Colin, I just want to thank you for your clear and helpful writing in this area, which is sorely lacking among the proponents of the sex-as-a-spectrum bunch.
I find it shocking that anyone can suggest that acknowledging these biological facts is in any way erasing feminine males, butch lesbians, or any other diverse behaviour group. One wonders if they really have managed to convince themselves of the veracity of their statements -- I have to assume they have. It's all very Orwellian.
Again, thank you for your contribution to sharing your knowledge. I have learned a lot of great biology as a result of reading your material.
As such, I expect you have some handle on "joint probability distributions" which typically use heights as an explanatory trait -- an example of which is a pair for "agreeableness vs sex" which I'd uploaded to Wikipedia before getting "defenestrated" there for objecting to their article which had claimed that Olympian and transwoman Laurel Hubbard had "transitioned to female 🙄":
But, as you apparently realize, IF some people -- AKA, scientific illiterates -- insist on mashing all of those traits that CORRELATE with sex into the DEFINITION for sex -- as "Scientific" American and Agustín Fuentes seem to argue in favour of -- then, of course it becomes impossible to ask how those traits do in fact correlate with sex since, by definition, that is like asking, in effect, how sex correlates with sex: bunch of flaming idiots there:
In addition to which, it is likewise impossible to ask how many people in a given sex have traits not typical of their sex or to make any social policy on the basis of such information. So profoundly antiscientific that one is simply gobsmacked that "Scientific" American and a "professor of anthropology at Princeton University" could peddle such schlock.
You might try getting your head out of your arse and actually try looking at the source of that particular graph ...
That some articles in Wikipedia are "questionable" most definitely does not mean all of them are likewise. You could also try reading this essay which argued that Wikipedia is about as reliable as Britannica, the "gold standard":
The really tiny, eccentric, vocal activist minority have influenced the most powerful institutions - media, government and corporations - and because THEY have adopted the woke agenda, including this hyper-focus on all things sexual and the idea that people can create their own sexual identities on a whim and DEMAND that EVERYONE else goes along with their fantasies, that our rights, lives and liberties are under threat. The harms this destructive narrative has done to teenagers is already massive, thank goodness most European nations have stopped it - but in the US, the insanity is still widespread. Worst of all, I cannot but suspect that somewhere there are Neo-Marxists behind the scenes somewhere, because this is the kind of societal disruption they love to stoke. The docile majority needs to wake up before we find ourselves in a totalitarian state.
I doubt that this is a neo Marxist push. I do think that the medical industrial complex and the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in this. They are making millions of these confused kids and they will continue to do so as the kids need lifelong medication to keep their new gender!
I consider the gender ideology to be one of the most dangerous ideologies in recent history. It needs to be rooted out. Unfortunately, the left has bowed down to it hook ,line and sinker. People like Kara Dansky , a liberal, can speak about this only on conservative media. The few people who are liberal are afraid to speak out about this, because they will loose all of their friends. And this is a true mark of ann authoritarian ideology.
It is up to conservatives to do something to stop this manic cult.
Yes, truth is being shunted out of the way in a truly Orwellian fashion! This trans ideology is against all reason and is taking over in a frightening manner. How to stop it is daunting.
What is really troubling is that former respected scientific magazines are printing these lies.Why?That governments are bending down to this cult! How did this totally whacky ideology take hold?
If you were to post this on Facebook , you would immediately be banned!
And for that reason..censorship ,cutting off any debate, many people are ignorant of what is happening!
Snapping out of it is not a snap! We need to confront it…but how?
All of that shows the authoritarian nature of this cult! Women who just want to speak of their rights are shouted down by trans “activists “ who act more like terrorists! This is every bit as bad as some right wing ProudBoys ! The “ activists “hide behind black face masks, because they are cowardly! Trans activists are treated with kid gloves by the police.Why?
Dr. Ray Blanchard, the top guru of 3 decades plus, "sexologist" (with the 3 others belonging to the 4 Horsemen of the Trans-Pocalypse, James Cantor, J Michael Bailey and Kenneth Zucker) created the 2 years of cross-dressing "Blanchard Protocols" (immediately violated, compressed like an accordion by surgeons and therapists alike, eg, in my then-husband's case in 1995, to one year) for the official "transsexual diagnosis."
