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.
Abraham, thanks muchly for picking up the conversational ball and running with it. 🙂 Definitely trying to promote a wider discussion on those topics.
And nice to see your own post found some support -- I expect I'll weigh in here later myself, apart from posting this comment from my Substack here, but that will require more time and effort to do justice to it.
However, an important point probably bears some preliminary emphasis. You said:
"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."
Seems that "what we intrinsically know to be true" is something of a weak reed to be putting much faith in. Many people used think that about the earth being flat and center of the universe. Likewise about humans being the result of special creation by Jehovah.
There are solid reasons for biological definitions for the sexes that you seem to be giving short shrift to. You might want to read a post about a review of a paper by philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths on those definitions, and my conversation with the author of it:
Thank you Steersman for your thoughtful comments. I agree my comment about trusting intuition over consensus would benefit from additional nuance and is not entirely satisfactory as stated. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this and anything else you would like to share. I’ll check out the comments and post you linked to as well. Thanks again!
Second, I don’t think Abraham is very far off at all by appealing to intuition in this way, largely because I think he’s basically right about the distinctions between science and common sense.
For example, what if we use the following starting-points for how common sense often works and maybe even how it lets us proceed to doing science at all:
[1] Intuition need not, it seems to me, to be thought of as only and everywhere a gut-feeling, but also instead as something like “the activity of looking” (S. Rosen, “Logic & Dialectic”, p. 131).
[2] It seems to me that you have to look at something before you measure or count it, or you wouldn’t know what to measure or count in the first place.
[3] At least on a small scale of perceiving everyday things, I think, you can identify these things that you see as unitary wholes (without needing to define them strictly), because many, if not most, have “discernible and distinguishable looks” (S. Rosen, “Elusiveness”, p. 217; and R. Tallis, “Aping Mankind”, p. 114).
[4] These looks often seem to have a unity that allows them to be axiomatized in the first place.
[5] It appears also to me that intuition need not be thought of as exclusively private; and it also seems to me that it may be subject to failure and subsequent revision.
[6] That the intuition of looks sometimes fails doesn’t mean that we always and everywhere fail to distinguish properly between looks.
So it seems to me that the reed may be “weak” in some cases, but in many cases it will not be one that lacks sufficient support.
Thank you, Jesse, for reading and commenting! The Apple Pie post was a great recommendation, and I enjoyed the nuance that you added concerning intuition in your comment, so thank you for all of the above.
I owe Apple Pie a response, particularly as that post of his is largely a response to an earlier comment of mine. However, while I think he makes some good points, I think he's very confused on many of them, and thereby makes some very confusing if not incoherent arguments because he never does get around to defining exactly what he means, with any coherence, by both "sex" and "gender" in the first place. For instance, see his conclusion:
AP: "Is Gender Just on a Spectrum from Male to Female?
Not even remotely.
Gender is ultimately where culture and society make sense of sex. And those who live in between the two primary sexes definitely do not just live in between."
Is he using "male" and "female" as sexes or as genders? Is he arguing that the intersex are sexless (which I would agree with) or that the intersex are a third sex (which I wouldn't)?
Both you and he might reflect on a quote about Voltaire:
QF: "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"
You both might also have some interest in my post on monothetic and polythetic categories, particularly as he seems unaware that his three genders, or three sexes, still qualifies as a spectrum. There IS some rhyme and reason to how scientists, biologists in particular, define their terms; it's not just a free-for-all:
Thank you Steersman for caring. I can't overemphasize how important people like you are, who are willing to listen and continue to stress dissatisfaction where it is productive to do so, stressing where more vigorous definitions are needed. I understand that my post does not address your main criticism of the conversation as whole,
In fact, I do not address gender in my post and I also talk about male and female without attempting to rigorously define the terms. This is intentional and this post is not meant to be an exhaustive look at the topic, rather the laying of conceptual framework needed to continue the discussion. Consider for example if I had attempted to begin my post by defining a human male as a human designed to express XY human chromosomes and a human female as a human designed to express XX human chromosomes. Without taking the time to highlight the difference between the properties of human and the properties of human design, this attempt at a definition of the sexes looks almost indistinguishable from the original analogy your criticism is identifying and would give the impression that I am not really listening to or trying to address your point. So, I decided it was important to first outline the difference between the two analogies. Although I haven't yet decided on the best way to frame the gender discussion, I intend to write a post focusing on intuition and another focusing on sex and gender, which I hope you will find more rigorous and satisfying. Thanks again Steersman!
👍🙂 Though I might point out that your quote of me apparently comes from a Boghossian post. If so you might want to add a link thereto.
