A contradiction, I think, between "gender is a social construct" and trans-ness

[Skepdick]

Let me clarify. Of all the humans who do have a sex (e.g exclude the ones who don't) - sort those humans by their respective sex.

With no humans being both male and female (simultaneously or sequentially), we then get two disjoint classes: the class of human males and the class of human females.

So where do people who are both male and female go?

Into the sexless category?

[Consul]

With no humans being both male and female (simultaneously or sequentially), we then get two disjoint classes: the class of human males and the class of human females.

So where do people who are both male and female go?
Into the sexless category?

No, they go nowhere, since they don't exist. There are no hermaphroditic humans, who produce both sperm and ova! Biological hermaphrodites aren't sexless; they do have a sex—even more than one.

Note that I've always been using the gametic definition of sex as standardly used by biologists!

"To a biologist, “male” means making small gametes, and “female” means making large gametes. Period! By definition, the smaller of the two gametes is called a sperm, and the larger an egg. Beyond gamete size, biologists don’t recognize any other universal difference between male and female."

(Roughgarden, Joan. Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. p. 23)
———
"A sex is thus an adult phenotype defined in terms of the size of (haploid) gamete it produces: in an anisogamous population, males produce microgametes and females produce macrogametes. A simultaneous hermaphrodite is thus both male and female simultaneously, and a sequential hermaphrodite transforms sequentially from male to female (or vice versa)."

(Parker, Geoff A. "The Origin and Maintenance of Two Sexes (Anisogamy), and Their Gamete Sizes by Gamete Competition." In The Evolution of Anisogamy: A Fundamental Phenomenon Underlying Sexual Selection, edited by Tatsuya Togashi and Paul Alan Cox, 17-74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. p. 17)
———
"Anisogamy: a form of sexual reproduction in which the fusing gametes are of markedly unequal size. The sexes are defined according to anisogamy; the sex with the smaller gametes is defined as male. In the absence of anisogamy (isogamy), one speaks of mating types rather than separate sexes."

(Lehtonen, Jussi, Michael D. Jennions, and Hanna Kokko. "The Many Costs of Sex." Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27/3 (2012): 172–78. p. 172)
———
"From an evolutionary vantage, the one-and-only phenotypic feature that consistently distinguishes males from females is gamete size. In any multicellular organism, individuals that produce smaller gametes are males, by definition; and individuals that produce the larger gametes are females, by definition. This situation is referred to as anisogamy: the strongly bimodal distribution of gamete size (smaller in males, larger in females) that characterizes the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms. (In some multicellular algae and fungi, two genetic types of gametes are similar in size, but technically these species do not violate the broader rule because the two genders are referred to as mating types [“+” and “−”] rather than as males and females.)"

(Avise, John C. Hermaphroditism: A Primer on the Biology, Ecology, and Evolution of Dual Sexuality. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. pp. 4-7)
———
"Biological sex reflects two distinct evolutionary strategies to produce offspring: the female strategy is to produce few large gametes and the male strategy is to produce many small (and often motile) gametes. This fundamental definition is valid for all sexually reproducing organisms. Sex-associated genotypes or phenotypes (including sex chromosomes, primary and secondary sexual characteristics and sex hormones), sex roles and sexual differentiation are consequences of the biological sex. Genotypic and phenotypic features, as well as sex roles are often used as operational criteria to define sex, but since these traits differ vastly between sexually reproducing species, they only work for selected species."

(Goymann, Wolfgang, Henrik Brumm, and Peter M. Kappeler. "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles." BioEssays 45/2 (February 2023): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... .202200173)

[Consul]

…
(Goymann, Wolfgang, Henrik Brumm, and Peter M. Kappeler. "Biological sex is binary, even though there is a rainbow of sex roles." BioEssays 45/2 (February 2023): https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. ... .202200173)

This scientific paper is freely available and highly recommended reading!

[Skepdick]

Note that I've always been using the gametic definition of sex as standardly used by biologists!

"To a biologist, “male” means making small gametes, and “female” means making large gametes. Period! By definition, the smaller of the two gametes is called a sperm, and the larger an egg. Beyond gamete size, biologists don’t recognize any other universal difference between male and female."

OK. So according to your chosen definition children who are not of age to produce either are sexless.

And organisms can't be classified by sex until they are of reproductive age.
Nor can they be classified by sex once they are past reproductive age and stop producing gametes.

According to your definitions it is a reasonable thing to say that my 11 month old son is not yet male; and that my 70 year old menopausal mother is no longer a female.

Is that how you want to be understood?

[Skepdick]

Note that I've always been using the gametic definition of sex as standardly used by biologists!

Everything else aside - you still can't count.

There are three kinds of organisms apparently.

Those who produce large gametes only.
Those who produce small gametes only.
Those who produce both large and small gametes.

That's three categories, but apparently sex is "binary".

