Thinking About Accidental and Essential Properties

This post was originally meant to be a comment on one of Steersman’s substack posts, but the response grew to a length more appropriate for a post than a comment. I’d like to thank Steersman and Hippiesq for continuing this conversation and keeping it open. What I find so valuable about the conversation is it is clearly between people who seek to understand each other, striving to communicate accurately, and ultimately get closer to the truth of the matter. Here is a quick summary of where I perceive the conversation to be right now.

A Conversation About Sex and Gender Between Curious Inquirers

The conversation has included a detailed discussion of the current definitions for sex and gender and how they require improvement to correspond to what we know from science and common sense. The problem is that science and common sense both seem to have great difficulty in articulating precise definitions for either concept. Since it is difficult to have a conversation about gender and sex without defining either term, the conversation has narrowed to discussing definitions for fundamental concepts like human, male, and female. In particular, the discussion has focused on the problems with existing definitions in relation to DSDs (disorders of sexual development) and how the current definitions result in paradoxes, such as DSDs being relegated by definition to non-human or other. Steersman uses the analogy of “humans are bipedal” raised by Hippiesq to guide the discussion.

Hippiesq: “As I've said before, humans are bipedal. This does not change simply because some people are born with only one leg, or no legs, or perhaps three legs.”

Steersman: “Seems to be something of a common ‘argument by analogy’ that I’ve seen quite frequently, although it is apparently something of a ‘false’ one”

The part of the analogy that Steersman finds problematic is defining humans as bipedal, or more specifically treating bipedal as an essential property of humans, because we know humans exist who do not have two legs.

Steersman: "Part of the problem or misperception there is apparently the implication, premise, or thought that ALL humans are bipedal."

I see this as the primary disagreement that is currently the focus of the conversation. This gets side-tracked a little bit because as Steersman admits, he is not sure where Hippiesq was going with the analogy and is left to infer that she is using to analogy to make the point that,

Steersman: “humans (A) are to legless people (B) as the sexes (C) are to those with DSDs (D)”

Hippiesq replies with clarification that she was saying,

Hippiesq: "To me, the analogy (the A to B and C to D) is human(A) to bipedal(B) and human(C) to sex-binary(D)."

This certainly clarifies her intentions regarding the identity of A, B, C, & D of the bipedal analogy, but does not answer what I’ve identified as the primary critique of her point, that humans exist that are not bipedal, so bipedal cannot be an essential property of what it is to be human. I still believe Hippiesq’s analogy needs very little tinkering and I agree that there is still a missing element to the analogy. Steersman is simply pointing out a universally observable reason to challenge this commonly accepted analogy. I am sympathetic to both views and of course hope that I am describing them accurately. I believe Steersman point is accurately highlighting a missing element to this analogy and Hippiesq is trying to provide as much clarity as possible for why her intuition seems to be telling her this analogy is still correct or at least approaching correct.

Finding the Missing Element to the Analogy

There are several concepts raised in the conversation that I would like to comment on, intrinsic knowledge, accidental vs essential properties, and gamete type, which I believe are helpful in thinking about the identity of the missing element. I also noticed two major themes emerging: what we know without being told and what happens when this conflicts with what we are told or have already come to believe. Hippiesq’s comment on intrinsic knowledge, or that which we intrinsically know to be true, is an interesting place to begin.

Hippiesq: “While I can't - because of lack of scientific knowledge - point to the exact characteristics that make someone male or female, I would say we need a definition that accounts for what we intrinsically know to be true - similar to what makes one human.”

This comment highlights the major conundrum of our day, why does the scientific community seem so incapable of formulating definitions of human male and female that comport with what we intrinsically know to be true? I spent some time thinking about how to articulate for myself what I thought to be intrinsically true about humans, males, and females as it relates to this discussion. I believe scientific knowledge is a great addition to common sense, but a lousy replacement. I think we all know intrinsically that anyone who is the offspring of two human parents is human, regardless of sexual status. What we intrinsically know about human male and female is that you need both to make human babies, particularly without the aid of technology. We also all know, when we are born, our mother is a female. Our mother is born a female and is female at her death. Our father is born a male, is a male at our birth and at his death. These statements seem to me intrinsically true and self-evident.

My hope is that everyone will find their place in the world and experience a life filled with love, appreciation, and self-improvement. All humans who are not biological parents, which includes those we might classify as neither male or female, are still worthy of respect and to be treated with the same dignity as biological parents because humans are born with exceedingly great value and potential. I think this is also something we intrinsically know to be true. Would we consider Albert Einstein less valuable if he never had any children? Another concept mentioned by Hippiesq that we intrinsically understand is design.

The Missing Element of the “Humans are Bipedal” Analogy

In my experience, when honest enquirers disagree, it is usually due to conflicting pre-existing unnamed premises. So naming and remaining cognizant of the pre-existing conflicting premises is important to understanding the difference in conclusions and successfully working towards a synthesis. What is the pre-existing premise causing an impasse in this conversation? What makes this conversation particularly interesting is that I think (although I could be wrong) that in this instance, both Steersman and Hippiesq actually agree on the underlying premise that is causing the impasse in their conversation. The conflict is not between premises, it is between their common sense and the conclusions drawn from a shared premise and they are both trying to pinpoint where the conflict or contradiction really lies. This is where the conversation gets truly fascinating, Hippiesq recognizes the missing element of the analogy as previously stated and puts the analogy back on solid footing.

Hippiesq: “My simple point was that people are designed as bipedal, but the existence of some non-bipedal people doesn't mean people aren't designed to be bipedal, and that some people don't fit neatly into the male or female categories doesn't mean people aren't designed to be male or female.”

