And is getting one less invasive than harvesting skin from one’s forearm?
As for gender, I always thought it was traditionally used because people were embarrassed to put the word “sex” on forms. Some quick sleuthing proves that my instincts are sound; according to etymonline, “ As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for ‘sex of a human being,’ in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.”
You are hearing arguments (applied to sex) like "well all humans are a little different, so it doesn't really even make sense to talk about a HUMAN". "Well all dogs are a little different, so it doesn't really even make sense to talk about a DOG". Obviously such comments grind against the way we conceive of almost everything in the world (even a highly deformed, genetically broken dog is still recognized by everyone as a broken DOG), but when it comes to human sexes... well, ideology trumps all.
My Daughter is Half Welsh..... yesterday she told me that the reason we say that Welsh men shag sheep is in fact due, to the fact that sheep rustlers, if caught stealing a sheep, would drop their trousers and claim they were in fact shagging said sheep. The reason being that sheep rustlers used to go prison, but sheep shagging is not actually a prisonable offence. It's good to have the facts. LOL
I suppose momentary embarrassment is preferable to incarceration (although these days in order to be housed in a more desirable prison all one has to do is to identify as the right gender - and it's not even thought to be embarrassing!).
These days all you would need to say is that you identify as a Ram. Animal Husbandry has a new meaning, have you met my wife? Baaabara.
How long before the church of England are shamed and Cow down to pressure and allow cross species marriages in church? On our current trajectory I give it 10 years.
I don't know how ewe can have the shear effrontery to write such woolly nonsense. You need to stop ramming it down our throats or we'll have to abandon sheep. Your post baahrely makes any flocking sense.
I can sympathize with your confusion, but there are a couple of guide posts and beacons on the hills that I've found useful in finding a way through the thickets and the miasma. So to speak.
And one of those is that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish; Merriam-Webster has one of the more coherent, if imperfect summations of that difference. See their "Usage Guide" in particular:
Somewhat more importantly is Colin Wright's travails. While he has the HIGHER biological ground, he's still rather clueless about fundamental principles of logic, linguistics, taxonomy, and epistemology that makes him almost as much a part of the problem as of the solution. Some further elaborations on my post here:
Thanks for the link to your article and the MW 'definition' of gender.
I am aware that there is a distinction drawn between sex and gender. This fact alone is not helpful in determining what is meant by the *gender* woman. The MW usage guide makes it abundantly clear that 'woman' in gender terms is an entirely **subjective** category based upon how one feels.
A fuzzy category or not, there must still be some quintessential set of characteristics that allow one to make the determination "yes, indeed, this entity belongs in the gender category woman". The ONLY necessary (and essential) characteristic that exists in order to belong to the (fuzzy) gender category of woman is that one feels like they are a woman (whilst simultaneously not being able to define what a 'woman' is within the context of gender, or what the minimal set of characteristics required for membership of that category are).
Sex is more definite. Apart from the 'intersex' category which represents the (very small) portion of the population who have a developmental **abnormality** there is no real debate that nature has evolved only two sexual roles when it comes to **sexual** reproduction. Two, not three, or four, or some number on a continuum (a spectrum). Sexual reproduction is an **evolved** strategy for reproduction - and the evolutionary reasons WHY it arose are still debated.
The evolutionary reasons (why it represented an advantage in evolutionary terms) for sexual reproduction lie in the dim and distant past sometime after LUCA. The physical manifestation of this binary is found in every cell, but most pointedly, perhaps, in the two (not 3, or 4, or whatever) gametes.
The admirable philosophical attempts you make to clarify the notion of 'category' do not really help me all that much because I still have no idea how to define the gender category of 'woman' - except by reference to someone's entirely subjective inner 'feelings' of being this thing that they, themselves, cannot define or properly categorize.