However, I think you're going off the rails and are barking up the wrong tree, if not being rather disingenuous, in talking about defining "human male" and "human female". If those were compound words and separate categories then I wouldn't have any objections, or certainly not as many.
But they're NOT compound words -- the roots to the phrases are "male" and "female" which have precise biological definitions and criteria for category membership. Which you and too many others are apparently trying to avoid dealing with.
Though I appreciate your efforts to try understanding and elaborating on the bipedal analogy that was the starting point in my conversation with Hippiesq. Which I hope to address in more detail later.
Jesse, sorry if you thought that I didn't address your points about intuition. But you started off with some rather fulsome praise of Apple's post which I think is a rather self-serving dog's breakfast. Maybe on the surface not relevant to your point about intuition, but I expended some effort -- which I don't see you picked up on -- to at least suggest a common thread: if we can define our terms precisely and accurately then that dog's breakfast is to be expected.
And if you're going to put your money on "intuition" then what about those of transwomen who are quite certain they qualify as female? Your argument looked to be a pretext to defending "self-identification".
And the point of my Binarists post is that your "intuitionistic" and colloquial definitions for the sexes are no better than folk-biology. No doubt has some utility when it comes to humans and mammals in general, but generally useless, worse than useless when it comes to millions of other anisogamous species.
You might try reading a Note by evolutionary biologist Colin Wright on the topic:
But to answer your question, of course there's a "difference between ordinary experience and extraordinary discourse", although that's something of a strawman. Some of biology may indeed have little direct effect on the proverbial man-in-the-street. But those "gametic definitions" of Wright and virtually all of mainstream biology are foundational to the whole discipline -- which DOES have a profound effect on all of us. Definitions which far too many seem bound and determined to bastardize and corrupt and adulterate with quite unscientific claptrap, with "other ways of knowing".
Thank you Steersman. I took your advice and added a source for your quote from your comment on Boghossian’s substack in my comment (I wouldn’t have even thought to look for a share button on a comment, so thanks for the assist on my learning to utilize that). I also wanted to apologize for not taking enough time to understand your overarching point of the whole conversation you are trying to have, beyond the bipedal analogy. Sometimes hard-headed people like myself need to be given the answers I ask for several times before I realize my question has already been answered. I took the time the read the substack notes and comments that you linked to several times now and I think they did provide the clarity you intended. I'd like to make sure I understand you and think about your position before giving any thought to a response, please correct me where I am wrong or misinterpreting anything along the way. Your position regarding the definition of sex is that gametes are the unifying (universal) definition and necessary condition to qualify as having a sex of male or female which is in agreement with the definitions from all reputable scientific sources. You believe it is good to favor scientific taxonomies over folk taxonomies because the scientific taxonomies are more objective and universal. You believe it is important that definition be "universal" – such as applying to ALL anisogamous species in order to abide by the "principle of parsimony." This is also why you reason "secondary [sexual] characteristics" should not be relevant to this conversation because they rely on individual species and therefore violate the principle of parsimony in this particular example of defining biological sex.
I have included the quotes below that I considered while trying to summarize your position. Please let me know if I misinterpreted anything you said and if you have anything to add that you think I should also consider. I’d still like to hear any continuation of your thoughts on the bipedal analogy as well, but I will still care to hear them months from now if there are more interesting things to talk about in the meantime : )
Colin Wright: "in science we abide by what's called the "principle of parsimony." This is a methodological principle that says that, when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon, one should favor the simplest one that requires the fewest assumptions and still adequately accounts for the evidence."
Colin Wright: “gametes as the unifying definition of the sexes”
Steersman: "Agree entirely. The foundational trait. The “necessary & sufficient condition” to qualify as “male” and “female”. Though you are probably reluctant to go that far."
Steersman: "Folk taxonomies are generated from social knowledge and are used in everyday speech. They are distinguished from scientific taxonomies that claim to be disembedded from social relations and thus more objective and universal."
Steersman: "And chief among those facts are the standard biological definitions -- ones promulgated in reputable biological journals and dictionaries -- that say absolutely diddly-squat about any structure -- they're all about process, specifically the process of producing gametes.
You blather on, at great length as is your wont, about "secondary [sexual] characteristics" while conveniently "forgetting" that those standard biological definitions say absolutely nothing about them for the very good reason that they depend greatly on the species under discussion. The whole point about those definitions is that they are "universal" -- they apply to ALL anisogamous species -- including the human one."
Steersman: "they explicitly said that "mammalian embryos [with XY-setups]" -- i.e., including human "male" (nominally speaking) fetuses, babies, and boys -- simply do NOT have a sex ("yet"). They haven't yet entered the "life-history stage" of male. And they won't enter it until the onset of puberty.