The purpose of the "transsexual diagnosis" from a "sexologist" was to convince a surgeon to remove, in most cases, the testicles and penis of a male ideating a "disruptive" female persona. The surgeon then attempted to create a tunnel into the middle of the pelvis, out of the inverted penis and/or intestinal material, which was supposed to function as the female vagina. The surgeon then wrote a letter, after finishing with breast implants. (I'm in possession of my husband's, for his name change)
The "Let me sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" sexologist promises, despite the fact that women's vulva, clitoris and vaginal tissue have many more, and specialized, nerve endings than the male material used to visually mimic a woman's body. Each cell of the male organs used to "repurpose" as something appearing female, contains xy chromosomes, and he, the post-op individual, will never actually have the female sexual response in his desired sex encounters with men seeking penetrative sexual encounters with women. I apologize for the clinical descriptions here, but I am so tired of this feminine hesitation to tell it like it is.
Further, in 2002, Dr. Ray Blanchard said, "It's too disruptive to acknowledge that you wish your penis was part of your wife's body and not yours. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that this is a sexual compulsion." This was published in The Atlantic Monthly, an American periodical, in 2002, a study by author Amy Bloom, of couples on a cruise where the men are cross-dressing. The wives are not portrayed as acquiescing to this charade. These women simply did not have agency to leave. These men, in general, based on my data, now approaching data sets from "trans studies" with small subject numbers, reveals that these cross-dressing men employ prostitutes for the fetish exploration and are not monogamous. Those seeking to contribute from this segment of women's experience, contact form at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
Thanks, though I wonder how much good it will do to complain to them.
Because the concluding paragraph -- not to put too fine a point on it - stinks of pretentious and quite unscientific twaddle. To wit:
"... efforts to represent human sex as binary based solely on what gametes one produces are not about biology but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society."
SA & the "author" might just as well argue that putting people into the "binary" of "teenager" and "not-a-teenager" is likewise "trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society". Though one might reasonably argue that people, in general, really don't qualify as "human" until at least about 30, if then ...
But rather typical of too many on the Left, particularly among TRAs and their ilk, to try turning category membership into identities, to insist that "identifying as X" trumps actually "being X".
Apropos of which, you in particular might have some interest in a comment of mine in another RLS post about philosopher Tomas Bogardus' cogent observation about that dichotomy:
TB: "... and [a] clearer view of why the Trans Inclusion Problem cannot, in fact, be solved. That’s primarily because, no matter what it means to be a woman, it’s one thing to be a woman, and another thing to identify as a woman."
Though it's a bit of a murky topic as to exactly what we mean by "identify as ...." On which MacMillan Dictionary provides some useful illumination:
MD: "(identify as someone/something): to say that you belong to a particular group or category; to describe yourself as belonging to that group or category"
Relative to Bogardus' point, I'm not sure that he understood that it is more or less reasonable, if a bit pretentious, to say that one "identifies as X" -- but ONLY if one meets the criteria to qualify as a member of the indicated category. Absent having paid those "membership dues" everyone else is entitled to say such individuals are either trying to perpetrate a fraud or are seriously deluded if not demented.
And in the case of the sexes, by standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
Not "suggesting" -- flat-out saying that those with no or non-functioning gonads are, ipso facto, sexless.
The same way that I -- and presumably you as well -- would flat-out say that people who have had their 20th birthdays no longer qualify as teenagers.
"teenager" and "female" and "male" are JUST names for categories and members of them. As such, one must be able to "pay the membership dues" to be able to "wear the colours".
You and too many others look to be trying to turn the sexes into "immutable 🙄" identities instead of recognizing them as labels that denote the presence of transitory reproductive abilities.
You might have some interest in my further elaborations on that theme here:
🙄 Maybe you "think" -- like too many TRAs -- that I'm trying to "invalidate her existence", to "dehumanize her", to deny her her "identity", to oblige her to "defend her very existence"? Like the TRA nutjobs at Laurier University?
"We need to acknowledge that debates that invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us based on gender are both a form of transphobia and gendered violence. There is no neutral way to demand that someone defend their very existence and their right to a safe school and work environment."
