Some Positive Propositions on The Definition of Biological Sex
Putting the "Humans are Bipedal" Analogy on Trial
Last week, in a conversation with Steersman, to which others have contributed, I told him I would attempt to summarize where we are in our conversation and get some feedback from him.
I think it is also important for me to first explain where I am coming from and provide some positive propositions as well. I think Konstantin Kisin said it well in a recent video.
"Eric I want to hear a positive proposition from you, because you're kind of positioning yourself in a critique place from which it's much easier to operate so let Sam finish his point and then I want to hear from you what you think we should do because otherwise it's kind of asymmetrical"
- Konstantin Kisin
I have been operating too much from of a critiquing role without actually saying much about how I think biological sex should be defined. I think Kisin is noting that operating from this role is not very productive because it creates a poor dynamic placing your conversation partner in the role of the critiqued rather than having two conversation partners moving towards the goal of synthesis, a much more productive stance. So, before I return to my goal of summarizing where we are in the conversation on defining biological sex, I would like to lay out my position on a definition of biological sex.
What Is My Position on The Definition of Biological Sex?
My view of biological sex is that is can only be defined sufficiently at the species level. This is because the design of a particular species is defined at the genetic level. The design of a species will never change, it can only be corrupted when cell replication does not occur successfully. So, for the human species, the human female is designed to have a fully functional XX chromosome and the human male is designed to have a fully functional XY chromosome. Every human in existence today has a less than fully functional XX or XY chromosome or some other corrupted variation of the design. This is because cell replication does not always occur successfully, so the human genome is on a trajectory of increasing corruption over time, a concept known as genetic entropy. This process of genetic entropy can be accelerated over time (due to build up of large numbers of genetic mutations that are recessive) by inbreeding, which is why incest has demonstrably negative genetic effects. If there is a successful copy of all codons during the replication process, then there are no mutations. A mutation only occurs, when something other than an accurate copy occurs. A mutation is therefore a copying error. In information technology, we call this a corruption of the code. If one wanted a unifying definition of the sexes, that definition would need to say that sex is determined by the design of the DNA of an anisogamous species. This incorporates the gamete type of the organism (via the use of the term anisogamous species), which will be a necessary part of any definition of sex, and also takes into accounts functions (in addition to the production of functional gametes, such as mating rituals, production of pheromones, etc.) necessary for successful reproduction in each particular species while remaining unified by the fact that these additional functions are also determined by the DNA within that particular anisogamous species.
The Adverse Witness
As seen in the definition of “adverse witness’ from Cornell Law School in the image above, “is a witness who identifies with the opposing party because of a relationship or a common interest in the outcome of the litigation.” I would like to use this notion of the adverse witness because it removes the temptation to question the motive of the witness, because they are, if anything, motivated against providing any testimony that could result in a litigation outcome unfavorable to the common interest of their party. In my previous post on the bipedal analogy, I was critiquing the discussion over the validity of the bipedal analogy and eluded to my own beliefs regarding the validity of the analogy without specifically summarizing how the analogy compared to my position. My position on the definition of biological sex as stated earlier in this post should clarify my position on the validity of the analogy. If the person utilizing the analogy is intending to use the word design literally, then I believe the analogy is valid and would utilize the analogy myself. So I intend to do that now. Let’s put me on trial for utilizing this analogy in the court of academic expert opinion. Since I don’t want to personify academia and it is unlikely that all the people that make up academia are in agreement on everything, including this topic, instead I would like to refer to the party of the prosecution as the academic manifesto, which I think more accurately describes what I’d be accused of transgressing. I am the defendant and accused of transgressing the law of the academic manifesto or being a science-denier. During the trial, the prosecution calls an expert witness to the stand.
The prosecution: “Is it your understanding that the defendant used an analogy which used the word design to describe a structure in biology, DNA?”
The witness: “Yes, that is my understanding.”
The prosecution: “Is it clear that the defendant intended to use the word design literally, to say that human male and human female are the result of an intended design?”
