You might note that Colin conceded that that statement of his -- i.e., "Biological sex is real, immutable, and binary" -- isn't entirely correct after I pointed out that clownfish, among many other species, can actually change sex:
"Yes, I should have qualified that my statement pertained to humans."
However, that qualification really doesn't help his case since, by the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. In which case and for one example of many, transwomen cutting their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs -- hardly what anyone could reasonably call "immutable".
For some specifics, see the Glossary in the following article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, and the Oxford Dictionaries for the standard definitions for "male" and "female":
Many people don't realize, or don't even want to consider, that there are NO intrinsic meanings to the words "male" and "female"; we can define the words as we wish -- pay them extra. The only things that can be said to exist -- that are really "real" as Colin put it, and at least as far as "sex" is concerned -- are the brute facts that those who can produce either of two types of gamete can reproduce, and that those who can't don't.
How we connect those facts -- along with any others that various ideologues want to throw into the stew -- to the definitions for "male" and "female" is somewhat arbitrary, and contingent on the objectives we have in mind. Largely why various transactivists apparently, and rather desperately, want to make the sexes into spectra since that comports with their dogma that people can change sex.
However, not all definitions are created equal; some are more useful and consistent than others. And, by definition -- as above, the ones essential to the whole corpus of biology are based on functional gonads -- of two and only two types -- as the defining criteria, and as the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. By which token, probably some third of humans are in fact sexless, and we pass in and out of the sex categories depending on our fertility -- sort of like the category, "teenager". Why "immutable" is largely a pile of unscientific if not anti-scientific claptrap.
For some further elaborations on that theme, see my response to that comment of Colin's:
I'm wondering why they push so hard to get inter-sex anomalies recognised as non-binary sexes, as if that proves that genders can just be made up. The Gingerbread Person tells us these are all separate, free-floating entities anyway.
Of course, the incoherance is a feature not a bug. That's what the verb "to queer" means. And it's what makes trans ideology the most postmodern of the intersectional coalition and highest stage of Successor Ideology.
I remember seeing Sean Carroll on Coleman Hughes' podcast in the wake of the peaceful protests of 2020 and him defending the unscientific ideas of Critical Race Theory, resolving the cognative dissonance by saying, roughly, that "given American's history, we should give these ideas the benefit of the doubt". I shared Coleman's frustration with this otherwise rational mind. So yeah, he's been captured by Successor Ideology for a while.
Effective succinct summary regarding the madness of trans and gender activism. I would add that many previously active DSD/VSD campaigners have been driven off Twitter not from trans activists, they frankly buried them in debates , but by 'purists' on the GC side. This short debate highlights why it's vital they are supported, not just be avoiding othering them and talking over them, but supporting them when they are attacked by what seemsl like friendly fire. It isn't
I still like Sean Carroll and enjoy listening to his podcast. He is pretty wokey, but he leaves most of that stuff out of his podcast.
👏👏👏👏
You might note that Colin conceded that that statement of his -- i.e., "Biological sex is real, immutable, and binary" -- isn't entirely correct after I pointed out that clownfish, among many other species, can actually change sex:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-recap-66a/comment/10589951
"Yes, I should have qualified that my statement pertained to humans."
However, that qualification really doesn't help his case since, by the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being, ipso facto, sexless. In which case and for one example of many, transwomen cutting their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs -- hardly what anyone could reasonably call "immutable".
For some specifics, see the Glossary in the following article in the Journal of Molecular Human Reproduction, and the Oxford Dictionaries for the standard definitions for "male" and "female":
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
https://web.archive.org/web/20181020204521/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/female
https://web.archive.org/web/20190608135422/https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/male
Many people don't realize, or don't even want to consider, that there are NO intrinsic meanings to the words "male" and "female"; we can define the words as we wish -- pay them extra. The only things that can be said to exist -- that are really "real" as Colin put it, and at least as far as "sex" is concerned -- are the brute facts that those who can produce either of two types of gamete can reproduce, and that those who can't don't.
How we connect those facts -- along with any others that various ideologues want to throw into the stew -- to the definitions for "male" and "female" is somewhat arbitrary, and contingent on the objectives we have in mind. Largely why various transactivists apparently, and rather desperately, want to make the sexes into spectra since that comports with their dogma that people can change sex.
However, not all definitions are created equal; some are more useful and consistent than others. And, by definition -- as above, the ones essential to the whole corpus of biology are based on functional gonads -- of two and only two types -- as the defining criteria, and as the necessary and sufficient conditions for sex category membership. By which token, probably some third of humans are in fact sexless, and we pass in and out of the sex categories depending on our fertility -- sort of like the category, "teenager". Why "immutable" is largely a pile of unscientific if not anti-scientific claptrap.
For some further elaborations on that theme, see my response to that comment of Colin's:
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/weekly-recap-66a/comment/10591965
I'm wondering why they push so hard to get inter-sex anomalies recognised as non-binary sexes, as if that proves that genders can just be made up. The Gingerbread Person tells us these are all separate, free-floating entities anyway.
Of course, the incoherance is a feature not a bug. That's what the verb "to queer" means. And it's what makes trans ideology the most postmodern of the intersectional coalition and highest stage of Successor Ideology.
I remember seeing Sean Carroll on Coleman Hughes' podcast in the wake of the peaceful protests of 2020 and him defending the unscientific ideas of Critical Race Theory, resolving the cognative dissonance by saying, roughly, that "given American's history, we should give these ideas the benefit of the doubt". I shared Coleman's frustration with this otherwise rational mind. So yeah, he's been captured by Successor Ideology for a while.
Effective succinct summary regarding the madness of trans and gender activism. I would add that many previously active DSD/VSD campaigners have been driven off Twitter not from trans activists, they frankly buried them in debates , but by 'purists' on the GC side. This short debate highlights why it's vital they are supported, not just be avoiding othering them and talking over them, but supporting them when they are attacked by what seemsl like friendly fire. It isn't