Rather flaming clueless that categories -- which is what "male" and "female" are -- are just abstractions with objective requirements for category membership. You think a teenager winks out of existence when they have their 20th birthday? 🙄 Same thing with "male" & "female".
🙄 What an idiot you are -- and that's probably being unfair to actual idiots all across the land
"currently functioning gonads" is implicit in "produces [present tense indefinite] gametes". Unless you, perchance, know of some way of producing gametes other than with functional gonads? 🤔🙄
"Fuentes appears to have learned little-to-nothing from that exchange, because yesterday he published an article in Scientific American titled “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary.”
Pretty insane that an article like this is being published in a magazine called "Scientific American"!
It is difficult not to conclude that the insistence of Fuentes and SA on conflating these concepts is because the ideology demands it. That is Soviet Onion science.
New here; and I’m interested in this collective notion of “masculinity” and “femininity” as perceived in terms of archetypal stereotypes. Prescribed cultural roles notwithstanding; let’s not forget that stereotypes are typically a result of selective breeding, and marked dimorphism between males and females is typically a result of polygamous mating strategies. Stereotypes don’t happen on their own… they are shaped! Since modern humans have adopted a more egalitarian mating strategy than our very distant ancestors might have, and are more lax about mate selection (we’re not choosing *only* the *most* stereotypically masculine or feminine individuals); then we can — and should — fully expect a wide range of varying traits among men and women.
Certain physical characteristics, on the other hand, remain more dimorphic… which I assume might mean that some traits such as personality are more mutable, while others are not (although we’re still rather selective - to a degree - about physical appearances…)
@Colin Wright : "[Gametes] are, however, the fundamental defining property of what it means to be male and female."
Does that mean you'd agree with the definitions for the sexes as published in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction? To wit:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
That producing sperm and ova -- present tense indefinite -- constitute the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male and female? That to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, that those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless?
Inquiring minds and all that ...
But still, a useful differentiation between "gamete types", on the one hand, and, on the other hand, "differences in size, shape, color, behavior, and other physical and behavioral characteristics between males and females of the same species" that might correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with gamete type.
You might consider that those differences correspond to or are analogous to the differences between the "essential properties" and the "accidental properties" of philosophy:
You might also consider another analogy with "independent variables (sex, gametes)" and "dependent variables (other traits that correlate with the independent variables)":
That is, maybe arguably, one of the primary benefits of DEFINING the sexes as a binary: one is able to plot sex -- the independent variable -- against the frequency of the other traits -- the dependent variable -- to acquire some understanding of how, and to what degree, sex itself might be a causative factor in the prevalence of any given trait. As in a typical "joint probability distribution" of agreeableness versus sex:
You might try getting your head out of your arse and note that Colin has already "bought" the argument -- in fact, a chief if somewhat intellectually dishonest proponent of it -- that it is the gametes that are the "defining property":
Colin: "[Gametes] are, however, the fundamental defining property of what it means to be male and female."
Though he seems "reluctant" to acknowledge that such "defining properties" generally qualify as "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership:
That is, no gametes, no sex. Diddly-squat in anything he's written about chromosomes qualifying as such which seems to be what you're betting the farm on.
But of course those MHR definitions are "mainstream biology" -- they're written in an authoritative journal by reputable biologists. In notable contradistinction to those published in the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly what anyone would call a peer-reviewed biological journal ...
"In genetics, the phenotype (from Ancient Greek φαίνω (phaínō) 'to appear, show, shine', and τύπος (túpos) 'mark, type') is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior."
To a first approximation we ARE our phenotypes -- absent any possible ethereal essence, any eternal soul that departs for parts unknown when the body, the phenotype is no longer functional. It changes all the time -- most of us have a "ten-finger phenotype"; if we cut one off then we have a "9-finger phenotype".
Similarly, if the phenotype can't produce gametes then it's not a male or female phenotype; the individuals in question are not males or females.
In addition to which, analogously speaking, no dictionary says that, for example, people who are 20 and older are not teenagers because it's not necessary; it's implicit in intensional definitions which specify "necessary and sufficient conditions". If the condition is not met then, ipso facto, the entity doesn't qualify for category membership:
"Similarly, if the phenotype can't produce gametes then it's not a male or female phenotype; the individuals in question are not males or females." I hope you realize this is absurd.
