This makes me SOOOO ANGRY! Why should we have to expend all this effort for something that has been blatantly obvious for eons. The amount of energy wasted on this idiotic trans ideology to try to penetrate the lies that have eviscerated scientific fact and in the process destroyed our families, our communities and our entire culture, is incalculable. Why don't the TRANS activists have to prove their position? Don't tell me, I already know. They don't have to because their position is defended by billions of dollars worth of propaganda and censorship. It's infuriating and utterly depressing the amount of time invested in convincing people that 2+2=4.
Thanks for this! I appreciate every inherited trait I have from my parents and thoroughly ground my worldview as a female one. In my latest movement video at Ute Heggen YT channel, I introduce the 5 minute clip with a plug for this substack and urge my viewers to become paid subscribers for exactly this valuable content. Every word, into random and chosen ears, counts.
Still offering $1 million for the third human gamete and an explanation of its role in human reproduction in the form of a body of scientific medical literature
History is always interesting. But what about the future?
We are a technologically advanced species and biological reproduction is, frankly, a bit old-fashioned. It is possible, some would probably say likely, that we will experience a revolution in genetic engineering within a generation or two. The sexual method of reproduction would then give way to cloned reproduction with tailor-made DNA from a laboratory.
Fairly decent article, set of citations, and summation of the concept of, and definitions for the sexes. And it's nice to see that the definitions from Parker's and Lehtonen's Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR] journal article are front and center, i.e.:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
However, I wonder whether you, and all those tweeting links to that MHR article have taken a close look at the definitions in that Glossary, and have given any thought at all to the logical implications of them. To me, and to philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths (see below), those definitions stipulate what are called "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership; those definitions are what are called stipulative and intensional definitions:
"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."
"Sex is defined by potential gamete production: If your body developed towards the production of small gametes, you're a male, and if your body developed towards the production of large gametes, you're a female."
But there's absolutely diddly-squat there in the definitions of Parker & Lehtonen about "potential gamete production"; they're all about ACTUAL gamete production . "produces gametes" is present tense indefinite; it is the property that an entity MUST have to qualify as a referent of the terms "male" and "female". Ergo, if organisms can't produce either type of gamete then they are, ipso facto, sexless.
And Griffiths' Aeon article underlines the same necessity for FUNCTIONAL gonads to qualify all organisms, of all anisogamous species, as male or female:
"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]. [my editorializing ...]"
By the same definitions that you (Zach) are, otherwise credibly, championing, "male" and "female" are not exhaustive categories. A large percentage of many species, including the human one, are simply sexless, are neither male nor female.
Rather disconcerting to see the rather desperate efforts by various so-called biologists and philosophers to peddle the view that everyone has to have a sex, that everyone is either male or female -- no exceptions, much less some third of the human species at any one time. But all of those "usual suspects" are thereby engaged in the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable." Lysenkoism writ large:
This makes me SOOOO ANGRY! Why should we have to expend all this effort for something that has been blatantly obvious for eons. The amount of energy wasted on this idiotic trans ideology to try to penetrate the lies that have eviscerated scientific fact and in the process destroyed our families, our communities and our entire culture, is incalculable. Why don't the TRANS activists have to prove their position? Don't tell me, I already know. They don't have to because their position is defended by billions of dollars worth of propaganda and censorship. It's infuriating and utterly depressing the amount of time invested in convincing people that 2+2=4.
Thanks for this! I appreciate every inherited trait I have from my parents and thoroughly ground my worldview as a female one. In my latest movement video at Ute Heggen YT channel, I introduce the 5 minute clip with a plug for this substack and urge my viewers to become paid subscribers for exactly this valuable content. Every word, into random and chosen ears, counts.
So glad to see Zach on Reality's Last Stand! Wonderful!
It's a shame that this level of knowledge needs to now be widely known to counter "misinformation" but I will share. Much appreciated!
I'm stealing this pic is it ok?
Thank you so much for the clarity of your article, Zach
Well written, thank you
Still offering $1 million for the third human gamete and an explanation of its role in human reproduction in the form of a body of scientific medical literature
No takers so far
Just to play Devil's Advocate, is there any merit to the suggestion that sex genotypes are a binary, but sex phenotypes are a spectrum?
History is always interesting. But what about the future?
We are a technologically advanced species and biological reproduction is, frankly, a bit old-fashioned. It is possible, some would probably say likely, that we will experience a revolution in genetic engineering within a generation or two. The sexual method of reproduction would then give way to cloned reproduction with tailor-made DNA from a laboratory.
What would this do to our two sexes?
Fairly decent article, set of citations, and summation of the concept of, and definitions for the sexes. And it's nice to see that the definitions from Parker's and Lehtonen's Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR] journal article are front and center, i.e.:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
An article which I see that you (Zach) have also been front and center in championing on Twitter -- a fairly popular one in fact:
https://nitter.it/zaelefty/status/1459926052009095169#m
https://oxfordjournals.altmetric.com/details/2802153/twitter
However, I wonder whether you, and all those tweeting links to that MHR article have taken a close look at the definitions in that Glossary, and have given any thought at all to the logical implications of them. To me, and to philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths (see below), those definitions stipulate what are called "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership; those definitions are what are called stipulative and intensional definitions:
"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
But you (Zach) elsewhere claim that:
"Sex is defined by potential gamete production: If your body developed towards the production of small gametes, you're a male, and if your body developed towards the production of large gametes, you're a female."
https://nitter.it/zaelefty/status/1257430799915286528#m
But there's absolutely diddly-squat there in the definitions of Parker & Lehtonen about "potential gamete production"; they're all about ACTUAL gamete production . "produces gametes" is present tense indefinite; it is the property that an entity MUST have to qualify as a referent of the terms "male" and "female". Ergo, if organisms can't produce either type of gamete then they are, ipso facto, sexless.
And Griffiths' Aeon article underlines the same necessity for FUNCTIONAL gonads to qualify all organisms, of all anisogamous species, as male or female:
"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]. [my editorializing ...]"
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
By the same definitions that you (Zach) are, otherwise credibly, championing, "male" and "female" are not exhaustive categories. A large percentage of many species, including the human one, are simply sexless, are neither male nor female.
Rather disconcerting to see the rather desperate efforts by various so-called biologists and philosophers to peddle the view that everyone has to have a sex, that everyone is either male or female -- no exceptions, much less some third of the human species at any one time. But all of those "usual suspects" are thereby engaged in the "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, religiously or socially desirable." Lysenkoism writ large:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Classy ...