Philosopher of science and co-author of Genetics & Philosophy Paul Griffiths does so, and quite explicitly -- several times in several documents:
"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 …
Philosopher of science and co-author of Genetics & Philosophy Paul Griffiths does so, and quite explicitly -- several times in several documents:
"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: to make eggs or to make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can’t do either."
And in a brief email conversation I had with him he said:
"It is, indeed, all about the various different things we call ‘definitions’ and the roles of these various things in science and in practical life. That’s such a complex topic that it is not surprising that so many people – philosophers included – make such a mess of it. ... I attach a much longer academic piece that I am trying to get published. It defends the view that the primary things that have biological sexes are life-history stages, and that much of the confusion comes from taking sexes to attach to entire organisms (e.g. from conception to death). ...."
The abstract of that "academic piece" underlines that "life-history" comment:
"Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes -- one or more times during their lives."
🙄 What a joke, what an intellectual fraud you are.
For one thing, it's not a matter of belief but of the principles entailed by the "intensional" definitions stipulated in the MHR article, and the logical consequences of them. Principles which you're too intellectually dishonest to even read about, much less address.
And for another thing, Griffiths is in fact a professor of philosophy at the university of Sydney, and presumably tenured:
What an intellectual fraud you are -- being charitable.
Do let me, do let everyone in the bleachers know of any definition for "teenager" that explicitly says that those 20 and over don't qualify. That IS the nature of "necessary and sufficient conditions" ... 🙄. You might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to read up on the concept.
As for your rather "hypocritical" -- being charitable -- comment on "hiding behind others' credentials", you refer to others who supposedly also "think" my arguments are "absurd" while never naming them, much less providing their credentials. What a joke you are.
Philosopher of science and co-author of Genetics & Philosophy Paul Griffiths does so, and quite explicitly -- several times in several documents:
"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: to make eggs or to make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can’t do either."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
And in a brief email conversation I had with him he said:
"It is, indeed, all about the various different things we call ‘definitions’ and the roles of these various things in science and in practical life. That’s such a complex topic that it is not surprising that so many people – philosophers included – make such a mess of it. ... I attach a much longer academic piece that I am trying to get published. It defends the view that the primary things that have biological sexes are life-history stages, and that much of the confusion comes from taking sexes to attach to entire organisms (e.g. from conception to death). ...."
The abstract of that "academic piece" underlines that "life-history" comment:
"Sexes are regions of phenotypic space which implement those gametic reproductive strategies. Individual organisms pass in and out of these regions – sexes -- one or more times during their lives."
🙄 What a joke, what an intellectual fraud you are.
For one thing, it's not a matter of belief but of the principles entailed by the "intensional" definitions stipulated in the MHR article, and the logical consequences of them. Principles which you're too intellectually dishonest to even read about, much less address.
And for another thing, Griffiths is in fact a professor of philosophy at the university of Sydney, and presumably tenured:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Griffiths
I'll be sure to ask him that in my next email to him and let you know ...
What an intellectual fraud you are -- being charitable.
Do let me, do let everyone in the bleachers know of any definition for "teenager" that explicitly says that those 20 and over don't qualify. That IS the nature of "necessary and sufficient conditions" ... 🙄. You might try getting your head out of your arse long enough to read up on the concept.
As for your rather "hypocritical" -- being charitable -- comment on "hiding behind others' credentials", you refer to others who supposedly also "think" my arguments are "absurd" while never naming them, much less providing their credentials. What a joke you are.
> "I make my own arguments."
🙄 AKA, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind (?) is made up" ... 🙄