🙄 I hope you realize that your "absurd" is only your entirely unevidenced OPINION.
You might want to try reading, and thinking about, Wikipedia's article on sequential hermaphroditism. Clownfish change sex because their PHENOTYPE changes from one that, for example, produces sperm to one that produces ova. They have changed from a male phenotype to a female phenotype.
And if they produce neither type of gamete? As is the case when they're first hatched and for some time afterwards. Then they have NEITHER the male phenotype NOR the female phenotype; they have the sexLESS phenotype.
Colin, I just want to thank you for your clear and helpful writing in this area, which is sorely lacking among the proponents of the sex-as-a-spectrum bunch.
I find it shocking that anyone can suggest that acknowledging these biological facts is in any way erasing feminine males, butch lesbians, or any other diverse behaviour group. One wonders if they really have managed to convince themselves of the veracity of their statements -- I have to assume they have. It's all very Orwellian.
Again, thank you for your contribution to sharing your knowledge. I have learned a lot of great biology as a result of reading your material.
We wouldn't even recognize "feminine males" or "butch lesbians" if we couldn't recognize the sex that some of their traits depart from.
According to Jon Kay's review of your book, you seem to be a "software expert":
https://quillette.com/blog/2022/10/16/not-a-woman/
As such, I expect you have some handle on "joint probability distributions" which typically use heights as an explanatory trait -- an example of which is a pair for "agreeableness vs sex" which I'd uploaded to Wikipedia before getting "defenestrated" there for objecting to their article which had claimed that Olympian and transwoman Laurel Hubbard had "transitioned to female 🙄":
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/wikipedias-lysenkoism
But, as you apparently realize, IF some people -- AKA, scientific illiterates -- insist on mashing all of those traits that CORRELATE with sex into the DEFINITION for sex -- as "Scientific" American and Agustín Fuentes seem to argue in favour of -- then, of course it becomes impossible to ask how those traits do in fact correlate with sex since, by definition, that is like asking, in effect, how sex correlates with sex: bunch of flaming idiots there:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
In addition to which, it is likewise impossible to ask how many people in a given sex have traits not typical of their sex or to make any social policy on the basis of such information. So profoundly antiscientific that one is simply gobsmacked that "Scientific" American and a "professor of anthropology at Princeton University" could peddle such schlock.
Wikipedia is not a reliable source; even one of the original founders has embarrassingly admitted
You might try getting your head out of your arse and actually try looking at the source of that particular graph ...
That some articles in Wikipedia are "questionable" most definitely does not mean all of them are likewise. You could also try reading this essay which argued that Wikipedia is about as reliable as Britannica, the "gold standard":
https://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
Yes, it’s Orwellian! It’s also infuriating that so-called biologists have jumped on this political band wagon!
Facts are thrown out the window to please a small minority .. making those who merrily thwart reason feel ever so virtuous!
The really tiny, eccentric, vocal activist minority have influenced the most powerful institutions - media, government and corporations - and because THEY have adopted the woke agenda, including this hyper-focus on all things sexual and the idea that people can create their own sexual identities on a whim and DEMAND that EVERYONE else goes along with their fantasies, that our rights, lives and liberties are under threat. The harms this destructive narrative has done to teenagers is already massive, thank goodness most European nations have stopped it - but in the US, the insanity is still widespread. Worst of all, I cannot but suspect that somewhere there are Neo-Marxists behind the scenes somewhere, because this is the kind of societal disruption they love to stoke. The docile majority needs to wake up before we find ourselves in a totalitarian state.
I doubt that this is a neo Marxist push. I do think that the medical industrial complex and the pharmaceutical industry has a vested interest in this. They are making millions of these confused kids and they will continue to do so as the kids need lifelong medication to keep their new gender!
I consider the gender ideology to be one of the most dangerous ideologies in recent history. It needs to be rooted out. Unfortunately, the left has bowed down to it hook ,line and sinker. People like Kara Dansky , a liberal, can speak about this only on conservative media. The few people who are liberal are afraid to speak out about this, because they will loose all of their friends. And this is a true mark of ann authoritarian ideology.
