A blunder is a mistake ... refusing to retract a comment which you know is false is not that ... it is a form of abuse of a woman's reputation because the people who have made the false allegation do not believe in reasonable behaviour towards women as human beings
This is the same pattern that abusive men use all the time. Throw out the smear, then wait to see how much of the mud sticks. Since no one holds men to account for the lies they continuously tell about women to keep us looking inferior morally to them, this issue of the universal immorality of men to women and children never gets dealt with. As in here. Thanks for holding yourself to higher ground Graham. You have taken enormous flak but you are right and gradually I think the scales are falling from people's eyes - apart from Owen and Katie M etc.
Stella's reasoned, considered stance clearly ruffles the feathers of the trans ideology acolytes and those perpetuating institutional misogyny, perhaps she's onto something?
Neutral space, time and therapeutic support for those suffering Gender Distress, it's really not an outrageous idea, but in the short time that she has been advocating for children, families and detrans ppl to be heard, she has had to face abuse from all directions. I will be forever grateful to her, Genspect and those that support her work. I'm heartened to read this article supporting her and her work, thank you.
Well written piece. Obviously Mick Barry's an idiot. Looking for Woke points at the expense of a well known woman's reputation is an act of the most abject cowardice. Siding with the MOB.always is.Shame on him 👎
Stella focused on mental health is in a different position to others. Of course she needs to understand. She’s right, there needs to be more research. Empathy isn’t the same as sympathising. I doubt very much she will have sympathy for a paraphilia. There is a big difference!
I’m a big fan of Helen Joyce and agree the ideology needs defeating completely.
Plus I’m with Kellie Jay about giving women a platform to speak out. Kellie says she doesn’t care about Pervy men and I get that, pervs give me the creeps as well.
I respect Stella and others who are trying to understand what’s going on with these men in order to do their job properly. It isn’t a job I’d like to do but I’m glad there are people doing it.
Both those attacking Arty Morty and those attacking Stella O’Malley rely on taking things out of context. We are losing the ability to have good faith debate as a way of handling disagreement.
I was on that Space and lodged a feedback comment supporting Stella. It seemed to be the "if your not with us your against us type attack". I didn't find it in the least bit helpful or pleasant to listen to. Stella and Sarah Phillimore did a great interview with Maggie Mellon from EBSWA - highly recommended.
I'm really sorry that Stella's comments were used to smear her unfairly in this way, but I cannot take you seriously when you describe Arty Morty as being "unfairly mobbed". AM had made several dodgy statements (not to mention having a reference to a paedophilic relationship in his bio) and a lot of women wanted to talk things out like adults.
Unfortunately he threw his toys out of the pram and refused to act like a responsible adult would, and it could not have been more obvious during Lorelei’s space that Stella didn’t know what Arty had said either.
The women in this movement receive the most appalling abuse and yet when a man gets even the slightest pushback the ranks of GC men close in to protect one another. Don’t think women haven’t noticed how much more you care about criticism directed at men than women receiving rape and death threats.
I don’t believe for a second that if it had been a TRA and not your friend who had said those things you’d have written countless substack articles about it.
Women raising safeguarding concerns are not caught up in a purity spiral: we just care about integrity and safety.
I’ve been listening to Stella and Sasha’s podcast, “Gender: A Wider Lens”. They are both extremely compassionate and knowledgeable.
Barry is a complete fool if he relies on internet trolls rather than hearing directly from Stella herself.
He should listen to the Gender:A Wider Lens” and “Nolan Investigates Stonewall” podcasts, and have a look at the pictures from Manchester - then he’d be in a position to make informed comments instead of disgracing himself.
"....he tried to equally blame NATO & Russia for the Ukrainian invasion."
This isn't an unreasonable position. US/NATO has been pushing Russia into a corner for decades knowing that, sooner or later, Russia would be forced to respond. It's a proxy war for which Ukraine is NATO's sacrificial pawn.
You have a good point re NATO and there is an argument that after the fall of the Soviet Union NATO should have invited Russia to join - when they were a democratic country and in relation to NATO I can see both sides BUT that doesn't absolve Putin/Russia from their part in destroying democracy within Russia itself or taking Crimea.
Putin believes Ukraine is/should be part of Russia irrespective of the ppl living there and acts accordingly. Surely this would be in the spirit ethnic cleansing if he gets his way - how can the democratic nations help the ppl of Ukraine?
