Philosophy Discussion Forums

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 5:27 pm "The projected world population on Jan.1, 2024, is 8,019,876,189[.]"

Source: https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2024 ... -years-day

If the current world population is ~8,000,000,000 and the percentage of intersexual persons (ones born with some disorder of sex development or other) is ~0.02%, then there are ~1,600,000 intersexual persons worldwide. That's more than a million, but they are still a teeny-tiny minority.

And those among them who aren't properly classifiable as either female or male are a teeny-tiny minority among a teeny-tiny minority.

If the percentage of persons who may be called asexual/sexless (neither female nor male) owing to complete gonadal dysgenesis is ~0.0007%, then there are ~56,000 such persons worldwide. Let's subtract these from the total population of intersexuals worldwide: ~1,600,00 – ~56,000 = ~1,544,000.

Now, if only 5% of intersexuals (not afflicted with complete gonadal dysgenesis) are true hermaphrodites, then there are ~77,200 such persons worldwide, who may be called bisexual (both male and female).
(Here I don't use "bisexual" to refer to a form of sexual orientation.)

Altogether, we have ~56,000 + ~77,200 = ~133,200 intersexual persons who are not classifiable as either female or male. That's only ~8.3% of all intersexuals worldwide! So ~91.7% of them are classifiable as either female or male, which means I am indubitably justified in claiming that most of them are.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 4:46 pm

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 12:11 pmYou're wrong, because in homo sapiens and other mammalian species, the XX and XY chromosomes are factors of sex determination.

No. The chromesomes themselves are of incidental significance.

No, the role XX & XY play in human sex determination is anything but "incidental"!

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 5:21 pm For example, the best-known estimate of the prevalence of intersex individuals is 1.7% of the total population, drawn from a 2000 study by a team of researchers that included Brown University sexologist Anne Fausto-Sterling. However, Sterling's study used a very broad definition of intersexuality, which has been criticized by other experts.

Indeed! Fausto-Sterling's estimate has been shown to be much too high, especially as her definition of "intersexuality" is much too broad. The best-known estimate is not the best estimate!

"Combining [Carrie] Hull's and [Leonard] Sax's criticisms, the estimate of the frequency of intersex conditions – as originally understood by [Anne] Fausto-Sterling – becomes 0.015 per cent, more than 100 times lower than her initial figure. Since most people in this 0.015 per cent are clearly exactly one of the two sexes (like those with CAH [Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia]), the dispute about Binary-Sex is left with a minute proportion of cases to haggle over, perhaps 1 in 20,000 births or even fewer. Academic – or sometimes intensely personal – interest aside, nothing of importance remains."

(Byrne, Alex. Trouble with Gender. Cambridge: Polity, 2024. p. 76)

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 4:16 pm

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 2:30 pm

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 1:57 pm[Note that most of the 0.02% of "intersexuals" (= people afflicted with some disorder of sex development or other) are classifiable as either female or male!]

I have highlighted the key word in the above.
I cannot see why you think any of this is your business, or how you can make assumptions about people you know nothing about.

Oh dear! I know you're an intelligent person, so this reply of yours is very disappointing.
I've read scientific books & papers about intersexuals, so I do know something about them (although I'm far from being an expert).

You claimed that gender was purely male or female. No exceptions, Now you point to the existence of people who challenge that claim. "Most" does not equal "all. I pointed out a logical error.

The other part was a more general observation about your comments questioning the validity of transsexualism. I just don't really think it's anyone's business. There are transpeople out there who are just as sane and intelligent as you, just that they have a problem that most people are fortunate enough not to have.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:43 pmYou claimed that gender was purely male or female. No exceptions, Now you point to the existence of people who challenge that claim. "Most" does not equal "all. I pointed out a logical error.

One I did not commit! I know most doesn't entail all.

