A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[Skepdick]

If making sperm is what you do, then you are a sperm-maker.

I don't make sperm. Sperm-making is a function of my body.

Why does bodily function determine identity?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

If making sperm is what you do, then you are a sperm-maker.

I don't make sperm. Sperm-making is a function of my body.

Why does bodily function determine identity?

Define 'identity'.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

No you are simply wrong. There are children born as girls in a very literal sense and transform into boys in puberty; There are interesex, intermediate sex and hermaphrodites too.

No, I'm not wrong! The existence of various kinds of intersex conditions doesn't refute my statement, because all non-sterile human intersexuals produce either ova or spermia. No kind of intersex condition constitutes a third sex, because it doesn't involve the production of any third type of gametes other than ova or spermia. There are extremely rare cases of intersexuals with both ovarian and testicular tissue in their bodies, but none of the non-sterile ones among them are known to be genuine simultaneous hermaphrodites, because they produce either ova or sperm, and not both.

By the way, simultaneous hermaphroditism isn't the only form of it, because there is also sequential hermaphroditism, where an organism is first male and then female, or vice versa. However, sequential hermaphroditism doesn't occur in our species homo sapiens; and simultaneous hermaphroditism isn't known to occur therein either.

"A hermaphrodite is an individual that produces functional male gametes and female gametes (sex cells) during its lifetime."

(Avise, John C. Hermaphroditism: A Primer on the Biology, Ecology, and Evolution of Dual Sexuality. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. p. 1)

You are just kidding yourself, through ignorance

See what I mean? He/she/zit/zir/ has nothing. Probably nothing more than a transhausen by proxy partner.

[FlashDangerpants]

Gametes are explanatory of sexes, explanatory at a biological level anyway, they are not definitive and cannot be because otherwise untilt he discovery of the gamete by biologists we would have had no use for the words male and female. So that in itself is a perfectly good reason to shut this nonsense down right here and now.

No, it's not! That the English words "male" ("man"/boy") and "female" ("woman"/"girl"), and all the corresponding words in other languages had already existed and been used meaningfully by nonscientists before biologists defined them scientifically in terms of gametes doesn't mean that their (transhumanly applicable) scientific definition isn't now the relevant definition of sex in the current gender vs. sex debate.

But the actual reason to do so is that, either by design or through clumsiness, you are sneaking an essentialist definition into the conversation and you haven't made any argument for why essentialism is required. So I deny that move by simply offering a non essentialist definition that happens to allow for the real meaning of the terms male and female including things like motherhood and fatherhood and so on which you are excluding for absolutely no defensible reason.

Females participating in sexual reproduction become mothers, and males doing so become fathers—simple as that!

Okay, let's talk about human maleness and femaleness only. I'd like to see your non-essentialist definitions of these terms!

By the way, the gametic definition isn't quite as essentialist as you think it is, because it doesn't necessarily exclude those individuals from the sex-having ones who never actually produce any viable gametes during their lives for some reason or other, as long as they were determinately on a (somehow interrupted) developmental pathway to becoming an egg- or sperm-producer. Given this condition, the actual production of viable gametes during an individual's life isn't essential to its having a sex. For example, a boy castrated before puberty can then count as male, because he had the developmental potential to become a sperm-producer.

"Biological sex is defined as a binary variable in every sexually reproducing plant and animal species. With a few exceptions, all sexually reproducing organisms generate exactly two types of gametes that are distinguished by their difference in size: females, by definition, produce large gametes (eggs) and males, by definition, produce small and usually motile gametes (sperm). This distinct dichotomy in the size of female and male gametes is termed “anisogamy” and refers to a fundamental principle in biology.

Biological sex reflects two distinct evolutionary strategies to produce offspring: the female strategy is to produce few large gametes and the male strategy is to produce many small (and often motile) gametes. This fundamental definition is valid for all sexually reproducing organisms. Sex-associated genotypes or phenotypes (including sex chromosomes, primary and secondary sexual characteristics and sex hormones), sex roles and sexual differentiation are consequences of the biological sex. Genotypic and phenotypic features, as well as sex roles are often used as operational criteria to define sex, but since these traits differ vastly between sexually reproducing species, they only work for selected species."