Putin will murder anyone threatening his position in his own country iand has frequently done so before this invasion. The people of Ukraine are expendible to him and he has the bomb. The West has taken money from oligarchs ie Russians who stole money from the ppl and looked the other way for years - basically, bribed. Any opposition from journalists or protesters or politicians within Russia was stifled and ppl murdered.
But here we iz - never a good place to be! It's an extremely difficult situation but Putin/Russia always have the choice in how they respond - and no right to attempt to occupy a country against the will of the majority of its citizens. The danger of it turning into a proxy war is of course increasing. It's tragic. No easy answers.
It was Glinner that brought the topic up, twice :) and it is relevant in terms of our human tendency to confuse broadly accepted and widely promoted narratives as factual reality.
The Gender - a wider lens podcast is essential listening for anyone who wants to know more about these issues. There will be no progress until there is understanding.
Excellent essay - a rather damning and thorough indictment of Mick Barry and far too many so-called politicians.
Though the article also provides a welcome link and introduction to the commendable efforts and policies of Genspect. However, in spelunking through their website, I ran across their definition for the sexes which is decidedly inconsistent with antithetical to the standard biological definition endorsed by many if not most reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias. Genspect's defintion:
"Sex is binary. The sex of an individual is based on their reproductive anatomy and is determined by the type of gamete this anatomy is organized, through natural development, to produce."
More or less the colloquial or "folk biology" definition, and one that has been explicitly endorsed by "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright in a Times letter:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
So, Genspect's definition and that of Hilton and company are essentially based on the presence of specific structures absent any necessity to actually have any "reproductive functions" as the Lexico definition defines it:
If sex is all about reproduction - as is clearly the case - then it seems rather incongruous at best if not profoundly illogical and quite unscientific to argue that organisms have a sex if they can't actually reproduce.
Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico, in his paper on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender", underlines that profound and quite thorny dichotomy:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Genspect, & Hilton] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
And that biological definition is hardly uncommon or cut from whole cloth. Australian professor Paul Griffiths, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy, argues for the same definition:
"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]."
"Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male gametes or female ones. Male plants and animals produce smaller gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) while females produce larger ones (ova, often called egg cells)."
The biological definitions are defined such that to have a sex is to be able to produce either of two types of gametes through having functional gonads of either of two types. It necessarily follows that organisms which can't produce either are thereby sexless.
While that dichotomy might be seen as largely academic or a case of splitting hairs, Griffiths makes a credible case that they're essential to the whole edifice of biological science. It does not seem at all reasonable or workable that society can have the "patchwork definitions of social sciences", of Genspect, and of Hilton existing side by side with the biological definitions. Will school children go to their social studies classes and learn the patchwork definitions and then go to their biology classes to learn the quite antithetical biological definitions?
In many cases the conflict between those two perspectives won't cause many problems or much grief. But in some cases it will as in the common claim that sex is immutable - which only holds water for the patchwork or structure-absent-function definitions, although not at all for the biological definitions by which the claim is so much errant moonshine.
But the consequences are that, by the patchwork definitions, dysphoric children who have their gonads removed in "gender affirmation surgery" retain their sexes, while by the biological definitions we're turning them into sexless eunuchs - which may well be the "justification" for the patchwork definitions. Adults should presumably be allowed to do that to themselves if they wish, but, by the more credible and scientific biological definitions, allowing that to happen to dysphoric and autistic children has to be seen as the crime of the century - "monstrous" hardly does justice to it.
Not at all, particularly since the definition for "stove" is only "an apparatus for cooking or heating" - no stipulation that it actually has to be in the process of doing so:
But while I don't think you're actually IN the right ballpark, I'll more or less concede that you're not far outside the bleachers in it ... 😉 There IS a fundamental dichotomy between, on the one hand, the structure-absent-function definitions, and, on the other one, the function-only definitions. Often moot which is the most appropriate and useful one in any given context.
But that dichotomy goes back at least some 2500 years to the debates between Plato and his fixed and eternal forms, on the one hand, and, on the other, Heraclitus and company and their arguments that process is everything. I'm a long ways from being any sort of pro-from-Dover on the philosophical niceties of that debate, but it seems that the arguments are more or less complementary: on the one hand, a process is a transition from state to state with some states remaining constant throughout, while, on the other, a state is something that remains constant while related traits and states change.