But I don't think that "woman (gender)" is entirely subjective. You might be amused by a RationalWiki article on transwoman Riley Denis where he claimed that he met 3 out of 5 criteria for "female" which qualified him as a female, a woman (sex), and a lesbian:
More broadly, you might take a gander at the post by skeptic Michael Shermer -- link in my post -- that addresses the concept of fuzzy sets and family resemblances:
"... philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein introduced the concept of 'language-games,' in which he argued that concepts do not need perfect clarity for meaning to be found in them, with 'games' as his type specimen. ..."
However, the problem with family resemblances is that if you're not careful who you let in then you're likely to find yourself sitting down to Christmas dinner with the Manson family ... so to speak.
But, as I've argued, the family resemblance concept can be put on a more scientific and useful footing in the concept of polythetic categories. Which is exactly what the "past, present, or future functionalities" definitions of Colin Wright, and those of "folk-biology" boil down into. Which is largely the basis for my objection to what he's peddling, and largely because it conflicts with the standard biological definitions which qualify as monothetic categories -- those with single "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership.
I can sympathize with your argument that "roles" are the sine qua non for defining "male" and "female". But that is NOT what those biological definitions STIPULATE; they say that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexLESS.
A set of definitions which excludes some third of the "human vagina-havers" from the exalted estate of "female" -- primarily prepubescent girls and menopausees. Largely why so many of the distaff side are so vehemently up-in-arms at those definitions -- they are just as guilty as most TRAs are in turning the sexes into "immutable 🙄 identities" based on some mythic essences". A pox on both their houses.
Seems to me that we're not going to resolve the transgender clusterfuck without getting down to brass tacks and to fundamental principles, without some more intellectual honesty than has heretofore been applied to the issue.
As you suggested before - let's separate the two things - because there's a horrible (and probably deliberate) confusion when the word woman can be used as an example of a sex AND a gender.
I was curious about your comment that biology "stipulates" that sex is only meaningful in reference to **functional** gonads. You may be right, but if so, that's just crazy. I'm sure it can't be right to suggest that mainstream biologists do not consider a pre-pubescent girl to be a member of the female sex, or that a post-menopausal woman is not a member of the female sex.
I would be somewhat surprised if biologists if, before all of this gender nonsense erupted, claimed that a 7 year old girl did not have a sex because her gonads weren't "functional". What you write here surely can't be correct?
In evolutionary terms it's really clear and very simple. Things reproduce. If they didn't evolution wouldn't happen. There are only two classes of reproduction; sexual and asexual. Sexual reproduction requires the input (and subsequent gene 'mixing') of TWO (distinct) entities.
In multicellular organisms I think only the fungi and algae are isogamous (similar sized gametes). In the animal kingdom the 'solution' evolution (eventually) came up with for reproduction was anisogamous sexual reproduction where the members of the species can be separated into male and female (except for a few examples of hermaphroditism in which some organisms of a species of nematode worm, for example, can have both sets of gametes - the reproduction is still sexual, though, requiring two mating pairs).
That's all a bit academic, though, because for humans there are only two types of mating pairs; male and female. The distinction between them is crystal clear and, barring **abnormalities** (not "planned" by evolution, as such) where the normal sexual development goes awry (occurring at a rate of about 0.02% to 0.05% for humans). Outside of this biological 'mistake' there are only 2 sexes. The 'intersex' category does not represent in any sense a new sex in humans - it's where the body **tried** to become one sex or the other, but something went wrong.
If biologists really are suggesting that an immature human cannot be categorized as either male or female simply because their capability for sexual reproduction has not yet developed, they're fooking eejits. But I really don't think that's the case - despite what you have written above.
It really is very clear. In humans there are two, and only two, mating 'types'. And in any case, as far as the whole "sex is a spectrum" garbage goes, the vast, vast, vast, majority of those with 'gender' confusion are not intersex - so the existence of this intersex category is a total red herring when it comes to the current version of gender ideology.
When it comes to "gender" there is no clarity at all, in my view. Even trying to parse it all by being more rigorous (logically and philosophically) about membership of 'fuzzy' categories does not help us very much at all when it comes to being able to determine into what (fuzzy) category someone should be placed. I would (mischievously) suggest that someone like Dylan Mulvaney has all the **caricatures** required for being a woman, but none of the characteristics.