We have two different assumptions here:

1. TWOSEX: There are exactly two sexes (the female sex & the male sex) in sexually reproducing species of organisms.

2. XORSEX: All individuals belonging to a sexually reproducing species of organisms are either female or male—and no such individual is both female and male, or neither female nor male.

(In logic "xor" stands for the exclusive or = "either…or".)

Question 1: Is TWOSEX true? – Yes!
Question 2: Is XORSEX true? – No!
Question 3: Does TWOSEX entail XORSEX? – No!

Therefore, the falsity of XORSEX does not refute TWOSEX!

XORSEX is obviously false in all hermaphroditic species; but TWOSEX is still true therein, because TWOSEX doesn't imply that the two sexes never occur in one and the same individual (simultaneously or sequentially).

In non-hermaphroditic species such as homo sapiens XORSEX is false too; but it is almost true or highly truthlike, since exceptions to it aren't normal therein (as in hermaphroditic species) but abnormal (pathological) and extremely rare.

"The phenomenon of intersex individuals does mean that not everyone fits tidily into the male or female categories, which is true but hardly news. This doesn't change the fact, though, that there are only two sexes in our species; intersex isn't a third sex, because intersex people don't produce a third type of gamete."

(Casey, Gerard. Hidden Agender: Transgenderism's Struggle Against Reality. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2020.)

Sy Borg wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:43 pmThe other part was a more general observation about your comments questioning the validity of transsexualism. I just don't really think it's anyone's business. There are transpeople out there who are just as sane and intelligent as you, just that they have a problem that most people are fortunate enough not to have.

* If "questioning the validity of transsexualism" means denying that transsexuality is a real psychological phenomenon, I have never done so (and will never do so).

* If "questioning the validity of transsexualism" means denying that transsexual men/women are women/men (females/males), I have done so (and will continue doing so).

I don't even see why you care so much, given that I already made clear that I don't think they should compete in pro sport or insist themselves on women's spaces without invitation, etc. I already said that I see them as an inbetween sex rather than absolutely one or the other, which is obvious rather than controversial.

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 5:27 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 4:47 pm Intersex is represented by million of people.

(Here I don't use "bisexual" to refer to a form of sexual orientation.)

For example, the best-known estimate of the prevalence of intersex individuals is 1.7% of the total population, drawn from a 2000 study by a team of researchers that included Brown University sexologist Anne Fausto-Sterling. However, Sterling's study used a very broad definition of intersexuality, which has been criticized by other experts.

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 5:46 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 4:46 pm

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 12:11 pmYou're wrong, because in homo sapiens and other mammalian species, the XX and XY chromosomes are factors of sex determination.

No. The chromesomes themselves are of incidental significance.

No, the role XX & XY play in human sex determination is anything but "incidental"!

The fact that gender determining genes appear on those chromesomes are incidental.

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 5:52 pm

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 5:21 pm For example, the best-known estimate of the prevalence of intersex individuals is 1.7% of the total population, drawn from a 2000 study by a team of researchers that included Brown University sexologist Anne Fausto-Sterling. However, Sterling's study used a very broad definition of intersexuality, which has been criticized by other experts.

Indeed! Fausto-Sterling's estimate has been shown to be much too high, especially as her definition of "intersexuality" is much too broad. The best-known estimate is not the best estimate!

You do not get to minimise the importance of an issue by bean counting

If there were only a handful of intersex people we would learn something about gender.

Consul wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 11:56 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:41 am

Consul wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 9:01 pm Give me a (non-circular) definition of "woman" that includes transwomen in this category!
(Note that the following is a circular and hence inadequate definition: "x is a woman" =def "x identifies as a woman")

My own argument for a 'woman' which includes a transwoman would be someone who has an internalised concept of femaleness, which may have based on biological attributes or some other basis. I know that you see those not based in biology as delusional. You are entitled to your view as I see it but so is the person who self-identified.