"If Socrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, and devoid of primary reality, whereas the substance is essential."
Socrates' "substance" [his state, his self-awareness, his "identity"] remains constant regardless of his physical state - well or sick. But there are definitions where processes and functions are an essential element, that for the heart for example:
"heart: A hollow muscular organ that pumps the blood through the circulatory system by rhythmic contraction and dilation."
What's constant is that the heart is a muscle, but it changes continuously and regularly from the contraction state to the dilation state; if it's not doing that then it WAS a heart, it is only nominally a heart, a "heart" for reference purposes only. The "pumps blood" is "present tense indefinite" and is essential:
"We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it’s sometimes called present indefinite)."
Same with the biological definitions for "male" and "female": the "produces sperm" and "produces ova" denote some things that happen regularly, and constitute processes and functions that must be possessed by any organism before they can qualify as members of those categories.
It is maybe moot why biologists have put their money on the functional definitions - as opposed to the "patchwork definitions of the social sciences". But offhand it seems that the structure-absent-function definitions, when applied to biology, would necessitate specifying all of the different structures in literally millions of species that might be related to the processes of producing either of two types of gametes. I'm no pro-from-Dover in that field either, but I get the impression that there are a great many such structures - far easier and efficient to specify the common function that is present across all of those millions of species: produces either of two types of gametes, present tense indefinite. More or less the difference between extensional and intentional definitions:
But you might be interested in or be amused by the take of feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones on the idea. Of particular note is that she, quite reasonably, argues that "the important thing is the function, which then results in particular forms". However, she then snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by creating her own mantra - more or less matching the TWAW of the transloonie crowd - of "infertile women are women" [IWAW]. Rah, rah ... 🙄
If they're infertile then they, in general, can't very well be capable of producing ova, the sine qua non for the categories of both "female" and "woman" - AKA, "adult human female".
Hmmf. A biological woman or man - or indeed dog or cat [!] does not become a non female or non male if/when they become infertile as I'm sure you are aware. Some sexual structures may be removed or cease functioning in terms of fertility - but their body remains female or male re chromosomes and any/all other sexual markers which remain.
Not least, humans are sexed **persons** with self consciousness in a society of other sexed persons with all that entails in terms of safeguarding, dignity, privacy etc. Socrates remained a male person after he became ill. You can argue that you cannot step into the same river twice because the water is not the same but come ON it's still the same river.
Don't think you're listening or even willing to entertain the idea that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, that those with neither are thereby sexless.
That IS the biological definition endorsed by much of biological science and most credible dictionaries and encyclopedias. There IS some rhyme and reason to how and why we create definitions - try reading the Wikipedia article on extensional and intensional definitions. It's not a free-for-all where anyone can pull any definition out of their nether regions and expect everyone to stand up and salute them; that's the modus operandi of the transloonie nutcases.
You might also try reading an essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - university prof, expert in the philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - on the topic, this passage in particular:
"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]."
But your Socrates being "a male person" is a red herring, a grabbing at straw - or at a strawman. It's a dodging of the question as to precisely what is the trait that any organism MUST have to qualify as a male or a female. Note the description of intensional definitions in the Wikipedia article:
"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."
And the biological definitions stipulate - they're stipulative definitions - that, as Griffiths puts it, to have a sex is to be able to "make eggs or make sperm", present tense indefinite:
If Socrates had had his testicles removed then he would no longer qualify as a male - whether he was sick or well, a teenager or an octogenarian. Being male or female isn't an essential property of being a human "with self consciousness", it is only one of a plethora of possible "accidental properties" as are being sick, healthy, 17 or 85:
To misquote K-J Minshul [if I've spelt her name right] ... "I'm not a biologist or much of a philosopher but I know the difference between a human being, a flower and a carrot!"
I'm talking about respect for real sexed human beings here. My mother is a woman and still a women when she can no longer have children - and as long as she lives - because she has female chromosomes, developed and remains affected by female structures/processes whether 'working' or not. Yours too.
Breasts remain female breasts before and after breast feeding. Bone strength and shape remain affected and related to muscle strength too.
Fat distribution may change due to fluctuation/waning of particular hormones. If Socrates developed a paunch or manboobs - or had a vasectomy or was naturally infertile or unfortunately lost his testicles - he was still Socrates and a man.