In **gender** terms, the only way to determine if someone belongs in the gender category woman is to ask them. We can't (in every instance) tell by their behaviours, appearance, dress, or adopted roles.
In snarky terms, if someone claims to 'feel' like a woman (gender) then the whole fantasy is easily punctured by asking "and what, sweetie, does that feel like?"
I'm a man, biologically. I have no idea how to answer the question of what it 'feels' like to be a man. How, then, am I supposed to answer the question (should I ever feel a bit 'gender' confused) of what it feels like to be a woman?
Anyone can claim to be X, whatever X might be - but in order to claim this we all have to know what X is, what things constitute 'membership' of the category - and when X is the gender category of woman, there is no answer to the question "what is a woman?"
As I've written before, when it comes to alleviating the real suffering of those with severe gender dysphoria, I'm OK with relaxing the hard and fast scientific boundaries. I'm OK with a society level solution that allows some people to be treated **as if** they were women. I would maintain the hope that, in the future, we would have better treatments for this that don't require extensive surgery and a lifelong dependence on powerful drugs (with all their attendant consequences).
Divide and conquer. 🙂 Think of sex and gender as independent and dependent variables, respectively: there's some degree of correlation between the two but it's not one to one: some males (sex) often have some feminine personality traits and behaviors (genders).
Rudolph: "I was curious about your comment that biology 'stipulates' that sex is only meaningful in reference to **functional** gonads. You may be right, but if so, that's just crazy."
Some method in the madness of some biologists worth their salt -- sadly, few and far between. Consider this post of mine that quotes Paul Griffiths -- philosopher of science -- and the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR], one of whose authors has an FRS to his name:
Griffiths: "Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]." [my emphasis]"
But that defining is exactly what the MHR does:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
That most biologists haven't gotten memo, and are stuck in intellectual backwaters squabbling over variations of the sexes as full-blown spectra or as slightly more circumscribed ones (Wright and Company) does not in any way refute the more scientifically credible stipulative definitions of Griffiths and the MHR.
Try thinking of those MHR definitions as analogous to the axioms of Euclidean geometry: we can't possibly have communications about "theorems" we have proven if we can't agree on the "axioms" from which they are derived.
It strikes me that biologists have come up with an inadequate definition, if what you say is correct.
The pretty near universal observation that in the animal kingdom there are two, and only two, variations on a theme is the fact that these 'definitions' are trying to get to and state in its most fundamental way.
They've focused on gametes - and for the animal kingdom this makes perfect sense - because it's a very fundamental thing that can be used as a defining characteristic that distinguishes between the two variations on a theme.
The definitions you quote there are silly (biologists' fault - not yours). The word adult is dumb, as is their use of the present tense.
I still don't believe that the majority of biologists (or anyone else not infected by the Genderona virus for that matter) really thinks that a 3 year old baby girl does not have a sex.
The definitions you have given are a decidedly imperfect attempt to capture the biological reality of the (observed) existence of two, and only two, sexes in the animal kingdom.
Rudolph: "biologists have come up with an inadequate definition ..."
You might try reading that MHR article, even the Abstract, Introduction, and Glossary. Generally seems to make a solid case that gamete dimorphism -- anisogamy -- is THE ultimate cause for dimorphism in many other traits across literally millions of species.
Rudolph: "The word adult is dumb, as is their use of the present tense."
You probably have a point with "adult", though "present tense" seems a thin beef at best. As you, from memory, correctly argue, "sex" is ALL about reproduction. Rather a stretch to see how those with "past or future functionality" -- as per Wright's quite unscientific schlock -- can be said to be capable of reproducing. Actual functionality often seems a key or essential element in qualifications for membership in many categories, not just the sexes. A relevant passage from my "Defrauded" post that quotes this section from the “Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender” by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
En passant, I note that Del Giudice doesn't say anything about "adults" nor did Griffiths. But all three underline "present functionality" as an essential element, as THE single "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as male and as female.