Nor do you seem much willing to face the facts that reputable biological journals and dictionaries STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have the ability to produce -- present tense indefinite -- gametes of either of two types, those with neither ability being sexless. You're just dogmatically insisting -- sans evidence or any reasoned argument at all -- that some rather vague "reproductive strategies" and structures should trump those standard biological definitions -- and the solid philosophical and biological principles which undergird them."
I had never used the Share button before -- I had just selected the comment I had wanted to link to and then copied its URL. The Share button is definitely quicker and more useful so thanks for that -- learn something new every day 🙂.
But quite a thorough and accurate summary of my argument, though you may wish to read the Griffiths paper reviewed on Dale's Substack. While he's a philosopher of biology, I'm not sure, from recollection, whether he gives any philosophical arguments in favour of the standard biological definitions for the sexes. Offhand, they seem to be what are called "stipulative definitions" which can conflict with historical ones of the same term -- basically the folk-biology versions. Not sure how that can be resolved, but see:
SEP: "Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings."
Seems hard to imagine more fundamental and ubiquitous "natural kinds", at least in biology, than "produces ova" and "produces sperm". Though still a bit of a murky concept.
In any case, I still hope and plan on addressing your comments about the bipedal analogy. However, I'm sort of restricted at the moment to using a smartphone which is generally inadequate for that task.
I can share your personal observations and deconstruction of the conversation with those around me as a demonstration of higher level listening.
Some of the young people in my world are attempting to learn (or more accurately UNLEARN poor communication skills) this will help them engage a technique that is new to them.
The pleasure is all mine, thank you for reading and commenting! I am honored and humbled that you would share my post with your loved ones. Thank you again.
Abraham, something of a follow-up or continuation of my first comment. Sorry for the delay, but you covered a lot of ground, both in your OP and subsequent comments, that isn't easy to address, particularly on a smartphone. But I think you gave a reasonably fair and decent synopsis of my conversation with Hippiesq on the bipedal analogy, and clarified a number of points with your later comment:
Relative to that analogy, I appreciate that you emphasized that "humans exist that are not bipedal, so bipedal cannot be an essential property of what it is to be human". Something of an important point in that whole discussion. And you made several other useful observations on that topic that I'll get into a bit later, but it seems useful to first address several other ones apparently unrelated to it. For several examples, you said:
AH: "The problem is that science and common sense both seem to have great difficulty in articulating precise definitions for either concept. .... 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?"
First off, I don't see that science has had much "difficulty articulating precise definitions" for the sexes -- a great many biological sources are quite clear on what it takes to qualify as male or female even if it may have taken biology some time to get there. For many examples and details, see my Binarists vs Spectrumists post:
The problem is that most of the public is either unaware of them or simply refuses to accept them because of "prior commitments" or because of dogmatically held premises and unexamined assumptions. They generally want to make the sexes into social categories whereas biologists generally want to accurately describe and grapple with phenomena that manifest themselves across literally millions of anisogamous species -- i.e., the presence of those organisms which make large gametes or small gametes. Completely antithetical and inconsistent objectives.
Your insistence or attempt -- and that of many others, including various transactivists -- at "formulating definitions that comport with what we intrinsically know to be true" is not far removed from trying to shoehorn the foot of social justice into the glass slipper of biology (so to speak): the only result will be the crippling of social justice, and the shattering of biology. Lose, lose.
You might take a gander at another article by Paul Griffiths at Aeon Magazine that neatly summarizes that problem:
PG: "The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare. .... On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."
Returning to the bipedal analogy, this comment of yours seems a useful starting point for a number of reasons:
AH: "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."
Right out of the chute, the problems with "design" are ubiquitous and rather fatal, at least for the biological definitions. While both you and Hippiesq helpfully allude to problematic implications with "intelligent design", there is still the brute fact that a great many species change sex over the course of their lives: were they "designed" to produce both sperm and ova and are therefore both male and female? Bit of a murky concept, but some reason to argue that function is, by definition, THE essential property for the sexes. And for many other categories. Decent elaboration on the theme from a Psychology Today article:
PT: "No one has the essence of maleness or femaleness, for one simple reason: Since the 17th century, what science has been showing, in every single field, is that the folk notion of an 'essence' is not reflected in reality. There are no essences in nature. For the last three hundred years or so, the advance of science has been in lockstep with the insight that is what really exists are processes, not essences."
Which leads into your analogy with cars and manufacturing defects. But to start with, consider what it means for something to qualify as a car in the first place, its "essential property". From Google/OxfordLanguages:
"car (noun): a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people."
