Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Lagayascienza]

Good examples, Sy Borg. We are more than just our bodies. And bodies and brains and minds vary and so sex and gender vary. Variation is natural. We don't see sharp demarcations in nature . We impose them in our efforts to fit everything into distinct categories.

[Good_Egg]

Don't you find intermediate states fascinating?

Does the seashore qualify as land or sea? How far out do you need to go to say "this is not land, it's sea"? As with gender, the seashore is a vanishingly small domain between two monolithic poles.

I do find a strange fascination in the seashore.

And also in words and language and ideas and their correspondence with observable reality.

If you're a marine ecologist, studying the lifeforms of the seashore, you may find it helpful to describe a spectrum of habitats with dry land at one end and deep ocean at the other.

But for more everyday purposes, a binary distinction land/sea is an adequate description. There is a reality to the difference between terrain that a wheeled vehicle can traverse and terrain that a boat can traverse. A reality that doesn't go away or become irrelevant by the fact of small borderline areas where both or neither applies.

Male/female differences evolved as a means of reproduction. Those who can bear children or sire children are female and male respectively. No amount of damaged individuals who can do neither takes away that basic binariness.

All this talk of "sex assigned at birth" or "apparent genitalia at birth" is deliberate obfuscation when aimed at the general public. Even though it may be important to relevant medical specialists.

[Pattern-chaser]

Don't you find intermediate states fascinating?

Don't they just illuminate our misunderstanding, that everything can be neatly categorised?

[Fried Egg]

Again, the FACT is that some people are neither male nor female.

Consider people with CAIS (complete androgen in sensitivity syndrome) who are always identified as female at birth because they have female genitals, yet they have XY chromosomes, no womb, and a male-like skeleton? Since their bodies have no sensitivity to androgens, they tend to be hairless and are often very soft and feminine. You'd never pick most as intersex.

What of people with varying degrees of PAIS (partial androgen in sensitivity syndrome) who are born with ambiguous genitalia? There's a spectrum.

When I say there are two sexes I am saying simply that an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary.

That some individuals have physical or phycological characteristics that are ambiguous and render this distinction difficult in some cases (or even impossible in some very rare cases) does not change the fact that there are only two sexes. They might be neither sex but they are not a third sex.

Note, many will say that there are many genders (the latest I heard is that there are 72). I don't really mind how many genders people say they are as long as they are being clear that they are not talking about sex, for which we know there are no more than two. But this is why I think it is important to avoid the conflation between sex and gender.

Also, people's psychology varies from stereotypically very masculine to stereotypically very feminine. Should we ignore this completely?

One's psychological makeup has no bearing on the type of gametes their sexual organs are structured around producing and therefore is irrelevant in determining one's sex.

That does not mean that I think it is unimportant or should be ignored. Clearly some people experience severe distress being uncomfortable with their biological sex (i.e. gender dysphoria).

Do you believe that the mind is of no consequence in assessing people, only the body?

What do you mean by "assessing people"? If you mean assessing their biological sex, then yes. If you mean anything else, then no.

If you took off your political hat and put your philosopher hat back on you'd see that these phenomena are interesting and unusual. Don't you find intermediate states fascinating?

Where did I ever say they are uninteresting?

BTW, you didn't answer any of my questions above. They weren't rhetorical, they were serious questions that I hoped you'd respond to. Does the seashore qualify as land or sea? How far out do you need to go to say "this is not land, it's sea"? As with gender, the seashore is a vanishingly small domain between two monolithic poles. Ditto the brief period of sleep and awakeness. Sometimes reality is like that.

I didn't respond to these questions as I don't see the relevance to our discussion. I haven't denied that all human beings have varying traits (in terms of being male/female typical). I don't think that saying that there are only two sexes is in any way a denial of that. These two propositions are both true and not in conflict with each other.

[Sy Borg]

Again, the FACT is that some people are neither male nor female.

Consider people with CAIS (complete androgen in sensitivity syndrome) who are always identified as female at birth because they have female genitals, yet they have XY chromosomes, no womb, and a male-like skeleton? Since their bodies have no sensitivity to androgens, they tend to be hairless and are often very soft and feminine. You'd never pick most as intersex.

What of people with varying degrees of PAIS (partial androgen in sensitivity syndrome) who are born with ambiguous genitalia? There's a spectrum.

