Subscribed! 🙂 Looking forward to seeing your use of "the scientific method" to bring some scientific principles to the "debates" over the definitions for sex and gender – something that those "debates" are in desperate need of.
And likewise like your "statement of principle" – nailed to the masthead – that "there is an objective, structured world that can be understood via evidence and reason". Reminds me of a passage from a book – The Mind of God – by Australian professor of mathematical physics Paul Davies:
"The claim that the world is rational is connected with the fact that it is ordered. Events do not happen willy-nilly: they are related in some way." [pg28]
In any case, relative to your "Sex" post, I quite agree with you starting out by describing some concepts. I've often quoted Voltaire's quip, "if you wish to converse with me then define your terms", a crucial step that far too many miss. But in particular, I like that you've drawn a line in the sand, that you’ve emphasized “function”, that you've stipulated that sex is all about actual reproduction, that it's "the glue that coordinates its parts". Entirely consistent with the standard definition for sex:
"Sex: 2) 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."
“functions”, indeed; that without which not, the “sine qua non” of the sex categories.
However, what seems conspicuous by its absence is where you define precisely what is meant by "male" and "female". It would seem to be rather difficult to challenge those who "are trying to redefine sex based on their own set of beliefs" if one doesn't have in hand a set of definitions based on the "scientific method" or on cogent epistemological principles.
But rather depressing that there seems to be such a large field of people – including various “scientism-ists”, the delusional, an odd-lot of politically-motivated hacks and dogmatists, and a bunch of otherwise credible “biologists” and “philosophers” who should know better – who are engaged in that “redefinition”. ICYMI, there’s quite a good essay – “Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico – that underlines the essential element of “function”, and that delineates the standard biological definitions versus the “patchwork definitions of the social sciences”:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
You might also be interested in an essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths – university of Sydney professor, philosophy of biology, co-author of “Genetics and Philosophy” – and this passage in particular:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
Basically, pretty much the same definition that is front-and-center in most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and various journals, and is endorsed by more than a few credible biologists including Geoff Parker (FRS, emeritus professor of biology, University of Liverpool) and Jussi Lehtonen:
"Biologically, males are DEFINED as the sex that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), implying that the male and female sexes only exist in species with gamete dimorphism (anisogamy)."
Curious though that so many of those attempting to redefine sex as other than the above biological definitions try to fall-back on a structure-only definition, i.e., no actual function required. For instance, philosopher Kathleen Stock argues that:
“A plausible and much more minimal alternative says that each sex is defined by the presence of a developmental pathway to produce certain gamete types …”
Along the same line, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright argues that:
“Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals [the prepubescent, the infertile] do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality.”
However, what they and far too many others don’t seem to get – or want to get – is that anisogamy has been around for about billion years, and that there are probably thousands if not millions of entirely different “developmental pathways” and “evolved reproductive anatomies” associated with, that correlate with the functions of being able to produce either sperm or ova. They simply refuse to face or even try understanding basic foundational principles, notably that of taxonomy, “the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics.”
Kind of think that the characteristic or trait of anisogamy, of the ability to actually produce either of two morphological distinct gametes is that which is shared by the greatest number of organisms, and over the greatest span of time and evolution. Which should thereby be – and currently is – the basis for the most rational and useful definitions for the sexes, male and female.
Thanks for subscribing. And wow, that's incredibly impressive to put together such a comprehensive reply so rapidly! The 'gamete argument' (I call it) started off as central to this post and the intention was to contrast it (or at least how I often see it used) with the overview I gave in this post. I think I'll quickly write another post to deal with this point. Gamete size is really just a solution evolution found to solve the problem of reproduction; it's part of the phenotype of biological sex. And for me, the truer and more effective (in this debate) way to communicate the complexity of the biology of sex is with the concepts, such as phenotype, that I outline in this post. Thanks again for spending so much time and effort putting together such a comprehensive response.