(Goymann, Wolfgang, Henrik Brumm, and Peter M. Kappeler. "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles." BioEssays 45/2 (February 2023): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... .202200173)

I don't know what to make of that post, sorry. 15 minutes later you wrote another one saying that you are familiar with the debate in the philosophy of science over essentialist conceptions/definitions of natural kinds versus non-essentialist ones. But in this one here, you obviously aren't.

So I think you probably spent 15 minutes googling and then you tried to bullshit me. Is that more or less how it went?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Gametes are explanatory of sexes, explanatory at a biological level anyway, they are not definitive and cannot be because otherwise untilt he discovery of the gamete by biologists we would have had no use for the words male and female. So that in itself is a perfectly good reason to shut this nonsense down right here and now.

No, it's not! That the English words "male" ("man"/boy") and "female" ("woman"/"girl"), and all the corresponding words in other languages had already existed and been used meaningfully by nonscientists before biologists defined them scientifically in terms of gametes doesn't mean that their (transhumanly applicable) scientific definition isn't now the relevant definition of sex in the current gender vs. sex debate.

But the actual reason to do so is that, either by design or through clumsiness, you are sneaking an essentialist definition into the conversation and you haven't made any argument for why essentialism is required. So I deny that move by simply offering a non essentialist definition that happens to allow for the real meaning of the terms male and female including things like motherhood and fatherhood and so on which you are excluding for absolutely no defensible reason.

Females participating in sexual reproduction become mothers, and males doing so become fathers—simple as that!

Okay, let's talk about human maleness and femaleness only. I'd like to see your non-essentialist definitions of these terms!

By the way, the gametic definition isn't quite as essentialist as you think it is, because it doesn't necessarily exclude those individuals from the sex-having ones who never actually produce any viable gametes during their lives for some reason or other, as long as they were determinately on a (somehow interrupted) developmental pathway to becoming an egg- or sperm-producer. Given this condition, the actual production of viable gametes during an individual's life isn't essential to its having a sex. For example, a boy castrated before puberty can then count as male, because he had the developmental potential to become a sperm-producer.

"Biological sex is defined as a binary variable in every sexually reproducing plant and animal species. With a few exceptions, all sexually reproducing organisms generate exactly two types of gametes that are distinguished by their difference in size: females, by definition, produce large gametes (eggs) and males, by definition, produce small and usually motile gametes (sperm). This distinct dichotomy in the size of female and male gametes is termed “anisogamy” and refers to a fundamental principle in biology.

Biological sex reflects two distinct evolutionary strategies to produce offspring: the female strategy is to produce few large gametes and the male strategy is to produce many small (and often motile) gametes. This fundamental definition is valid for all sexually reproducing organisms. Sex-associated genotypes or phenotypes (including sex chromosomes, primary and secondary sexual characteristics and sex hormones), sex roles and sexual differentiation are consequences of the biological sex. Genotypic and phenotypic features, as well as sex roles are often used as operational criteria to define sex, but since these traits differ vastly between sexually reproducing species, they only work for selected species."

(Goymann, Wolfgang, Henrik Brumm, and Peter M. Kappeler. "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles." BioEssays 45/2 (February 2023): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... .202200173)

I don't know what to make of that post, sorry. 15 minutes later you wrote another one saying that you are familiar with the debate in the philosophy of science over essentialist conceptions/definitions of natural kinds versus non-essentialist ones. But in this one here, you obviously aren't.

So I think you probably spent 15 minutes googling and then you tried to bullshit me. Is that more or less how it went?

So you can't think for yourself then?

[Consul]

I don't make sperm. Sperm-making is a function of my body.

You are your body.