I’m deep into etymology this morning, so I’ll cheerfully report that, as “man” traditionally means “human” (a usage I cling to), the word woman denotes the kind of man that is a “wife.”
And I can’t resist giving you the link to the page discussing the word wife:
Part of me is actually amused that it’s now the feminists who are defending the word “woman.” But it’s also depressing that a man— oh, noble man!— would fight to join this category.
It's so much easier in languages with little or no latin influence!
In swedish, human is människa. Man is man ('a' as in Aha! and 'n' as in hun). Woman is kvinna. Male is hane (hah-neh) and female is hona (hoh-nuh). You can also useman and one the way you can in english to indicate that sex/gender isn't relevant or that a statement applies equally to both.
Kön is sex (the noun, the formal verb is könsakt). Gender is also kön, but unless the english term is used, kön is preceded by socialt (social) or followed by -sroll (role).
Kvinna sounds to me like it could share origins with “queen.” I like it. Although, come to think of it, “queen” may have been the first word traditionally referring to females that men (at least gay men) co-opted in a way that is pejorative to women.
The origin is as far as I know of Nordic origin, and originally means a female who is old enough for marriage (i.e. she's reached child-bearing age). Females younger than that (15/16-ish as a general rule of thumb) are flicka/flickor (sing/plur).
Queen is drottning in swedish, which is the female gender of the word drott which is Old Norse (ultimately Teutonic-germanic), meaning chieftain, ruler, king, with the tacit understanding of an elected such as my ancestors didn't cotton on to the idea of an inherited ruler until somewhen in the 15th-16th century (Vasa I). Drottning simply means "female ruler".
Unsure what the oldest slurs for homosexual would be in swedish, but I do know that one of them, which was still in use into the 20th century was "(old) mare".
Another one translates to "not-man" which does not imply woman in swedish (nor does it in english far as I know).
That Etymology Online site is quite useful. I've always been quite amused by their entry for "female" which notes that a common definition once was "she who suckles". By which Bruce Jenner and his ilk would qualify ...
I think the point there is that definitions change all the time, often to reflect an increase in our knowledge of the encompassed entities and related ones. For instance, "female" now refers to species other than mammals, those with no mammaries.
🙂 I've periodically wondered how "male" and "female" came to be used to denote connectors wth either concave or convex mating parts -- so to speak.
But part of the reason I've suggested, as possible entries in an updated Devil's Dictionary, a redefinition of "woman" and "man" as "adult human vagina-haver" and "adult human penis-haver". And reasonable facsimiles thereof.
More or less "immutable 🙄", and forestalls penis-havers trying to access women's sports, toilets, and change rooms. Win-win; bound to take the world by storm ... 😉🙂
Big part of the problem is a too-common prudery, an inability to call a spade a fucking shovel -- so to speak. 🙂
Here's a quick and easy litmus test re: gender theory and the rest of it:
Take any of their texts, and replace any reference to humans with horses.
I don't think I'm reaching when I claim no gender-bender believer in the history of whenever be they ever so intersectionalised have claimed you can't tell a stallion from a mare.
You are on fire, I love it, maybe because of shared confusion here.
That last definition, priceless. Thanks for the laughs (and I know it really is not
laughing matter) 👍
Thanks Marta
It isn't a laughing matter, but I find it's either laugh or something less uplifting
I’m an ignorant and juvenile American.
Is it really called a DIC?
And is getting one less invasive than harvesting skin from one’s forearm?
As for gender, I always thought it was traditionally used because people were embarrassed to put the word “sex” on forms. Some quick sleuthing proves that my instincts are sound; according to etymonline, “ As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for ‘sex of a human being,’ in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous.”
I had quick-posted a few weeks ago that, really in an Aristotelian sense, there is a failure to recognize substance today: https://davidshane.substack.com/p/there-really-is-a-failure-to-recognize .
You are hearing arguments (applied to sex) like "well all humans are a little different, so it doesn't really even make sense to talk about a HUMAN". "Well all dogs are a little different, so it doesn't really even make sense to talk about a DOG". Obviously such comments grind against the way we conceive of almost everything in the world (even a highly deformed, genetically broken dog is still recognized by everyone as a broken DOG), but when it comes to human sexes... well, ideology trumps all.