It is up to conservatives to do something to stop this manic cult.
Yes, truth is being shunted out of the way in a truly Orwellian fashion! This trans ideology is against all reason and is taking over in a frightening manner. How to stop it is daunting.
What is really troubling is that former respected scientific magazines are printing these lies.Why?That governments are bending down to this cult! How did this totally whacky ideology take hold?
If you were to post this on Facebook , you would immediately be banned!
And for that reason..censorship ,cutting off any debate, many people are ignorant of what is happening!
Snapping out of it is not a snap! We need to confront it…but how?
All of that shows the authoritarian nature of this cult! Women who just want to speak of their rights are shouted down by trans “activists “ who act more like terrorists! This is every bit as bad as some right wing ProudBoys ! The “ activists “hide behind black face masks, because they are cowardly! Trans activists are treated with kid gloves by the police.Why?
I really appreciate your clear writing--it makes it so easy to quote.
Thank you for the kind words!
Dr. Ray Blanchard, the top guru of 3 decades plus, "sexologist" (with the 3 others belonging to the 4 Horsemen of the Trans-Pocalypse, James Cantor, J Michael Bailey and Kenneth Zucker) created the 2 years of cross-dressing "Blanchard Protocols" (immediately violated, compressed like an accordion by surgeons and therapists alike, eg, in my then-husband's case in 1995, to one year) for the official "transsexual diagnosis."
The purpose of the "transsexual diagnosis" from a "sexologist" was to convince a surgeon to remove, in most cases, the testicles and penis of a male ideating a "disruptive" female persona. The surgeon then attempted to create a tunnel into the middle of the pelvis, out of the inverted penis and/or intestinal material, which was supposed to function as the female vagina. The surgeon then wrote a letter, after finishing with breast implants. (I'm in possession of my husband's, for his name change)
The "Let me sell you the Brooklyn Bridge" sexologist promises, despite the fact that women's vulva, clitoris and vaginal tissue have many more, and specialized, nerve endings than the male material used to visually mimic a woman's body. Each cell of the male organs used to "repurpose" as something appearing female, contains xy chromosomes, and he, the post-op individual, will never actually have the female sexual response in his desired sex encounters with men seeking penetrative sexual encounters with women. I apologize for the clinical descriptions here, but I am so tired of this feminine hesitation to tell it like it is.
Further, in 2002, Dr. Ray Blanchard said, "It's too disruptive to acknowledge that you wish your penis was part of your wife's body and not yours. It's too disruptive to acknowledge that this is a sexual compulsion." This was published in The Atlantic Monthly, an American periodical, in 2002, a study by author Amy Bloom, of couples on a cruise where the men are cross-dressing. The wives are not portrayed as acquiescing to this charade. These women simply did not have agency to leave. These men, in general, based on my data, now approaching data sets from "trans studies" with small subject numbers, reveals that these cross-dressing men employ prostitutes for the fetish exploration and are not monogamous. Those seeking to contribute from this segment of women's experience, contact form at uteheggengrasswidow.wordpress.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_Htt42Xeo&t=15s
The Atlantic Monthly article is scrubbed from their archive, but is available at childrenoftransitioners.org
FYI, letters to the editor of Scientific American can be submitted here: editors@sciam.com
Thanks, though I wonder how much good it will do to complain to them.
Because the concluding paragraph -- not to put too fine a point on it - stinks of pretentious and quite unscientific twaddle. To wit:
"... efforts to represent human sex as binary based solely on what gametes one produces are not about biology but are about trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society."
SA & the "author" might just as well argue that putting people into the "binary" of "teenager" and "not-a-teenager" is likewise "trying to restrict who counts as a full human in society". Though one might reasonably argue that people, in general, really don't qualify as "human" until at least about 30, if then ...
But rather typical of too many on the Left, particularly among TRAs and their ilk, to try turning category membership into identities, to insist that "identifying as X" trumps actually "being X".
