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

[Consul]

I reckon it's just human variation. Some males are going to have the most feminine mentality and some females are going to have the most masculine mentality. Likewise, some males are hyper masculine and some females are hyper feminine. I expect that when an incongruent mentality meets relative physical androgyny, that's when dysphoria can happen.
All manner of diversity is possible, certainly more than the current DEI drones in today's academia, with their strict identity categories that ignore the "messiness" of the human psyche.

But there is no "gender diversity" in the sense that there are more than two sexes.

[Sy Borg]

I reckon it's just human variation. Some males are going to have the most feminine mentality and some females are going to have the most masculine mentality. Likewise, some males are hyper masculine and some females are hyper feminine. I expect that when an incongruent mentality meets relative physical androgyny, that's when dysphoria can happen.
All manner of diversity is possible, certainly more than the current DEI drones in today's academia, with their strict identity categories that ignore the "messiness" of the human psyche.

But there is no "gender diversity" in the sense that there are more than two sexes.

Tell that to intersexed people and transpeople.

As with consciousness, applying machinelike binaries to physical nature is an abbreviated representation of reality, not a true one. Thus, people of variant genders are lumped into the closest approximation. It all depends on whether you apply a subtle, pragmatic or brutalist approach to categorising people.

Indigenous societies sometimes handled natural human variations better than more formulaic modern societies. Unlike us, they were forced to accept variant human gender roles because they were no point sending a soft male to war who is into weaving a child minding and can't fight. That would just embarrass the tribe. Likewise, women who were too aggressive and non-nurturing for traditional female duties would become warriors.

Unlike modern societies, many indigenous tribes around the world and throughout history were forced to squarely face reality in this issue to maximise use of their human resources. Modern societies famously squander human potential because, unlike tribes, modern societies enjoy the luxury of being able to be wasteful and self-indulgent without consequences.

[Consul]

But there is no "gender diversity" in the sense that there are more than two sexes.

Tell that to intersexed people and transpeople.

No problem! Neither group constitutes a third or fourth sex, because neither intersexuals nor transsexuals produce a third or fourth type of gametes. Males produce sperm, and females produce eggs; and no intersexual or transsexual individual produces "speggs".

Moreover, as I already said, being intersexual doesn't necessarily mean being both male or female, or being neither male nor female.

[Consul]

As with consciousness, applying machinelike binaries to physical nature is an abbreviated representation of reality, not a true one. Thus, people of variant genders are lumped into the closest approximation. It all depends on whether you apply a subtle, pragmatic or brutalist approach to categorising people.

What you call "brutalist" I call naturalist!
This is not to say that we should never pragmatically treat transsexual men/women as if they were women/men, or objectively nonbinary intersexuals as if they were women/men.
However, I do have a problem with the social and legal demands of pseudo-nonbinary non-intersexuals, who are objectively and definitely either male or female.

[Consul]

No problem! Neither group constitutes a third or fourth sex, because neither intersexuals nor transsexuals produce a third or fourth type of gametes. Males produce sperm, and females produce eggs; and no intersexual or transsexual individual produces "speggs".

One's sex is an objective natural state of the body, and it is biologically defined as follows:

1. A (non-hermaphroditic) organism is male if and only if it underwent the development of organs (testes/testicles) with the function of producing small mobile gametes (sperm or [in plants] pollen).

2. A (non-hermaphroditic) organism is female if and only if it underwent the development of organs (ovaries) with the function of producing large immobile gametes (eggs/ova).

Note that these definitions do not require that the reproductive organs actually fulfill their respective functions of producing sperm/eggs in order for an organism to be male/female!

[Sy Borg]

As with consciousness, applying machinelike binaries to physical nature is an abbreviated representation of reality, not a true one. Thus, people of variant genders are lumped into the closest approximation. It all depends on whether you apply a subtle, pragmatic or brutalist approach to categorising people.

What you call "brutalist" I call naturalist!
This is not to say that we should never pragmatically treat transsexual men/women as if they were women/men, or objectively nonbinary intersexuals as if they were women/men.
However, I do have a problem with the social and legal demands of pseudo-nonbinary non-intersexuals, who are objectively and definitely either male or female.

Your last comment about those claiming to be be non-binary is a different, if related, matter. My guess is that most of them are people who once would have been deemed to be "straight", but who had closeted little secrets. Now kinkiness seems to be more in the open. Their claims about being non-binary aren't intended to refer to "nature", they refer to traditional norms for societal gender roles. It's about social constructs.

