certainly somewhat in sympathy with - as is Paul Griffiths who I've quoted in earlier comments here and elsewhere.
However, I also think that much of the entire transgender clusterfuck is due to a myriad of conflicting, inconsistent, incoherent, clueless, politically-motivated, ideologically corrupted, or outright insane "definitions" for the sexes - the "every cell has a sex" of an NCBI article taking the cake in the last category.
But I really don't think we're going to resolve that issue until we reach something of a consensus on what are the most rational and coherent definitions for the sexes. And I think the only game in town is to "stand pat" on the standard biological definitions based on functional gonads as the necessary and sufficient conditions for category membership.
Thanks for the reply. I'm going to set aside this issue for now. I've got lots of other things I'd like to write about, and very little time! Thanks again for the discussion
I can sympathize - a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. And I similarly feel like the proverbial one-armed paper-hanger myself. Too many irons in the fire, too little time to tend them all. 🙂
Though I can't say that I'm not a bit disappointed. Particularly after my thorough and well-evidenced rebuttal of at least some of the major planks in your party platform. 😉
I geddit that the bottom line of my "thesis" - basically that some third of us at any one time are sexless - is rather unpalatable at best. Generally seen as something of a heresy, as if the apostles were disputing Jesus. But that IS the logical consequence of the premises, the biological definitions for the sexes which have a great deal of currency, consistency, and credibility.
I also quite understand and more or less fully support your efforts to cut the legs off of the ideologues, grifters and charlatans peddling "gender identity theory". It's absolutely gobsmacking how so many people talk of gender as if it was any sort of coherent concept. At bottom, it's little better than phrenology, than the model of personalities undergirding the Myers-Briggs type system which many have called "pseudoscience" and hardly better than a "Chinese fortune cookie".
But really don't think that objective has much chance of success unless it's based on solid scientific and philosophical principles. Which includes a coherent and rational definition of the sexes - which seems to be largely precluded these days by a rather desperate adherence to the article of faith, peddled by far too many so-called "philosophers" and "biologists", that, as "philosopher" Kathleen Stock put it, "biological sex in humans is immutable". !!11!! Rah, rah ... 🙄
Somewhat apropos of which, and if or when you find a moment 🙂, you might be interested in taking a gander at this essay by Marc Van Regenmortel - "Belgian virologist known for his work on virus classification", PhD, "president of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses", "editor-in-chief of the Archives of Virology for twenty years"; clearly not chopped liver:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309889266_Classes_taxa_and_categories_in_hierarchical_virus_classification_a_review_of_current_debates_on_definitions_and_names_of_virus_species
But this passage from section 9 in particular:
"Sections 4–8 of this review followed a chronological presentation of recent developments in viral taxonomy which revealed that the field has been plagued by an uninterrupted series of conflicting views, heated disagreements and acrimonious controversies that may seem to some to be out of place in a scientific debate. The reason, of course, is that the subject of virus taxonomy and nomenclature lies at the interface between virological science and areas of philosophy such as logic, ontology and epistemology which unfortunately are rarely taught in university curricula followed by science students (Blachowicz 2009)."
Indeed; that's the nub of the matter: the interface if not conflict between "science", on the one hand, and philosophy, logic, and epistemology on the other.
Wonderful! Thank you for this clear and elegant summary of a complex distinction.
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!