Being part of public language, words such as "woman" and "female" aren't private property. They have public meanings; and when transsexual men engage in semantic "humptydumptying" by arbitrarily giving private meanings to words in common use such as "woman" and "female", so as to include themselves in the class of women/females, then nobody else is obliged to accept that.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:41 amThe difficulty comes to the dialogue in daily life. I know from previous discussions that you are not in the practice of 'outing' people, but often the biological essentialism is used in such a way. Biology applied alongside religious fundamentalism has created a lot of psychological suppression and bigotry for those who are 'different' in terms of sex/gender and sexuality.

Biology is a science, whereas religious fundamentalism is an ideology. I know that from the Woke Left's own ideological perspective, there is no difference between science and ideology; but they are willfully blurring the objective difference for ideological reasons. Of course, science can be and is sometimes ideologically (politically) misused; but this circumstance doesn't mean that science in general and biology in particular is inherently and fundamentally a "cisheteronormative" system of oppression, which ought to be "deconstructed" for the sake of "gender equity" (equity = social fairness/justness). Facts are facts! If certain people don't like the natural facts of (binary) sex as discovered and conceptualized by biologists, then so much the worse for them!

The issue which I see your focus is missing is the human side of gender identity. Science has been helpful in understanding the physiology of sexual.differentiation but there is the lived identity and personal experience which is more than clear categories. While the activists may seem to be telling people what to think that comes in the context of people' s struggle, often in the response to oppression and bullying.

Of course, it matters if issues like the potential for rape are ignored. However, the media distorts stereotypes by focusing on the rare criminal transgender offender like it portrays the stereotype of schizophrenic people negatively. This perpetuates fear and prejudice.

Really, even though gender and sexuality are public in so far as no one lives in a social vacuum, it is a fairly sensitive topic. It is private in some respects and matters like whether has ovaries, testicles, hormone disorders are matters of medical confidentiality and involve choice about where and when to disclose them. Gender identity, especially dysphoria, involves suffering and prescriptive categorisation goes against the whole counselling and therapeutic emphasis on enabling individuals to explore in a positive way.

Of course, the issue of whether gender is innate is a philosophical and psychological one of importance for all men and women and not just a question of intersex and transgender people. The issues of the minority raise areas for thinking but there is a danger of too much being projected onto those who are different. This is where science can be turned into an ideology in a similar way to religious belief has done in regard to gender and sexuality.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 11:51 pm

Fried Egg wrote: ↑March 31st, 2024, 3:51 pm

Lagayscienza wrote:In the end, I think society should just leave people alone and let them be the gender they feel themselves to be. I don't understand why people have such a problem with it. Religion, intolerance/fear of difference?

I think that the vast majority of people are happy to just leave people alone. Although it's not quite that simple, is it? The advocacy of "gender affirming care" for children is not just leaving people alone is it? The demanding of trans women to be allowed to compete in women's sports isn't fair on their competitors. The demanding of convicted male rapists to be accepted as a woman and put into a women's prison is not fair on the other women prisoners. We have gone well beyond just "live and let live".

Sure, in all areas of life there will always be people who want to push the envelop. I do not agree with trans women competing in women's sports or trans men competing in men's sports (I've not heard of the latter happening). Nor do I agree that male rapists should be accommodated in women's prisons. Trans people must accept that their gender status can have implications for others in sport etc. And, no doubt, most are sensible people who do understand this.

The problems you speak of are rare but they are made to seem more common by right-wing nutters in the media. However that may be, it does not detract from the fact that there is a certain proportion of the population who have a real condition called gender dysphoria which negatively impacts their quality of life and which can and should be treated if the gender dysphoric person wishes it. The etiology of GD is irrelevant, as is the question of whether gender identity is innate or a social construct. These are esoteric biological and philosophical questions that have no bearing on whether society should "leave people alone" and stop oppressing them for matters over which they have no control. We should let people assume the gender they feel they are, but with the understanding that if they transition, they must accept that there are certain areas such as sport which for physiological reasons, will not be able to accommodate their transition.

