The kind of categories we're discussing -- either male sex, female sex, or intersex-- are just as objective as the observations on which they are based.
I'm not splitting any hairs, they're two different things, categories and observations.
Explain what you think that means because its not clear to me. Say we observe Caster Semenya with testes and a vagina and her and her doctors classify her has a female or intersexed female and someone like @CLAX1911 says no, they're classifying her as male. How would either one of these be objective? The decision of which category to place Semenya in may be based on objective observations but they're still being filtered through subjective experience when being placed into some classification that is based on criteria subjectively significant to the classifier. For Semenya and her doctors the relevance was on her external genitalia and her internal sense of self, for @CLAX1911 its her testes. Both these things objectively exist but their relevance for determination into a particular class is subjective.
I know. I base my arguments on sound reasoning and logic and Im happy to explain what that reasoning is. That must be a new experience for you. Congratulations.
Scientists have to be able to communicate using the same set of terms. I cited one source that showed how some persons make fuzzy definitions of "intersex" to pad their results, while a correct application of relevant terms, as shown in that short essay, proves the superior discourse.What does having to communicate have to do with what they're communicating?
That link is supportive of my argument. See how those people are disagreeing on how things should be classified? That's because it's opinion and subjective.
I know, as I said, that you said all classifications/categories were subjective and then tried to walk it back with hair-splitting about the distinction between categories and observations. But observations are potentially subjective or objective depending on context. During the 20th century, few if any health insurance providers would pay any portion for a subscriber's acupuncture treatments for chronic pain. That was because Western science could not observe any reason why acupuncture should work, even temporarily, and the apparent absence of a recordable process was interpreted to mean that any relief was at best a placebo effect. In the 21st century, insurers began paying on acupuncture treatments, not all equally, but enough to indicate that patients' observations of relief-- and a preference for acupuncture as against the more typical doctors' recommendation, painkilling drugs-- trumped Western science's inability to observe a necessary link between cause and effect. So in that case the observations of those who expressed greater relief from pain were more objective than the scientists claiming, "if we can't see how it happens, it's not really happening."
Buddy, you lack so much self awareness that you just linked to a disagreement on classification to try to prove to me that classification isn't subjective but objective. Seriously, do you know what those words mean? This is like the forth thing you've said that gives me pause to whether you even understand these terms.
Let's try counting again. Its okay, take as many times as you need.And that's all there is there's nothing else
Yes there is defective reproductive systems. That's not a third sex a woman who is fertile is not something other than a woman.
You're the one who wants to base sex on gamete production guy, I'm just trying to explain the three options for gamete production.I did people with defective reproductive systems that doesn't change their sex.
Maybe some. The link I provided also detailed some biologists who view sex on a spectrum. I'm not arguing you're objectively wrong just subjectively bigoted.Biologists.
And? Are there seahorses who don't produce any gametes?Ever wonder why they say it's the male seahorse that carries the baby's why didn't they just call that the female it's because the one that produces the small gametes in this particular group of animals is the one that carries the babies.
Subjectively.That's how it's determined biologically.
What makes them objective?The kind of categories we're discussing -- either male sex, female sex, or intersex-- are just as objective as the observations on which they are based.
Weren't we discussing in another thread how feelings can be both objective and subjective. How she feels is how she feels.How does Semenya's "internal sense of self" have objective existence?
I'm not arguing rules. You're the first person to mention rules. Its your usual tactic to bring up your own shit and then try to paint me with it.Sounds like your usual argument where you define rules by their exceptions, except when you don't like someone else's exceptions.
You haven't even tried to assail my logic or reasoning. You keep bringing up rules and exceptions instead of addressing what I'm talking about.Your idea of sound reasoning and logic must also be based in your internal sense of self, because it's not showing up in your posts.
Yep. Those are called words. Its not just scientists who use them, we all use them to communicate. You and I are using them right now.Scientists have to be able to communicate using the same set of terms.