If a "car" came off the production line without an engine -- some "manufacturing defect" -- then it is most certainly not "able to carry a small number of people". It may LOOK like a car, but it is unable to perform the essential and defining function, and therefore doesn't qualify as one. Likewise with many people with DSDs, the prepubescent, and transwomen who cut their nuts off: sexless.
Something of a summary from Arthur Conan Doyle:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
IF we start with the biological definitions for the sexes as our premises, as our axioms, THEN it is simply "impossible" that those individuals unable to produce gametes can qualify as male or female.
Thank you, Steersman, I am enjoying consuming the content you recommended and excited to think about your latest comments regarding the bipedal analogy! I can see how the smartphone limitation would be challenging to say the least. While I think about your latest comment, I have a question for you that came up while I was thinking about a unifying definition of sex and the principle of parsimony.
Why is it important for the definition of sex to be unifying or universal? I ask because I understand how a definition that is valid universally would be preferred over a more complex definition, when both definitions adequately account for all the evidence. This is following the principle of parsimony. However, if the universal definition is required beforehand, I don’t see how it still follows the principle of parsimony, because it seems to lose the limiting factor on simplicity. The limiting factor on simplicity in the principle of parsimony is adequately accounting for the evidence. If one requires the unifying definition (universal), rather than the simplest which accounts for all the evidence, this creates the possibility of excluding the subset of possible definitions that are not universal from the set of all possible definitions satisfying the principle, because it prevents consideration of any evidence that would indicate the proposed universal definition is too simple to account for all the evidence.
AH: "Why is it important for the definition of sex to be unifying or universal? I ask because I understand how a definition that is valid universally would be preferred over a more complex definition, when both definitions adequately account for all the evidence."
Good question not easily answered -- particularly as I'm back on my smartphone 🙂.
However, I sort of think you answered your own question and are engaged in begging the question. Taking the last point first, the point is that the folk-biology definitions, while they MAY be simpler when applied to mammals, they fall down and lead to cumbersome constructions and outright contradictions when applied to many other species -- as I've described in some detail here and elsewhere. The whole benefit of biology, or one of the main ones, is that what we learn about other species has a great deal of relevance to our own. Which is impossible if we engage in special pleading, in fashioning definitions to pander to human vanities that are inconsistent with those definitions applicable to millions of other species.
As for the first part, I think I've sort of answered it in my comments about natural kinds and taxonomy, the latter at least in my oringal post. But see:
There IS some rhyme and reason in the creation of useful definitions, categories, and their taxonomies. It's not a free-for-all where one definition is as good as any other one.
AH: "... that would indicate the proposed universal definition is too simple to account for all the evidence ..."
You may wish to read the article on lumpers and splitters. But it's not necessary, and is basically missing the point, to insist a "universal definition" must "account for all the evidence". For example, does the definition for "teenager" "account for all the evidence" about all of the different types of teenagers, all of their races, creeds, colours, and psychological idiosyncrasies?
Thank you Steersman for taking the time to explain where there is still lack of clarity in our conversation. It is easy to assume one's conversation partner is being insincere and that continuing the conversation is a waste of time and mental energy. Thank you for your patience and continuing to entertain my comments and questions. Your claim that I am answering my own question and engaged in begging the question gives me pause, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean by that and attempt to address it because I certainly don't want to ignore any fallacies pointed out in my thinking. This has given me a lot to think about, so thank you for that and please allow me some time to review and reflect on this some more. I'd like to try to summarize where we are currently in our conversation and get your feedback if that is agreeable to you. I won't have sufficient time until the weekend.
Abraham, thanks muchly for picking up the conversational ball and running with it. 🙂 Definitely trying to promote a wider discussion on those topics.
And nice to see your own post found some support -- I expect I'll weigh in here later myself, apart from posting this comment from my Substack here, but that will require more time and effort to do justice to it.
However, an important point probably bears some preliminary emphasis. You said:
"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."
Seems that "what we intrinsically know to be true" is something of a weak reed to be putting much faith in. Many people used think that about the earth being flat and center of the universe. Likewise about humans being the result of special creation by Jehovah.
There are solid reasons for biological definitions for the sexes that you seem to be giving short shrift to. You might want to read a post about a review of a paper by philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths on those definitions, and my conversation with the author of it:
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/the-failings-of-philosophy/comment/41100436
Thank you Steersman for your thoughtful comments. I agree my comment about trusting intuition over consensus would benefit from additional nuance and is not entirely satisfactory as stated. I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this and anything else you would like to share. I’ll check out the comments and post you linked to as well. Thanks again!
Hey you guys, how are you?
