A great essay, indeed... as usual. So, we've both written about this a few times... you more vigorously and frequently than I .... e.g., "If Aneuploidies = Sexes, Then Two-Headed Turtles Aren’t Turtles."
On the one hand, it's hard to believe that the misunderstanding persists. However, on the other hand, given how many people are weighing in on the debate without any fundamental understanding of biology, perhaps it's inevitable that misunderstandings will be perpetually recycled.
"On the one hand, it's hard to believe that the misunderstanding persists."
Indeed, though maybe not surprising, given that pretty much everyone -- present company excepted, of course ... 😉🙂 -- has an axe to grind and a set of unexamined assumptions, and is thereby engaged in some championship levels of "motivated reasoning".
Probably why some have argued that science and society don't really advance until the proponents of untenable theories die off.
"... without any fundamental understanding of biology ..."
Indeed. And of fundamental principles of logic, philosophy, and epistemology. Which "condemns" more than a few so-called biologists and philosophers. Like Colin and his partners in crime including Tomas Bogardus who should know better.
Sean Carroll had a decent point in an earlier debate in suggesting that the biological definitions were somewhat arbitrary, we're just the axioms of biology more or less exclusive to that "art" as I think he put it. Where he went off the rails was in refusing to consider the wider social utility of those definitions, those axioms. See my recent essay for some elaborations on those themes:
As I've often argued, there are NO intrinsic meanings to the words "male" and "female", but some meanings, some definitions are more useful than others. A point that many, Colin in particular, are rather "obstinate" in refusing to consider.
As per usual, I agree with you. Interestingly — forgive me for being so candid — I was thinking about both the similarities and differences in our points of view. So, I looked at your bio and found to my pleasant surprise that you are an electrical engineer with an admiration for Norbert Wiener and cybernetics. Correct? In my other (research) life, I do electronics and programming but not, of course, at the level that you do. So, we have that in common. Further, Wiener worked with one of my heroes in physiology, Walter Cannon. Once I knew that you are an engineer and fan of cybernetics, and I a biologist in the tradition of Walter Cannon, I understood why we see the problems — the solutions to which we basically agree — from understandably slightly different perspectives. In any event, now I better understand the framework from which you are working. And, I did read that essay to which you refer. It was excellent. I think the only thing on which we disagree is the "no gametes equals no sex" definition. Do I understand you correctly on that one?
Though not actually an engineer, just an electronics technologist (retired) -- a two year diploma in the field, sort of like an associate degree in the US.
But quite agree about the connection between cybernetics and biology and psychology -- seem to recollect the latter two fields were "early adopters", if not significant contributors, to the first.
"... only thing on which we disagree is the 'no gametes equals no sex' definition. Do I understand you correctly on that one?"
Basically correct, although, as I've agued -- in exhaustive if not exhausting detail ... 🙂 -- there is a great deal of justification for those biological definitions. Why I'm a bit "depressed" that Colin in particular is so "reluctant" to consider how his non/functional definitions lead to risible contradictions when applied to other species, sequential hermaphrodites in particular.
"Male and female are not superficial, arbitrary labels but all-important facts that stand by themselves."
Think you may wish to read up on a fairly basic but rather profound and far-reaching philosophical principle and dichotomy, that being between the map and territory:
"The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it."
You're quite correct that the words "male" & "female" are just labels, but by the biological definitions they're typically attached to those with functional gonads that produce either small or large gametes, respectively. In terms of the map-territory dichotomy, those words are the "representations", the symbols for particular "objects" -- i.e., those who produce small & large gametes. The latter have, of course, been around for a billion years or so, while the labels, the symbols, and their connection to the "objects" in question are quite recent and generally somewhat arbitrary.
To underline the latter, consider the use of those labels, the symbols "male" & "female" to denote plumbing and electrical connectors that have convex and concave mating surfaces, respectively:
Very interesting history. The "sophists" and their value of persuasion over truth is oddly relevant. The parallels are strong with today's trans activists and their moral certainty, their willingness to deceive in order to "save trans lives". Sadly their methods, their "impact" appears to be confusion and unnecessary medicalization of even children. These methods could conceivably lead to more suicide as medicalized people learn they never had gender dysphoria, they were deceived and were collateral damage of a political cause.