Yeah "fuzzy definitions", "superior discourse" this is just your opinion of her opinion. These aren't objective determinations or observations. In your link, her and the other person don't disagree on the objective observations. They both acknowledge that she has objectively lost one ovary and now only has one. What they disagree on is how to classify her based on that observation. You are actually providing evidence for the subjective nature of classification and are too intellectually dim to notice.I cited one source that showed how some persons make fuzzy definitions of "intersex" to pad their results, while a correct application of relevant terms, as shown in that short essay, proves the superior discourse.
What are more objectively true terms? There isn't a scale. Something is either objective or it isn't and if it is it isn't more objective than other objective things.And the argument that chooses the more objectively true terms is the more objective argument, and thus not purely subjective or socially constructed.
Again, no hair splitting. They are different words and different things. How is this confusing you? Do you think they're similes?Do you need me to provide the definitions to you? Is that the problem? Is this a weird form of dyslexia? I'm not sure what's going on here....I know, as I said, that you said all classifications/categories were subjective and then tried to walk it back with hair-splitting about the distinction between categories and observations.
How does that story show how observations are subjective or objective? Observations are either accurate or innaccurate. You thought you saw one thing but in reality it was something else. I'm not sure basing am argument on what an insurance provider will or won't cover is a great example of objectivity....But observations are potentially subjective or objective depending on context. During the 20th century, few if any health insurance providers would pay any portion for a subscriber's acupuncture treatments for chronic pain. That was because Western science could not observe any reason why acupuncture should work, even temporarily, and the apparent absence of a recordable process was interpreted to mean that any relief was at best a placebo effect. In the 21st century, insurers began paying on acupuncture treatments, not all equally, but enough to indicate that patients' observations of relief-- and a preference for acupuncture as against the more typical doctors' recommendation, painkilling drugs-- trumped Western science's inability to observe a necessary link between cause and effect. So in that case the observations of those who expressed greater relief from pain were more objective than the scientists claiming, "if we can't see how it happens, it's not really happening."
Yeah you can try the thousand more times to answer will be the same this is the binaryLet's try counting again. Its okay, take as many times as you need.
1. The the production of sperm.
2. The production of ova.
Not a third sex.3. No gamete production.
Tupac pretended people who have defective reproductive systems are some power third sex? Sure I could do it but it's insane.You can do it! All you have to do is believe in yourself.
No that's the biological definition.You're the one who wants to base sex on gamete production guy, I'm just trying to explain the three options for gamete production.
There's no sex spectrum.Maybe some. The link I provided also detailed some biologists who view sex on a spectrum. I'm not arguing you're objectively wrong just subjectively bigoted.
Possibly but they're not considered the third sexAnd? Are there seahorses who don't produce any gametes?
Descriptively.Subjectively.
Let's try counting again and again and again and as many times as you need.
1. There's the production of sperm.
2. There's the production of ova.
3. There's no production of any reproductive cells.
Try counting those for us.
And I ask again, who is even dictating that sex be determined by gamete production?
Why do the frail love coming here to pretend on behalf of others? You don't need to pretend to speak for biologists my guy, they can speak for themselves.Biologists. Sex determination is based on gamete production, which is why biologists determine that male seahorses give birth, not the females.
Why do the frail love coming here to pretend on behalf of others? You don't need to pretend to speak for biologists my guy, they can speak for themselves.
Biological sex is more complex than just male or female
The science of biological sexYeah you can try the thousand more times to answer will be the same this is the binary
Not a third sex.
What? Is Tupac your source of biological knowledge?Tupac pretended people who have defective reproductive systems are some power third sex? Sure I could do it but it's insane.
Not according the biologist I linked to.No that's the biological definition.
There's no sex spectrum.
Who said anything about a third sex? I said there were three options to gamete production but even then I was wrong. Upon reading and in that link I provided I discovered that there are actually intersex people who have both ovaries and testes and produce both gametes.Possibly but they're not considered the third sex
?Descriptively.
Who said there was a third sex? Or a third gamete? Did you read the article or just come here to frail about for my entertainment?Cool. So what is the third sex called? What is the third gamete? And is a sterile male not actually male because they don't produce gametes?