First, don’t forget to check out Apple Pie here, if you get a chance: https://thingstoread.substack.com/p/is-gender-just-on-a-spectrum/comments. Very much related, and very interesting and well done, as is usual for him.
Second, I don’t think Abraham is very far off at all by appealing to intuition in this way, largely because I think he’s basically right about the distinctions between science and common sense.
For example, what if we use the following starting-points for how common sense often works and maybe even how it lets us proceed to doing science at all:
[1] Intuition need not, it seems to me, to be thought of as only and everywhere a gut-feeling, but also instead as something like “the activity of looking” (S. Rosen, “Logic & Dialectic”, p. 131).
[2] It seems to me that you have to look at something before you measure or count it, or you wouldn’t know what to measure or count in the first place.
[3] At least on a small scale of perceiving everyday things, I think, you can identify these things that you see as unitary wholes (without needing to define them strictly), because many, if not most, have “discernible and distinguishable looks” (S. Rosen, “Elusiveness”, p. 217; and R. Tallis, “Aping Mankind”, p. 114).
[4] These looks often seem to have a unity that allows them to be axiomatized in the first place.
[5] It appears also to me that intuition need not be thought of as exclusively private; and it also seems to me that it may be subject to failure and subsequent revision.
[6] That the intuition of looks sometimes fails doesn’t mean that we always and everywhere fail to distinguish properly between looks.
So it seems to me that the reed may be “weak” in some cases, but in many cases it will not be one that lacks sufficient support.
Thank you, Jesse, for reading and commenting! The Apple Pie post was a great recommendation, and I enjoyed the nuance that you added concerning intuition in your comment, so thank you for all of the above.
Abraham, my good man, it's always an intellectual pleasure for me to see you on here. Take care, and all the best with your writing and studies!
I owe Apple Pie a response, particularly as that post of his is largely a response to an earlier comment of mine. However, while I think he makes some good points, I think he's very confused on many of them, and thereby makes some very confusing if not incoherent arguments because he never does get around to defining exactly what he means, with any coherence, by both "sex" and "gender" in the first place. For instance, see his conclusion:
AP: "Is Gender Just on a Spectrum from Male to Female?
Not even remotely.
Gender is ultimately where culture and society make sense of sex. And those who live in between the two primary sexes definitely do not just live in between."
Is he using "male" and "female" as sexes or as genders? Is he arguing that the intersex are sexless (which I would agree with) or that the intersex are a third sex (which I wouldn't)?
Both you and he might reflect on a quote about Voltaire:
QF: "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
You both might also have some interest in my post on monothetic and polythetic categories, particularly as he seems unaware that his three genders, or three sexes, still qualifies as a spectrum. There IS some rhyme and reason to how scientists, biologists in particular, define their terms; it's not just a free-for-all:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Thank you Steersman for caring. I can't overemphasize how important people like you are, who are willing to listen and continue to stress dissatisfaction where it is productive to do so, stressing where more vigorous definitions are needed. I understand that my post does not address your main criticism of the conversation as whole,
Steersman: "Pretty much everyone -- including Peter and Colin Wright -- is blathering on about about sex and gender all without ever defining, much less agreeing on scientifically coherent and logically consistent definitions for the terms in question." https://open.substack.com/pub/boghossian/p/ask-me-anything-answers-september?r=nlgen&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=41693989 (Paywall Warning, must be a subscriber of Peter Boghossian's substack to view this particular thread)
In fact, I do not address gender in my post and I also talk about male and female without attempting to rigorously define the terms. This is intentional and this post is not meant to be an exhaustive look at the topic, rather the laying of conceptual framework needed to continue the discussion. Consider for example if I had attempted to begin my post by defining a human male as a human designed to express XY human chromosomes and a human female as a human designed to express XX human chromosomes. Without taking the time to highlight the difference between the properties of human and the properties of human design, this attempt at a definition of the sexes looks almost indistinguishable from the original analogy your criticism is identifying and would give the impression that I am not really listening to or trying to address your point. So, I decided it was important to first outline the difference between the two analogies. Although I haven't yet decided on the best way to frame the gender discussion, I intend to write a post focusing on intuition and another focusing on sex and gender, which I hope you will find more rigorous and satisfying. Thanks again Steersman!
👍🙂 Though I might point out that your quote of me apparently comes from a Boghossian post. If so you might want to add a link thereto.
However, I think you're going off the rails and are barking up the wrong tree, if not being rather disingenuous, in talking about defining "human male" and "human female". If those were compound words and separate categories then I wouldn't have any objections, or certainly not as many.