Instead of "brutalist", I will say "reductive". Nature has many more than two genders, being replete with all kinds of hermaphrodites. In mammals, the genders are, as you say, more strictly binary, there will still be mutations, and also variations during gestation. There's not much controversy when it comes physically intersexed people. However, psychological variations are more contentious, eg. PTSD was once considered to be malingering or cowardice.

It's natural to distrust the sanity or honesty those making unconventional or societally inconvenient claims. However, given the history of people adopting variant gender roles in indigenous societies and the intractability of genuine gender dysphoria (not the modern non-binary phenomenon), it's clear that there is reality to at least a percentage of claims that brain gender does not always match society's traditional gender demands. The situation, in practical terms, is not black & white.

One would expect that the non-binary trend will loosen the west's gender norms, which could result in a reduction of full sex changes. That is, if gender roles are less strict, more people with atypical gender inclinations may be comfortable enough to stick approximately to their current role.

Not that it matters haha - people will do as they do, regardless of other's opinions on how they should live their lives. They are the ones who have to live with themselves and, as is the case for all, no one can fully empathise with their internal experiences. That's why I'm a fan of not judging people and minding my own business, as much as possible.

[Consul]

What you call "brutalist" I call naturalist! This is not to say that we should never pragmatically treat transsexual men/women as if they were women/men, or objectively nonbinary intersexuals as if they were women/men.
However, I do have a problem with the social and legal demands of pseudo-nonbinary non-intersexuals, who are objectively and definitely either male or female.

Your last comment about those claiming to be be non-binary is a different, if related, matter. My guess is that most of them are people who once would have been deemed to be "straight", but who had closeted little secrets. Now kinkiness seems to be more in the open. Their claims about being non-binary aren't intended to refer to "nature", they refer to traditional norms for societal gender roles. It's about social constructs.

If a nonbinary non-intersexual and non-hermaphroditic person is simply a "gender(-norm/role)-nonconforming" one, or one with an androgynous habitus (appearance or behavior combining feminine aspects and masculine ones), I have no problem with that term—as long as such persons identifying as nonbinary don't literally claim not to be either male or female.

Instead of "brutalist", I will say "reductive".

No, the binary biological definition of sex (in terms of the two natural types of gametes/gonads) is not reductionistic in the sense of reducing all aspects of the bio-psycho-social sex-complex to the reproductive organs and their functions, since it just defines the very concept of sex. No biologist using the binary definition of sex denies that (especially in the human case) there is a variety of many other sex-related physiological, psychological, and sociological topics beyond testicles/sperm vs. ovaries/eggs. Therefore, the accusation of reductionism is utterly false and ideologically motivated, being nothing but a piece of gender-philosophical propaganda.

Nature has many more than two genders, being replete with all kinds of hermaphrodites. In mammals, the genders are, as you say, more strictly binary, there will still be mutations, and also variations during gestation. There's not much controversy when it comes physically intersexed people. However, psychological variations are more contentious, eg. PTSD was once considered to be malingering or cowardice.

Yes, there are (simultaneously or sequentially) hermaphroditic species in nature, and yet it is not the case that there are more than two natural genders/sexes. A simultaneous hermaphrodite is both male and female, which means that the two sexes are present in one and the same organism. It doesn't mean that simultaneous hermaphrodites constitute a third sex, since producing both types of gametes doesn't mean producing a third type. (Obviously, producing neither type of gametes doesn't mean producing a third type either.)

Homo sapiens isn't a hermaphroditic species, and being intersexual doesn't mean being hermaphroditic. There are extremely rare cases of human intersexuals who are called "true hermaphrodites", because their bodies contain both ovarian tissue and testicular tissue; but those cases are all abnormal, pathological ones (and there is no known case in which both sperm and eggs are/were produced).

It's natural to distrust the sanity or honesty those making unconventional or societally inconvenient claims. However, given the history of people adopting variant gender roles in indigenous societies and the intractability of genuine gender dysphoria (not the modern non-binary phenomenon), it's clear that there is reality to at least a percentage of claims that brain gender does not always match society's traditional gender demands. The situation, in practical terms, is not black & white.

No biologist using the binary sex definition asserts that the whole (bio-psycho-social) human sex-complex is a simple black&white thing—because it isn't. The subject matters of the psychology and the sociology of sex are certainly not reducible to the ones of the biology and the physiology of sex; but it by no means follows that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is a continuous spectrum of sexes.

[Samana Johann]

Whether or not gender is innate or cultural, a better society would not gender anybody. I call for gender to be as politically incorrect as race.

Agreed.
Sadly I think society is going in exactly the opposite direction.
And the one crowing the most are the ones claiming "freedumb" the most.

Rich, happy and fortune people seldom claim for lowest equal...