Thanks for the link David - nice article and very simply and effectively put
My Daughter is Half Welsh..... yesterday she told me that the reason we say that Welsh men shag sheep is in fact due, to the fact that sheep rustlers, if caught stealing a sheep, would drop their trousers and claim they were in fact shagging said sheep. The reason being that sheep rustlers used to go prison, but sheep shagging is not actually a prisonable offence. It's good to have the facts. LOL
Well, you learn something new every day.
I suppose momentary embarrassment is preferable to incarceration (although these days in order to be housed in a more desirable prison all one has to do is to identify as the right gender - and it's not even thought to be embarrassing!).
These days all you would need to say is that you identify as a Ram. Animal Husbandry has a new meaning, have you met my wife? Baaabara.
How long before the church of England are shamed and Cow down to pressure and allow cross species marriages in church? On our current trajectory I give it 10 years.
I don't know how ewe can have the shear effrontery to write such woolly nonsense. You need to stop ramming it down our throats or we'll have to abandon sheep. Your post baahrely makes any flocking sense.
I think The E-Ewe have quota rules on Sheep jokes.
😂
Oh, Imperial College, Kensington?
🤣🤣🤣
That's the one!
I can sympathize with your confusion, but there are a couple of guide posts and beacons on the hills that I've found useful in finding a way through the thickets and the miasma. So to speak.
And one of those is that sex and gender are two entirely different kettles of fish; Merriam-Webster has one of the more coherent, if imperfect summations of that difference. See their "Usage Guide" in particular:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender
Somewhat more importantly is Colin Wright's travails. While he has the HIGHER biological ground, he's still rather clueless about fundamental principles of logic, linguistics, taxonomy, and epistemology that makes him almost as much a part of the problem as of the solution. Some further elaborations on my post here:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/binarists-vs-spectrumists
Thanks for the link to your article and the MW 'definition' of gender.
I am aware that there is a distinction drawn between sex and gender. This fact alone is not helpful in determining what is meant by the *gender* woman. The MW usage guide makes it abundantly clear that 'woman' in gender terms is an entirely **subjective** category based upon how one feels.
A fuzzy category or not, there must still be some quintessential set of characteristics that allow one to make the determination "yes, indeed, this entity belongs in the gender category woman". The ONLY necessary (and essential) characteristic that exists in order to belong to the (fuzzy) gender category of woman is that one feels like they are a woman (whilst simultaneously not being able to define what a 'woman' is within the context of gender, or what the minimal set of characteristics required for membership of that category are).
Sex is more definite. Apart from the 'intersex' category which represents the (very small) portion of the population who have a developmental **abnormality** there is no real debate that nature has evolved only two sexual roles when it comes to **sexual** reproduction. Two, not three, or four, or some number on a continuum (a spectrum). Sexual reproduction is an **evolved** strategy for reproduction - and the evolutionary reasons WHY it arose are still debated.
The evolutionary reasons (why it represented an advantage in evolutionary terms) for sexual reproduction lie in the dim and distant past sometime after LUCA. The physical manifestation of this binary is found in every cell, but most pointedly, perhaps, in the two (not 3, or 4, or whatever) gametes.
The admirable philosophical attempts you make to clarify the notion of 'category' do not really help me all that much because I still have no idea how to define the gender category of 'woman' - except by reference to someone's entirely subjective inner 'feelings' of being this thing that they, themselves, cannot define or properly categorize.
👍🙂
But I don't think that "woman (gender)" is entirely subjective. You might be amused by a RationalWiki article on transwoman Riley Denis where he claimed that he met 3 out of 5 criteria for "female" which qualified him as a female, a woman (sex), and a lesbian:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Riley_Dennis
More broadly, you might take a gander at the post by skeptic Michael Shermer -- link in my post -- that addresses the concept of fuzzy sets and family resemblances:
"... philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein introduced the concept of 'language-games,' in which he argued that concepts do not need perfect clarity for meaning to be found in them, with 'games' as his type specimen. ..."