We are not flowers or vegetables .... at least I'm not and nor is my mother!
However, "respect for real sexed human beings" isn't the issue here. You're as bad as the transloonie nutcases when they dump a boat-load of red herrings on the field while pretentiously blathering on about "invalidating the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us":
The issue, in both cases, is what are the criteria to qualify as males and females. Try looking at and thinking about the definitions for both of those categories, as well as for "sex" and for "woman", the same one that Kellie-Jay championed:
In the case of "female", do you see anything at all there about "female chromosomes", "female hormones", "female structures" or "female breasts"? They're not there because they're "accidental properties", because many different species will have many different chromosomes and hormones and reproductive structures, because the "essential property" across ALL of those species is "produces ova"
Lia(r) Thomas isn't a female because he can't produce ova, because he produces sperm. Don't think we are really going to unhorse the transloonie nutcases until we call a spade a fucking shovel - as KJK did - by drawing a line in the sand, by defining exactly what we mean by "male" and "female", by specifying exactly what it takes to qualify as such. Regardless of who gets "offended" by getting their claims to membership in those categories rejected. And the only definitions of any credibility and utility at all are the biological ones.
The consequences are that, by the biological definitions, prepubescent children have no sexes to retain - they have no adult phenotypes, and can't actually reproduce. Presumably you're able to distinguish girls from boys if you wish.
Yes, I quite agree - rather too many people seem to balk at the biological definitions because they're fixated on the article of faith that "sex is immutable (!!11!!)". Maya Forstater and Kathleen Stock in particular.
Sadly, too many - not just the transgendered - insist on turning the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences" - as "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones once put it - instead of accepting the terms just as labels for quite transitory reproductive abilities:
Though I doubt there are many "gender-affirming surgeries" - AKA, removal of the gonads - performed on the prepubescent. But if they had been performed then they would "only" have precluded the acquistion of a sex; interesting article on the topic by Eliza Mondegreen and my comment thereon which relies on and quotes the same biological definitions:
But largely why I object to the "assigned male/female at birth" phrasing. All that is "assigned at birth" - based on the biological definitions, which really should be the only game in town - is a probable sex that will potentially be acquired at puberty.
But what "distinguishes [prepubescent] boys from [prepubescent] girls" is primarily, of course, genitalia which really only function as proxy variables relative to the primary one of sex:
"In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable."
Probably 99% of vagina-havers are, probably will be, or were human females, exceptions being few and far between, those with CAIS being a case-in-point:
Hence, going the other way, it is "reasonable" to infer - generally a logically fraught methodology (problem of induction) - that vagina-havers are *probably* female, but hardly a guarantee since I figure, based on typical demographics, that the "correlation coefficient" is only about 2/3.
Probably similar statistics with penis-havers and males, though I haven't actually run across many specifics similar to CAIS.
A blunder is a mistake ... refusing to retract a comment which you know is false is not that ... it is a form of abuse of a woman's reputation because the people who have made the false allegation do not believe in reasonable behaviour towards women as human beings
yeah, it's definitely not a blunder by now.
This is the same pattern that abusive men use all the time. Throw out the smear, then wait to see how much of the mud sticks. Since no one holds men to account for the lies they continuously tell about women to keep us looking inferior morally to them, this issue of the universal immorality of men to women and children never gets dealt with. As in here. Thanks for holding yourself to higher ground Graham. You have taken enormous flak but you are right and gradually I think the scales are falling from people's eyes - apart from Owen and Katie M etc.
Stella's reasoned, considered stance clearly ruffles the feathers of the trans ideology acolytes and those perpetuating institutional misogyny, perhaps she's onto something?
Neutral space, time and therapeutic support for those suffering Gender Distress, it's really not an outrageous idea, but in the short time that she has been advocating for children, families and detrans ppl to be heard, she has had to face abuse from all directions. I will be forever grateful to her, Genspect and those that support her work. I'm heartened to read this article supporting her and her work, thank you.
Well written piece. Obviously Mick Barry's an idiot. Looking for Woke points at the expense of a well known woman's reputation is an act of the most abject cowardice. Siding with the MOB.always is.Shame on him 👎
Another bloody witch hunt. Defenestration is too good for the likes of this chancer.