[Consul]

Note that I've always been using the gametic definition of sex as standardly used by biologists!

"To a biologist, “male” means making small gametes, and “female” means making large gametes."

(Roughgarden, Joan. Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004. p. 23)

OK. So according to your definition children who are not of age to produce either are sexless.

And organisms can't be classified by sex until they are of reproductive age.
Nor can they be classified by sex once they are past reproductive age and stop producing gametes.

Is that how you want to be understood?

I was expecting this objection. The statement "'Male' means making small gametes, and 'female' means making large gametes" is ambiguous insofar as it can be read narrowly as "making small/large gametes at present (now)" or broadly as "making small/large gametes during some life period". In the latter sense, pre-pubescent individuals and post-menopausal ones are classifiable as male or female.

Paul Griffiths writes (in "What are Sexes?", 2021) that "assigning sexes to pre-reproductive life-history stages involves ‘prospective narration’ – classifying the present in terms of its anticipated future." According to him, pre-pubescent individuals can be classified as female or male if they are clearly on a developmental pathway to producing mature ova or sperm. (Girls are born with all ova they will ever have, but the pre-natally produced ones are still immature/unripe and cannot be used for sexual reproduction until puberty.)

[Skepdick]

I was expecting this objection. The statement "'Male' means making small gametes, and 'female' means making large gametes" is ambiguous insofar as it can be read narrowly as "making small/large gametes at present (now)" or broadly as "making small/large gametes during some life period". In the latter sense, pre-pubescent individuals and post-menopausal ones are classifiable as male or female.

Paul Griffiths writes (in "What are Sexes?", 2021) that "assigning sexes to pre-reproductive life-history stages involves ‘prospective narration’ – classifying the present in terms of its anticipated future." According to him, pre-pubescent individuals can be classified as female or male if they are clearly on a developmental pathway to producing mature ova or sperm. (Girls are born with all ova they will ever have, but the pre-natally produced ones are still immature/unripe and cannot be used for sexual reproduction until puberty.)

By this criterion true human hermaprhodites exist (despite you claiming otherwise)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3418019/

The organism was on a pathway to produce both ova and sperm, but for the surgical intervention.

So back to my original question. In which category do you put humans who are (prospectively) both male and female?

[Consul]

I was expecting this objection. The statement "'Male' means making small gametes, and 'female' means making large gametes" is ambiguous insofar as it can be read narrowly as "making small/large gametes at present (now)" or broadly as "making small/large gametes during some life period". In the latter sense, pre-pubescent individuals and post-menopausal ones are classifiable as male or female.

To make things even more biologically complicated: What about the sex of a pre-pubescent boy who is clearly on a developmental pathway to becoming a sperm-producer, but loses his testicles in an accident before puberty, so that he will never become an actual sperm-producer during any phase of his life? Given the gametic definition of sex, can he still be classified as male? He can if the definition is qualified as follows: An individual is male iff it normally produces (only) sperm during some phase of its life. That is, a pre-pubescent boy who has lost his testicles before puberty can still be classified as male, in the sense that he would normally have developed into a sperm-producer. If that accident hadn't occurred, he would have become a sperm-producer.

[Skepdick]

I was expecting this objection. The statement "'Male' means making small gametes, and 'female' means making large gametes" is ambiguous insofar as it can be read narrowly as "making small/large gametes at present (now)" or broadly as "making small/large gametes during some life period". In the latter sense, pre-pubescent individuals and post-menopausal ones are classifiable as male or female.

To make things even more biologically complicated: What about the sex of a pre-pubescent boy who is clearly on a developmental pathway to becoming a sperm-producer, but loses his testicles in an accident before puberty, so that he will never become an actual sperm-producer during any phase of his life? Given the gametic definition of sex, can he still be classified as male? He can if the definition is qualified as follows: An individual is male iff it normally produces (only) sperm during some phase of its life. That is, a pre-pubescent boy who has lost his testicles before puberty can still be classified as male, in the sense that he would normally have developed into a sperm-producer. If that accident hadn't occurred, he would have become a sperm-producer.

And now there's no such thing as "neither male nor female"

Unless somebody is born with no reproductive organs.

[FlashDangerpants]

I was expecting this objection. The statement "'Male' means making small gametes, and 'female' means making large gametes" is ambiguous insofar as it can be read narrowly as "making small/large gametes at present (now)" or broadly as "making small/large gametes during some life period". In the latter sense, pre-pubescent individuals and post-menopausal ones are classifiable as male or female.

To make things even more biologically complicated: What about the sex of a pre-pubescent boy who is clearly on a developmental pathway to becoming a sperm-producer, but loses his testicles in an accident before puberty, so that he will never become an actual sperm-producer during any phase of his life? Given the gametic definition of sex, can he still be classified as male? He can if the definition is qualified as follows: An individual is male iff it normally produces (only) sperm during some phase of its life. That is, a pre-pubescent boy who has lost his testicles before puberty can still be classified as male, in the sense that he would normally have developed into a sperm-producer. If that accident hadn't occurred, he would have become a sperm-producer.