However, the problem with family resemblances is that if you're not careful who you let in then you're likely to find yourself sitting down to Christmas dinner with the Manson family ... so to speak.
But, as I've argued, the family resemblance concept can be put on a more scientific and useful footing in the concept of polythetic categories. Which is exactly what the "past, present, or future functionalities" definitions of Colin Wright, and those of "folk-biology" boil down into. Which is largely the basis for my objection to what he's peddling, and largely because it conflicts with the standard biological definitions which qualify as monothetic categories -- those with single "necessary and sufficient conditions" for category membership.
I can sympathize with your argument that "roles" are the sine qua non for defining "male" and "female". But that is NOT what those biological definitions STIPULATE; they say that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexLESS.
A set of definitions which excludes some third of the "human vagina-havers" from the exalted estate of "female" -- primarily prepubescent girls and menopausees. Largely why so many of the distaff side are so vehemently up-in-arms at those definitions -- they are just as guilty as most TRAs are in turning the sexes into "immutable 🙄 identities" based on some mythic essences". A pox on both their houses.
Seems to me that we're not going to resolve the transgender clusterfuck without getting down to brass tacks and to fundamental principles, without some more intellectual honesty than has heretofore been applied to the issue.
As you suggested before - let's separate the two things - because there's a horrible (and probably deliberate) confusion when the word woman can be used as an example of a sex AND a gender.
I was curious about your comment that biology "stipulates" that sex is only meaningful in reference to **functional** gonads. You may be right, but if so, that's just crazy. I'm sure it can't be right to suggest that mainstream biologists do not consider a pre-pubescent girl to be a member of the female sex, or that a post-menopausal woman is not a member of the female sex.
I would be somewhat surprised if biologists if, before all of this gender nonsense erupted, claimed that a 7 year old girl did not have a sex because her gonads weren't "functional". What you write here surely can't be correct?
In evolutionary terms it's really clear and very simple. Things reproduce. If they didn't evolution wouldn't happen. There are only two classes of reproduction; sexual and asexual. Sexual reproduction requires the input (and subsequent gene 'mixing') of TWO (distinct) entities.
In multicellular organisms I think only the fungi and algae are isogamous (similar sized gametes). In the animal kingdom the 'solution' evolution (eventually) came up with for reproduction was anisogamous sexual reproduction where the members of the species can be separated into male and female (except for a few examples of hermaphroditism in which some organisms of a species of nematode worm, for example, can have both sets of gametes - the reproduction is still sexual, though, requiring two mating pairs).
That's all a bit academic, though, because for humans there are only two types of mating pairs; male and female. The distinction between them is crystal clear and, barring **abnormalities** (not "planned" by evolution, as such) where the normal sexual development goes awry (occurring at a rate of about 0.02% to 0.05% for humans). Outside of this biological 'mistake' there are only 2 sexes. The 'intersex' category does not represent in any sense a new sex in humans - it's where the body **tried** to become one sex or the other, but something went wrong.
If biologists really are suggesting that an immature human cannot be categorized as either male or female simply because their capability for sexual reproduction has not yet developed, they're fooking eejits. But I really don't think that's the case - despite what you have written above.
It really is very clear. In humans there are two, and only two, mating 'types'. And in any case, as far as the whole "sex is a spectrum" garbage goes, the vast, vast, vast, majority of those with 'gender' confusion are not intersex - so the existence of this intersex category is a total red herring when it comes to the current version of gender ideology.
When it comes to "gender" there is no clarity at all, in my view. Even trying to parse it all by being more rigorous (logically and philosophically) about membership of 'fuzzy' categories does not help us very much at all when it comes to being able to determine into what (fuzzy) category someone should be placed. I would (mischievously) suggest that someone like Dylan Mulvaney has all the **caricatures** required for being a woman, but none of the characteristics.
In **gender** terms, the only way to determine if someone belongs in the gender category woman is to ask them. We can't (in every instance) tell by their behaviours, appearance, dress, or adopted roles.
