It's like an osteopath arguing that bones don't exist - you have hardened tubes of cartlige which support osteoblasts, and some people are differently-boned (osteomalacia) so we should stop saying bones and say tubes.
Fortunately, there are still reality based endocrinologists around. I often cite this article from the Endocrine Review when someone challenges me on the sex binary.
Thanks for the link -- quite a bit to chew through there. But on a quick skim, some very good points leap out:
Endocrine: "Sex is a biological concept. .... The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm); the 2 gametes fertilize to form the zygote, which has the potential to become a new individual. The advantage of this simple definition is first that it can be applied universally to any species of sexually reproducing organism. Second, it is a bedrock concept of evolution, because selection of traits may differ in the 2 sexes."
However, where they go off the rails is with what followed from the above:
Endocrine: "Thirdly, the definition can be extended to the ovaries and testes, and in this way the categories—female and male—can be applied also to individuals who have gonads but do not make gametes."
The problem there is that the standard biological definitions -- promulgated in any number of reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- exclude those "who have gonads but do not make gametes". The necessary and sufficient condition for sex category membership is functional gonads: no gametes, no sex. Period.
For example, see the Glossary in another good article -- co-authored by a biologist with an FRS to his name -- at Oxford Academic:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes":
He goes into some depth in justifying those biological definitions as well as in showing why ad hoc or "operational definitions" like those at Endocrine really don't cut the mustard.
Hmm, "professors of biology", you say? You mean like the pair that penned this "insightful" and cogent essay at that exemplar of peer-reviewed biology, i.e., Scientific American? 🙄
"To Understand Sex, We Need to Ask the Right Questions
The answer to the question of how many sexes exist differs depending on the context"
Most biologists, most professors of biology don't know whether they're on foot or horse-back when it comes to the standard biological definitions for the sexes, and to the profound philosophical reasons and justifications for them. You might ask those so-called professors of biology of yours what are the actual definitions for the sexes, and how they apply to ALL anisogamous species.
You might also point them to this article over at RLS by so-called philosopher Alex Byrne where he quotes evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan Roughgarden:
Byrne: "[evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan] Roughgarden writes:
[Quote]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.[/quote]
“Making” does not mean currently producing, but (something like) has the function to make."
But that is exactly what those standard biological definitions are saying, what Roughgarden is saying: one actually has to be currently "making" large or small gametes to qualify as female or male. And that applies to ALL anisogamous species, no exceptions.
The whole field of biology has been turned into something of a clown show because so many so-called biologists and so-called philosophers are hardly better than scientific and philosophical illiterates, if not outright grifters, political opportunists, and frauds. And who insist on their own rather idiosyncratic and quite self-serving definitions. The upshot of which is the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell asking, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?" You might try reading, try getting your so-called professors of biology to read, my open letter to them to see the consequences of a plethora of quite unscientific definitions for the sexes:
"Is ‘sex’ a useful category?
Cell magazine's Lysenkoism and repudiation of biology"
Damn, there are great articles here!! My Guy and I seriously research 'trans.' We have been a little short of somewhere to post articles and hang out. I got nice little notifications on my posts, including my 'Essay-ette.' My Project, campers, is systematically researching the neo-commies' claims about traditional gender-diverse societies. Early early days yet, but the claim that somehow the rest of the world is a gender-diverse wonderland is nonsense.
It's like an osteopath arguing that bones don't exist - you have hardened tubes of cartlige which support osteoblasts, and some people are differently-boned (osteomalacia) so we should stop saying bones and say tubes.
Fortunately, there are still reality based endocrinologists around. I often cite this article from the Endocrine Review when someone challenges me on the sex binary.
https://academic.oup.com/edrv/article/42/3/219/6159361
Thanks for the link -- quite a bit to chew through there. But on a quick skim, some very good points leap out:
Endocrine: "Sex is a biological concept. .... The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm); the 2 gametes fertilize to form the zygote, which has the potential to become a new individual. The advantage of this simple definition is first that it can be applied universally to any species of sexually reproducing organism. Second, it is a bedrock concept of evolution, because selection of traits may differ in the 2 sexes."
However, where they go off the rails is with what followed from the above:
Endocrine: "Thirdly, the definition can be extended to the ovaries and testes, and in this way the categories—female and male—can be applied also to individuals who have gonads but do not make gametes."
The problem there is that the standard biological definitions -- promulgated in any number of reputable biological journals, dictionaries, and encyclopedias -- exclude those "who have gonads but do not make gametes". The necessary and sufficient condition for sex category membership is functional gonads: no gametes, no sex. Period.
For example, see the Glossary in another good article -- co-authored by a biologist with an FRS to his name -- at Oxford Academic:
"Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes":
https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990
You might also have some interest in a PhilPapers archive article by philosopher of biology Paul Griffiths on "What are biological sexes?"
https://philarchive.org/rec/GRIWAB-2
He goes into some depth in justifying those biological definitions as well as in showing why ad hoc or "operational definitions" like those at Endocrine really don't cut the mustard.
Still on this one, over and over and over again.
You should speak to professors of biology in person.
I have. You’re quite wrong.
Hmm, "professors of biology", you say? You mean like the pair that penned this "insightful" and cogent essay at that exemplar of peer-reviewed biology, i.e., Scientific American? 🙄
"To Understand Sex, We Need to Ask the Right Questions
The answer to the question of how many sexes exist differs depending on the context"
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/to-understand-sex-we-need-to-ask-the-right-questions/
Archive: https://archive.ph/Qmnq1
Most biologists, most professors of biology don't know whether they're on foot or horse-back when it comes to the standard biological definitions for the sexes, and to the profound philosophical reasons and justifications for them. You might ask those so-called professors of biology of yours what are the actual definitions for the sexes, and how they apply to ALL anisogamous species.
You might also point them to this article over at RLS by so-called philosopher Alex Byrne where he quotes evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan Roughgarden:
Byrne: "[evolutionary biologist and transwoman Joan] Roughgarden writes:
[Quote]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.[/quote]
“Making” does not mean currently producing, but (something like) has the function to make."
https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/exposing-sex-pseudoscience-in-american
But that is exactly what those standard biological definitions are saying, what Roughgarden is saying: one actually has to be currently "making" large or small gametes to qualify as female or male. And that applies to ALL anisogamous species, no exceptions.
The whole field of biology has been turned into something of a clown show because so many so-called biologists and so-called philosophers are hardly better than scientific and philosophical illiterates, if not outright grifters, political opportunists, and frauds. And who insist on their own rather idiosyncratic and quite self-serving definitions. The upshot of which is the erstwhile reputable biological journal Cell asking, apparently in all seriousness, "Is 'sex' a useful category?" You might try reading, try getting your so-called professors of biology to read, my open letter to them to see the consequences of a plethora of quite unscientific definitions for the sexes:
"Is ‘sex’ a useful category?
Cell magazine's Lysenkoism and repudiation of biology"
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/is-sex-a-useful-category
Excellent link. I've stated many times over the years almost exactly this : "Much of the American public is surprisingly prudish about the word sex;"
It's not an.opinion, it’s a fact and the first time I’ve seen it in print in this way. Many thanks.
Damn, there are great articles here!! My Guy and I seriously research 'trans.' We have been a little short of somewhere to post articles and hang out. I got nice little notifications on my posts, including my 'Essay-ette.' My Project, campers, is systematically researching the neo-commies' claims about traditional gender-diverse societies. Early early days yet, but the claim that somehow the rest of the world is a gender-diverse wonderland is nonsense.