Apropos of which, you in particular might have some interest in a comment of mine in another RLS post about philosopher Tomas Bogardus' cogent observation about that dichotomy:
TB: "... and [a] clearer view of why the Trans Inclusion Problem cannot, in fact, be solved. That’s primarily because, no matter what it means to be a woman, it’s one thing to be a woman, and another thing to identify as a woman."
https://philarchive.org/rec/BOGWTT
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/talk-debunking-myths-about-the-biology/comment/15564382
Though it's a bit of a murky topic as to exactly what we mean by "identify as ...." On which MacMillan Dictionary provides some useful illumination:
MD: "(identify as someone/something): to say that you belong to a particular group or category; to describe yourself as belonging to that group or category"
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/identify-as
Relative to Bogardus' point, I'm not sure that he understood that it is more or less reasonable, if a bit pretentious, to say that one "identifies as X" -- but ONLY if one meets the criteria to qualify as a member of the indicated category. Absent having paid those "membership dues" everyone else is entitled to say such individuals are either trying to perpetrate a fraud or are seriously deluded if not demented.
And in the case of the sexes, by standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. See the Glossary of this article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction:
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
By which NO transwoman will EVER qualify as a female -- as much as many of whom desperately wish otherwise.
I’ve given birth but no longer have functioning gonads. Is Steersman suggesting I am no longer female?
Not "suggesting" -- flat-out saying that those with no or non-functioning gonads are, ipso facto, sexless.
The same way that I -- and presumably you as well -- would flat-out say that people who have had their 20th birthdays no longer qualify as teenagers.
"teenager" and "female" and "male" are JUST names for categories and members of them. As such, one must be able to "pay the membership dues" to be able to "wear the colours".
You and too many others look to be trying to turn the sexes into "immutable 🙄" identities instead of recognizing them as labels that denote the presence of transitory reproductive abilities.
You might have some interest in my further elaborations on that theme here:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/what-is-a-woman
🙄 Maybe you "think" -- like too many TRAs -- that I'm trying to "invalidate her existence", to "dehumanize her", to deny her her "identity", to oblige her to "defend her very existence"? Like the TRA nutjobs at Laurier University?
"We need to acknowledge that debates that invalidate the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us based on gender are both a form of transphobia and gendered violence. There is no neutral way to demand that someone defend their very existence and their right to a safe school and work environment."
https://archive.ph/rKKcl
http://quillette.com/2017/12/13/words-lose-meaning-wilfrid-laurier-university/
Rather flaming clueless that categories -- which is what "male" and "female" are -- are just abstractions with objective requirements for category membership. You think a teenager winks out of existence when they have their 20th birthday? 🙄 Same thing with "male" & "female".
🙄 What an idiot you are -- and that's probably being unfair to actual idiots all across the land
"currently functioning gonads" is implicit in "produces [present tense indefinite] gametes". Unless you, perchance, know of some way of producing gametes other than with functional gonads? 🤔🙄
🙄
"Fuentes appears to have learned little-to-nothing from that exchange, because yesterday he published an article in Scientific American titled “Here’s Why Human Sex Is Not Binary.”
Pretty insane that an article like this is being published in a magazine called "Scientific American"!
yep I noticed it too got swept up in the woke revolution. A shame.
It is difficult not to conclude that the insistence of Fuentes and SA on conflating these concepts is because the ideology demands it. That is Soviet Onion science.
Yes , absolutely! Not science but propaganda! It’s been done by authoritarians throughout history!
New here; and I’m interested in this collective notion of “masculinity” and “femininity” as perceived in terms of archetypal stereotypes. Prescribed cultural roles notwithstanding; let’s not forget that stereotypes are typically a result of selective breeding, and marked dimorphism between males and females is typically a result of polygamous mating strategies. Stereotypes don’t happen on their own… they are shaped! Since modern humans have adopted a more egalitarian mating strategy than our very distant ancestors might have, and are more lax about mate selection (we’re not choosing *only* the *most* stereotypically masculine or feminine individuals); then we can — and should — fully expect a wide range of varying traits among men and women.
Certain physical characteristics, on the other hand, remain more dimorphic… which I assume might mean that some traits such as personality are more mutable, while others are not (although we’re still rather selective - to a degree - about physical appearances…)
This is likely an annoying question, but:
is 'sex binary' an actual biological term?