How does this fix the analogy? The original analogy was speaking of the properties of humans, the clarified version of the analogy is speaking of the properties of the human design, with the properties of design being the analogous concept instead of the properties of human. Hippiesq characterizes her point as “simple”, yet I can see why there could be considerable confusion over this point. I don’t know her worldview, so I had to infer from a single example (and could easily be misinterpreting) of her using quotation marks around the word design, that she is not intending to use the word literally in the sense of referring to an intelligent designer or intended human design.

Hippiesq: “The existence of some unipedal or nonpedal (or even tripedal) individuals doesn’t change the basic “design” of human bodies, but is just a variation from the normal design, not a new type of human.”

Unfortunately, this breaks the recently patched problem with the original analogy. This is the true source of the contradiction (between premise and subsequent statements), and why the analogy remains insufficient. One cannot claim that something is designed and also not designed at the same time and in the same respect. I suspect that she feels compelled to use the word design repeatedly because we all intrinsically know that this is the correct word to use to form a coherent sentence with the same meaning as the ideas we wish to convey in this context. It is only with the addition of quotation marks indicating one does not actually mean design, that the meaning of the word design becomes unclear, and the analogy loses coherency. It is currently my belief that it is only when we replace common sense with so-called scientific knowledge that confusion sets in and we are unsure if the quotation marks are appropriate or not.

Both conversation participants agree that the current definitions provided by the scientific community are insufficient to reasonably account for everything that is observed. Why is it so difficult for the scientific community to produce a methodology for classifying all possible sexual outcomes in humans in a manner that comports with what we intrinsically know to be true and is universally acceptable in the sense of producing consistent reproducible results we commonly associate with the scientific method? We are taught from our youth that we are not designed as humans first, but designed over time, with natural selection taking on the role of what we intrinsically know to be necessary, the role of the designer. This is directly related to how we define the essential and accidental properties of human male and human female.

Looking at another example of design which we can relate back to our analogy, when preparing to purchase an automobile, one likely considers many designs from different manufacturers which produce different model cars representing those designs. Each design has essential properties that define and distinguish the design from all the others. A particular make and model can also have optional features specific to that model. The optional features are still properties of the design, but they are not essential properties of the design, they can be viewed as accidental. We can also look at a particular instance or implementation of the design, a particular automobile and its properties. Let’s say one is to purchase a new car, but it turns out the car has a manufacturing flaw; the flaw is an accidental property of that instance of that model and also accidental to the design, it is not an essential property of that design. In this case, the car is a flawed instance of the intended design. A flawed instance of an intended design should not be confused with the essential properties of the design itself. To the point, one would not say a modern car isn’t designed to be highly aerodynamic because a manufacturing flaw causes a particular car to be less aerodynamic.

Relating this back to the comments of Hippiesq, I see this as directly related to how we define the essential and accidental properties of human male and female because if humans were intentionally designed as humans to reproduce using human gametes to produce humans, then the essential and accidental properties are indeed best framed as properties of the human design itself. So, it would be appropriate to say that humans are bipedal by design and humans are male and female by design and these are essential properties of the human design. All other instances are still human, they are simply instances of humans with manufacturing flaws in the areas responsible for performing reproductive functions, which coincidentally sounds similar to...disorders of sexual development (DSDs). This seems to comport with what we intrinsically know to be true, which I believe is the reason we use the word design so readily in these conversations, regardless of our worldviews.

This should also begin to clarify why Hippiesq’s intuition tells her that the scientific community will continue to struggle to clearly define the essential and accidental properties of humans, males and females.

Hippiesq: "I’m less inclined to believe science can give us a good answer for those with non-functional ovotestes, partial feminization and partial masculinization of their body at puberty."

We are taught from our youth that we were not designed as humans first, but designed over time, with natural selection taking on the role of what we intrinsically know to be necessary, the role of the designer. This produces a problem when it comes to the concept of gametes. This problem is best highlighted by thinking of gametes at the anisogamous species level.

anisogamous - characterized by fusion of heterogamous gametes or of individuals that usually differ chiefly in size.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anisogamous

I think it is important to note that it is essential for the heterogamous gametes to be from the same species for the fusion to produce and sustain fertile offspring. A horse can reproduce with a donkey, but the offspring (mule) is sterile. Even in the rare instances where a mule mare can produce offspring with a donkey or horse, the offspring eventually suffers from infertility. It’s an important point because it highlights the stumbling block for the scientific community when it comes to clearly defining human males and females and even human itself. The predominant belief within the scientific community, at least in academia, is the belief that male and female gametes of one species, can change over time, to produce male and female gametes of another species. If it is true that humans were intentionally designed as humans, then clearly and accurately defining all possible sexual outcomes in the context of fertility would require framing the explanation in terms of an intentional design, which would speak to whether the predominant belief in academia should be considered provisionally true or false. I wonder how this giant elephant in the room would affect the formulation of any precise definitions originating from the scientific community within its current paradigm.

I think if we find ourselves in a situation where the community, scientific or not, is telling us something that conflicts with what we intrinsically know to be true, it is important to trust our intuition. It is equally important to continue to consider what is said by the community as one can always be mistaken, and scientific knowledge complements our intuition; but I think it is equally important to be cautious to never let consensus override our intuition.

I want to thank Steersman and Hippiesq again for sharing their thoughts on a fascinating discussion and the reader for considering my thoughts. I look forward to reading any comments and feedback below. I am particularly interested if there are any truths or concepts that I claimed “we all intrinsically know” which the reader does not perceive to be self-evident. That may be a blind-spot for me which the reader can see unobstructed from a different perspective. Thank you again for reading and sharing your perspectives!