Stella focused on mental health is in a different position to others. Of course she needs to understand. She’s right, there needs to be more research. Empathy isn’t the same as sympathising. I doubt very much she will have sympathy for a paraphilia. There is a big difference!
I’m a big fan of Helen Joyce and agree the ideology needs defeating completely.
Plus I’m with Kellie Jay about giving women a platform to speak out. Kellie says she doesn’t care about Pervy men and I get that, pervs give me the creeps as well.
I respect Stella and others who are trying to understand what’s going on with these men in order to do their job properly. It isn’t a job I’d like to do but I’m glad there are people doing it.
Both those attacking Arty Morty and those attacking Stella O’Malley rely on taking things out of context. We are losing the ability to have good faith debate as a way of handling disagreement.
I was on that Space and lodged a feedback comment supporting Stella. It seemed to be the "if your not with us your against us type attack". I didn't find it in the least bit helpful or pleasant to listen to. Stella and Sarah Phillimore did a great interview with Maggie Mellon from EBSWA - highly recommended.
I'm really sorry that Stella's comments were used to smear her unfairly in this way, but I cannot take you seriously when you describe Arty Morty as being "unfairly mobbed". AM had made several dodgy statements (not to mention having a reference to a paedophilic relationship in his bio) and a lot of women wanted to talk things out like adults.
Unfortunately he threw his toys out of the pram and refused to act like a responsible adult would, and it could not have been more obvious during Lorelei’s space that Stella didn’t know what Arty had said either.
The women in this movement receive the most appalling abuse and yet when a man gets even the slightest pushback the ranks of GC men close in to protect one another. Don’t think women haven’t noticed how much more you care about criticism directed at men than women receiving rape and death threats.
I don’t believe for a second that if it had been a TRA and not your friend who had said those things you’d have written countless substack articles about it.
Women raising safeguarding concerns are not caught up in a purity spiral: we just care about integrity and safety.
I’ve been listening to Stella and Sasha’s podcast, “Gender: A Wider Lens”. They are both extremely compassionate and knowledgeable.
Barry is a complete fool if he relies on internet trolls rather than hearing directly from Stella herself.
He should listen to the Gender:A Wider Lens” and “Nolan Investigates Stonewall” podcasts, and have a look at the pictures from Manchester - then he’d be in a position to make informed comments instead of disgracing himself.
"....he tried to equally blame NATO & Russia for the Ukrainian invasion."
This isn't an unreasonable position. US/NATO has been pushing Russia into a corner for decades knowing that, sooner or later, Russia would be forced to respond. It's a proxy war for which Ukraine is NATO's sacrificial pawn.
You have a good point re NATO and there is an argument that after the fall of the Soviet Union NATO should have invited Russia to join - when they were a democratic country and in relation to NATO I can see both sides BUT that doesn't absolve Putin/Russia from their part in destroying democracy within Russia itself or taking Crimea.
Putin believes Ukraine is/should be part of Russia irrespective of the ppl living there and acts accordingly. Surely this would be in the spirit ethnic cleansing if he gets his way - how can the democratic nations help the ppl of Ukraine?
Putin will murder anyone threatening his position in his own country iand has frequently done so before this invasion. The people of Ukraine are expendible to him and he has the bomb. The West has taken money from oligarchs ie Russians who stole money from the ppl and looked the other way for years - basically, bribed. Any opposition from journalists or protesters or politicians within Russia was stifled and ppl murdered.
But here we iz - never a good place to be! It's an extremely difficult situation but Putin/Russia always have the choice in how they respond - and no right to attempt to occupy a country against the will of the majority of its citizens. The danger of it turning into a proxy war is of course increasing. It's tragic. No easy answers.
sry off topic - Glinner feel free to ask me to delete.
It was Glinner that brought the topic up, twice :) and it is relevant in terms of our human tendency to confuse broadly accepted and widely promoted narratives as factual reality.
https://rumble.com/vx6u1x-donbass-2016-documentary.html
Yes that applies to you too - enuf already - there are other platforms for this.
The Gender - a wider lens podcast is essential listening for anyone who wants to know more about these issues. There will be no progress until there is understanding.
Mick Barry...what a tadger!
What's a tankie to do these days? I guess TRAs are the closest things they can find to stalinists anymore. And some do like their boots licked...
Mick Barry is just riding on woke.