When I say there are two sexes I am saying simply that an individual’s sex is defined by the type of gamete (sperm or ova) their primary reproductive organs (i.e., gonads) are organized, through development, to produce. Males have primary reproductive organs organized around the production of sperm; females, ova. Because there is no third gamete type, there are only two sexes that a person can be. Sex is therefore binary.

Therefore you are saying that women with CAIS are men - despite being having always been considered female since birth, and who only found out their condition after an X-ray. That is simply wrong.

Note, many will say that there are many genders (the latest I heard is that there are 72). I don't really mind how many genders people say they are as long as they are being clear that they are not talking about sex, for which we know there are no more than two. But this is why I think it is important to avoid the conflation between sex and gender.

I see. So, if people are inbetween, tough luck. No creation of new categories. Given that, you must also be fine with people who have one black grandparent calling themselves "black", since there can only be two types of humans - people of colour or white. That is the mindset in many parts of society, but you don't agree.

Ditto sexuality - one can only be straight or gay, and bisexuals are one or the other and in denial, right?

Basing categorisation of humans in society on a single non-visible attribute like gametes or DNA is irrational. Society should adapt to how people are - people should not have to adapt to arbitrary edicts. If sex and gender are different, and you are not planning to breed with someone, then surely their gender is what matters and should be used on documentation rather than their gametes.

BTW, you didn't answer any of my questions above. They weren't rhetorical, they were serious questions that I hoped you'd respond to. Does the seashore qualify as land or sea? How far out do you need to go to say "this is not land, it's sea"? As with gender, the seashore is a vanishingly small domain between two monolithic poles. Ditto the brief period of sleep and awakeness. Sometimes reality is like that.

I didn't respond to these questions as I don't see the relevance to our discussion. I haven't denied that all human beings have varying traits (in terms of being male/female typical). I don't think that saying that there are only two sexes is in any way a denial of that. These two propositions are both true and not in conflict with each other.
[/quote]

The above questions were deeply relevant to this question. You are just avoiding answering because you know any analysis will undermine your position. Why the obsession with gametes? Do you really care about people's gametes? Surely this discussion has made clear that gametes are not important in this question. There are obviously more than two sexes. We see it in nature all the time, where animals and plants don't fit the binary. The human species broadly fits the binary, but there are freaks that don't.

Further, the gamete question is fine as an academic concept, but not in questions of public policy. What if you had psychopath markers in your brain scan (like the law abiding psychologist who ran one of his psychopath scans on himself)? What if you had to have a mark on your documentation warning people that your brain scan was consistent with psychopaths? Same issue.

[Fried Egg]

Note, many will say that there are many genders (the latest I heard is that there are 72). I don't really mind how many genders people say they are as long as they are being clear that they are not talking about sex, for which we know there are no more than two. But this is why I think it is important to avoid the conflation between sex and gender.

I see. So, if people are inbetween, tough luck. No creation of new categories. Given that, you must also be fine with people who have one black grandparent calling themselves "black", since there can only be two types of humans - people of colour or white. That is the mindset in many parts of society, but you don't agree.

Ditto sexuality - one can only be straight or gay, and bisexuals are one or the other and in denial, right?

Why do you insist on strawmanning my argument? Some things in nature are binary and some exist on a spectrum. Because I say one thing is binary does not mean I insist that everything in nature is also binary. Therefore I shall disregard these silly analogies.

Basing categorisation of humans in society on a single non-visible attribute like gametes or DNA is irrational.

Nonsense. Many things in science are categorised according to attributes we can't easily see at first glance. That is one of the things that separates modern science from it's primitive ancestry and reflects our more deeper understanding of reality that does not rest only on surface appearances.

Society should adapt to how people are - people should not have to adapt to arbitrary edicts. If sex and gender are different, and you are not planning to breed with someone, then surely their gender is what matters and should be used on documentation rather than their gametes.

And what usefulness to society is gender identity? What laws should be based on it? As far as I can tell it has no real meaning or usefulness to society at large even if some individuals want to adopt such concepts.

But it depends on the context of course. In some cases it does matter if someone is actually male or female. I mentioned earlier that one's sex can be important information for the diagnosis of many health conditions as it can effect the propensity of many conditions.

When it comes to staffing women's refuges on the other hand, probably the only thing that matters is that employees don't have penis's; that they might have the gender identity of a women is neither here nor there.

With sports, what matters is if the person in question has gone through the developmental processes that gives men an inherent physical advantage.