Who said there was a third sex? Or a third gamete? Did you read the article or just come here to frail about for my entertainment?
What makes them objective?
And her feelings would only be objective if society agreed that they represented something crucial to that society's survival.Weren't we discussing in another thread how feelings can be both objective and subjective. How she feels is how she feels.
You're arguing for defining things by the exceptions to the rules. Intersex biology is a fluke and does not define biological sexuality in human beings. That's why the citation I gave established the correct percentage of identified intersex births in society at that timeI'm not arguing rules. You're the first person to mention rules. Its your usual tactic to bring up your own shit and then try to paint me with it.
See above.You haven't even tried to assail my logic or reasoning. You keep bringing up rules and exceptions instead of addressing what I'm talking about.
Scientists use many jargonistic words that are germane to their subculture and thus are not comparable to the demotic use of words.Yep. Those are called words. Its not just scientists who use them, we all use them to communicate. You and I are using them right now.
No, I indicated why one view was more objective than the other.Yeah "fuzzy definitions", "superior discourse" this is just your opinion of her opinion. These aren't objective determinations or observations. In your link, her and the other person don't disagree on the objective observations. They both acknowledge that she has objectively lost one ovary and now only has one. What they disagree on is how to classify her based on that observation. You are actually providing evidence for the subjective nature of classification and are too intellectually dim to notice.
What are more objectively true terms? There isn't a scale. Something is either objective or it isn't and if it is it isn't more objective than other objective things.
That you don't know what's going on is one of your most honest admissions.Again, no hair splitting. They are different words and different things. How is this confusing you? Do you think they're similes?Do you need me to provide the definitions to you? Is that the problem? Is this a weird form of dyslexia? I'm not sure what's going on here....
The observations of doctors who could not validate acupuncture were, societally speaking, insufficient, while the observations of patients were directed toward better treatment. Better treatment has a social benefit irrespective of the motives of the insurance companies for eventually changing their policies, which originally privileged only the POV of medical experts. It's quite possible that insurance companies thought it might be cheaper to pay for acupuncture treatments rather than for painkilling drugs, though this is only a hypothetical scenario since I doubt any companies ever publicly justified any policy changes in terms of financial expeditiousness. But the relevant observations would be those of patients who stumped for a change in policies, because without that input the insurance companies have no motive for changing their policies, for any reason.How does that story show how observations are subjective or objective? Observations are either accurate or innaccurate. You thought you saw one thing but in reality it was something else. I'm not sure basing am argument on what an insurance provider will or won't cover is a great example of objectivity....
Because you imagine those to be the only two options?If there's no third sex, then sex is binary.
adjective
- 1.
relating to, composed of, or involving two things.
Because you imagine those to be the only two options?
Intersex people also exist and there are some some non-intersex people who do not produce gametes either, so your binary argument fails. I assume there is somebody on the right that is pushing this moronic gametes argument because both you and CLAX have tried to use it. This still does not in any way discredit gender identity that is at the core of the discussion.Male and female are the only two sexes. Hence binary. Unless you're claiming there's a third sex.
This sounds like the same rigorous thought process that went into pronouncements like "there are litter boxes in school bathrooms", "They are doing post-term abortions", The borders are wide open, "They are eating cats and they are eating dogs".To the exact same degree as how leftists hope for measures requiring the mandatory mutilation of all children's genitals, true.
Male and female are the only two sexes. Hence binary. Unless you're claiming there's a third sex.
I can explain that and am happy to if someone is confused by it. Why can't you explain the rationale behind any of your arguments? Why are you only capable of claims?Same thing that you claim makes "the observations" objective.
Why? What do the feelings of society have to do with objectivity?And her feelings would only be objective if society agreed that they represented something crucial to that society's survival.