Excellent essay - a rather damning and thorough indictment of Mick Barry and far too many so-called politicians.
Though the article also provides a welcome link and introduction to the commendable efforts and policies of Genspect. However, in spelunking through their website, I ran across their definition for the sexes which is decidedly inconsistent with antithetical to the standard biological definition endorsed by many if not most reputable dictionaries and encyclopedias. Genspect's defintion:
"Sex is binary. The sex of an individual is based on their reproductive anatomy and is determined by the type of gamete this anatomy is organized, through natural development, to produce."
https://genspect.org/position/
More or less the colloquial or "folk biology" definition, and one that has been explicitly endorsed by "biologists" Emma Hilton, Heather Heying, and Colin Wright in a Times letter:
"Individuals that have developed anatomies for producing either small or large gametes, regardless of their past, present or future functionality, are referred to as 'males' and 'females', respectively."
https://twitter.com/FondOfBeetles/status/1207663359589527554
So, Genspect's definition and that of Hilton and company are essentially based on the presence of specific structures absent any necessity to actually have any "reproductive functions" as the Lexico definition defines it:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex
If sex is all about reproduction - as is clearly the case - then it seems rather incongruous at best if not profoundly illogical and quite unscientific to argue that organisms have a sex if they can't actually reproduce.
Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico, in his paper on the "Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender", underlines that profound and quite thorny dichotomy:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences [and by Genspect, & Hilton] is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346447193_Ideological_Bias_in_the_Psychology_of_Sex_and_Gender
And that biological definition is hardly uncommon or cut from whole cloth. Australian professor Paul Griffiths, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy, argues for the same definition:
"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]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Wikipedia:
"Sex is the trait that determines whether a sexually reproducing animal or plant produces male gametes or female ones. Male plants and animals produce smaller gametes (spermatozoa, sperm) while females produce larger ones (ova, often called egg cells)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex
And biologists Lehtonen and Parker (FRS), writing in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, assert in their glossary the same definitions:
"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
The biological definitions are defined such that to have a sex is to be able to produce either of two types of gametes through having functional gonads of either of two types. It necessarily follows that organisms which can't produce either are thereby sexless.
While that dichotomy might be seen as largely academic or a case of splitting hairs, Griffiths makes a credible case that they're essential to the whole edifice of biological science. It does not seem at all reasonable or workable that society can have the "patchwork definitions of social sciences", of Genspect, and of Hilton existing side by side with the biological definitions. Will school children go to their social studies classes and learn the patchwork definitions and then go to their biology classes to learn the quite antithetical biological definitions?
In many cases the conflict between those two perspectives won't cause many problems or much grief. But in some cases it will as in the common claim that sex is immutable - which only holds water for the patchwork or structure-absent-function definitions, although not at all for the biological definitions by which the claim is so much errant moonshine.
But the consequences are that, by the patchwork definitions, dysphoric children who have their gonads removed in "gender affirmation surgery" retain their sexes, while by the biological definitions we're turning them into sexless eunuchs - which may well be the "justification" for the patchwork definitions. Adults should presumably be allowed to do that to themselves if they wish, but, by the more credible and scientific biological definitions, allowing that to happen to dysphoric and autistic children has to be seen as the crime of the century - "monstrous" hardly does justice to it.
So you’re offering the “it isn’t a stove unless it’s cooking something” definition.
Not at all, particularly since the definition for "stove" is only "an apparatus for cooking or heating" - no stipulation that it actually has to be in the process of doing so:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/stove
But something of a strawman argument on your part rather than a "steelman" one:
https://www.discoursemagazine.com/culture-and-society/2020/05/04/now-more-than-ever-we-need-steel-manning/
But while I don't think you're actually IN the right ballpark, I'll more or less concede that you're not far outside the bleachers in it ... 😉 There IS a fundamental dichotomy between, on the one hand, the structure-absent-function definitions, and, on the other one, the function-only definitions. Often moot which is the most appropriate and useful one in any given context.
But that dichotomy goes back at least some 2500 years to the debates between Plato and his fixed and eternal forms, on the one hand, and, on the other, Heraclitus and company and their arguments that process is everything. I'm a long ways from being any sort of pro-from-Dover on the philosophical niceties of that debate, but it seems that the arguments are more or less complementary: on the one hand, a process is a transition from state to state with some states remaining constant throughout, while, on the other, a state is something that remains constant while related traits and states change.