"The simplest view of what people are is that they are their bodies. That view has other attractions besides its simplicity. I feel inclined to think that this fleshy object (my body is what I refer to) isn’t something I merely currently inhabit: I feel inclined to think that it is me. This bony object (my left hand is what I refer to) – isn’t it literally part of me? Certainly we all, at least at times, feel inclined to think that we are not merely embodied, but that we just, all simply, are our bodies."

(Thomson, Judith Jarvis. "People and their Bodies." In Reading Parfit, edited by Jonathan Dancy, 202-229. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. p. 202)

[Consul]

…So I think you probably spent 15 minutes googling and then you tried to bullshit me. Is that more or less how it went?

No, not at all.

[Consul]

Define 'identity'.

In the logical sense it means non-difference, sameness; but in another sense an object's or person's identity is what (and who) it (s/he) is. For example, my (objective) sexual identity is male/man.

[FlashDangerpants]

…So I think you probably spent 15 minutes googling and then you tried to bullshit me. Is that more or less how it went?

No.

Really, ok then. Well your definition is essentialist. The thing you said makes it less so is just an imaginary application of the same essence under an idealised imaginary scenario and you should know this already and I shouldn't need to tell you.

Likewise you already know that I gave you the outline of a non essentialist definition so there's no point wondering what it would look like. I don't know why you wrote any of that stuff.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Define 'identity'.

In the logical sense it means non-difference, sameness; but in another sense an object's or person's identity is what (and who) it (s/he) is. For example, my (objective) sexual identity is male/man.

Thanks again for the mansplanation. I thought I asked someone else...

[Consul]

I don't know what to make of that post, sorry. 15 minutes later you wrote another one saying that you are familiar with the debate in the philosophy of science over essentialist conceptions/definitions of natural kinds versus non-essentialist ones. But in this one here, you obviously aren't.

Just telling you that I'm familiar with that debate doesn't give you any information about which side I'm on.

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't know what to make of that post, sorry. 15 minutes later you wrote another one saying that you are familiar with the debate in the philosophy of science over essentialist conceptions/definitions of natural kinds versus non-essentialist ones. But in this one here, you obviously aren't.

Just telling you that I'm familiar with that debate doesn't give you any information about which side I'm on.

If you are not on the essentialist side then you're fucking this up even more than I thought.

[Consul]

Really, ok then. Well your definition is essentialist. The thing you said makes it less so is just an imaginary application of the same essence under an idealised imaginary scenario and you should know this already and I shouldn't need to tell you.
Likewise you already know that I gave you the outline of a non essentialist definition so there's no point wondering what it would look like. I don't know why you wrote any of that stuff.

A definition of a concept C is essentialist if and only if it states conditions which are both necessary and sufficient for something's falling under C. (By the way, this is an essentialist definition of the concept essentialist definition.)

I concede that the conditions required for a fully adequate essentialist definition of sex in terms of gametes are very hard to come by—unless one is prepared to counterintuitively exclude all those individuals from having a sex which aren't at present in that stage of their life cycle during which they can actually contribute sperm or mature eggs to sexual reproduction, such as pre-pubescent boys/girls and post-menopausal women.

[Consul]

If you are not on the essentialist side then you're fucking this up even more than I thought.

What is obvious is that I prefer essentialist definitions. However, in cases where it is arguably impossible to define a concept essentialistically, I'm not going to try to do the impossible; but I'm not certain that the concept sex is such a case. If it turns out to be such a case, then so be it!

[Consul]

I concede that the conditions required for a fully adequate essentialist definition of sex in terms of gametes are very hard to come by—unless one is prepared to counterintuitively exclude all those individuals from having a sex which aren't at present in that stage of their life cycle during which they can actually contribute sperm or mature eggs to sexual reproduction, such as pre-pubescent boys/girls and post-menopausal women.

"Assigning sexes to pre-reproductive life-history stages involves ‘prospective narration’ – classifying the present in terms of its anticipated future. Assigning sexes to adult stages of non-reproductive castes or non-reproductive individuals is a complex matter whose biological meaning differs from case to case."

(Paul Griffiths: "What are Sexes?" Preprint, 2021.)