But they're NOT compound words -- the roots to the phrases are "male" and "female" which have precise biological definitions and criteria for category membership. Which you and too many others are apparently trying to avoid dealing with.
Though I appreciate your efforts to try understanding and elaborating on the bipedal analogy that was the starting point in my conversation with Hippiesq. Which I hope to address in more detail later.
Steersman --
I don't understand your reply. I asked you about intuition only.
One more attempt: On your view are there differences between ordinary experience and extraordinary discourse?
If so, should the definitions which arise in the latter always guide what people do in the former? If so, why is that?
Jesse, sorry if you thought that I didn't address your points about intuition. But you started off with some rather fulsome praise of Apple's post which I think is a rather self-serving dog's breakfast. Maybe on the surface not relevant to your point about intuition, but I expended some effort -- which I don't see you picked up on -- to at least suggest a common thread: if we can define our terms precisely and accurately then that dog's breakfast is to be expected.
And if you're going to put your money on "intuition" then what about those of transwomen who are quite certain they qualify as female? Your argument looked to be a pretext to defending "self-identification".
And the point of my Binarists post is that your "intuitionistic" and colloquial definitions for the sexes are no better than folk-biology. No doubt has some utility when it comes to humans and mammals in general, but generally useless, worse than useless when it comes to millions of other anisogamous species.
You might try reading a Note by evolutionary biologist Colin Wright on the topic:
https://substack.com/@colinwright/note/c-40114942
And a post defending those folk-biology definitions of yours, and my conversation with the author:
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/the-failings-of-philosophy/comment/41100436
But to answer your question, of course there's a "difference between ordinary experience and extraordinary discourse", although that's something of a strawman. Some of biology may indeed have little direct effect on the proverbial man-in-the-street. But those "gametic definitions" of Wright and virtually all of mainstream biology are foundational to the whole discipline -- which DOES have a profound effect on all of us. Definitions which far too many seem bound and determined to bastardize and corrupt and adulterate with quite unscientific claptrap, with "other ways of knowing".
Thank you Steersman. I took your advice and added a source for your quote from your comment on Boghossian’s substack in my comment (I wouldn’t have even thought to look for a share button on a comment, so thanks for the assist on my learning to utilize that). I also wanted to apologize for not taking enough time to understand your overarching point of the whole conversation you are trying to have, beyond the bipedal analogy. Sometimes hard-headed people like myself need to be given the answers I ask for several times before I realize my question has already been answered. I took the time the read the substack notes and comments that you linked to several times now and I think they did provide the clarity you intended. I'd like to make sure I understand you and think about your position before giving any thought to a response, please correct me where I am wrong or misinterpreting anything along the way. Your position regarding the definition of sex is that gametes are the unifying (universal) definition and necessary condition to qualify as having a sex of male or female which is in agreement with the definitions from all reputable scientific sources. You believe it is good to favor scientific taxonomies over folk taxonomies because the scientific taxonomies are more objective and universal. You believe it is important that definition be "universal" – such as applying to ALL anisogamous species in order to abide by the "principle of parsimony." This is also why you reason "secondary [sexual] characteristics" should not be relevant to this conversation because they rely on individual species and therefore violate the principle of parsimony in this particular example of defining biological sex.
I have included the quotes below that I considered while trying to summarize your position. Please let me know if I misinterpreted anything you said and if you have anything to add that you think I should also consider. I’d still like to hear any continuation of your thoughts on the bipedal analogy as well, but I will still care to hear them months from now if there are more interesting things to talk about in the meantime : )
Colin Wright: "in science we abide by what's called the "principle of parsimony." This is a methodological principle that says that, when faced with multiple explanations for a phenomenon, one should favor the simplest one that requires the fewest assumptions and still adequately accounts for the evidence."
https://substack.com/@colinwright/note/c-40114942
Colin Wright: “gametes as the unifying definition of the sexes”
Steersman: "Agree entirely. The foundational trait. The “necessary & sufficient condition” to qualify as “male” and “female”. Though you are probably reluctant to go that far."
https://substack.com/@humanuseofhumanbeings/note/c-40122644
Steersman: "Folk taxonomies are generated from social knowledge and are used in everyday speech. They are distinguished from scientific taxonomies that claim to be disembedded from social relations and thus more objective and universal."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folk_taxonomy
Steersman: "And chief among those facts are the standard biological definitions -- ones promulgated in reputable biological journals and dictionaries -- that say absolutely diddly-squat about any structure -- they're all about process, specifically the process of producing gametes.