Interesting overview and introductions here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
Interesting and relevant analogy from the latter:
"If Socrates changes, becoming sick, Socrates is still the same (the substance of Socrates being the same), and change (his sickness) only glides over his substance: change is accidental, and devoid of primary reality, whereas the substance is essential."
Socrates' "substance" [his state, his self-awareness, his "identity"] remains constant regardless of his physical state - well or sick. But there are definitions where processes and functions are an essential element, that for the heart for example:
"heart: A hollow muscular organ that pumps the blood through the circulatory system by rhythmic contraction and dilation."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/heart
What's constant is that the heart is a muscle, but it changes continuously and regularly from the contraction state to the dilation state; if it's not doing that then it WAS a heart, it is only nominally a heart, a "heart" for reference purposes only. The "pumps blood" is "present tense indefinite" and is essential:
"We use the simple present tense when an action is happening right now, or when it happens regularly (or unceasingly, which is why it’s sometimes called present indefinite)."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/simple-present/
Same with the biological definitions for "male" and "female": the "produces sperm" and "produces ova" denote some things that happen regularly, and constitute processes and functions that must be possessed by any organism before they can qualify as members of those categories.
It is maybe moot why biologists have put their money on the functional definitions - as opposed to the "patchwork definitions of the social sciences". But offhand it seems that the structure-absent-function definitions, when applied to biology, would necessitate specifying all of the different structures in literally millions of species that might be related to the processes of producing either of two types of gametes. I'm no pro-from-Dover in that field either, but I get the impression that there are a great many such structures - far easier and efficient to specify the common function that is present across all of those millions of species: produces either of two types of gametes, present tense indefinite. More or less the difference between extensional and intentional definitions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions
But you might be interested in or be amused by the take of feminist "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones on the idea. Of particular note is that she, quite reasonably, argues that "the important thing is the function, which then results in particular forms". However, she then snatches defeat from the jaws of victory by creating her own mantra - more or less matching the TWAW of the transloonie crowd - of "infertile women are women" [IWAW]. Rah, rah ... 🙄
https://janeclarejones.files.wordpress.com/2020/07/7-july-infertile-women-are-women.pdf
If they're infertile then they, in general, can't very well be capable of producing ova, the sine qua non for the categories of both "female" and "woman" - AKA, "adult human female".
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/woman
Hmmf. A biological woman or man - or indeed dog or cat [!] does not become a non female or non male if/when they become infertile as I'm sure you are aware. Some sexual structures may be removed or cease functioning in terms of fertility - but their body remains female or male re chromosomes and any/all other sexual markers which remain.
Not least, humans are sexed **persons** with self consciousness in a society of other sexed persons with all that entails in terms of safeguarding, dignity, privacy etc. Socrates remained a male person after he became ill. You can argue that you cannot step into the same river twice because the water is not the same but come ON it's still the same river.
Don't think you're listening or even willing to entertain the idea that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, that those with neither are thereby sexless.
That IS the biological definition endorsed by much of biological science and most credible dictionaries and encyclopedias. There IS some rhyme and reason to how and why we create definitions - try reading the Wikipedia article on extensional and intensional definitions. It's not a free-for-all where anyone can pull any definition out of their nether regions and expect everyone to stand up and salute them; that's the modus operandi of the transloonie nutcases.
You might also try reading an essay at Aeon by Paul Griffiths - university prof, expert in the philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy - on the topic, this passage in particular:
"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]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
But your Socrates being "a male person" is a red herring, a grabbing at straw - or at a strawman. It's a dodging of the question as to precisely what is the trait that any organism MUST have to qualify as a male or a female. Note the description of intensional definitions in the Wikipedia article:
"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."
And the biological definitions stipulate - they're stipulative definitions - that, as Griffiths puts it, to have a sex is to be able to "make eggs or make sperm", present tense indefinite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
If Socrates had had his testicles removed then he would no longer qualify as a male - whether he was sick or well, a teenager or an octogenarian. Being male or female isn't an essential property of being a human "with self consciousness", it is only one of a plethora of possible "accidental properties" as are being sick, healthy, 17 or 85:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/essential-accidental/
To misquote K-J Minshul [if I've spelt her name right] ... "I'm not a biologist or much of a philosopher but I know the difference between a human being, a flower and a carrot!"