But I accept that in many social situations one's sex doesn't actually matter. Like I say, it depends on context.

There are obviously more than two sexes. We see it in nature all the time, where animals and plants don't fit the binary. The human species broadly fits the binary, but there are freaks that don't.

Firstly, don't move the goal posts. We're talking about human beings.

Secondly, there are no human beings that don't fit the binary because there is no third sex. But of course, by saying sex is binary is not the same as saying as everyone fits clearly, neatly and unambiguously into these two categories.

Further, the gamete question is fine as an academic concept, but not in questions of public policy.

Well, yes, it is an academic point. And in most areas of public policy I would agree (as I spoke about above). But in certain cases it might be relevant.

What if you had psychopath markers in your brain scan (like the law abiding psychologist who ran one of his psychopath scans on himself)? What if you had to have a mark on your documentation warning people that your brain scan was consistent with psychopaths? Same issue.

Same issue - same answer. In certain cases it might indeed be useful information to know that I had psychopathic markers/tendencies. Maybe that means I'm not best suited to working as a carer, or shouldn't be selected for a colonising party to mars...

[Sy Borg]

Note, many will say that there are many genders (the latest I heard is that there are 72). I don't really mind how many genders people say they are as long as they are being clear that they are not talking about sex, for which we know there are no more than two. But this is why I think it is important to avoid the conflation between sex and gender.

I see. So, if people are inbetween, tough luck. No creation of new categories. Given that, you must also be fine with people who have one black grandparent calling themselves "black", since there can only be two types of humans - people of colour or white. That is the mindset in many parts of society, but you don't agree.

Ditto sexuality - one can only be straight or gay, and bisexuals are one or the other and in denial, right?

Why do you insist on strawmanning my argument? Some things in nature are binary and some exist on a spectrum. Because I say one thing is binary does not mean I insist that everything in nature is also binary. Therefore I shall disregard these silly analogies.

Your response makes clear your insecurity in your weak argument. Of course you refuse to answer - because it would reveal the illogic of your arguments. Nothing in nature is truly binary. Some phenomena are mostly binary, yes, but there is always a transition zone between the ostensible binaries. Some things are relatively more binary, but never absolutely binary.

The Earth and life are not machines, and do not operate with binaries, only relative binaries. You are wrong. Please admit it so we can move on.

Basing categorisation of humans in society on a single non-visible attribute like gametes or DNA is irrational.

Nonsense. Many things in science are categorised according to attributes we can't easily see at first glance. That is one of the things that separates modern science from it's primitive ancestry and reflects our more deeper understanding of reality that does not rest only on surface appearances.

More defensive quarrelsomeness. The fact is that your incorrect conceptions mean you class women with CAIS as men. That is unjustifiable on any rational metric. There is no need to draw lines at chromosomes or gametes in a socio-political context. Perhaps in a journal or thesis, sure, but not in real life that can screw up atypical people.

Society should adapt to how people are - people should not have to adapt to arbitrary edicts. If sex and gender are different, and you are not planning to breed with someone, then surely their gender is what matters and should be used on documentation rather than their gametes.

And what usefulness to society is gender identity? What laws should be based on it? As far as I can tell it has no real meaning or usefulness to society at large even if some individuals want to adopt such concepts.

What usefulness to society is any kind of identity? Individuality and personal sense of identity identities are perhaps inconvenient to the state, which prefers to disregard individuals and lump everyone into demographics. However, a sense of identity is clearly important to most individuals.

But it depends on the context of course. In some cases it does matter if someone is actually male or female. I mentioned earlier that one's sex can be important information for the diagnosis of many health conditions as it can effect the propensity of many conditions.

When it comes to staffing women's refuges on the other hand, probably the only thing that matters is that employees don't have penis's; that they might have the gender identity of a women is neither here nor there.

With sports, what matters is if the person in question has gone through the developmental processes that gives men an inherent physical advantage.

But I accept that in many social situations one's sex doesn't actually matter. Like I say, it depends on context.

I agree with all of that.

There are obviously more than two sexes. We see it in nature all the time, where animals and plants don't fit the binary. The human species broadly fits the binary, but there are freaks that don't.

Firstly, don't move the goal posts. We're talking about human beings.

No, because to investigate your claim male and female are absolute binaries in humans, and nothing intermediate state is possible, then it's worth seeing if other species have sex modes that show us how intermediate sexual states can exist.