You blather on, at great length as is your wont, about "secondary [sexual] characteristics" while conveniently "forgetting" that those standard biological definitions say absolutely nothing about them for the very good reason that they depend greatly on the species under discussion. The whole point about those definitions is that they are "universal" -- they apply to ALL anisogamous species -- including the human one."
https://open.substack.com/pub/helendale/p/the-failings-of-philosophy?r=nlgen&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&comments=true&commentId=41165914
Steersman: "they explicitly said that "mammalian embryos [with XY-setups]" -- i.e., including human "male" (nominally speaking) fetuses, babies, and boys -- simply do NOT have a sex ("yet"). They haven't yet entered the "life-history stage" of male. And they won't enter it until the onset of puberty.
Nor do you seem much willing to face the facts that reputable biological journals and dictionaries STIPULATE that to have a sex is to have the ability to produce -- present tense indefinite -- gametes of either of two types, those with neither ability being sexless. You're just dogmatically insisting -- sans evidence or any reasoned argument at all -- that some rather vague "reproductive strategies" and structures should trump those standard biological definitions -- and the solid philosophical and biological principles which undergird them."
https://open.substack.com/pub/helendale/p/the-failings-of-philosophy?r=nlgen&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=41193889
I had never used the Share button before -- I had just selected the comment I had wanted to link to and then copied its URL. The Share button is definitely quicker and more useful so thanks for that -- learn something new every day 🙂.
But quite a thorough and accurate summary of my argument, though you may wish to read the Griffiths paper reviewed on Dale's Substack. While he's a philosopher of biology, I'm not sure, from recollection, whether he gives any philosophical arguments in favour of the standard biological definitions for the sexes. Offhand, they seem to be what are called "stipulative definitions" which can conflict with historical ones of the same term -- basically the folk-biology versions. Not sure how that can be resolved, but see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
In the same vein, see also:
SEP: "Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-kinds/
Seems hard to imagine more fundamental and ubiquitous "natural kinds", at least in biology, than "produces ova" and "produces sperm". Though still a bit of a murky concept.
In any case, I still hope and plan on addressing your comments about the bipedal analogy. However, I'm sort of restricted at the moment to using a smartphone which is generally inadequate for that task.
Thank you
Just an honest appreciative,
THANK YOU.
I can share your personal observations and deconstruction of the conversation with those around me as a demonstration of higher level listening.
Some of the young people in my world are attempting to learn (or more accurately UNLEARN poor communication skills) this will help them engage a technique that is new to them.
Again, Thank you
The pleasure is all mine, thank you for reading and commenting! I am honored and humbled that you would share my post with your loved ones. Thank you again.
Abraham, something of a follow-up or continuation of my first comment. Sorry for the delay, but you covered a lot of ground, both in your OP and subsequent comments, that isn't easy to address, particularly on a smartphone. But I think you gave a reasonably fair and decent synopsis of my conversation with Hippiesq on the bipedal analogy, and clarified a number of points with your later comment:
https://abr4ham.substack.com/p/thinking-about-accidental-and-essential/comment/42038955
Relative to that analogy, I appreciate that you emphasized that "humans exist that are not bipedal, so bipedal cannot be an essential property of what it is to be human". Something of an important point in that whole discussion. And you made several other useful observations on that topic that I'll get into a bit later, but it seems useful to first address several other ones apparently unrelated to it. For several examples, you said:
AH: "The problem is that science and common sense both seem to have great difficulty in articulating precise definitions for either concept. .... 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?"
First off, I don't see that science has had much "difficulty articulating precise definitions" for the sexes -- a great many biological sources are quite clear on what it takes to qualify as male or female even if it may have taken biology some time to get there. For many examples and details, see my Binarists vs Spectrumists post:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
The problem is that most of the public is either unaware of them or simply refuses to accept them because of "prior commitments" or because of dogmatically held premises and unexamined assumptions. They generally want to make the sexes into social categories whereas biologists generally want to accurately describe and grapple with phenomena that manifest themselves across literally millions of anisogamous species -- i.e., the presence of those organisms which make large gametes or small gametes. Completely antithetical and inconsistent objectives.
Your insistence or attempt -- and that of many others, including various transactivists -- at "formulating definitions that comport with what we intrinsically know to be true" is not far removed from trying to shoehorn the foot of social justice into the glass slipper of biology (so to speak): the only result will be the crippling of social justice, and the shattering of biology. Lose, lose.
You might take a gander at another article by Paul Griffiths at Aeon Magazine that neatly summarizes that problem:
PG: "The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare. .... On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Returning to the bipedal analogy, this comment of yours seems a useful starting point for a number of reasons:
AH: "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."