Sorry? That does not parse well.

As said.

[Sy Borg]

What you call "brutalist" I call naturalist! This is not to say that we should never pragmatically treat transsexual men/women as if they were women/men, or objectively nonbinary intersexuals as if they were women/men.
However, I do have a problem with the social and legal demands of pseudo-nonbinary non-intersexuals, who are objectively and definitely either male or female.

Your last comment about those claiming to be be non-binary is a different, if related, matter. My guess is that most of them are people who once would have been deemed to be "straight", but who had closeted little secrets. Now kinkiness seems to be more in the open. Their claims about being non-binary aren't intended to refer to "nature", they refer to traditional norms for societal gender roles. It's about social constructs.

If a nonbinary non-intersexual and non-hermaphroditic person is simply a "gender(-norm/role)-nonconforming" one, or one with an androgynous habitus (appearance or behavior combining feminine aspects and masculine ones), I have no problem with that term—as long as such persons identifying as nonbinary don't literally claim not to be either male or female.

The fact is that the fact of most people's biological sex is so blindingly obvious that there's no point labouring the point. That's obvious. It's the details that seem t be in question, even though all manner of gender diversity obviously occurs within those binary sexes.

Instead of "brutalist", I will say "reductive".

No, the binary biological definition of sex (in terms of the two natural types of gametes/gonads) is not reductionistic in the sense of reducing all aspects of the bio-psycho-social sex-complex to the reproductive organs and their functions, since it just defines the very concept of sex. No biologist using the binary definition of sex denies that (especially in the human case) there is a variety of many other sex-related physiological, psychological, and sociological topics beyond testicles/sperm vs. ovaries/eggs. Therefore, the accusation of reductionism is utterly false and ideologically motivated, being nothing but a piece of gender-philosophical propaganda.

What a load of crap. I have no ideology about this whatsoever. I think transpeople should not play professional sport in their new gender, nor should they insist on entering female-only domestic abuse services unless they are welcome. So your oddball accusation of me is completely wrong.

As per my earlier response, your laser focus on biology ignores the crux of the issue. People vary.

Nature has many more than two genders, being replete with all kinds of hermaphrodites. In mammals, the genders are, as you say, more strictly binary, there will still be mutations, and also variations during gestation. There's not much controversy when it comes physically intersexed people. However, psychological variations are more contentious, eg. PTSD was once considered to be malingering or cowardice.

Yes, there are (simultaneously or sequentially) hermaphroditic species in nature, and yet it is not the case that there are more than two natural genders/sexes. A simultaneous hermaphrodite is both male and female, which means that the two sexes are present in one and the same organism. It doesn't mean that simultaneous hermaphrodites constitute a third sex, since producing both types of gametes doesn't mean producing a third type. (Obviously, producing neither type of gametes doesn't mean producing a third type either.)

Homo sapiens isn't a hermaphroditic species, and being intersexual doesn't mean being hermaphroditic. There are extremely rare cases of human intersexuals who are called "true hermaphrodites", because their bodies contain both ovarian tissue and testicular tissue; but those cases are all abnormal, pathological ones (and there is no known case in which both sperm and eggs are/were produced).

There is no point stating the obvious. As stated, the issue is about psychology more than physiology, although some androgyny in this area would logically play a role.

Still, the idea that nature only organises itself into two sexes is an anthropocentric assumption. Hence the Biblical edicts to that effect.

It's natural to distrust the sanity or honesty those making unconventional or societally inconvenient claims. However, given the history of people adopting variant gender roles in indigenous societies and the intractability of genuine gender dysphoria (not the modern non-binary phenomenon), it's clear that there is reality to at least a percentage of claims that brain gender does not always match society's traditional gender demands. The situation, in practical terms, is not black & white.

No biologist using the binary sex definition asserts that the whole (bio-psycho-social) human sex-complex is a simple black&white thing—because it isn't. The subject matters of the psychology and the sociology of sex are certainly not reducible to the ones of the biology and the physiology of sex; but it by no means follows that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is a continuous spectrum of sexes.

Biologists and their findings have nothing to do with this issue. None. Zero. You do not seem to understand what's happening. No one has ever formed a friendship or relationship based on a person's chromosomes. No one cares aside from doctors and sports bodies. People care about the kind of human they are dealing with, not the category. Or at least they used to.

[Consul]

The fact is that the fact of most people's biological sex is so blindingly obvious that there's no point labouring the point. That's obvious. It's the details that seem t be in question, even though all manner of gender diversity obviously occurs within those binary sexes.

What is gender diversity a diversity of? What do you mean by "gender"? (I simply mean "sex".)