This is really useful. There’s no question in my mind that confused individuals are being used. It’s so heavily promoted. Is it a wedge issue that will pry the young away from solid ground and into shock troops for the powerful? Are there any kids able to resist or is it so pervasive they have to pledge allegiance or else? Surely some see that tolerance weaponized is not tolerance at all? And that they are being manipulated from above? FFS corporations are all over this. That alone should make it sus to kids.
Ovotesticular hermaphrodism is, if I'm not mistaken, the rarest form of hermaphrodism, with about 500 cases worldwide since 1990. Some sources giave a figure quadruple that, but it is nowhere near common enough to challenge any definitions of sex and "gender," a word that has been mangled into uselessness since 2009.
These unfortunates have at least one of each of the two types of gonad, or at least some tissue thereof; I'm not sure if the production of gametes is part of the definition, or if any of them produce spermatozoa or ova.
The thing that really frosts my cookies about all this self-identification stuff is that belief in non-binary sex is not in ANY WAY necessary to support equal rights for everyone. I don't buy that Genderbread Person nonsense, not for an instant, and yet I think trans people should be able to hold jobs and get housing and vote and adopt kids and everything else. We as a society can decide that even though science tells us Rachel Levine is not a biological woman, we're OK if in most ways she lives like one.** To paraphrase the old saying, when crafting policy, science gets a vote, not a veto.
(**Yes, the issue of access to single-sex spaces is tricky, which is why I said "most.")
Intersex conditions are developmental defects; to use them as arguments for definitions of the sexes themselves is comically desperate.
Awaiting a child’s choice of “gender identity” is to dignify that foolish concept undeservedly. Leaving a child in a deformed state in obeisance to a fad is cruel.
Just another extension of that "sex assigned at birth" nuttery, as if kids who believe in Santa are capable of giving informed consent to hormones and surgery.
The danger of this cult cannot be overstated.
Aside: I notice that this column is some months old, I'm curious why it appeared in my email as if new.
I’d change the wording from “intersex” to “ambiguous genitals”. The phrase intersex implies a continuum, but of course there isn’t, and there’s no need to create a new word. It also somehow feels like a part of the CIA devoted to blackmailing world leaders with highly paid prostitutes in order to foment unrest in 3rd world counties.
But it also includes androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which biological males present as phenotypical females and often don't learn the truth until the time for menstruation arrives, and they don't do it.
Their genitals are not ambiguous. They present as female.
Excellent analysis! Oh, the stories I could tell you about the social experiments that have been happening on college campuses for the last couple of decades goes deep (with pre-k childen), and it partially explains our current situation. Social engineering is real
Some humans are born with one leg, or three. That does not mean human are not bipedal animals, or that “leggedness” exists on a spectrum.
We need to come to terms with the fact that we are physical, biological beings, and some of us are born different than others. Sometimes this difference is damaging or even tragic, and instead of denying difference in the guise of faux-compassion, we should show real compassion and discuss these things honestly.
You use my favorite example, along with monocephalic - a human born without a head is a bag of flesh, and a human with two heads is two humans. There’s no spectrum.
Excellent but for one thing; people with intersex conditions e.g. chromosomal anomalies and DSDs do not necessarily have ambiguous gentalia. For example people with Klinefleter syndrome are unambiguously male and I believe many such people will live their whole lives without knowing they have it. It is sometimes discovered when such a man is trying to father a child bc the syndrome almost always leads to infertility.
The practice of surgically altering an infant’s ambiguous genitals was promoted by John Money. This is the same guy who developed and promoted the 7-part multivariate definition of "sex", which includes conformity to gender stereotypes. He is most infamous for the John/Joan study.
Look him up. Better yet, look up the interviews with David Reimer, one of John Money's many victims.
It's true. Trans activists are one-note in their sophistry: assert knowledge authority + moral high ground, then attack the authority + morality of the dissenter.
It's true. Trans activists are one-note in their sophistry: assert knowledge authority + moral high ground, then attack the authority + morality of the dissenter.
The entire project is organized as a cult. The wizards in a cult always try to create a simulacrum of reality, and they want you to believe in it. That is, they create a false reality that kinda looks real, but it's often twisted a little bit, it's a little off in relation to actual reality. This pseudo-reality is propped up with typically false logic and a false morality. James Lindsay has articles about this on New Discourses.