Right out of the chute, the problems with "design" are ubiquitous and rather fatal, at least for the biological definitions. While both you and Hippiesq helpfully allude to problematic implications with "intelligent design", there is still the brute fact that a great many species change sex over the course of their lives: were they "designed" to produce both sperm and ova and are therefore both male and female? Bit of a murky concept, but some reason to argue that function is, by definition, THE essential property for the sexes. And for many other categories. Decent elaboration on the theme from a Psychology Today article:
PT: "No one has the essence of maleness or femaleness, for one simple reason: Since the 17th century, what science has been showing, in every single field, is that the folk notion of an 'essence' is not reflected in reality. There are no essences in nature. For the last three hundred years or so, the advance of science has been in lockstep with the insight that is what really exists are processes, not essences."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hive-mind/202003/terf-wars-what-is-biological-sex
"processes, not essences"
Which leads into your analogy with cars and manufacturing defects. But to start with, consider what it means for something to qualify as a car in the first place, its "essential property". From Google/OxfordLanguages:
"car (noun): a four-wheeled road vehicle that is powered by an engine and is able to carry a small number of people."
If a "car" came off the production line without an engine -- some "manufacturing defect" -- then it is most certainly not "able to carry a small number of people". It may LOOK like a car, but it is unable to perform the essential and defining function, and therefore doesn't qualify as one. Likewise with many people with DSDs, the prepubescent, and transwomen who cut their nuts off: sexless.
Something of a summary from Arthur Conan Doyle:
"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/arthur_conan_doyle_134512
IF we start with the biological definitions for the sexes as our premises, as our axioms, THEN it is simply "impossible" that those individuals unable to produce gametes can qualify as male or female.
Thank you, Steersman, I am enjoying consuming the content you recommended and excited to think about your latest comments regarding the bipedal analogy! I can see how the smartphone limitation would be challenging to say the least. While I think about your latest comment, I have a question for you that came up while I was thinking about a unifying definition of sex and the principle of parsimony.
Why is it important for the definition of sex to be unifying or universal? I ask because I understand how a definition that is valid universally would be preferred over a more complex definition, when both definitions adequately account for all the evidence. This is following the principle of parsimony. However, if the universal definition is required beforehand, I don’t see how it still follows the principle of parsimony, because it seems to lose the limiting factor on simplicity. The limiting factor on simplicity in the principle of parsimony is adequately accounting for the evidence. If one requires the unifying definition (universal), rather than the simplest which accounts for all the evidence, this creates the possibility of excluding the subset of possible definitions that are not universal from the set of all possible definitions satisfying the principle, because it prevents consideration of any evidence that would indicate the proposed universal definition is too simple to account for all the evidence.
AH: "Why is it important for the definition of sex to be unifying or universal? I ask because I understand how a definition that is valid universally would be preferred over a more complex definition, when both definitions adequately account for all the evidence."
Good question not easily answered -- particularly as I'm back on my smartphone 🙂.
However, I sort of think you answered your own question and are engaged in begging the question. Taking the last point first, the point is that the folk-biology definitions, while they MAY be simpler when applied to mammals, they fall down and lead to cumbersome constructions and outright contradictions when applied to many other species -- as I've described in some detail here and elsewhere. The whole benefit of biology, or one of the main ones, is that what we learn about other species has a great deal of relevance to our own. Which is impossible if we engage in special pleading, in fashioning definitions to pander to human vanities that are inconsistent with those definitions applicable to millions of other species.
As for the first part, I think I've sort of answered it in my comments about natural kinds and taxonomy, the latter at least in my oringal post. But see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)
There IS some rhyme and reason in the creation of useful definitions, categories, and their taxonomies. It's not a free-for-all where one definition is as good as any other one.
AH: "... that would indicate the proposed universal definition is too simple to account for all the evidence ..."
You may wish to read the article on lumpers and splitters. But it's not necessary, and is basically missing the point, to insist a "universal definition" must "account for all the evidence". For example, does the definition for "teenager" "account for all the evidence" about all of the different types of teenagers, all of their races, creeds, colours, and psychological idiosyncrasies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumpers_and_splitters
Thank you Steersman for taking the time to explain where there is still lack of clarity in our conversation. It is easy to assume one's conversation partner is being insincere and that continuing the conversation is a waste of time and mental energy. Thank you for your patience and continuing to entertain my comments and questions. Your claim that I am answering my own question and engaged in begging the question gives me pause, so I want to make sure I understand what you mean by that and attempt to address it because I certainly don't want to ignore any fallacies pointed out in my thinking. This has given me a lot to think about, so thank you for that and please allow me some time to review and reflect on this some more. I'd like to try to summarize where we are currently in our conversation and get your feedback if that is agreeable to you. I won't have sufficient time until the weekend.