Both largely focus on the necessity of defining our categories as precisely as possible, but you might be somewhat more interested in the second one partly because of its 3D graph of joint population distributions as functions of both karyotypes and heights. Some people have argued in favour of developing a "taxonomy of gender" which seems a useful concept and on which those 3D graphs may have some bearing; a work in progress:
But I look forward to reading your elaborations on "the gamete argument". Although I hope you'll specify exactly which are the definitions for the sexes that you endorse or accept. Relative to which, you might also be interested in a tweet thread by Carole Hooven – apparently an evolutionary biologist at Harvard – which more or less endorses the same perspective on the biological definitions for the sexes that we’re apparently in some agreement on:
“No matter what words one uses, there are still only two reproductive categories, defined basically by the capacity to produce either small, mobile gametes, or large, immobile ones. Sex is not defined by our hormones, beards, breasts, behavior, or even our chromosomes. These are traits that can vary within & between sex. The ‘essence’ of sex is about gamete production. Most of the time sex allows us to make accurate predictions about things like genitalia, relative strength, or propensity for sexual assault. But in some cases it provides very little relevant information, or can even be misleading.”
As I’ve periodically argued, “things like genitalia” are just “proxy variables” that often strongly correlate with the primary one – functional gonads of two types – but they’re not joined at the hip with that primary variable.
But I think she also makes a cogent point, if only an obscure hint at one, about “the ‘essence’ of sex”. There really is no “essence” to sex, a point many stumble over, but only “necessary and sufficient conditions” to qualify organisms as members of the male and female sex categories. As the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a teenager is being 13 to 19 inclusive; there is no “teenager essentialism”, no scope for a person of 35 to "self-identify" as one.
In any case, to close and in case you were unaware of it, I ran across a link to your Substack, and to Hooven’s tweet, on the GC News Substack – worth a follow, too 🙂
Subscribed! 🙂 Looking forward to seeing your use of "the scientific method" to bring some scientific principles to the "debates" over the definitions for sex and gender – something that those "debates" are in desperate need of.
And likewise like your "statement of principle" – nailed to the masthead – that "there is an objective, structured world that can be understood via evidence and reason". Reminds me of a passage from a book – The Mind of God – by Australian professor of mathematical physics Paul Davies:
"The claim that the world is rational is connected with the fact that it is ordered. Events do not happen willy-nilly: they are related in some way." [pg28]
In any case, relative to your "Sex" post, I quite agree with you starting out by describing some concepts. I've often quoted Voltaire's quip, "if you wish to converse with me then define your terms", a crucial step that far too many miss. But in particular, I like that you've drawn a line in the sand, that you’ve emphasized “function”, that you've stipulated that sex is all about actual reproduction, that it's "the glue that coordinates its parts". Entirely consistent with the standard definition for sex:
"Sex: 2) 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://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex
“functions”, indeed; that without which not, the “sine qua non” of the sex categories.
However, what seems conspicuous by its absence is where you define precisely what is meant by "male" and "female". It would seem to be rather difficult to challenge those who "are trying to redefine sex based on their own set of beliefs" if one doesn't have in hand a set of definitions based on the "scientific method" or on cogent epistemological principles.
But rather depressing that there seems to be such a large field of people – including various “scientism-ists”, the delusional, an odd-lot of politically-motivated hacks and dogmatists, and a bunch of otherwise credible “biologists” and “philosophers” who should know better – who are engaged in that “redefinition”. ICYMI, there’s quite a good essay – “Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico – that underlines the essential element of “function”, and that delineates the standard biological definitions versus the “patchwork definitions of the social sciences”:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
You might also be interested in an essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths – university of Sydney professor, philosophy of biology, co-author of “Genetics and Philosophy” – and this passage in particular:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Basically, pretty much the same definition that is front-and-center in most credible dictionaries, encyclopedias, and various journals, and is endorsed by more than a few credible biologists including Geoff Parker (FRS, emeritus professor of biology, University of Liverpool) and Jussi Lehtonen:
"Biologically, males are DEFINED as the sex that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), implying that the male and female sexes only exist in species with gamete dimorphism (anisogamy)."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/10/3/573
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519372900070
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
Curious though that so many of those attempting to redefine sex as other than the above biological definitions try to fall-back on a structure-only definition, i.e., no actual function required. For instance, philosopher Kathleen Stock argues that:
“A plausible and much more minimal alternative says that each sex is defined by the presence of a developmental pathway to produce certain gamete types …”
https://lcp.law.duke.edu/article/the-importance-of-referring-to-human-sex-in-language-stock-vol85-iss1/
Along the same line, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright argues that:
“Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals [the prepubescent, the infertile] do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality.”