For example:
False reality: "Trans women are women"
False logic: "If you identify as a woman then you are a woman"
False morality: "If you disagree then you're an evil person who wants to eradicate trans people from the face of the earth"
They cycle through this stupid trinity all the time.
"Intersex people and XXy-chromosome people are a different sex"
"Because intersex people don't match the textbook definition of male or female it must be a new sex in need of its own categori"
"How can you call that a birth defect? You must really hate intersex people. You are a bad person."
"That laptop was Russian misinformation"
"30 experts in security (that we handpicked) says so, so it must be true"
"If you don't agree then you're probably an evil Russian asset trying to destroy democracy in the US"
"Trump is an evil white supremacist, because he said they were 'fine people'"
"We know that because all the media say exactly that, and so does the clip I saw on Twitter"
"You disagree? It's probably because you're an evil white supremacist yourself"
"Covid is insanely dangerous and you must be vaccinated to avoid infecting grandma"
"Only if everyone is vaccinated can we go back to normal"
"If you don't get vaccinated it means we can't go back to normal, and you're a bad person for keeping us trapped in these lockdowns"
"Because intersex people don't match the textbook definition of male or female it must be a new sex in need of its own categor[y]"
And their own bathrooms, everywhere from gas stations to skyscrapers.
You were making a good point until you got diverted into the antivaxxer stuff. Public health is a shared responsibility and conspiracy theorizing around vaccines is bringing back childhood diseases like measles, and when unvaxxed people get those diseases as adults they are going to curse their parents for not getting them the jabs.
A great essay, indeed... as usual. So, we've both written about this a few times... you more vigorously and frequently than I .... e.g., "If Aneuploidies = Sexes, Then Two-Headed Turtles Aren’t Turtles."
https://everythingisbiology.substack.com/p/if-aneuploidies-sexes-then-two-headed
On the one hand, it's hard to believe that the misunderstanding persists. However, on the other hand, given how many people are weighing in on the debate without any fundamental understanding of biology, perhaps it's inevitable that misunderstandings will be perpetually recycled.
"On the one hand, it's hard to believe that the misunderstanding persists."
Indeed, though maybe not surprising, given that pretty much everyone -- present company excepted, of course ... 😉🙂 -- has an axe to grind and a set of unexamined assumptions, and is thereby engaged in some championship levels of "motivated reasoning".
Probably why some have argued that science and society don't really advance until the proponents of untenable theories die off.
"... without any fundamental understanding of biology ..."
Indeed. And of fundamental principles of logic, philosophy, and epistemology. Which "condemns" more than a few so-called biologists and philosophers. Like Colin and his partners in crime including Tomas Bogardus who should know better.
Sean Carroll had a decent point in an earlier debate in suggesting that the biological definitions were somewhat arbitrary, we're just the axioms of biology more or less exclusive to that "art" as I think he put it. Where he went off the rails was in refusing to consider the wider social utility of those definitions, those axioms. See my recent essay for some elaborations on those themes:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
As I've often argued, there are NO intrinsic meanings to the words "male" and "female", but some meanings, some definitions are more useful than others. A point that many, Colin in particular, are rather "obstinate" in refusing to consider.
As per usual, I agree with you. Interestingly — forgive me for being so candid — I was thinking about both the similarities and differences in our points of view. So, I looked at your bio and found to my pleasant surprise that you are an electrical engineer with an admiration for Norbert Wiener and cybernetics. Correct? In my other (research) life, I do electronics and programming but not, of course, at the level that you do. So, we have that in common. Further, Wiener worked with one of my heroes in physiology, Walter Cannon. Once I knew that you are an engineer and fan of cybernetics, and I a biologist in the tradition of Walter Cannon, I understood why we see the problems — the solutions to which we basically agree — from understandably slightly different perspectives. In any event, now I better understand the framework from which you are working. And, I did read that essay to which you refer. It was excellent. I think the only thing on which we disagree is the "no gametes equals no sex" definition. Do I understand you correctly on that one?
Thanks Frederick.
Though not actually an engineer, just an electronics technologist (retired) -- a two year diploma in the field, sort of like an associate degree in the US.