No I'm not. I'm not talking about rules or exceptions at all, you are. I'm talking about describing things accurately. Like I said in the other thread, if there are exceptions to your rules on gravity then your theory or understanding of gravity is incomplete. You're talking about rules made by people and I'm talking about describing nature and the natural world and how it actually works.You're arguing for defining things by the exceptions to the rules. Intersex biology is a fluke and does not define biological sexuality in human beings. That's why the citation I gave established the correct percentage of identified intersex births in society at that time
And still the things they use to communicate are called words.See above.
Scientists use many jargonistic words that are germane to their subculture and thus are not comparable to the demotic use of words.
You claimed that the question is how. How does one thing become more objective than another. What the **** does that even mean. From my understanding of objectivity that sentence makes absolutely no sense. The moon isn't more objective than the sun. For something to be objective it just means it exists in reality without influence of your feelings. Laws exist but they are subjective in that they come from the sentiments of people. They exist subjectively. The moon exists but it doesn't matter how you feel about it or whether people are here to feel any way about it at all. Is existence isn't tied to human sentiment. It exists objectively. So how does one thing that exists objectively exist more objectively than any other?No, I indicated why one view was more objective than the other.
Why? What's the explanation guy? I just explained the difference between the objective and subjective to you. You just say shit and make a claim but never the thing that's supposed to support your claims.It's a far more accurate representation than your false narrative as to the equal subjectivity of both classificatory determinations.
Your explanation doesn't help your argument. Insurance companies are a poor bellwether of objectivity.That you don't know what's going on is one of your most honest admissions.
The observations of doctors who could not validate acupuncture were, societally speaking, insufficient, while the observations of patients were directed toward better treatment. Better treatment has a social benefit irrespective of the motives of the insurance companies for eventually changing their policies, which originally privileged only the POV of medical experts. It's quite possible that insurance companies thought it might be cheaper to pay for acupuncture treatments rather than for painkilling drugs, though this is only a hypothetical scenario since I doubt any companies ever publicly justified any policy changes in terms of financial expeditiousness. But the relevant observations would be those of patients who stumped for a change in policies, because without that input the insurance companies have no motive for changing their policies, for any reason.
Because those are the only two options you can think of? What does your inability have to do with me? I even provided a link from a biologist that described sex as bimodal. Why don't you look that word up and come back to me?Male and female are the only two sexes. Hence binary. Unless you're claiming there's a third sex.
Because those are the only two options you can think of? What does your inability have to do with me? I even provided a link from a biologist that described sex as bimodal. Why don't you look that word up and come back to me?
You're the one going on about a third sex my guy, not me. Did you look up what bimodal means?What is the third option? What sex is someone who isn't male or female?
You're the one going on about a third sex my guy, not me. Did you look up what bimodal means?
Being bimodal does exclude it from being binary. Binary means two. Period. That's it. Bimodal means there are two poles with variation inbetween.No one is arguing that all males are genetically or phenotypically identical. If you aren't claiming there's a third sex, then sex is binary.
Being bimodal doesn't exclude it from being binary.
Being bimodal does exclude it from being binary. Binary means two. Period. That's it. Bimodal means there are two poles with variation inbetween.
Its your argument that's sus and isn't fully fleshed out. If sex is determined by gamete production there are people who produce no semen, that's one, people who produce ova, that's two, people who produce none, that's three and people who produce both, that's four. I'm telling you your argument is leaving out some biological realities.
Binary precludes variation. It means two. That's it. Bimodal is where you get variation between the two poles.No one is arguing that there is no variation within the sexes. There are two sexes, male and female, hence binary.
Intersex males and females depending on which of the poles they are closer to.What is the sex of the people in-between the poles?
Sex is binaryThe science of biological sex
Maybe you mean bimodal? This doctor tries to explain the distinction. I don't have high hopes for your ability to comprehend but I would enjoy to watch you try....
What? Is Tupac your source of biological knowledge?
Not according the biologist I linked to.
View attachment 67571492
Who said anything about a third sex? I said there were three options to gamete production but even then I was wrong. Upon reading and in that link I provided I discovered that there are actually intersex people who have both ovaries and testes and produce both gametes.
?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?