I think that we are probably broadly in agreement then, going by what you say above. I agree that people should be able to assume the gender they want to be without fear of persecution. With the caveat though for children in that they should generally not be given treatments that would damage their otherwise healthy bodies (this includes puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, physical surgery, etc). Except perhaps in extreme cases...

Sy Borg wrote:You know something else that isn't real, that is a mere social construct? Money.

If you think social constructs are not real and without power, please PM me to arrange transfer of all of your money to my accounts. Since the money is just a social construct, it doesn't matter ...

I think you have imputed me to mean that it does not matter because it is a social construct. That is certainly not what I am claiming.

Are you capable of empathy, putting yourself in another's shoes?

Most people take gender identity for granted because they are masculine males and feminine females. Can you imagine what its like to not like as you are? Can you empathise?

I do not see why having many behavioural traits that are normally associated with the opposite sex mean that you would feel that your sex/gender is wrong. Indeed, I have known many camp men/butch women who are perfectly happy with their sex/gender. That said, I'm aware there are people out there who are not happy with their gender, that this feeling can make them deeply unhappy and I do sympathise though I find it hard to empathise because, as I have stated many times in this thread, I am not aware of my own sense of gender.

Clearly your claim that modern society is "too free" in its gender norms is off, given the many thousands who experience gender dysphoria - people who find living in their physical gender so disturbing that some commit suicide. Transpeople have a ridiculous suicide rate, that would be a national scandal if it applied to a group of people that society cared about.

But that is offset by the examples of those children, who given enough time will grow through their gender dysphoria. And still others who have transitioned and yet regret it later. I'm not saying all gender dysphoric people will change their mind/regret transitioning. It only causes one to think we should be very careful about applying treatments that physically damage your body, sometimes including being sterilised or unable to climax.

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 8:07 am

Belinda wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 7:22 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:08 am To Sculptor,

My reply to your post in response to me is in the box. That is because the site requires me to remove links and splitting up boxes in quotes is extremely difficult on a phone, without a mouse. So, I am sorry if the layout makes it appear that you are saying what is my part and I am too tired to write it again.

There is at least one behaviour where biological sex is the same as gender. That is that among all two- sexed individuals the male penetrates the female. If in a sexual act the female penetrates the male in some contrived manner, say with a finger, then the female is imitating the male, but not changing 'gender'.

To change gender means to adopt a new behaviour usually associated with one or the other sex but which is not biologically linked to sex.

Genitals are probably the most biological of features and changing them is complex. It goes back to Freud's ideas of the phallus and the symbolic nature of this was developed by Lacan.

The act of penetration is one of the problematic areas of sexuality because it can involve power and abuse, especially rape. That is why there is a problem of male to females in female only spaces, especially if females have been abused. The male act of penetrating females is a key issue although males can rape other males.

The use of other forms of penetration is a form of simulation. Sex toys are available and I read of a case of a female who claimed that another female passing as a 'boy', Jimmy Saunders, had sex with her using a dildo in Doncaster in the 1990s. Jimmy was convicted of rape on the basis of the lie of an artificial 'toy'.

Of course, this raises questions for those who change their genitals during sex change transitions. If a person has sex with a person not knowing that the vagina or 'phalloplasty' are artificial is it unethical? Does this depend on how 'real' the genitals or prosthesis is. For example, does it make a difference if a female to male has a prosthesis or an enlarged clitoris? What is tricky is the contexts of disclosing. It could be argued that there is some ethical need to disclose in personal intimate relationships, but at what point is the question?

So many aspects of life, including social interaction are based on assumptions about a person's genitals, which may be a critical issue in single sex spaces. This is a question with the idea of a transwoman in female only spaces, as potential rapists. I have even read of laws in Iran which allow police the powers, in Iran, to allow a member of the birth assigned gender of a suspected transwoman to inspect their genitals. Despite any fear of transwomen as rapists the Iranian situation is questionable as disproportionate. It raises the area of privacy and public aspects of genital sex at the centre of assumptions about male and female in human life.