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum?s=r
However, what they and far too many others don’t seem to get – or want to get – is that anisogamy has been around for about billion years, and that there are probably thousands if not millions of entirely different “developmental pathways” and “evolved reproductive anatomies” associated with, that correlate with the functions of being able to produce either sperm or ova. They simply refuse to face or even try understanding basic foundational principles, notably that of taxonomy, “the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy#Evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
Kind of think that the characteristic or trait of anisogamy, of the ability to actually produce either of two morphological distinct gametes is that which is shared by the greatest number of organisms, and over the greatest span of time and evolution. Which should thereby be – and currently is – the basis for the most rational and useful definitions for the sexes, male and female.
Thanks for subscribing. And wow, that's incredibly impressive to put together such a comprehensive reply so rapidly! The 'gamete argument' (I call it) started off as central to this post and the intention was to contrast it (or at least how I often see it used) with the overview I gave in this post. I think I'll quickly write another post to deal with this point. Gamete size is really just a solution evolution found to solve the problem of reproduction; it's part of the phenotype of biological sex. And for me, the truer and more effective (in this debate) way to communicate the complexity of the biology of sex is with the concepts, such as phenotype, that I outline in this post. Thanks again for spending so much time and effort putting together such a comprehensive response.
Thanks for the quick response. And for the compliment. 🙂
But I've been beavering away at this issue and that perspective for over 4 years so I'm loaded for bear and ready to go at the drop of a hat. 🙂
Somewhat apropos of which, you might be interested in a couple of my posts over at Medium on the topic:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/the-imperative-of-categories-874154213e42
https://medium.com/@steersmann/reality-and-illusion-being-vs-identifying-as-77f9618b17c7
Both largely focus on the necessity of defining our categories as precisely as possible, but you might be somewhat more interested in the second one partly because of its 3D graph of joint population distributions as functions of both karyotypes and heights. Some people have argued in favour of developing a "taxonomy of gender" which seems a useful concept and on which those 3D graphs may have some bearing; a work in progress:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_taxonomy
But I look forward to reading your elaborations on "the gamete argument". Although I hope you'll specify exactly which are the definitions for the sexes that you endorse or accept. Relative to which, you might also be interested in a tweet thread by Carole Hooven – apparently an evolutionary biologist at Harvard – which more or less endorses the same perspective on the biological definitions for the sexes that we’re apparently in some agreement on:
“No matter what words one uses, there are still only two reproductive categories, defined basically by the capacity to produce either small, mobile gametes, or large, immobile ones. Sex is not defined by our hormones, beards, breasts, behavior, or even our chromosomes. These are traits that can vary within & between sex. The ‘essence’ of sex is about gamete production. Most of the time sex allows us to make accurate predictions about things like genitalia, relative strength, or propensity for sexual assault. But in some cases it provides very little relevant information, or can even be misleading.”
https://twitter.com/hoovlet/status/1512968973230485507
As I’ve periodically argued, “things like genitalia” are just “proxy variables” that often strongly correlate with the primary one – functional gonads of two types – but they’re not joined at the hip with that primary variable.
But I think she also makes a cogent point, if only an obscure hint at one, about “the ‘essence’ of sex”. There really is no “essence” to sex, a point many stumble over, but only “necessary and sufficient conditions” to qualify organisms as members of the male and female sex categories. As the necessary and sufficient condition to qualify as a teenager is being 13 to 19 inclusive; there is no “teenager essentialism”, no scope for a person of 35 to "self-identify" as one.
In any case, to close and in case you were unaware of it, I ran across a link to your Substack, and to Hooven’s tweet, on the GC News Substack – worth a follow, too 🙂
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/sunday-april-10-2022?s=r