Rukhsana Sukhan (RS): I still do not know what gender means in the legal sense and how it differs from sex, which I define as reproductive class, an immutable physiologic state of being established shortly after conception, in utero, i.e. during gestation, not 'assigned at birth' as the Genderists claim. .... Can someone explain that to me? I do not grasp it. .... To use a metaphor, we don’t all have the same song sheet, when we get together at choir practice we will sound like a cacophonous nightmare.”
I can very much sympathize with your frustration and exasperation. Big part of the problem is that, as you suggest, every last man, woman, and otherkin – and the Law itself – has a bunch of entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender. Evolutionary biologist and Substacker Colin Wright tweeted a decent summary of that sad state of affairs several years ago:
“Most confusion about 'gender' results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
No wonder then that the “debate” sounds like your “cacophonous nightmare”. Fairly durable principle of venerable provenance – the principle of explosion – which asserts that from contradictory premises one can prove anything, that black is white, that 2+2=5, that people can change sex:
However, the most coherent and consistent set of definitions are those that DEFINE “gender” as roughly equivalent to those “sex-based roles, sex-related behaviours, and personality traits”, and those that, to a first approximation, DEFINE “sex”, in your words, as “reproductive class”. The latter being more or less standard in much of biology, and endorsed by various authoritative sources such as the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, general Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
However, related thereto, this statement of yours is also simply incompatible with and entirely antithetical to those “promulgated” in the above sources:
RS: “Changing one’s secondary sex characteristics with hormones and surgery — that describes a sex change.”
The thing there is that by those standard biological definitions, it is simply impossible for any human to change sex since to do so would require the replacement of one’s gonads – ovaries or testicles – with those of the other type – testicles or ovaries, respectively. Which is simply impossible, at least with current medical technology.
But that highlights the fact that statements like your “immutable physiologic state” and “being established shortly after conception” are true or false “conclusions” that follow from the choice of how we’re going to define “male” and “female”. And it IS a choice – there is NO intrinsic meaning to those words; there were none inscribed into the tablets – A through Z – that Moses supposedly brought down from Mt. Sinai as the “First Dictionary”.
And sadly, most people – scientific illiterates that they are – seem to subscribe to those that the movie Kindergarten Cop “championed”: boys have penises and girls have vaginas. From which it “naturally” follows that of course one can change sex – “Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!” 🙄 Criminally pigheaded ignorance for the most part. Which various charlatans, grifters, and political opportunists are all too quick to take advantage of.
Somewhat more “scientific” though hardly better than folk-biology are the definitions apparently being written into the lawbooks of Oklahoma:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to [produce sperm to] fertilize the ova of a female."
Rather “problematic” for many reasons – for example, it may not always be possible to say what one’s gonads were “designed to produce”, particularly if they’re no longer present or weren’t ever present to begin with. And they still conflict profoundly with those standard biological definitions – will we have one set for the school kids in their law classes, and an entirely different and contradictory set for their biology classes? Just contributing to that “cacophonous nightmare” of yours.
However, the Oklahoma case is, maybe arguably, at least a step in the right direction towards clearly defining “sex” for the purposes of the law. But “gender” needs the same treatment since our “governments” have made a dog’s breakfast out of that concept too. Apropos of which, you might “enjoy” my post on “Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" – Britain's, New Zealand’s and Canada's own – particularly if you have any predilection for gallows humour:
Link therein to a submission, on Google Docs, that I made to Canada’s in response to their call for “consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards”. Those responsible there should be fired, if not tarred and feathered and then ridden out of town on a rail. Although those in the other Statistics Departments – and in many other governmental institutions in various countries – are no better and should suffer the same fate.
Rukhsana Sukhan (RS): I still do not know what gender means in the legal sense and how it differs from sex, which I define as reproductive class, an immutable physiologic state of being established shortly after conception, in utero, i.e. during gestation, not 'assigned at birth' as the Genderists claim. .... Can someone explain that to me? I do not grasp it. .... To use a metaphor, we don’t all have the same song sheet, when we get together at choir practice we will sound like a cacophonous nightmare.”