The witness: “It is clear to me that the analogy speaks of not just human sexes, but the design of human sexes, yes.”
The prosecution: “Is this analogy valid in your expert opinion?”
The witness: “No, this is not a valid analogy…”
"Genetic variations are important for humans to evolve, which is the process of change over generations. A sporadic genetic mutation occurs in one person. That person passes their genetic mutation onto their children (hereditary), and it continues for generations. If the mutation improves that person’s chance of survival, or freedom from disease, then it begins being passed through generations and spread through the population. As the mutation passes from generation to generation, it becomes a normal part of the human genome and evolves from a gene variant into a normal gene."
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
The witness: “Since genetic variations were necessary for humans to evolve into their current form, their current form cannot be referred to as an intended design since it is the result of sporadic mutation.”
The prosecution: “No further questions.”
This seems to be an open and shut case, the prosecution is the academic manifesto, there doesn’t seem to be any expert the defense can call as an expert witness. The defense can cross-examine the prosecution’s witness, but the witness has made it clear that he or she believes the human genome is a result of mutations passed from generation to generation, and not an initial intended design. Nevertheless, the defense begins to cross-examine the witness.
The defense: “You said that humans were not designed with a specific form because their form is the result of sporadic mutation, is that correct?”
The witness: “That is correct.”
The defense: “Can you define genetic mutation for the record please?”
The witness: “Of course…”
“Genetic mutations occur during cell division. When your cells divide, they hand-write your body’s instruction manual by copying the original document word for word. There’s a lot of room for error during cell division because your cells might substitute (replace), delete (remove) or insert (add) letters while they’re copying. If you have an error (genetic mutation), your genetic instruction manual for your cells may not be readable by the cells, or may have missing parts or unnecessary parts added.”
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
The defense: “So, let me make sure I understand as I am no expert like yourself. You are saying a genetic mutation is an error?”
The witness: “That is correct.”
The defense: “Again let me just try to say in my own words what you just explained and correct me if I’m wrong. You are saying human DNA is an instruction manual for the human body and during cell division the original document is replicated or copied word for word? It is only when the result is not a perfect copy of the original document that a genetic mutation, or copying error, has occurred?”
The witness: “That is correct.”
The defense: “Can you please describe what happens to the human body when a genetic mutation occurs.”
The witness: “Of course...”
“A genetic mutation is a change in a sequence of your DNA. Your DNA sequence gives your cells the information they need to perform their functions. If part of your DNA sequence is in the wrong place, isn’t complete or is damaged, you might experience symptoms of a genetic condition.”
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
“Symptoms of genetic conditions depend on which gene has a mutation. There are many different diseases and conditions caused by mutations. The signs and symptoms you experience could include:
- Physical characteristics like facial abnormalities, a cleft palate, webbed fingers and toes, or short stature.
- Problems with cognitive (intellectual) function and developmental delays.
- Vision or hearing loss.
- Breathing problems.
- Increased risk of developing cancer.”
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
“There are thousands of genetic conditions that exist. Some of the most common genetic conditions are:
- Alzheimer’s disease.
- Some cancers.
- Cystic fibrosis.
- Down syndrome.
- Sickle cell disease.”
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
The defense: “So, let me summarize what you are saying to make sure I am still understanding and correct me if I am wrong. You are saying a genetic mutation describes when part of your DNA sequence is in the wrong place, isn’t complete or is damaged, creating a genetic condition from which the human may experience common symptoms such as physical abnormalities, impairment to cognitive, breathing, vision, or developmental function, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, cystic fibrosis, down syndrom, and sickle cell disease?”
The witness: “That is correct.”
The defense: “That sounds like genetic mutations generally have negative effects on the human body, are all genetic mutations bad?”
The witness: “Of course not, some genetic mutations can be beneficial...”