I'm talking about respect for real sexed human beings here. My mother is a woman and still a women when she can no longer have children - and as long as she lives - because she has female chromosomes, developed and remains affected by female structures/processes whether 'working' or not. Yours too.
Breasts remain female breasts before and after breast feeding. Bone strength and shape remain affected and related to muscle strength too.
Fat distribution may change due to fluctuation/waning of particular hormones. If Socrates developed a paunch or manboobs - or had a vasectomy or was naturally infertile or unfortunately lost his testicles - he was still Socrates and a man.
We are not flowers or vegetables .... at least I'm not and nor is my mother!
🙂 Think her name is "Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull" though she apparently now goes by just "Kellie-Jay Keen":
https://www.faircop.org.uk/case-studies/kellie-jay-keen-minshull/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9G7ET9-qIZQ
But a going concern, my hat's off to her, not least for her billboard campaign for which I think she deserves Time's "Person of the Year" award:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45650462
However, "respect for real sexed human beings" isn't the issue here. You're as bad as the transloonie nutcases when they dump a boat-load of red herrings on the field while pretentiously blathering on about "invalidating the existence of trans and non-binary people or dehumanize us":
https://quillette.com/2017/12/13/words-lose-meaning-wilfrid-laurier-university/
The issue, in both cases, is what are the criteria to qualify as males and females. Try looking at and thinking about the definitions for both of those categories, as well as for "sex" and for "woman", the same one that Kellie-Jay championed:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/female
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/male
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/woman
In the case of "female", do you see anything at all there about "female chromosomes", "female hormones", "female structures" or "female breasts"? They're not there because they're "accidental properties", because many different species will have many different chromosomes and hormones and reproductive structures, because the "essential property" across ALL of those species is "produces ova"
Lia(r) Thomas isn't a female because he can't produce ova, because he produces sperm. Don't think we are really going to unhorse the transloonie nutcases until we call a spade a fucking shovel - as KJK did - by drawing a line in the sand, by defining exactly what we mean by "male" and "female", by specifying exactly what it takes to qualify as such. Regardless of who gets "offended" by getting their claims to membership in those categories rejected. And the only definitions of any credibility and utility at all are the biological ones.
The consequences are that, by the biological definitions, prepubescent children have no sexes to retain - they have no adult phenotypes, and can't actually reproduce. Presumably you're able to distinguish girls from boys if you wish.
Yes, I quite agree - rather too many people seem to balk at the biological definitions because they're fixated on the article of faith that "sex is immutable (!!11!!)". Maya Forstater and Kathleen Stock in particular.
Sadly, too many - not just the transgendered - insist on turning the sexes into "immutable identities" based on some "mythic essences" - as "philosopher" Jane Clare Jones once put it - instead of accepting the terms just as labels for quite transitory reproductive abilities:
https://janeclarejones.com/2020/01/15/unreasonable-ideas-a-reply-to-alison-phipps/
Though I doubt there are many "gender-affirming surgeries" - AKA, removal of the gonads - performed on the prepubescent. But if they had been performed then they would "only" have precluded the acquistion of a sex; interesting article on the topic by Eliza Mondegreen and my comment thereon which relies on and quotes the same biological definitions:
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/in-plain-english-its-wrong-to-drug/comments?s=r#comment-6717921
But largely why I object to the "assigned male/female at birth" phrasing. All that is "assigned at birth" - based on the biological definitions, which really should be the only game in town - is a probable sex that will potentially be acquired at puberty.
But what "distinguishes [prepubescent] boys from [prepubescent] girls" is primarily, of course, genitalia which really only function as proxy variables relative to the primary one of sex:
"In statistics, a proxy or proxy variable is a variable that is not in itself directly relevant, but that serves in place of an unobservable or immeasurable variable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
Probably 99% of vagina-havers are, probably will be, or were human females, exceptions being few and far between, those with CAIS being a case-in-point:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome
Hence, going the other way, it is "reasonable" to infer - generally a logically fraught methodology (problem of induction) - that vagina-havers are *probably* female, but hardly a guarantee since I figure, based on typical demographics, that the "correlation coefficient" is only about 2/3.
Probably similar statistics with penis-havers and males, though I haven't actually run across many specifics similar to CAIS.