Unless he cuts his nuts off. Then he's no longer a male, he's a sexless eunuch ...
That IS the logical consequence of standard biological definitions, ones that have been "promulgated" in reputable journals like Theoretical Biology, Molecular Human Reproduction, & the Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science:
By those definitions, to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless.
Rather depressing that much of biology has turned into a clown show over a "debate" on whether sex is a binary or a spectrum. Major reason for which is that most of the combatants -- including various so-called biologists & philosophers -- haven't a flaming clue about various fundamental principles of linguistics, logic, epistemology, and philosophy:
Think it would help a great deal if people realized that there is NO intrinsic meaning to words, to "male" and "female" in particular. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so there are NO definitions that qualify as gospel truth, none that carry the imprimatur or signature of Jehovah -- Himself. The issue boils down into a question of which is the most useful and logically coherent definitions; the functional binary is looking like a strong contender ... 😉🙂
No, a eunuch is still male. His chromosomes, his skeleton, his remaining plumbing, all identify him as male.
Biological gender (I reserve "sex" for the physical act) is not a continuum, it is a basic feature of the biology of higher phyla of both plant and animal kingdoms. The "gender ideology" crowd is so desperate to seduce themselves with their own myths that they regard developmental defects like androgen insensitivity or chromosomal errors as other genders.
I have little to add to your collection of references. My concerns extend outside these indisputable biological facts:
(1) the general breakdown of notions of truth and objectivity; many "trans" activists will leave a discussion if someone suggests that there even exists such a thing as objective reality. The search for truth is "transphobic." In our politics and commercial speech lying is casually accepted and even people like Donald Trump and George Santos face no significan consequences.
(2) the attack on language. Pronouns have become morally and legally controversial, including a sharp increase in the use of the abhorrent singular "they," leading to writing that is all but unreadable and even more confusing speech. Such absurdities as "pregnant people," and "her penis" are uttered without a blink.
(3) the widespread medical malpractice of the affirmation industry, with deeply disturbed children granted hormones and surgery without even a perfunctory examination for gender dysphoria, which medical statistics place at a thousandth what self-reports claim.
(4) deprecation of female privacy and elevation of gender bigotry of all kinds. Women's lavatories, rape crisis centers, even female prisons are now open to biological men, some of whom have done nothing more committed to feminity than say a few words. Heterosexual men who don't want to date chicks with dicks are called bigots.
(5) vanishing distinction between the authentically dysphoric and what amounts to a fad, promoted by "trans" activists and a growing industry of clinics. The activists seek to increase their audiences and the clinics are in it for the money. And it's a lot of money.
Ipse dixit. You don't get to make up your own definitions. As you don't get to drive on any side of the road you want whenever you want.
We have to start with the definitions:
“ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
The increasingly common consensus is that "gender" refers to personalities & personality types while "sex" refers to the ability to produce either of two types of gametes -- no gametes, no sex:
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
male: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
I expect that many of the problems you listed are largely due to the fact that virtually every man, woman, and otherkin has their own idiosyncratic and quite contradictory definitions. And are too pigheaded to make any effort to reach a consensus which seems an essential precursor to any progress, to any way off the horns of a painful dilemma, out of the mephitic swamp created by the transgender clusterfuck.
I beg your pardon, it's not me making up new definiitions.
Unless you're talking about "biological gender" instead of the polysemous "sex." I think the former is clearer, and precision in speech has been a preoccupation of mine even before I began to speak as an infant.
Been a long time since I read Ariel and Will. Thanks for the reminder.
First I've heard about the redefinition of uh sex as the successful production of gametes. Is that too an outcome "gender ideology?" That would mean that sterility e.g. from adult measles or menopause makes one neuter. I can't agree with that.
Do you speak German? A girl, Mädchen. and an unmarried woman, Fräulein, are neuter nouns, femininity is only acquired with marriage, Frau.
I speak Vietnamese (I live here), which doesn't even have pronouns. As you might expect in a deferential language, they are complicated.
Edit: the great eleven-volume set is not available on Kindle, which is tragic.
Edit again: thanks for reminding me of "mephitic." I had forgotten the word, though I do remember the last time I heard it: it was Wm. F. Buckley and he arched his eyebrows in self-approbation as he often did when he was able to shoehorn in a word from his thesaurus. I don't think you're doing that, BTW.
Clearly, credible biological journals and dictionaries disagree. Think they carry a bit more weight ...
"redefinition of uh sex"
Definitions in Theoretical Biology go back to 1972. Expect the Oxford dictionary definitions probably derive from that. Their Dictionary of Biology reiterates the same.
"I can't agree with that."