No, the binary biological definition of sex (in terms of the two natural types of gametes/gonads) is not reductionistic in the sense of reducing all aspects of the bio-psycho-social sex-complex to the reproductive organs and their functions, since it just defines the very concept of sex. No biologist using the binary definition of sex denies that (especially in the human case) there is a variety of many other sex-related physiological, psychological, and sociological topics beyond testicles/sperm vs. ovaries/eggs. Therefore, the accusation of reductionism is utterly false and ideologically motivated, being nothing but a piece of gender-philosophical propaganda.

What a load of crap. I have no ideology about this whatsoever. I think transpeople should not play professional sport in their new gender, nor should they insist on entering female-only domestic abuse services unless they are welcome. So your oddball accusation of me is completely wrong.

Okay, then don't take it personally; but you used the word "reductive", which "triggered" me. What I said is not "a load of crap", because genderists actually make this false accusation of reductionism very often.

As per my earlier response, your laser focus on biology ignores the crux of the issue. People vary.

The certainly do, in many corporeal, mental, social, and cultural respects—and yet homo sapiens is not a hermaphroditic species, transwomen are not women, transmen are not men, and intersexuals are not a third sex.

Still, the idea that nature only organises itself into two sexes is an anthropocentric assumption. Hence the Biblical edicts to that effect.

Yes, this assumption is false. Reproduction by means of the two sexes (in anisogametic species with exactly two, very differently sized and structured types of gametes—sperm cells & egg cells) is only one kind of natural reproduction among organisms. This is called sexual reproduction.
There is also…
* "sexual" reproduction by means of more than two mating types in isogametic species (e.g. of algae or fungi) with (almost) equally sized and structured gametes, and
* asexual reproduction that does not involve the fusion of any types of gametes.

Footnote: When isogametic mating-type reproduction is called a kind of sexual reproduction, this is misleading, because biologists usually don't call mating types sexes. And in case one does so, a strict terminological distinction needs to be drawn between the two anisogametic sexes (as occurring in homo sapiens, all other animal species, and nearly all plant species!) and the more than two isogametic sexes.

No biologist using the binary sex definition asserts that the whole (bio-psycho-social) human sex-complex is a simple black&white thing—because it isn't. The subject matters of the psychology and the sociology of sex are certainly not reducible to the ones of the biology and the physiology of sex; but it by no means follows that there are more than two discrete sexes, or that there is a continuous spectrum of sexes.

Biologists and their findings have nothing to do with this issue. None. Zero. You do not seem to understand what's happening.

Very funny! Biologists and their findings have a very great deal to do with this issue, since the natural evolution of anisogamy and the corresponding evolution of the two sexes as a form of organismic reproduction is a biological phenomenon. So is the evolution of different sexual phenotypes!

No one has ever formed a friendship or relationship based on a person's chromosomes. No one cares aside from doctors and sports bodies. People care about the kind of human they are dealing with, not the category. Or at least they used to.

No, it's just not true that people don't care anymore whether their friends or especially their sexual partners (with whom they may want to have non-adopted children) are male or female.

Anyway, your reply is a distraction from the detrimental misconceptions produced by gender philosophy! For example, here's a statement by one of its goddesses:

"[S]ex assignment is the initial and powerful practice through which the facts of sex are established and reestablished."

(Butler, Judith. Who's Afraid of Gender? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024.p. 170)

She thereby asserts falsely that the facts of sex aren't natural, nature-given ones discovered by biologists and physiologists, but non-natural, socially constructed or invented ones. The natural science of (binary) sex is regarded by genderists à la Butler as an oppressive ideological power-structure that must be taken down for the sake of social justice and individual self-determination.

[Sy Borg]

You appear to not understand the difference between the intersexed and the transsexual. For some reason, you are ignoring all aspects of transpeople's claims to focus on biological sex, which has nothing to do with their claims (aside from the occasional delusional type).

That's why biologists have nothing to do with this. You are not going to call a biologist to diagnose transgender characteristics.

"Hello? Is this Hire-a-Biologist? I have a possible transgender sighting that I'd like you to verify."
"No problem ma'am. We'll just hit it with a dart and, while it' out, we'll check its gonads and take some samples for the lab."
'What of the gametes? I am especially concerned about the gametes, as that is decisive."
"Of course, ma'am. A persons gametes are always the first characteristic people think about when it comes to gender because we are far too deep to be interested in a person's personality or character".

As for Judith Butler's off base comment, don't pin that on me.

