Hector it's you who is hung up on the self-fertilisation stuff. I included it somewhat light-heartedly as it was present on the wikipedia page I cited. With respect to Max's argument, if it is theoretically possible it means that biology has not established the impossibility of viable sperm and ova in the one individual. (The reverse does not necessarily hold true.) And there are biologists who hold that position. To say it the other way around, Max's 'impossible' position requires self-fertilisation to be impossible but that is not proven to be the case.
You understand that in order for Max's position to be proven true that every single human who has, does, and will exist must be examined and proven to not be capable of simultaneously producing eggs and sperm, yes?
Surely you thus also understand how ludicrous that is as a barrier for proof in any argument?
The self-fertilization part is part of what you're arguing about: the possibility that a human can have functioning organs to produce eggs and sperm at the same time.
For semantics I think you are just being cantankerous for the sake of it:
Impossible means that it cannot happen. The statement will always be false. Eg. 2+2=5, or i dunno, the north and south pole are in exact the same place.
Theoretically possible means that it could potentially happen but we do have not any experience of it. The truth value of the statement is unknown. Eg. a person who has grown up on earth can experience a planet in another star system.
They are clearly very different evaluations.
This is why I say you're arguing semantics. This forms the basis for your argument. You aren't attacking the content of the argument, you're debating the absolute meaning of the word impossible.
It's a specious argument.
It is theoretically possible that lizard people control the world and are using the human race as cattle for a grand world-eater that will consume the universe. Prove me wrong.
This is what you demand of Max.
Yes DSD is the new terminology, I have no problem with that (well apart from the disorder/differences prevarication). But what the spectrum of the manifestion of human sex shows is that there are not two sexes but a multitude of variations which bring into play numerous genes and developmental processes which can lead to a huge amount of possibilities. Its not just the SRY gene functioning as an on-off switch, or the presence or absence of a Y chromosone. In fact the two-sex model as applied to human beings is an invention of biology which does not account for its natural spread.
The two-sex model is only a problem with humans when it's applied to gender. Gender /=/ sex.
If you really think sex is such a simple thing perhaps you should look into the sports stuff because it is an absolute minefield and there is no clear answer as to what should be the criteria for an individual to participate in women's sports. (Okay some individuals are clearly ruled out but in any close case there is absolutely no agreement.) You think that page on the sex-gender distinction will form the basis for decisions in international sport?
Good straw man, I never said a wikipedia page is a basis for sports classifications.
Max was giving the biological perspective of sex, which is male or female based on the differences in their sex cells, as per a section on that wikipedia page. There was no application of that definition to sport, to gender, or to any other aspect of the human experience.
Better point the IOC to it then, because they, along with a bunch of other sporting authorities obviously haven't come across such a simple solution to a problem many regard as intractable. In fact the difficulty here with deciding who is a woman, for the purpose of competing in sports, shows that the binary sex model is patently false.
lol no
It shows that the binary sex model is not nuanced enough to properly classify sports categories, which I have zero problem agreeing with.
Some biologically male athletes perform with testosterone levels of that allowed to compete in women's sports, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to compete with women, but that doesn't mean that biological women should be stopped from competing against other women because their testosterone levels are, arbitrarily, "too high". More work needs to be done; I don't know what that work entails beyond hoping it treats everyone affected with care and respect... which so far it hasn't.
@Robot Parade Leader I… don’t think you’ve been reading. The self-fertilization thing was leapt upon by feelotraveller as… some example of MaxSpin trying to stealth disseminate a hitherto unrevealed political ideology, and it’s a semantic argument about what the word “impossible” means, and pedantry over how MaxSpin is describing that.
Max also, as you quoted, was talking from a biological perspective, not social or whatever, which he again clearly stated at the end of the post you quoted, didn’t link to, and trimmed. Who was moving goalposts, again?
Max and the really far right conservatives are moving goalposts. He often does and you know it. You defend him a lot when he repeatedly gets called out for stuff here.
Usually people disagree with Max because they don't like him, and it's pretty clear in their responses that's the only reason they have to be arguing with him:
Ah, the purveyor of alternate facts strikes again.
Some hide it better than saying it in the first sentence of their response, though...
I find that state of affairs to be quite stupid, frankly, whether they have a legitimate reason for not liking him or not.
Max tends to offer a perspective that I don't have, and generally isn't an asshole about it.
It doesn't matter. It is wrong. It isn't a "biological" perspective. It is what they mistakenly say is a biological perspective. Magically slapping the word "biological" in front of it doesn't make it ok or true.
He was speaking from a biological perspective, and that is the biological perspective. He made no judgment of what the definition of sex means in any other human arena.
There is a ton of literature on this stuff and it isn't hard to understand the far right doesn't get it. The far right just may not want to get it.
They just point and scream at whoever is opposing them lately whenever they don't get what they want, and us peons in the middle are getting tired of it.
Used to be they talked about leaving people alone, small government and all that, but now it's "let's just ban all the things." Used to be some if them made some sense. Now though I don't know.
I don't disagree with this, except I'm not sure how it applies to Max.
Author
Topic: Things that made you go "WTF?" today o_O (Read 14409101 times)