You seem to be well aware that this sort of definition by accretion is brittle. Probably it would be easier to use a homeostatic property cluster to arrive at your naturalistic definition of male and female sexes - the male sex being the thing that links the very high probablity of having a certain pairing of chromosomes, as well as gamete production and certain hormone levels etc. Along with quite a high likelihood of a hairy face and weird bald spots on the shins. Tendency to piss standing up, and enjoy fart jokes.

It's also compatible with gender being a fluid concept susceptible to redefinition and even altered paradigms, and that latter thing seems to be what's going on in the world, causing anguish for people who like everything to be certain and simple and easy to define.

[Consul]

Paul Griffiths writes (in "What are Sexes?", 2021) that "assigning sexes to pre-reproductive life-history stages involves ‘prospective narration’ – classifying the present in terms of its anticipated future." According to him, pre-pubescent individuals can be classified as female or male if they are clearly on a developmental pathway to producing mature ova or sperm. (Girls are born with all ova they will ever have, but the pre-natally produced ones are still immature/unripe and cannot be used for sexual reproduction until puberty.)

By this criterion true human hermaprhodites exist (despite you claiming otherwise)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3418019/

The organism was on a pathway to produce both ova and sperm, but for the surgical intervention.

As far as I can tell, what is called "true hermaphroditism" in that article doesn't correspond to the biological standard definition of hermaphroditism, because there is no known case of an intersexual individual with both ovarian tissue and testicular issue who is or was actually capable of producing both ova and sperm. As far as I know, some of them can produce either ova or sperm, but not both. Nor does it seem that those individuals are or were on a developmental pathway to becoming both ova-producers and sperm-producers, especially as the presence of both ovarian and testicular tissue in one human organism is an abnormal condition.

"A hermaphrodite is an individual that produces functional male gametes and female gametes (sex cells) during its lifetime."

(Avise, John C. Hermaphroditism: A Primer on the Biology, Ecology, and Evolution of Dual Sexuality. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. p. 1)

So back to my original question. In which category do you put humans who are (prospectively) both male and female?

If there were humans who are both male (sperm-producers) and female (egg-producers), they would belong to the category hermaphroditic/hermaphrodite. But note again that being a hermaphrodite doesn't mean having a third sex other than male or female!

[Consul]

By this criterion true human hermaprhodites exist (despite you claiming otherwise)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3418019/

The organism was on a pathway to produce both ova and sperm, but for the surgical intervention.

It doesn't seem that those intersexual individuals would actually have produced both ova and sperm if there hadn't been a surgical intervention.

[Consul]

You seem to be well aware that this sort of definition by accretion is brittle. Probably it would be easier to use a homeostatic property cluster to arrive at your naturalistic definition of male and female sexes - the male sex being the thing that links the very high probablity of having a certain pairing of chromosomes, as well as gamete production and certain hormone levels etc. Along with quite a high likelihood of a hairy face and weird bald spots on the shins. Tendency to piss standing up, and enjoy fart jokes.

The big problem with a "property cluster" definition combining several biological characteristics is that it is much too species-relative to be useful as a general biological definition of sex.

[Flannel Jesus]

The big problem with a "property cluster" definition combining several biological characteristics is that it is much too species-relative to be useful as a general biological definition of sex.

What's the problem with that? Different species DO have different modes of sexual reproduction. Hermaphroditic snails, frogs that change sex. Why shouldn't sex have a species specific definition?

Or if not definition, at least a species specific way of determining what sex, if any, a particular specimen is

[FlashDangerpants]

You seem to be well aware that this sort of definition by accretion is brittle. Probably it would be easier to use a homeostatic property cluster to arrive at your naturalistic definition of male and female sexes - the male sex being the thing that links the very high probablity of having a certain pairing of chromosomes, as well as gamete production and certain hormone levels etc. Along with quite a high likelihood of a hairy face and weird bald spots on the shins. Tendency to piss standing up, and enjoy fart jokes.

The big problem with a "property cluster" definition combining several biological characteristics is that it is much too species-relative to be useful as a general biological definition of sex.

When the knowledge domain in question relates to the entire variety of biological life, then anything so specific as stamens or antlers is natuarally to be excluded. When we are narrowing our scope to flowering plants then I imagine stamens are back on the menu.

The fact is that if you are dealing in the matter of discrepancies between biological sex and socially constructed gender you have already narrowed this enquiry down to humanity and I see no particualr need to keep one end of hte conversation broad enough to describe a tree?

But you can just narrow the cluster definition to whatever bits work across the whole scope of biology if you like. This feast is moveable. In such a case we simply move the bald shins to the cluster that is predictive of gender and then wait to see if the likelihood drops.