But quite agree about the connection between cybernetics and biology and psychology -- seem to recollect the latter two fields were "early adopters", if not significant contributors, to the first.
"... only thing on which we disagree is the 'no gametes equals no sex' definition. Do I understand you correctly on that one?"
Basically correct, although, as I've agued -- in exhaustive if not exhausting detail ... 🙂 -- there is a great deal of justification for those biological definitions. Why I'm a bit "depressed" that Colin in particular is so "reluctant" to consider how his non/functional definitions lead to risible contradictions when applied to other species, sequential hermaphrodites in particular.
Colin is an internationally recognized authority. You are a pest.
"Male and female are not superficial, arbitrary labels but all-important facts that stand by themselves."
Think you may wish to read up on a fairly basic but rather profound and far-reaching philosophical principle and dichotomy, that being between the map and territory:
"The map–territory relation is the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation
You're quite correct that the words "male" & "female" are just labels, but by the biological definitions they're typically attached to those with functional gonads that produce either small or large gametes, respectively. In terms of the map-territory dichotomy, those words are the "representations", the symbols for particular "objects" -- i.e., those who produce small & large gametes. The latter have, of course, been around for a billion years or so, while the labels, the symbols, and their connection to the "objects" in question are quite recent and generally somewhat arbitrary.
To underline the latter, consider the use of those labels, the symbols "male" & "female" to denote plumbing and electrical connectors that have convex and concave mating surfaces, respectively:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
Same labels, same symbols (that represent or denote objects), but very different "objects", very different "territories".
Largely why I say that there's no intrinsic meaning to those symbols. But that does not in any way deny the "brute facts" on the ground.
Very interesting history. The "sophists" and their value of persuasion over truth is oddly relevant. The parallels are strong with today's trans activists and their moral certainty, their willingness to deceive in order to "save trans lives". Sadly their methods, their "impact" appears to be confusion and unnecessary medicalization of even children. These methods could conceivably lead to more suicide as medicalized people learn they never had gender dysphoria, they were deceived and were collateral damage of a political cause.
This is really useful. There’s no question in my mind that confused individuals are being used. It’s so heavily promoted. Is it a wedge issue that will pry the young away from solid ground and into shock troops for the powerful? Are there any kids able to resist or is it so pervasive they have to pledge allegiance or else? Surely some see that tolerance weaponized is not tolerance at all? And that they are being manipulated from above? FFS corporations are all over this. That alone should make it sus to kids.
We must stand for science and reality! This is terrible manipulation.
"Intersex" is not an identity
Don't self-diagnose DSDs
Congenital mutation
Has binary derivation
"Intersex" is not an identity
Ovotesticular hermaphrodism is, if I'm not mistaken, the rarest form of hermaphrodism, with about 500 cases worldwide since 1990. Some sources giave a figure quadruple that, but it is nowhere near common enough to challenge any definitions of sex and "gender," a word that has been mangled into uselessness since 2009.
These unfortunates have at least one of each of the two types of gonad, or at least some tissue thereof; I'm not sure if the production of gametes is part of the definition, or if any of them produce spermatozoa or ova.
My understanding is that no human being has ever been observed with two complete sets of working genitals.
This is incredibly useful, thanks.
The thing that really frosts my cookies about all this self-identification stuff is that belief in non-binary sex is not in ANY WAY necessary to support equal rights for everyone. I don't buy that Genderbread Person nonsense, not for an instant, and yet I think trans people should be able to hold jobs and get housing and vote and adopt kids and everything else. We as a society can decide that even though science tells us Rachel Levine is not a biological woman, we're OK if in most ways she lives like one.** To paraphrase the old saying, when crafting policy, science gets a vote, not a veto.
(**Yes, the issue of access to single-sex spaces is tricky, which is why I said "most.")
Intersex conditions are developmental defects; to use them as arguments for definitions of the sexes themselves is comically desperate.
Awaiting a child’s choice of “gender identity” is to dignify that foolish concept undeservedly. Leaving a child in a deformed state in obeisance to a fad is cruel.
Just another extension of that "sex assigned at birth" nuttery, as if kids who believe in Santa are capable of giving informed consent to hormones and surgery.
The danger of this cult cannot be overstated.