And no, nature sorts itself into many sexes. You are indeed being reductionist. Consider two snails "penis fencing" - the first one to stab the other avoids pregnancy. Consider clownfish changing sex as part of their life cycle. A number of cold-blooded species can impregnate themselves. Leeches and worms have sex and impregnate each other. Some gobies can change sex at will. Clam shrimp have males, females, and multiple types of hermaphrodite genders.

Of course you will say that humans are rarely hermaphrodites, and even more rarely functionally, which would miss the point. There are degrees of mental hermaphroditism in humans - and this fact has established beyond doubt, by the gender divisions of numerous societies and by many psychological studies, even some brain studies.

I'm all in favour of not pandering to today's politically correct post-modern social Marxism. However, I am not in favour of ignoring history and science to make a point. There's a history of attempting to treat transpeople, resulting in today's approach, and any credible observer needs to acknowledge the work done in the past in this area.

The John/Joan case in itself proves the reality of innate gender identity.

[Sculptor1]

Agreed.
Sadly I think society is going in exactly the opposite direction.
And the one crowing the most are the ones claiming "freedumb" the most.

Rich, happy and fortune people seldom claim for lowest equal...

Sorry? That does not parse well.

As said.

What is your first language?
Maybe you would do better to seek a Forum in your native tongue as I think others besides myself are also finding it difficult to read you grammar.
Are you using Google Translate? Often it can be too literal and miss the figurative and metaphorical nature of many words.

E.g. "fortune people" is a very odd construction, as is "lowest equal..."

[Samana Johann]

Rich, happy and fortune people seldom claim for lowest equal...

Sorry? That does not parse well.

As said.

What is your first language?
Maybe you would do better to seek a Forum in your native tongue as I think others besides myself are also finding it difficult to read you grammar.
Are you using Google Translate? Often it can be too literal and miss the figurative and metaphorical nature of many words.

E.g. "fortune people" is a very odd construction, as is "lowest equal..."

Yet a person not lazy, not after common, is able to trace the point, right. Nothing that's inherent either.

[Belinda]

Rich, happy and fortune people seldom claim for lowest equal...

Sorry? That does not parse well.

As said.

What is your first language?
Maybe you would do better to seek a Forum in your native tongue as I think others besides myself are also finding it difficult to read you grammar.
Are you using Google Translate? Often it can be too literal and miss the figurative and metaphorical nature of many words.

E.g. "fortune people" is a very odd construction, as is "lowest equal..."

I have tried to understand you, Samana. I maybe sometimes flattered myself that I got your drift. Is there a website where I may read what you mean but in lucid English?

[Consul]

…
Footnote: When isogametic mating-type reproduction is called a kind of sexual reproduction, this is misleading, because biologists usually don't call mating types sexes. And in case one does so, a strict terminological distinction needs to be drawn between the two anisogametic sexes (as occurring in homo sapiens, all other animal species, and nearly all plant species!) and the more than two isogametic sexes.

"[W]hen all else fails, theorists and activists will point to species that do not have male and female sexes. For example, sex spectrum proponents will point to various types of organisms that reproduce through gametes of the same size, a form of sexual reproduction known as isogamy (iso = same, gamy = marriage). Isogamy is most common among simpler organisms like algae or fungi. It occurs when all gametes are morphologically similar, particularly in size, and when the contribution of genetic material and resources to the offspring is shared equally between the two parents. This differs from anisogamy (male-female sex) because, in anisogamy, the two gametes (the sperm and egg) are morphologically different in size and the contribution of resources to the offspring are highly unequal.

Proponents of the sex spectrum claim that isogamous organisms can have tens of thousands of sexes. But this conflates mating types with sexes. Mating types involve isogamy (same size gametes), and sexes involve anisogamy (different size gametes). Mating types are molecular mechanisms that regulate compatibility between fusing gametes. Isogamous organisms like fungi can have thousands of pairs of these complementary gamete genotypes (thousands of unique pairs of locks and keys), and therefore they can have thousands of mating types—but not sexes. Using fungi that do not reproduce through anisogamy as evidence against male and female is an obvious red herring. The only response required to such a tactic is this: humans are not fungi.              

Whether it is humans, hyenas, clownfish, seahorses, flowering plants, slugs, or other kinds of anisogamous species, the sexes are defined the same: two roles organized around the production of two gametes of differing size and form. As evolutionary biologists Jussi Lehtonen and Geoff Parker write ["Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of two sexes," 2014]:
—
Of course, in many species a whole suite of secondary sexual traits exists, but the fundamental definition [of sex] is rooted in this difference in gametes, and the question of the origin of the two sexes is then equal to the question of why do gametes come in two different sizes."

(Elliott, Zachary A. Binary: Debunking the Sex Spectrum Myth. Paradox Press, 2023. pp. 17-8)