Gendering behaviour is/was a necessary part of means of subsistence which is reflected by normalised male/female roles in areas such as food production, group defence, kinship relations, personal appearance, interpersonal respectfulness, and religious ideology. Traditional gender roles were and are such that men had more political and interpersonal power than women. Now that traditional gender roles are blurred , due to equal education for all and contraception, we see that there is much confusion especially for persons who feel themselves fitted for an untraditional gender role, such as less conventional self presentation and unconventional public presence.

The cultural transition is evolving very fast and, as long as economic forces remain steady, in a few years time gender will have ceased to be a problem among people educated to standards of the scientific enlightenment.

The Nazi salute is a phallic symbol.

Belinda wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2024, 6:04 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 8:07 am

Belinda wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 7:22 am

JackDaydream wrote: ↑April 1st, 2024, 6:08 am To Sculptor,

My reply to your post in response to me is in the box. That is because the site requires me to remove links and splitting up boxes in quotes is extremely difficult on a phone, without a mouse. So, I am sorry if the layout makes it appear that you are saying what is my part and I am too tired to write it again.

There is at least one behaviour where biological sex is the same as gender. That is that among all two- sexed individuals the male penetrates the female. If in a sexual act the female penetrates the male in some contrived manner, say with a finger, then the female is imitating the male, but not changing 'gender'.

To change gender means to adopt a new behaviour usually associated with one or the other sex but which is not biologically linked to sex.

Genitals are probably the most biological of features and changing them is complex. It goes back to Freud's ideas of the phallus and the symbolic nature of this was developed by Lacan.

The act of penetration is one of the problematic areas of sexuality because it can involve power and abuse, especially rape. That is why there is a problem of male to females in female only spaces, especially if females have been abused. The male act of penetrating females is a key issue although males can rape other males.

The use of other forms of penetration is a form of simulation. Sex toys are available and I read of a case of a female who claimed that another female passing as a 'boy', Jimmy Saunders, had sex with her using a dildo in Doncaster in the 1990s. Jimmy was convicted of rape on the basis of the lie of an artificial 'toy'.

Of course, this raises questions for those who change their genitals during sex change transitions. If a person has sex with a person not knowing that the vagina or 'phalloplasty' are artificial is it unethical? Does this depend on how 'real' the genitals or prosthesis is. For example, does it make a difference if a female to male has a prosthesis or an enlarged clitoris? What is tricky is the contexts of disclosing. It could be argued that there is some ethical need to disclose in personal intimate relationships, but at what point is the question?

So many aspects of life, including social interaction are based on assumptions about a person's genitals, which may be a critical issue in single sex spaces. This is a question with the idea of a transwoman in female only spaces, as potential rapists. I have even read of laws in Iran which allow police the powers, in Iran, to allow a member of the birth assigned gender of a suspected transwoman to inspect their genitals. Despite any fear of transwomen as rapists the Iranian situation is questionable as disproportionate. It raises the area of privacy and public aspects of genital sex at the centre of assumptions about male and female in human life.

Gendering behaviour is/was a necessary part of means of subsistence which is reflected by normalised male/female roles in areas such as food production, group defence, kinship relations, personal appearance, interpersonal respectfulness, and religious ideology. Traditional gender roles were and are such that men had more political and interpersonal power than women. Now that traditional gender roles are blurred , due to equal education for all and contraception, we see that there is much confusion especially for persons who feel themselves fitted for an untraditional gender role, such as less conventional self presentation and unconventional public presence.

The cultural transition is evolving very fast and, as long as economic forces remain steady, in a few years time gender will have ceased to be a problem among people educated to standards of the scientific enlightenment.

The Nazi salute is a phallic symbol.