[Duplicate to get Note link]
@Colin Wright : "[Gametes] are, however, the fundamental defining property of what it means to be male and female."
Does that mean you'd agree with the definitions for the sexes as published in the Glossary of an article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction? To wit:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
That producing sperm and ova -- present tense indefinite -- constitute the "necessary and sufficient conditions" to qualify as male and female? That to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, that those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless?
Inquiring minds and all that ...
But still, a useful differentiation between "gamete types", on the one hand, and, on the other hand, "differences in size, shape, color, behavior, and other physical and behavioral characteristics between males and females of the same species" that might correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with gamete type.
You might consider that those differences correspond to or are analogous to the differences between the "essential properties" and the "accidental properties" of philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
You might also consider another analogy with "independent variables (sex, gametes)" and "dependent variables (other traits that correlate with the independent variables)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables
That is, maybe arguably, one of the primary benefits of DEFINING the sexes as a binary: one is able to plot sex -- the independent variable -- against the frequency of the other traits -- the dependent variable -- to acquire some understanding of how, and to what degree, sex itself might be a causative factor in the prevalence of any given trait. As in a typical "joint probability distribution" of agreeableness versus sex:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
If one mashes all of those traits into the definitions for "male" and "female" then that ability is lost or seriously compromised.
You might try getting your head out of your arse and note that Colin has already "bought" the argument -- in fact, a chief if somewhat intellectually dishonest proponent of it -- that it is the gametes that are the "defining property":
Colin: "[Gametes] are, however, the fundamental defining property of what it means to be male and female."
Though he seems "reluctant" to acknowledge that such "defining properties" generally qualify as "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership:
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2012/entries/settheory-alternative/
That is, no gametes, no sex. Diddly-squat in anything he's written about chromosomes qualifying as such which seems to be what you're betting the farm on.
But of course those MHR definitions are "mainstream biology" -- they're written in an authoritative journal by reputable biologists. In notable contradistinction to those published in the letter section of the UK Times -- a decent enough newspaper but hardly what anyone would call a peer-reviewed biological journal ...
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
"Rome" wasn't built in a day; won't be torn down in one either ...
🙄 Dunning-Kruger sure is strong in you ...
"In genetics, the phenotype (from Ancient Greek φαίνω (phaínō) 'to appear, show, shine', and τύπος (túpos) 'mark, type') is the set of observable characteristics or traits of an organism. The term covers the organism's morphology (physical form and structure), its developmental processes, its biochemical and physiological properties, its behavior, and the products of behavior."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotype
To a first approximation we ARE our phenotypes -- absent any possible ethereal essence, any eternal soul that departs for parts unknown when the body, the phenotype is no longer functional. It changes all the time -- most of us have a "ten-finger phenotype"; if we cut one off then we have a "9-finger phenotype".
Similarly, if the phenotype can't produce gametes then it's not a male or female phenotype; the individuals in question are not males or females.
In addition to which, analogously speaking, no dictionary says that, for example, people who are 20 and older are not teenagers because it's not necessary; it's implicit in intensional definitions which specify "necessary and sufficient conditions". If the condition is not met then, ipso facto, the entity doesn't qualify for category membership:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
Sure is a puzzle what passes for "thinking" in your "mind" ...
"Similarly, if the phenotype can't produce gametes then it's not a male or female phenotype; the individuals in question are not males or females." I hope you realize this is absurd.
🙄 I hope you realize that your "absurd" is only your entirely unevidenced OPINION.
You might want to try reading, and thinking about, Wikipedia's article on sequential hermaphroditism. Clownfish change sex because their PHENOTYPE changes from one that, for example, produces sperm to one that produces ova. They have changed from a male phenotype to a female phenotype.
And if they produce neither type of gamete? As is the case when they're first hatched and for some time afterwards. Then they have NEITHER the male phenotype NOR the female phenotype; they have the sexLESS phenotype.
Only cultists buy the stuff you want !
You might as well deny evolution. The binary of sex stands no matter how much it is denied for political reasons!
The new buzz words “ erasing trans “. , etc. it’s bullying or wailing . You have to go along with the cult or you are a bad person!