Aside: I notice that this column is some months old, I'm curious why it appeared in my email as if new.
I’d change the wording from “intersex” to “ambiguous genitals”. The phrase intersex implies a continuum, but of course there isn’t, and there’s no need to create a new word. It also somehow feels like a part of the CIA devoted to blackmailing world leaders with highly paid prostitutes in order to foment unrest in 3rd world counties.
But it also includes androgen insensitivity syndrome, in which biological males present as phenotypical females and often don't learn the truth until the time for menstruation arrives, and they don't do it.
Their genitals are not ambiguous. They present as female.
Excellent analysis! Oh, the stories I could tell you about the social experiments that have been happening on college campuses for the last couple of decades goes deep (with pre-k childen), and it partially explains our current situation. Social engineering is real
Some humans are born with one leg, or three. That does not mean human are not bipedal animals, or that “leggedness” exists on a spectrum.
We need to come to terms with the fact that we are physical, biological beings, and some of us are born different than others. Sometimes this difference is damaging or even tragic, and instead of denying difference in the guise of faux-compassion, we should show real compassion and discuss these things honestly.
You use my favorite example, along with monocephalic - a human born without a head is a bag of flesh, and a human with two heads is two humans. There’s no spectrum.
Excellent but for one thing; people with intersex conditions e.g. chromosomal anomalies and DSDs do not necessarily have ambiguous gentalia. For example people with Klinefleter syndrome are unambiguously male and I believe many such people will live their whole lives without knowing they have it. It is sometimes discovered when such a man is trying to father a child bc the syndrome almost always leads to infertility.
The practice of surgically altering an infant’s ambiguous genitals was promoted by John Money. This is the same guy who developed and promoted the 7-part multivariate definition of "sex", which includes conformity to gender stereotypes. He is most infamous for the John/Joan study.
Look him up. Better yet, look up the interviews with David Reimer, one of John Money's many victims.
Poignant and useful. Thank you.
It's true. Trans activists are one-note in their sophistry: assert knowledge authority + moral high ground, then attack the authority + morality of the dissenter.
Never engage the facts.
Poignant and useful. Thank you.
It's true. Trans activists are one-note in their sophistry: assert knowledge authority + moral high ground, then attack the authority + morality of the dissenter.
Never engage the facts.
It's absurd when exposed....
Intersex athletes still have either male or female DNA, whatever their physical appearance.
The entire project is organized as a cult. The wizards in a cult always try to create a simulacrum of reality, and they want you to believe in it. That is, they create a false reality that kinda looks real, but it's often twisted a little bit, it's a little off in relation to actual reality. This pseudo-reality is propped up with typically false logic and a false morality. James Lindsay has articles about this on New Discourses.
For example:
False reality: "Trans women are women"
False logic: "If you identify as a woman then you are a woman"
False morality: "If you disagree then you're an evil person who wants to eradicate trans people from the face of the earth"
They cycle through this stupid trinity all the time.
"Intersex people and XXy-chromosome people are a different sex"
"Because intersex people don't match the textbook definition of male or female it must be a new sex in need of its own categori"
"How can you call that a birth defect? You must really hate intersex people. You are a bad person."
"That laptop was Russian misinformation"
"30 experts in security (that we handpicked) says so, so it must be true"
"If you don't agree then you're probably an evil Russian asset trying to destroy democracy in the US"
"Trump is an evil white supremacist, because he said they were 'fine people'"
"We know that because all the media say exactly that, and so does the clip I saw on Twitter"
"You disagree? It's probably because you're an evil white supremacist yourself"
"Covid is insanely dangerous and you must be vaccinated to avoid infecting grandma"
"Only if everyone is vaccinated can we go back to normal"
"If you don't get vaccinated it means we can't go back to normal, and you're a bad person for keeping us trapped in these lockdowns"
and on and on it goes ...
"Because intersex people don't match the textbook definition of male or female it must be a new sex in need of its own categor[y]"
And their own bathrooms, everywhere from gas stations to skyscrapers.
You were making a good point until you got diverted into the antivaxxer stuff. Public health is a shared responsibility and conspiracy theorizing around vaccines is bringing back childhood diseases like measles, and when unvaxxed people get those diseases as adults they are going to curse their parents for not getting them the jabs.