LoL. No one complains until it is their own ox that's being gored ... Apropos of which, see this tweet by architectural student and biologist wannabe Zach Elliott who seems rather peeved that standard biological definitions would deprive the intersex of any claims to having a sex:
"Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes."
Dial it down, man. This is only the second time I've heard this and the first was from some "trans" fucknut and I don't take them seriously.
Yes definitions change but most of the changes are shit. I will not use "unique" to mean "distinctive" instead of "singular" even if I am the last holdout of the original meaning.
OTOH I accept "gotten" as the participle of "get" even though the Commonwealth still uses "have got" (it comes from confusion with "forgotten") because it's been about sixty years.
I sometimes double as a technical writer (I'm primarily a software developer) and I would resign before I would obey an order to use the singular "they." This goes back to my early teens when learning Russian made me look back at English; Russian has six cases, reflexive verbs, four genders of noun, and all kinds of ducks that need to be assembled in their rows to use correct grammar, and I was able to do it at 13 and I am no Isaac Newton. I wrote my Lithuanian grandmother letters in cursive Russian, now I n no longer write cursive English.
Yet most Americans can't manage the ONE requirement, singular and plural. someone ... they, social media is.
#BlameAllWomen - brilliant! I love it. Perfectly fits the idiocy of while claiming "trans women aren't safe in male prisons" - because of violence by biological males of course - the same "male violence" that is the reason biological women don't want "trans women" in their freaking spaces in the first place. It's not rocket science. But of course in our - #BlameAllWomen - world it is the responsibility of women to bear the responsibility for protecting even "men" from such male violence - "you women must house these trans women so they won't become victims of "male violence" - oh, but while we're at it can we still please keep pretending that "biological sex doesn't exist?"
Stop playing Mengele with kids.
Say it often:
A “trans woman” is a man impersonating a woman.
He remains male.
Unless he cuts his nuts off. Then he's no longer a male, he's a sexless eunuch ...
That IS the logical consequence of standard biological definitions, ones that have been "promulgated" in reputable journals like Theoretical Biology, Molecular Human Reproduction, & the Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science:
1) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0022519372900070
2) "Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes" (Lehtonen & Parker [FRS]):
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
3) https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
By those definitions, to have a sex is to have FUNCTIONAL gonads of either of two types, those with neither are, ipso facto, sexless.
Rather depressing that much of biology has turned into a clown show over a "debate" on whether sex is a binary or a spectrum. Major reason for which is that most of the combatants -- including various so-called biologists & philosophers -- haven't a flaming clue about various fundamental principles of linguistics, logic, epistemology, and philosophy:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Think it would help a great deal if people realized that there is NO intrinsic meaning to words, to "male" and "female" in particular. Moses didn't bring the first dictionary down from Mt Sinai on tablets A through Z so there are NO definitions that qualify as gospel truth, none that carry the imprimatur or signature of Jehovah -- Himself. The issue boils down into a question of which is the most useful and logically coherent definitions; the functional binary is looking like a strong contender ... 😉🙂
No, a eunuch is still male. His chromosomes, his skeleton, his remaining plumbing, all identify him as male.
Biological gender (I reserve "sex" for the physical act) is not a continuum, it is a basic feature of the biology of higher phyla of both plant and animal kingdoms. The "gender ideology" crowd is so desperate to seduce themselves with their own myths that they regard developmental defects like androgen insensitivity or chromosomal errors as other genders.
I have little to add to your collection of references. My concerns extend outside these indisputable biological facts:
(1) the general breakdown of notions of truth and objectivity; many "trans" activists will leave a discussion if someone suggests that there even exists such a thing as objective reality. The search for truth is "transphobic." In our politics and commercial speech lying is casually accepted and even people like Donald Trump and George Santos face no significan consequences.
(2) the attack on language. Pronouns have become morally and legally controversial, including a sharp increase in the use of the abhorrent singular "they," leading to writing that is all but unreadable and even more confusing speech. Such absurdities as "pregnant people," and "her penis" are uttered without a blink.
(3) the widespread medical malpractice of the affirmation industry, with deeply disturbed children granted hormones and surgery without even a perfunctory examination for gender dysphoria, which medical statistics place at a thousandth what self-reports claim.
(4) deprecation of female privacy and elevation of gender bigotry of all kinds. Women's lavatories, rape crisis centers, even female prisons are now open to biological men, some of whom have done nothing more committed to feminity than say a few words. Heterosexual men who don't want to date chicks with dicks are called bigots.
(5) vanishing distinction between the authentically dysphoric and what amounts to a fad, promoted by "trans" activists and a growing industry of clinics. The activists seek to increase their audiences and the clinics are in it for the money. And it's a lot of money.
Ipse dixit. You don't get to make up your own definitions. As you don't get to drive on any side of the road you want whenever you want.