It does seem that there is a lot of confusion. Traditional gender roles have broken down in some ways but not completely. In employment, women can do most jobs but there are probably varying sets of assumptions, based on biological differences and reproductive roles.

The idea of gender exists in odd forms, such as in shops birthday cards, books and magazines are often divided into male/female ones. I find it very irritating. Many people do challenge conventions in clothes, but, there is often more flexibility for females to wear masculine clothes than the other way round.

With presentation, there is the factor of attracting sexual partners and sexual.expression and it is here that gender probably plays a strong role. This may exist as long as human beings have sentient bodies. AI might make gender obsolete, like the mythological androgynous angels. In a way, there may some link between transgenderism and transhumanism, as attempts to supersede biology.

It is hard to know to what extent gender could be eradicated with the nature of biological differences. There are divisions, like single sex spaces. In particular, I found that so many adverts for accommodation specified females only. If anything, there may be more prejudice against women than men and assumptions that all men are potential rapists. Some women find gay men to be less of a threat.

The nature of phallicentricism is complicated because in the patriarchy there was power of men over women. It is possible that a matriarchy may have existed prior to a patriarchy. What may be taking place is a more equal power between men and women. This may be giving rise to confusion and it is likely that a more fluid understanding of female and male power, and stereotypes may allow less sense of gender dysphoria. However, it may not be that simple as long as there are ideals about 'perfect bodies', which may involve male and female as archetypes and aesthetic forms, even with the archetypal hermaphrodite as a dangerous , or sometimes revered, symbol.

You make some interesting points, JackDaydream.

Whilst there is still a bit of a gender pay gap, in some ways there has been a reversal in discrimination. For example, whilst men are now expected to do half the housework, they are not as free as women to dress as they like. No one would have a problem with a girl wearing jeans and a masculine looking checked shirt, in fact some may think it looks quite becoming, but a man in a frilly floral blouse is still going to get some funny looks.

And your idea that AI might make gender obsolete is also interesting as is a possible link between transgenderism and transhumanism. If that gets underway then maybe those different sections in stationary stores and bookshops for cards and magazines will evaporate. Not that anyone will be reading paper books and magazines any more by then.

Lagayscienza wrote: ↑April 2nd, 2024, 7:48 am You make some interesting points, JackDaydream.

Whilst there is still a bit of a gender pay gap, in some ways there has been a reversal in discrimination. For example, whilst men are now expected to do half the housework, they are not as free as women to dress as they like. No one would have a problem with a girl wearing jeans and a masculine looking checked shirt, in fact some may think it looks quite becoming, but a man in a frilly floral blouse is still going to get some funny looks.

And your idea that AI might make gender obsolete is also interesting as is a possible link between transgenderism and transhumanism. If that gets underway then maybe those different sections in stationary stores and bookshops for cards and magazines will evaporate. Not that anyone will be reading paper books and magazines any more by then.

The reason why I make the connection between transgenderism goes back to the experiments of the Nazis. Potentially, the development of synthetic hormone could have been used as potential warfare. The development of John Money and other sexologists did not go in that direction at least. The worst situation was that case of the boy whose penis got destroyed in a circumstances and the attempt to 'turn him into a girl', which was catastrophic. It was used as a basis for surgery on intersex cases at that stage, until John published his story of suffering, leading back to the idea of an 'innate' aspect of gender and gender identity.

The other possible connection between transgenderism and transhumanism is having roots in ethical hedonism. Even if some people are not happy at the results of gender transitioning the hormones are aimed at the creation of 'gender euphoria' as opposed to dysphoria. In transhumanism, there is the idea of minimization of pain and maximum pleasure. Of course, if goes as far as non sentient beings it would probably entail no pleasure for the beings. If it was a combination of sentience and non sentience it is questionable whether they would reproduce or be grown in laboratories. It would depend whether some combination of sentience or non sentience would involve sexual attraction and self image, and probably such beings may not care what clothes they wore, or even remain naked if social norms and emotions were non existent.