“Not all genetic mutations lead to genetic disorders. Some genetic mutations don’t have any effect on your health and well-being. This is because the change in the DNA sequence doesn’t change how your cell functions...Some genetic mutations even have a positive effect on humans. Changes in how cells work can sometimes improve the proteins that your cells produce and allow them to adapt to changes in your environment. An example of a positive genetic mutation is one that can protect a person from acquiring heart disease or diabetes, even with a history of smoking or being overweight.”
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
“Mutations in genes that play a role in heart health are the inspiration for a cluster of new heart drugs. One of the best examples is the discovery of mutations in the PCSK9 gene. People with a variant of this enzyme have lower LDL levels (the bad cholesterol), which protects them against heart disease.”
"One such genetic factor is a variation in a gene called SLC30A8, which encodes a protein which carries zinc. This protein is important, because zinc is essential for ensuring that insulin, (the only hormone that can reduce blood sugar levels) has the right shape in the beta-cells of the pancreas...The results showed that people with the mutation have higher insulin and lower blood sugar levels, reducing their risk for diabetes."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191104112855.htm
The witness: “...and as I mentioned previously, genetic mutations are the mechanism by which humans came into existence through evolution.”
The defense: “So, would it be true to say that the best examples of beneficial mutations that come to mind are mutations which protect the human body from heart disease by approximately 15% or protect humans from diabetes by producing higher insulin levels, even with a history of smoking or being overweight, and this is the primary mechanism by which humans evolved?”
The witness: “That is correct.”
The defense: “This is also the first time I have heard you use the phrase ‘genetic disorder’. When you said, ‘Not all genetic mutations lead to genetic disorders’, that sounded to me like a genetic disorder is describing an unhealthy condition for the human body. Does this imply that there exists an ordered or healthy condition for the human body?”
The witness: “Of course there is an ordered or healthy condition for the human body, otherwise using the word disorder would be incoherent. So we can refer to a healthy body as having healthy genes…”
“How do I keep my genes healthy to prevent genetic mutations? Some genetic mutations happen randomly and you can’t prevent them from occurring. Other genetic mutations can be the result of changes to your environment. You can take steps to prevent some genetic mutations by:
- Not smoking.
- Wearing sunscreen when out in the sun.
- Avoiding chemical exposure (carcinogens) or exposure to radiation (X-ray exposure).
- Eating a healthy, balanced diet and avoiding processed foods.”
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
The witness: “...So there are various ways you can maintain healthy genes by reducing the possibility of genetic mutation occurring. “
The defense: “I am not an expert and perhaps that is why I am finding this confusing, please correct me if I’m wrong, it sounds like you are saying that there are genetic mutations we can not prevent, and the ones that we can prevent, we should. Is that correct?”
The witness: “No, while it is true that in most scenarios is makes sense to prevent genetic mutations, there are several examples where the mutations can be considered demonstrably beneficial, as in the case of mutations in the PCSK9 and SLC30A8 genes, which reduce the chances of disease and there is also the famous example of sickle cell preventing the contraction of the disease known as malaria.”
"There are positive effects at the whole organism level
Carriers of the sickle cell allele are resistant to malaria, because the parasites that cause this disease are killed inside sickle-shaped blood cells.”
The defense: “This has been a lot of information to absorb, let me see if I have this correct, you said when your cells divide, they hand-write your body’s instruction manual by copying the original document word for word. When the attempt to copy the original document perfectly is unsuccessful, this is called a mutation or copying error. A human DNA sequence gives your cells the information they need to perform their functions. A genetic mutation is a change in a sequence of your DNA. If part of your DNA sequence is in the wrong place, isn’t complete or is damaged, you might experience symptoms of a genetic condition or disease. There are thousands of genetic conditions that exist, including cancer, down syndrome, and Sickle cell disease and you can name at least three beneficial genetic mutations, if you include one that is also considered a genetic disease (sickle cell). So, the production of these two or three examples of beneficial mutations and millions of hypothetical mutations like them, are the primary mechanism for human evolution and the evolution of life in general?”
The witness: “That is correct.”