We have to start with the definitions:
“ 'If you wish to converse with me,' said Voltaire, 'define your terms.' How many a debate would have been deflated into a paragraph if the disputants had dared to define their terms! This is the alpha and omega of logic, the heart and soul of it, that every important term in serious discourse shall be subjected to strictest scrutiny and definition. It is difficult, and ruthlessly tests the mind; but once done it is half of any task. — Will Durant"
https://quotefancy.com/quote/3001527/Will-Durant-If-you-wish-to-converse-with-me-said-Voltaire-define-your-terms-How-many-a
The increasingly common consensus is that "gender" refers to personalities & personality types while "sex" refers to the ability to produce either of two types of gametes -- no gametes, no sex:
"female: Of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.
male: Of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring."
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902010637/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
I expect that many of the problems you listed are largely due to the fact that virtually every man, woman, and otherkin has their own idiosyncratic and quite contradictory definitions. And are too pigheaded to make any effort to reach a consensus which seems an essential precursor to any progress, to any way off the horns of a painful dilemma, out of the mephitic swamp created by the transgender clusterfuck.
I beg your pardon, it's not me making up new definiitions.
Unless you're talking about "biological gender" instead of the polysemous "sex." I think the former is clearer, and precision in speech has been a preoccupation of mine even before I began to speak as an infant.
Been a long time since I read Ariel and Will. Thanks for the reminder.
First I've heard about the redefinition of uh sex as the successful production of gametes. Is that too an outcome "gender ideology?" That would mean that sterility e.g. from adult measles or menopause makes one neuter. I can't agree with that.
Do you speak German? A girl, Mädchen. and an unmarried woman, Fräulein, are neuter nouns, femininity is only acquired with marriage, Frau.
I speak Vietnamese (I live here), which doesn't even have pronouns. As you might expect in a deferential language, they are complicated.
Edit: the great eleven-volume set is not available on Kindle, which is tragic.
Edit again: thanks for reminding me of "mephitic." I had forgotten the word, though I do remember the last time I heard it: it was Wm. F. Buckley and he arched his eyebrows in self-approbation as he often did when he was able to shoehorn in a word from his thesaurus. I don't think you're doing that, BTW.
"I think the former is clearer,"
Clearly, credible biological journals and dictionaries disagree. Think they carry a bit more weight ...
"redefinition of uh sex"
Definitions in Theoretical Biology go back to 1972. Expect the Oxford dictionary definitions probably derive from that. Their Dictionary of Biology reiterates the same.
"I can't agree with that."
LoL. No one complains until it is their own ox that's being gored ... Apropos of which, see this tweet by architectural student and biologist wannabe Zach Elliott who seems rather peeved that standard biological definitions would deprive the intersex of any claims to having a sex:
"Discrimination is not eliminated, and true acceptance is not shown, by embracing the scientifically incorrect and morally problematic claims that people who differ from the norm are both or neither sexes."
https://twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1592711689438662656
Since when do "morally problematic claims" trump scientific principles and theories?
Lysenkoism writ large: "deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Seems like that's the same tune you're trying to peddle.
Dial it down, man. This is only the second time I've heard this and the first was from some "trans" fucknut and I don't take them seriously.
Yes definitions change but most of the changes are shit. I will not use "unique" to mean "distinctive" instead of "singular" even if I am the last holdout of the original meaning.
OTOH I accept "gotten" as the participle of "get" even though the Commonwealth still uses "have got" (it comes from confusion with "forgotten") because it's been about sixty years.
I sometimes double as a technical writer (I'm primarily a software developer) and I would resign before I would obey an order to use the singular "they." This goes back to my early teens when learning Russian made me look back at English; Russian has six cases, reflexive verbs, four genders of noun, and all kinds of ducks that need to be assembled in their rows to use correct grammar, and I was able to do it at 13 and I am no Isaac Newton. I wrote my Lithuanian grandmother letters in cursive Russian, now I n no longer write cursive English.
Yet most Americans can't manage the ONE requirement, singular and plural. someone ... they, social media is.
I'll peruse your links, OK?
Muslims might appreciate this
https://open.substack.com/pub/hsog/p/when-the-predator?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1n48li
#BlameAllWomen - brilliant! I love it. Perfectly fits the idiocy of while claiming "trans women aren't safe in male prisons" - because of violence by biological males of course - the same "male violence" that is the reason biological women don't want "trans women" in their freaking spaces in the first place. It's not rocket science. But of course in our - #BlameAllWomen - world it is the responsibility of women to bear the responsibility for protecting even "men" from such male violence - "you women must house these trans women so they won't become victims of "male violence" - oh, but while we're at it can we still please keep pretending that "biological sex doesn't exist?"