In snarky terms, if someone claims to 'feel' like a woman (gender) then the whole fantasy is easily punctured by asking "and what, sweetie, does that feel like?"
I'm a man, biologically. I have no idea how to answer the question of what it 'feels' like to be a man. How, then, am I supposed to answer the question (should I ever feel a bit 'gender' confused) of what it feels like to be a woman?
Anyone can claim to be X, whatever X might be - but in order to claim this we all have to know what X is, what things constitute 'membership' of the category - and when X is the gender category of woman, there is no answer to the question "what is a woman?"
As I've written before, when it comes to alleviating the real suffering of those with severe gender dysphoria, I'm OK with relaxing the hard and fast scientific boundaries. I'm OK with a society level solution that allows some people to be treated **as if** they were women. I would maintain the hope that, in the future, we would have better treatments for this that don't require extensive surgery and a lifelong dependence on powerful drugs (with all their attendant consequences).
Rudolph: "... let's separate the two things ..."
Divide and conquer. 🙂 Think of sex and gender as independent and dependent variables, respectively: there's some degree of correlation between the two but it's not one to one: some males (sex) often have some feminine personality traits and behaviors (genders).
Rudolph: "I was curious about your comment that biology 'stipulates' that sex is only meaningful in reference to **functional** gonads. You may be right, but if so, that's just crazy."
Some method in the madness of some biologists worth their salt -- sadly, few and far between. Consider this post of mine that quotes Paul Griffiths -- philosopher of science -- and the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction [MHR], one of whose authors has an FRS to his name:
Griffiths: "Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]." [my emphasis]"
But that defining is exactly what the MHR does:
"Female: Biologically, the female sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the larger gametes in anisogamous systems.
Male: Biologically, the male sex is defined as the adult phenotype that produces [present tense indefinite] the smaller gametes in anisogamous systems."
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/on-being-defrauded-by-heather-heying
That most biologists haven't gotten memo, and are stuck in intellectual backwaters squabbling over variations of the sexes as full-blown spectra or as slightly more circumscribed ones (Wright and Company) does not in any way refute the more scientifically credible stipulative definitions of Griffiths and the MHR.
Try thinking of those MHR definitions as analogous to the axioms of Euclidean geometry: we can't possibly have communications about "theorems" we have proven if we can't agree on the "axioms" from which they are derived.
It strikes me that biologists have come up with an inadequate definition, if what you say is correct.
The pretty near universal observation that in the animal kingdom there are two, and only two, variations on a theme is the fact that these 'definitions' are trying to get to and state in its most fundamental way.
They've focused on gametes - and for the animal kingdom this makes perfect sense - because it's a very fundamental thing that can be used as a defining characteristic that distinguishes between the two variations on a theme.
The definitions you quote there are silly (biologists' fault - not yours). The word adult is dumb, as is their use of the present tense.
I still don't believe that the majority of biologists (or anyone else not infected by the Genderona virus for that matter) really thinks that a 3 year old baby girl does not have a sex.
The definitions you have given are a decidedly imperfect attempt to capture the biological reality of the (observed) existence of two, and only two, sexes in the animal kingdom.
Rudolph: "biologists have come up with an inadequate definition ..."
You might try reading that MHR article, even the Abstract, Introduction, and Glossary. Generally seems to make a solid case that gamete dimorphism -- anisogamy -- is THE ultimate cause for dimorphism in many other traits across literally millions of species.
Rudolph: "The word adult is dumb, as is their use of the present tense."