I can very much sympathize with your frustration and exasperation. Big part of the problem is that, as you suggest, every last man, woman, and otherkin – and the Law itself – has a bunch of entirely different and quite antithetical definitions for both sex and gender. Evolutionary biologist and Substacker Colin Wright tweeted a decent summary of that sad state of affairs several years ago:
“Most confusion about 'gender' results from people not defining it. Many definitions are in circulation:
1. Synonym for sex (male/female)
2. A subjective feeling in relation to one's sex
3. Societal sex-based roles/expectations
4. Sex-related behavior
5. Personality traits"
https://twitter.com/SwipeWright/status/1234040036091236352
No wonder then that the “debate” sounds like your “cacophonous nightmare”. Fairly durable principle of venerable provenance – the principle of explosion – which asserts that from contradictory premises one can prove anything, that black is white, that 2+2=5, that people can change sex:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
However, the most coherent and consistent set of definitions are those that DEFINE “gender” as roughly equivalent to those “sex-based roles, sex-related behaviours, and personality traits”, and those that, to a first approximation, DEFINE “sex”, in your words, as “reproductive class”. The latter being more or less standard in much of biology, and endorsed by various authoritative sources such as the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, general Oxford Dictionaries, and the Oxford Dictionary of Biology:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 (see the Glossary)
https://twitter.com/pwkilleen/status/1039879009407037441 (Oxford Dictionary of Biology)
However, related thereto, this statement of yours is also simply incompatible with and entirely antithetical to those “promulgated” in the above sources:
RS: “Changing one’s secondary sex characteristics with hormones and surgery — that describes a sex change.”
The thing there is that by those standard biological definitions, it is simply impossible for any human to change sex since to do so would require the replacement of one’s gonads – ovaries or testicles – with those of the other type – testicles or ovaries, respectively. Which is simply impossible, at least with current medical technology.
But that highlights the fact that statements like your “immutable physiologic state” and “being established shortly after conception” are true or false “conclusions” that follow from the choice of how we’re going to define “male” and “female”. And it IS a choice – there is NO intrinsic meaning to those words; there were none inscribed into the tablets – A through Z – that Moses supposedly brought down from Mt. Sinai as the “First Dictionary”.
And sadly, most people – scientific illiterates that they are – seem to subscribe to those that the movie Kindergarten Cop “championed”: boys have penises and girls have vaginas. From which it “naturally” follows that of course one can change sex – “Change your genitalia, change your sex! Act now! Offer ends soon!” 🙄 Criminally pigheaded ignorance for the most part. Which various charlatans, grifters, and political opportunists are all too quick to take advantage of.
Somewhat more “scientific” though hardly better than folk-biology are the definitions apparently being written into the lawbooks of Oklahoma:
KJRH: "For example, the Order defines 'female' as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to produce ova. 'Male' is defined as a person whose biological reproductive system is designed to [produce sperm to] fertilize the ova of a female."
https://www.kjrh.com/news/local-news/gov-stitt-signs-womens-bill-of-rights-through-executive-order
Rather “problematic” for many reasons – for example, it may not always be possible to say what one’s gonads were “designed to produce”, particularly if they’re no longer present or weren’t ever present to begin with. And they still conflict profoundly with those standard biological definitions – will we have one set for the school kids in their law classes, and an entirely different and contradictory set for their biology classes? Just contributing to that “cacophonous nightmare” of yours.
However, the Oklahoma case is, maybe arguably, at least a step in the right direction towards clearly defining “sex” for the purposes of the law. But “gender” needs the same treatment since our “governments” have made a dog’s breakfast out of that concept too. Apropos of which, you might “enjoy” my post on “Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" – Britain's, New Zealand’s and Canada's own – particularly if you have any predilection for gallows humour:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Link therein to a submission, on Google Docs, that I made to Canada’s in response to their call for “consultation on gender and sexual diversity statistical metadata standards”. Those responsible there should be fired, if not tarred and feathered and then ridden out of town on a rail. Although those in the other Statistics Departments – and in many other governmental institutions in various countries – are no better and should suffer the same fate.