The defense: “Since genetic variations were necessary for humans to evolve into their current form, their current form cannot be referred to as an intended design since it is the result of sporadic mutation. Would that be correct say?”
The witness: “That is correct.”
The defense: “Since genetic variations require humans to change from their current form, and genetic variations require mutations, and genetic mutations are copying errors, which results in part of your DNA sequence being in the wrong place, incomplete, or damaged, because it is an unintended copying error from an original document, wouldn’t that suggest that at one point in time, there existed at least two complete human genomes (XX and XY) with no DNA sequences damaged or in the wrong place, but rather in their right place, before there were any copying errors in the two original documents?”
The witness: “No, this is not what it would suggest…”
"Genetic variations are important for humans to evolve, which is the process of change over generations. A sporadic genetic mutation occurs in one person. That person passes their genetic mutation onto their children (hereditary), and it continues for generations. If the mutation improves that person’s chance of survival, or freedom from disease, then it begins being passed through generations and spread through the population. As the mutation passes from generation to generation, it becomes a normal part of the human genome and evolves from a gene variant into a normal gene."
https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/body/23095-genetic-mutations-in-humans
The witness: “Since genetic variations were necessary for humans to evolve into their current form, their current form cannot be referred to as an intended design since it is the result of sporadic mutation.”
The defense: “No further questions.”
I was found guilty of course of denying science, due to my ignorance of the meaning of words such as original, document, words, healthy, complete, copy, error, incomplete, disease, disorder, wrong place, and damaged, and committing the grave error of thinking any of these concepts are in some way analogous to the concept of design.
To begin to relate this back to our previous conversation, in this “mock trial” the witness is committing the same error I mentioned in my initial comments on the bipedal analogy, one cannot claim that something is designed and also not designed at the same time and in the same respect. The adverse witness cannot use the phrase “original document” and then claim that there was no “original”, nor claim something is “incomplete” but there is no such thing as “complete”. It also seems odd that the witness would claim that a DNA sequence can be damaged, and it is best to remain a healthy DNA sequence, but also claims all healthy DNA sequences are a result of an accumulation of DNA sequences that are continually genetically mutated which means damaged, incompletely copied, or in the wrong place. As always, I look forward to reading the comments below and continuing the conversation!
“Is it your understanding that the defendant used an analogy which used the word design to describe a structure in biology, DNA."
Interesting idea to put yourself on trial, and you seem to have a handle on some of the biology and genetics involved in "the case". However, it seems you're starting off on the wrong foot and wind up barking up the wrong tree by relying on anything to do with design or structure -- which you apparently acknowledge by entering a "guilty" plea.
The whole point of the biological definitions is that they're based on the presence of transitory reproductive processes: no process, no sex. See my earlier points about clownfish and hundreds of other species which change sex over the course of their lives. Which are simply incompatible with any definitions based on structure or design.
But given your apparent "guilty" plea, I'm at a loss to interpret this later statement of yours:
AH: "... the witness is committing the same error I mentioned in my initial comments on the bipedal analogy, one cannot claim that something is designed and also not designed at the same time and in the same respect."
I assume your "witness" is that Cleveland Clinic source you're quoting though didn't more than skim them so can't say that they're saying both designed and not-designed. Somewhat irrelevant in either case -- more on which later -- but it does highlight a common misperception that genes and chromosomes are more or less like blueprints -- entirely different kettles of fish; see:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/
But quite agree with you that something can't be A and not-A, at least simultaneously. Though I expect they may have different senses to the word in mind. But consider a definition from Google/Oxford that is roughly equivalent to those blueprints:
"design: a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is built or made"
Many people want to make the sex chromosomes, the karyotypes, into those plans and drawings that "build" the sexes. But a blueprint for a car is entirely different from the car itself. In addition to which, many different blueprints -- for millions of species -- all lead to the eventual existence of processes -- in the "as-built models" -- that produce large or small gametes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-determination_system
That's what makes the biological definitions for the sexes "universal".