You probably have a point with "adult", though "present tense" seems a thin beef at best. As you, from memory, correctly argue, "sex" is ALL about reproduction. Rather a stretch to see how those with "past or future functionality" -- as per Wright's quite unscientific schlock -- can be said to be capable of reproducing. Actual functionality often seems a key or essential element in qualifications for membership in many categories, not just the sexes. A relevant passage from my "Defrauded" post that quotes this section from the “Ideological Bias in the Psychology of Sex and Gender” by Marco Del Giudice of the University of New Mexico:
"On a deeper level, the ‘patchwork’ definition of sex used in the social sciences is purely descriptive and lacks a functional rationale. This contrasts sharply with how the sexes are defined in biology. From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce [present tense indefinite] small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce [present tense indefinite] large gametes (e.g., eggs; Kodric-Brown & Brown, 1987)"
En passant, I note that Del Giudice doesn't say anything about "adults" nor did Griffiths. But all three underline "present functionality" as an essential element, as THE single "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as male and as female.
I’m deep into etymology this morning, so I’ll cheerfully report that, as “man” traditionally means “human” (a usage I cling to), the word woman denotes the kind of man that is a “wife.”
And I can’t resist giving you the link to the page discussing the word wife:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/wife?ref=etymonline_crossreference
Part of me is actually amused that it’s now the feminists who are defending the word “woman.” But it’s also depressing that a man— oh, noble man!— would fight to join this category.
It's so much easier in languages with little or no latin influence!
In swedish, human is människa. Man is man ('a' as in Aha! and 'n' as in hun). Woman is kvinna. Male is hane (hah-neh) and female is hona (hoh-nuh). You can also useman and one the way you can in english to indicate that sex/gender isn't relevant or that a statement applies equally to both.
Kön is sex (the noun, the formal verb is könsakt). Gender is also kön, but unless the english term is used, kön is preceded by socialt (social) or followed by -sroll (role).
See, much simpler! (Or not...) 🤪
Kvinna sounds to me like it could share origins with “queen.” I like it. Although, come to think of it, “queen” may have been the first word traditionally referring to females that men (at least gay men) co-opted in a way that is pejorative to women.
The origin is as far as I know of Nordic origin, and originally means a female who is old enough for marriage (i.e. she's reached child-bearing age). Females younger than that (15/16-ish as a general rule of thumb) are flicka/flickor (sing/plur).
Queen is drottning in swedish, which is the female gender of the word drott which is Old Norse (ultimately Teutonic-germanic), meaning chieftain, ruler, king, with the tacit understanding of an elected such as my ancestors didn't cotton on to the idea of an inherited ruler until somewhen in the 15th-16th century (Vasa I). Drottning simply means "female ruler".
Unsure what the oldest slurs for homosexual would be in swedish, but I do know that one of them, which was still in use into the 20th century was "(old) mare".
Another one translates to "not-man" which does not imply woman in swedish (nor does it in english far as I know).
That Etymology Online site is quite useful. I've always been quite amused by their entry for "female" which notes that a common definition once was "she who suckles". By which Bruce Jenner and his ilk would qualify ...
https://www.etymonline.com/word/female#etymonline_v_5841
I think the point there is that definitions change all the time, often to reflect an increase in our knowledge of the encompassed entities and related ones. For instance, "female" now refers to species other than mammals, those with no mammaries.
Love it! Like also “In reference to implements with sockets and corresponding parts, from 1660s.” We humans are delightfully vulgar sometimes.
🙂 I've periodically wondered how "male" and "female" came to be used to denote connectors wth either concave or convex mating parts -- so to speak.
But part of the reason I've suggested, as possible entries in an updated Devil's Dictionary, a redefinition of "woman" and "man" as "adult human vagina-haver" and "adult human penis-haver". And reasonable facsimiles thereof.
More or less "immutable 🙄", and forestalls penis-havers trying to access women's sports, toilets, and change rooms. Win-win; bound to take the world by storm ... 😉🙂
Big part of the problem is a too-common prudery, an inability to call a spade a fucking shovel -- so to speak. 🙂
Here's a wholly different perspective on the matter of 'homogenderality': https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/elevated-rates-of-autism-other-neurodevelopmenta
Here's a quick and easy litmus test re: gender theory and the rest of it:
Take any of their texts, and replace any reference to humans with horses.
I don't think I'm reaching when I claim no gender-bender believer in the history of whenever be they ever so intersectionalised have claimed you can't tell a stallion from a mare.
Even without being James Herriot.