Consider protandrous hermaphrodites like the common snook, which changes sex from male to female at seven years. There is a brief period in that development - typically a matter of weeks - where the fish cannot be said to be male or female. Protogynous hermaphrodites, like bluehead wrasse have a situation where, if a school loses its dominant male, a female will change into a male. Again, there will be an intermediate period while the change takes place.

Secondly, there are no human beings that don't fit the binary because there is no third sex. But of course, by saying sex is binary is not the same as saying as everyone fits clearly, neatly and unambiguously into these two categories.

Like I say, if this is in relation to medicine or papers, sure - up to a point (The CAIS situation has not been addressed in context) . People who don't fit neatly into these categories should be accommodated to some extent in civilised society and not be unnecessarily be pushed into humiliating or dangerous situations.

What if you had psychopath markers in your brain scan (like the law abiding psychologist who ran one of his psychopath scans on himself)? What if you had to have a mark on your documentation warning people that your brain scan was consistent with psychopaths? Same issue.

Same issue - same answer. In certain cases it might indeed be useful information to know that I had psychopathic markers/tendencies. Maybe that means I'm not best suited to working as a carer, or shouldn't be selected for a colonising party to mars...

The doctor was a psychologist - maybe he should be barred from practising psychology given the danger of psychopathy in the delicate area of mental health? Should we ignore that he had an unblemished professional record?

[Good_Egg]

Long post, Sy Borg . I think you're saying that the question for public policy is how society should treat the borderline cases ?

In a sense that's right.

But I'd want to add that - as with most socio-political questions - there are at least two dimensions - one about what the average view is and another about variations in view being tolerated.

For the sake of illustration, we can perhaps imagine:
- a society where male/female difference is rigidly enforced with penalties for pretending to be the opposite sex
- a society where the male/female distinction has been abolished and replaced with a distinction between masculine/feminine - psychological "gender identities" - enforced with penalties for "misgendering"
- a society with no penalties, where borderline and non-borderline individuals are free to self-present as the opposite sex and others are free to accept or reject that presentation.

In other words, a liberty dimension that is perpendicular to a dimension that relates to whether sex/gender is conceived as psychology or physiology.

Which can be conceived as a triangle (because with maximum liberty the question of where society stands on the other dimension is undefined - no position has any standing.)

[Pattern-chaser]

...saying sex is binary is not the same as saying as everyone fits clearly, neatly and unambiguously into these two categories.

This doesn't seem to make sense. Can you elaborate? In particular, can you confirm that sex is a binary "category", but that this doesn't mean that everyone is, or can be, categorised? I'm confused.

[Pattern-chaser]

For the sake of illustration, we can perhaps imagine:
- a society where male/female difference is rigidly enforced with penalties for pretending to be the opposite sex
- a society where the male/female distinction has been abolished and replaced with a distinction between masculine/feminine - psychological "gender identities" - enforced with penalties for "misgendering"
- a society with no penalties, where borderline and non-borderline individuals are free to self-present as the opposite sex and others are free to accept or reject that presentation.

I'm not quite clear why visions of the future, or an imagined present, should involve "penalties". Especially as the option nearly everyone would select from your list — the option we already have, I should observe — has no penalties.

What am I misunderstanding?

[Sy Borg]

For the sake of illustration, we can perhaps imagine:
[a]- a society where male/female difference is rigidly enforced with penalties for pretending to be the opposite sex
- a society where the male/female distinction has been abolished and replaced with a distinction between masculine/feminine - psychological "gender identities" - enforced with penalties for "misgendering"
[c]- a society with no penalties, where borderline and non-borderline individuals are free to self-present as the opposite sex and others are free to accept or reject that presentation.

a) diminishes the potentials of borderline types. Inhumane, Not in touch with human nature. Overly dictatorial.
b) Also not in touch with human nature. Overly dictatorial. Can confuse children if presented carelessly.
c) Reasonable compromise. With surgery, transitioners should be able to change their ID so they can live normal(ish) lives.

Ultimately, I see an an issue with the imposition of mental binaries on nature, which is never perfectly binary. Think of any binary in nature, anything represented by yin and yang, and there will be an intermediate zone. It might be a very tiny intermediate zone, and/or very transient, but there is always an intermediate zone between binaries in nature.

[Pattern-chaser]

Think of any binary in nature, anything represented by yin and yang, and there will be an intermediate zone.

That's exactly what yin/yang teaches us. No absolutes; no opposites (only complements).